le la Loop BL bloop bloop bloop one one two two three four ple plap five e e oh okay [Music] all right are we ready to to go so we can get out at a good time today all right so um good evening it is 5:32 I will call this meeting to order um for roll call we have excused absences from um Mr Jackson and Mr shank everybody else is here and we have a quorum so what happens if they're unexcused I don't know I'm just we're off to a great start today it's a call in it's a call um so next is approval of the minutes for Wednesday February 7th 2024 do I have a motion I have a second second perfect um all in favor I I any oppos seeing none um motion passes for approval of minutes next up is public comments are there any public or comments seeing none I will close public comments um next is public meeting items which is review of article 4 zoning districts and regulations part one and two and so I will hand it over to staff thank you so tonight um you do have in front of you um a schedule of different articles that we're going to review and when so take a look at that make sure you review those articles prior to the meetings and you'll see um the dates um in front of you we'll also email those dates out to you so we're going to go over article four um Katie aguda was going to come tonight but we decided that we would wait until we got through at least the majority of article 4 so that we can send to her the questions that the board has and then when she comes she'll be prepared to address those questions so let's start off with um yes yeah so um if you take a look at page four we're going to go through part one and part two so part one um they gave to us September of last year and part two they gave to us in October of last year so we're going to go through and and try to address some of these comments um part one we did have comments from the LBCC um part two we did not have any comments so if you all have comments on article on Article 4 part two now is the to ask those questions we're gonna go through each um so this one is part one this is what you got in September okay so we're gonna go to page four 4.1 C finish floor elevations one of the things that staff recommended was deletion um of the language that's shown there um because that language should be um in the engineering standards manual and not in the LDC um so we wanted to make sure that that was um placed in the engineering standards manual okay did anyone have any issues with that how are we GNA do this s a long do you have any comments anyone have any comments on the finished floor elevation and just referencing the manual instead of putting it in no for the standards great consensus okay great thank you so the next one is on page four as well it's D net developable acres oh I'm gonna give you time okay so I'm gonna try to go through this as fast as I can to get you all out of here by 7:30 so D net developable Acres um we add it in that the city um will round down to the nearest whole number when rounding decimals and that is provided for in the city's comprehensive plan so we're making it consistent with that so why when we're dealing with potential densities of 50 units or or more an acre in bonuses rounding down to a whole acre seems to be pretty extreme honestly it's a decimal it's the the so if you if you get you know oh rounding down the numb to you know but where so where where would it say it's actually it's not saying we're g to put it in there the okay so you're not rounding the acreage you're rounding the density no thank the density the number of units and then we also put in there that we should exclude accessory dwelling units and density calculations that is also provided for in the city's comprehensive plan and then um on D so we want to get consensus on D and then we'll go to E are you all because that's just the comprehensive plan shall we consider silence consensus I was reading yes perfect she was reading it consensus oh that's good okay so e structure setback established um we as staff um recommend that the consultant provide a visual on the designation of Y yards especially the odd shaped lots and then we need to clarify that language to make it more concise so just a a kind of a observation and I had this I think on one of the charts that's coming up the setbacks the way they're worded are kind of based on Suburban form and not Urban form so when there's Bill two lines is that going to be something different so we're going to talk about that as well okay but not yet not yet no we'll get to it okay so what would happen if it's uh a single it's like the town homes that they don't really have a yard because they're they're closer up like what what constitutes a yard does it have a size does it have to be landscaped like so there is a size today we do have um a size for lots for Town Homes um of course there's no setbacks in terms of side setbacks unless it's the end unit but you do have a rear yard and a front yard um so we do have that I'm just thinking about um maybe in some of these the future developments if it's multi multif family or or condos that they if they're budding the street I'm just thinking of like say downtown Orlando you have the sidewalk and then you have the the stairs going right up and even on in Orlando on Michigan and stuff like that there's no yard it's like a brownstone per se no you're right I think the definition as is as is written there is for single family detached homes and I think we have to make that distinction because um Town Homes would have a rear facade but not necessarily rear yard they may have a rear yard because some some you know Town Homes would have back card but or sometimes in between you know the detached garage and the and the unit but you're right it's not necessarily we are going to have um a rear yard in the front yard because if it's zero set back right it would not have a front back so I think we have to make the the distinction that this was for either we're going to say except for town homes you know we have to re re rephrase that um section over there because that that's worded right now as all residential It is Well it's not making a distinction right but I think it was planned for detach single family do everybody understand have a comment if there is no front yard at all that means there is zero setback do we have anywhere zero set back I don't think so well we're about to we have we have already minimum setbacks of zero allowed in the code I don't think we have ever uh maybe the the uh multif family in on the park in on the park the park I think we had um and I think maybe I don't remember Harry's not here Flo may remember if city place has zero hat bags so yeah we already have the the the possibility of zero halfbacks we have the possibility but so far we don't have any building that has zero set we may have some very close to it there are zero very close to in no the park the town homes okay you know Von the park so thank so we will have to to um rephrase that to account for that and maybe I say except for urban areas because a single family we don't want to touch those areas the low density areas or we can have to say this this is for single family this section here applies for single family detach homes so I'm reading Sam's comment and I kind of have a sort of related question so one of the things that's been AF frustration is you guys don't have an administrative code about how some of these things flow are you intending to have one what do you mean admin so so there's all kinds of applications for things that you do that are premised on code but there's no admin code of how those things proceed necessarily there's no like administrative set of rules like some governments have that and the Reon reason I'm asking that is you have kind of this observation by Sam about examples and you kind of wonder if examples should be in a a separate guide book that you guys can change at will without having to adopt a revised code I'm just throwing that thought out there if if you adopt an example in your code you can't change the example without going to the LPA and the city council but it's just an example right it you have examples in like a guide book that the staff publishes you could change it as as you refine things without having to go to public hearings I don't think you would want to change an example it just gives you an idea okay it's not something that's set in stone it's something that just gives you an idea of what it should look like so based on that comment is it your intent to start providing in the code graphic examples yes well for those particular situ because we were discussing you know Corner Lots right through Lots right lots that have frontages to two um streets just just asking yeah so we would have we do have some examples today and a lot of codes do provide examples of what those yards are um we were looking when we were um with staff we were looking at Maitland's code and maand shows examples of um different yards so we were um it's it's not uncommon to have those types type of examples in your code well I thing when you think about that Dave's comments not all that bad actually maybe we should consider that because we have like in the state we have a Florida administrative code that you know publish and change so forth which interprets statute so sometimes in a situation like that it would be good to have that in a separate handbook that you could change a will like he said you don't have to come back to to LPA and we ought to think about that you kick around a little bit I mean it would be an undertaking it would be quite undertaking it would be another Cod to prepare as long as it's their job and not mine well the thing is is that we want our Consultants to place this in our code they we have not contracted with them to do a different um guideline I understand start small it may there may be not to me that you have to interpret so we did that for the architectural so when we proposed the architectural standards we proposed some graphics and we ended up including in the code the graphics I'm not talking about the graphics I'm talking about in the future an an admin code for how you from a staff perspective process these things may make a lot of sense because people could look at it and understand what they're dealing with that's all that's all I'm saying so that's not today's scope I'm sorry no I think that that Mayes some consideration okay the quicker we can get through this stuff the quicker we can get out shut [Laughter] up okay page five part six um this is table 4.12 and in this table we want to include because the consultants for Town Homes um multif Family mixed use Office commercial um all of setbacks minimum lot um standards um they were all contained in article eight so they've Tak out some of those um standards and move them throughout the code so one of the things that we wanted to do in this table is somehow add in um Town Homes um multifam mixed use office and commercial type because the this the minimum lot size lot wids um setbacks they were all different in the architectural design um section of the code article 8 so now we're going to have to somehow marry or or drag over from article 8 those type um typologies which would be Town Homes multif family mixed use office and Commercial and you'll see in in these tables the heights are going to be different as well so today the height is 30 35 feet in the zoning districts in article eight town homes you could go up to 45 feet the way they have it here is if there is a town home let's say in R1 the maximum height is going to be 35 feet as opposed to 45 feet if it's an office that's going in if you go down to uh let's say um OC if you go we we cross 35 feet and put 78 which it's just something we're throwing out but if it's an office um in OC instead of it being a maximum of 45 or 60 feet it's now going to be 35 depending on the zoning district and I have a table I'm going to switch over can I use that chord and you'll see what I'm talking about this one technology I love technology okay so how do I make this bigger so they can see so if you see today the blue is today the blue is today so you'll see that the minimum lot size for town home today is 1,800 Square ft minimum lot width is 20 square ft and then front set back is 7.5 if it's a rear loaded garage um 15 feet if it's a rear loaded Garage on non-complete streets and 20 feet if it's a front loaded garage the side set back is 5 feet facing a corner a rear is 5 feet with the rear loaded garage or 10 ft with no rear loaded garage maximum height today is 45t the distance there is a distance between buildings 15 ft for regular shaped lots and an average of 15 ft a minimum of 10t so to what they're the um consultant is proposing the minimum lot size is going to be 1,800 square feet the minimum lot width is 20 the front set back is now 10 feet and then 20 if it's a front loaded garage um side setback is 5T facing a corner um the rear setbacks are going to be the same um maximum height is 35 feet instead of 45 feet distance between building is now 10 feet and then if you look at multif family today the minimum lot size is zero minimum lot width is zero um you'll see the setbacks and I'm going to go to what they're proposing so um minimum lot size is zero what they're proposing minimum lot width is based on the zoning District so we were looking at the zoning District so minimum lot width for let's say R1 is um it's 85 right or 80 85 minimum lot width 80 80 feet so instead of it the lot width being zero as it is today for multif family minimum lot width is 80 um front setback for multif family today is 10 feet on complete streets 20 feet on non-complete streets what they're proposing is based on the zoning District so it could be um front setb can be anywhere from 20 to 35 feet depending on the zoning District so so can we stop for a second when you say anywhere for mixed use this is completely contrary to what you're trying to do with Urban form in the in the core areas so I don't I don't understand you know when when you have these these setbacks when they're supposed to be zero setbacks so you have this chart that says anywhere is that what you really mean where do you see anywhere uh existing mixed use anywhere or is there the so in the proposed you're saying none so for the existing mixed use they can it can go anywhere so you can have this anywhere today so mixed use as for example that's not in a targeted area so you have the mixed use that we approved that's right here so so maybe I misunderstood blue is what's in today's code blue is today's code under it is what you're proposing under it is what the consultant is proposing okay right so if you look at the Heights from the existing so let's say multif family today it could be um 45 feet except from the downtown Village core you can have 65 um feet for multif family what we're propos in is 78 the consultant is proposing 35 um existing mixed use where you can have anywhere not just in a targeted area the and you know the targeted areas that we've been describing the old downtown new downtown west Mitchell hammock Gateway core so you can have mixed use anywhere so today this is what is um so let me clarify it's not anywhere in the city is is um not in a so it's whever is allowed right so you you won't be able to have mixed use in R1 you won't be in some zoning districts but whatever is allowed so not not attached to specific zoning right it's not attached to the to the targeted areas so um mixed use they have removed that category so the for example the mixed use building that's here next to us which is the Ellis or Ellington um that is not within a targeted area so that is a mixed use building so we have that today and so the mixed huse anywhere this is what the standards would be the 10 feet on complete Street for a front setb 20 feet on non-m complete um you have the side setbacks and then if it's along a development Corridor and I'm going to take you so this is an example of the heights for the downtown 65 ft 35t here this is along Mitch oito Boulevard so along the development corridors which are the red hatched areas you can actually go up to 60 feet if it's along the development corridors which is the red area today they have removed that they've removed it so that it's 35 feet everywhere except for if it's in a um targeted area which would be you know your gateway your um old and new downtown South of West of Mitchell hammock Corridor um so the heights are being reduced and the only way to achieve the height now is if there's a density bonus or intensity bonus so so let me just ask you use the Ellis as an example isn't it a plan development it is a plan devel so a plan development can vary from the code within the confines of the comp plan right yes so are you going to have a mechanism for mixed use other than plan development they're going to have to do a density bonus it would be a density and intensity bonus if they want to go anything above what the code allows we're going to look for density and intensity bonus in order to get the density and intensity bonus you have to do a development agreement anyway we'll get to that so this is so this is I'm just going to give you some examples of some Heights um this is the Strand The Strand is 51 feet a little over 51 feet that's the Strand this is the Elon that we were just talking about and this one is about 52 52 feet in height and then you have the dwell at 50 feet a little over 50 feet so it it seems absurd to require bonuses for what the comp plan allows that we're trying to the land code allows not the comp plan so the comp plan does not talk about height if the comp plan but the comp plan talks about density which needs height so so I'm not understanding why you're saying it would require density bonus to increase height to increase the height it would be deviation not not density bonus be a deviation and we would require something from them in order to increase see that that to me is is in order to achieve what we set out to do in the comp plan you're going to extort people to do what they should be allowed to do it doesn't seem to make any sense I agree so my proposal right is that we either stay with the heights that are already allowed today and anything above what's already allowed today would be a a bonus and you would have to do a density or intensity bonus or increase the height what we had at 78 ft for those uses which would be I think we should stay with at town home 45 ft so let me frame the discussion a different way because I think the consultant what they were proposing and we have a different perspective is that the height should be per zoning District so that you have a character so all R1 or you know different zoning would have and and that's why they were limied to 35 um and we but we allow now in some zoning districts different typologies right because we are go going away the sub the Suburban pattern so my problem is that if we increase the height in the um Suburban communities you could have a house now that gets out of the character you could have a house with four stories right and uh and I don't I think neighbors will complain privacy matters and our discussion with the comprehensive plan has always been let's bring the urban you know standards to the target areas but less protect you know the Suburban Consolidated development but where there is an opportunity for redevelopment in R1 whatever and if it meets the density requirements for different typologies like Town Homes you know or commercial whatever it's the same ones that's in the architect we could you know go higher right and so that is why we you said we want to keep keep the typology you know attached to different heights and not have this uniform you know per zoning Heights so if I'm understanding right you want in the districts a height but you want to allow for the multif family to be able to deviate from that height for it's not so we going to give a a different height by right right for Town Home Based on use not on dis based onology so so just a suggestion I have based on your concern and I've read a lot of codes that deal with this working on the water tower district is it's really pretty simple you already have an the comp plan protecting residential character protecting neighborhoods okay the simple way to do that is to provide the height for the different uses but have rules R about adjacency about stepping the height down if you're next to single family you understand what I'm saying yeah so that way you protect these neighborhoods that might be right next to something so right next to something going 78 feet high might completely freak them out and you saw a little bit of that I I happen to be at the hearing for the daycare that may never get built right where everybody was completely flipping out about height because your Co just allows it so does that make sense are you trying to do it by use not District so I'm trying to go back to what we already had in our code our code we did not touch single family at all had nothing to do with single family detached it was always single family attached Town Homes we did not touch duplexes we did not touch detached single family so it's been Town Homes 45 ft High um office commercial up to 60 um and it's also been um office commercial and multif family multif family that's it so I want to go back to those Heights but not not in the target areas everywhere yes everywhere because today if there's a town hall but the target areas that's a separate conversation yes yes because today you can have a town home in an R1 um zoning District you may not be able to achieve the density but you can have a town home and it can go 45 ft today in an R1 zoning District so it the district does not matter it's the actual typology it's the actual use so I think I know the definition but for everyone else it's the bottom of the top floor plate right yes so it's not the peak of the roof everybody so if you do it by the peak of the roof you can strain architecture and kind of disuade Peak roofs which people prefer I I think I'm fine with what staff's saying I don't know about everyone else yeah I I do too anyone else it makes sense Don you guys good with this direction staff wants to go in so so my suggestion is come up with something for adjacency you know where you step the height on a project if you're adjacent to single family but let's be careful about the definition of adjacent is across the street adjacent that argument always comes up right what did you put in there didn't we go over some pictures and stuff like that earlier about how maybe was that was mostly the core areas when the consultant was here yeah and one of the other things is those being at only 35t on those corridors for me that just does not make sense for urban form but if it's based on use that'll no longer be the case okay right that's correct what the consults are tring to do Sam sold most of his property on the corridor he doesn't care so do you want me to reiterate right so everything stays the same but then the allowance of those targeted town homes and multif family get the little bit more height by right the same height that's allowed today by code perfect yes with the consideration of um step down and adj so okay so how does the board feel about the 78 because the 78 is not what the code allows today so tell us why 78 just so I understand your number so it's a number that came from the mall um it came from the mall right it's the highest it's the highest height that we have in the city today current Max and so this is going to be for the everywhere outside the target areas yeah so if you don't feel comfortable with that we can of course go back so presumably if you're talking multif family being different right than this number yes so this one this is a separate conversation so the conversation that we just had about typologies right so that's going to be a different conversation so this one is anything within that zoning District the non-residential zoning districts instead of the height being 35 feet it would be 78 feet it just seems high yeah yes so today for those uses we allow 60 along the corridors only and 35 for the rest and how much for the rest 35 35 to me that makes sense you want the height along the corridors with some setback for urban form and pedestrian but if you do it by use the more intense uses are going to be mostly along the corridors in the target areas but but SE 78 you're talking about that's what you were asking Kevin the other day how high no I asked them how high the mall was how tall the high how How tall so so I'm just thinking about the number of stories and let's just say there's only two stories there it's 60 ft I I understand but 78 just seems pretty high that's a maximum that the mall can go but it's not at 78 feet it's at 60 feet I I just think 78 for those districts is a little everybody in are you comfortable with 60 60 60 along the corridors you said 35 everywhere well but they're trying to this a separate conversation as well so that the conversation that we had about typology town homes do not you may not find town homes in the non-residential in the in the non-residential you're going to have your office you're going to have your commercial you could have mixed use in those districts so how comfortable are you all with going 78 feet in those zoning districts and it could be most of the the um zoning districts that you find will be along intersections um you may find some industrial internal to some areas um so so from a practical perspective I don't think people are going more than three or four stories and I think it it kind of comes into play you know if you're talking about like the theater at the mall that would kind of be a gar thing to have near your home frankly so what's the height does anyone know um relatively tall I think it's three stories the Self Storage that went up on Lockwood does anyone know what height that is no I don't know that height I I would think that it's not more than like 45 50 feet so 78 just seems extreme to me okay if you're trying to consider nearby neighborhoods this would be raising the height from 35t today well I think 35 is ridiculous so but if you look at like the front pedim of of a Publix's maybe it's 35 or 40 feet if it starts having things upstairs you know there was a second floor in the one they just torn down most people didn't know there's a meeting room in there it was gone now right yeah I agree I I'm I'm comfortable with the 60 and then the I I think 70 is a little little much okay so 60 in the non-residential zoning but again people with a plan development can stray from these numbers if they're within the confines of the comp plan right well and even regular projects can require deviations and then that allows them to get density So So 20% deviation off 60 gets you to 72 and you could do that almost at staff level the way you're writing things right y so far nothing changes okay all right so we are good with 60 feet in non-residential I am I am too perfect good what if what if it's a bar I'm just trying to get the guy down at the end of that's a big bar No not tonight no he's not he's not what's that that is a Resturant not [Laughter] we had that discuss us next okay okay so moving on we wanted to also um in this table we wanted um a new zoning district for the Milton Square Washington Park area um so we wanted that in here we talked to the Consultants about the new zoning so you're talking the previous slide yes yep so they're going to include a new zoning district for the Milton Square uh Washington Park area and then there's a note we're going to add a note to the table that where there's a conflict between setback and easement distances that the easement should Prevail so that was um a discussion that we had at our staff meeting and then um the next one on page six is that page six I know there was a we asked for um clear language and explanation of the notes on this one you go down to the notes so we we wanted a clear explanation of the notes um Dave Axel asked that if the downtown district districts have minimum and maximum setbacks then the headings should reflect that so I don't know if you want to comment on your comment so basically this is a table of minimums and core areas are some of them are going to be designed with maximums which is very different and and that's what I'm saying this chart doesn't make sense the other thing I would say about this chart is I know this was round one but it does not match at all the heights we discussed in our meetings so you kind of scratch your head going why did they come and ask us to write something different because we said eight by write and 12 with bonuses and it's not even in the bonus language so you you already see those things right okay now the question that I want to ask about this area the downtown districts and the targeted areas is do we want to have a minimum height in this area in these areas I think it would make sense well it it only makes makes sense if it's financially feasible and if lots are small it's simply sometimes not so you've got to be careful with that if lots are small you want to go up to get no because when you go up the building code says you have to have secondary forms of egress and it takes physical square footage and it can be prohibitively expensive so I think people will naturally use height if it's cost effective and makes sense but it doesn't always make sense Sam do you have any comments on that I actually have a comment on the previous page concerning the lot size and for for come down further please way down go to R2 yeah that is of a concern to me because we're requiring the minimum lot size to be 7500 square feet but we tell everybody in R2 to have up to eight units per acre well eight units times 7500 is 60,000 Square ft well the acre is only 43500 so we should reduce this lot size and the lot Frontage width you mean width as well as the side setbacks to enable them to have up to eight units because practically speaking this is not realistic at this point so we talked about that before but I don't see any changes to reflect what we want remember we want to encourage people to have more units instead of going up which is prohibitive for a house basically let's enable them to have a smaller lots to have as the code allows density of eight units This is Not Practical so so let me ask a question that I think may help here so town homes are a form of design and town homes should reasonably be able to go you would think in R2 right I don't know or are you considering R2 to be purely duplex zoning that's really the question no we allow our we allow town home in okay so can you that just go back to that chart it was just a rhetorical thing so I think what would solve Sam's issue is when we get to R3 we're dealing with density not lot size okay so I think frankly if you do N A and N A in the first two columns but then let's think about these setbacks because now you're basically creating a situation where people are creatively fitting their units onto these properties and let's think about those setbacks that are the and what are the last two columns front and rear the Min the the minimum rear and where's the the sides are it's eight yeah and we did have a so I think Sam would with eliminating those first two columns and making it not applicable they're going to come up with whatever lot sizes they want town homes have to be 20 feet boom but still if somebody has a small lot well if there's no requirement then it doesn't matter you see what I'm saying you you instead of 7500 feet there's no no number there's no requirement is what I'm suggesting that's one way of doing it but if we reduce that 7500 that say 6,000 that's still not even eight units that's seven and a half so 6,000 square feet and 50 lot width or Frontage 50 feet see you can't do Town H home still a 20 foot wide lot maybe 100 and something foot deep you're you're already making it possible even though you're trying to make it possible I mean from we can we can make the comment right it's up to and you've always said that it's up to no that's that's a minimum I meant I meant the number of units the density the density but why I think his point is valid why have a maximum density that you make impossible to achieve well but it it's so I think this was planned for um a community right that you also so the would be calculated on the whole area and then you have um roads you have stuff that you know counts for density right but you know so you can so this applies like that if you're going to develop you know a lot but usually in a community you have more land and some of the land is not used for residential it's used for the circulation on the beeser project was it rezoned or is it still R2 still R2 and we didn't rezone it did not so you've got town home lots that are 20 foot wide because Town Homes this is what I was saying Town Homes do not go according to the zoning distri Town Homes is in the architectural standards today and it has the minimum lot size for a town home is 1,800 Square F feet that's the minimum lot size the minimum lot width is 20 feet regards regardless Z District zoning District these are had to meet the density right the density had Recreation areas has streets has whatever and then they had more compact you know so so that's if you have a new development but what if you have an existing lot then you can't count any of that and then I think Sam's point is you can't build density with 75 exactly what I'm trying to so we what we can do is highlight that and have the consultant come up with the way so that you can achieve um eight dwelling units I think it's 10 dwelling units now it's eight dwelling units per acre so we can we can change it because we did that for Town Homes because we kept running into difficulties with having to do deviations consistently because none of the town home you wouldn't be able to build a town home if it had to meet the the setbacks and the minimum lot WID so we changed it we put it in the architectural standards and we created a smaller lot for but you're trying to do these things you're calling multiplexes or or three units or four units I'm just saying if R2 allows that type of thing a way to achieve that you know to reduce the some is to reduce the size or limit the size so that's we'll put a note and tell them to you're good I'm good but I'm sorry but always G to apply so I'm not understanding making it smaller would not change the density yeah yes it would yeah it would it would enable them to have more units for example right now you can have only six units or even five and a half and you can't have a half so so it's not the way it is it's just 7500 square feet it's minimum is the minimum that's and in order to do a to d you need 10,890 sareet do a duplex today it says 7500 sare ft um but you can't do a duplex unless you have 10,8 Den say it's eight dwelling units per acre divide eight dwelling units you know divide the the one acre right by between eight but you can't have you can't meet the 7500 square foot per lot so this has to be reduced about well so the consultant's going to do some math right they cannot exceed the density and also that the complain allows I'm not talking about town homes I'm talking about a lot if you can have a 50 foot wide lot it makes a beautiful small house up to 1500 square F feet that's a nice house three bedrooms two bathroom so you can build a house it's a duplex that you're going to have issues no no just a single house 50 wide that's everywhere in the country that's a wonderful three bedrooms two Bath's house and and we and we have that it's the R 1bb so I think the point is if you want to look at different typologies R2 is more intensive yet it requires a bigger wider lot based on the presumption that it's going to be a duplex and we're varying from that presumption that we're going to use R2 to get to that next step in density before multif family which is more R3 and and we can't because the lot size is bigger instead of smaller so look at the chart as we go more int but it does not give you by right a duplex we still have to apply density I understand but what what I think Sam's saying and I'm looking at the chart exactly as you go uh more intense in zoning every step of the way the Lots get smaller until you hit there and it gets bigger it doesn't make sense no sense it used to make sense let us do the calculation let the Consultants do the calculation and we'll see if it makes sense so let me tell you why it makes sense because it's it then R three you're talking about multif family you're talking about unit on top other but but when you go down you go to commercial you go to multif family then it's the issue is is not really the lot size because it's going to be go it's going vertical so the the single family and and duplexes are still duplexes still like a single family attached right so let's look at R2 being a two lower figures are not applicable right I think so but please let's make sure we understand that this number you're coming down all the way from r1a 15,000 then R1 a R1 a A5 R1 a 10 8 n R1 is 8500 then r1b 6,000 as Dave said it keeps coming down but goes to R2 Which is higher density we're instead of in decreasing the L size we're increasing it we can't do that we have to keep going because it's two allows two units right you know so that's so that's the point that that doesn't make necessarily sense given we're trying to do different typologies to be fixated on duplexes let's let's not fixate on that and let people have a little creativity and do some different things in our all it's Town Homes we allow we allow but but what about a three unit what about a a single unit what about a home on a 40 foot lot you know I I think so honestly if you want a wide range of opportunities as you're going down each step of the way maybe that should be you know 3500 and and 35t wide or 40 feet wide I think that's the point so let's just look at it what what's what's allowed in R2 can you go to this is it I can't see two un so R2 is there so you can have single family um single family attached Town Homes two family dwelling um those are the residential um that's allowed but you have this new thing you're calling Multiplex right which should fit in there so we'll see if that's in there right so I think because we went through that whole exercise of what missing middle houses do we want and if this is where we're wanting to put it then the consultant needs to make sure that the allowances minimums maximums are going to allow it whether or not it's one story or two story because we need some affordable housing we need some of those missing middle housing and I think that's the point is we need to provide those options I I just give you a practical example I just finished the two units on each Broadway they're 45 ft wide there beautiful house three bedro two bass 1500 square ft that's what we should allow but that 7500 and 70 foot Frontage does not enable that so we need to make a revision here but for density we would require a minimum of 10,890 square fet of uh why because that's density density is weight delling units per AC I I don't understand one is 43,5 where did you get 10890 from divide one acre by eight that's not 10890 yeah okay it's one it's five some five but talking about duplex two units in a in a in an acre has to be 10,890 we're saying forget about duplexes forget about we already allow we are going to review that but I think Sam's issue is more with density and less with lot sizes no because if we allow Town Halls no no it is it is all one picture you just said divide the acre by eight 43,5 5,4 56 560 divided by 8 is 6,000 so it should be 6,000 but then it will allow one unit not two so that's so if they want to do they can't exceed the comp plan density but we should allow as we progress smaller lots and and forget about the fact that it may or may not be you're talking about single what what whatever it allow it allows single family it allows multi it allows duplex it allows town home it should allow these Multiplex it's going to allow that stuff it needs to be at that reducing so what I ring can I suggest minimum lot at the next meeting come back with maybe the numbers and then yes this is what it would be for single and our missing middle homes just to see visually what would work is would be my suggestion missing middle because we did all this work with the visuals and and the Heights and the stories and I know I don't want it it lost I'm sure many of you don't none of you want that lost right all the meetings we've already had yeah okay so page 12 so was there consistence on a a minimum height for the targeted areas or was there not I I would not agree to that so that oh minimum height in the targeted areas well wait a second in the targeted areas or the targeted areas I think it's a mistake because not everybody has a big lot that it makes sense to go up okay was there a consensus yeah I'm I'm going to lean on the advice Nicole we can't hear you you'll have to speak into your mic that was a question I had as well um why we needed to set the minimum um because not everyone would necessarily want to build that high I think it's more of an issue in your downtown core areas which we can get into more but I'm looking at you've got downtown neighborhood and Central Avenue districts where it probably doesn't necessarily work very well there's some twostory structures there but there's quite a few one and it just gets it's kind of a math problem you have to have a relatively large floor plate to make sense to go up because you need two methods of egress and stairways take up part of your first floor and second floor and cost money and don't really generate rent so it becomes a real problem unless you got a pretty big building so you know I I do agree that maybe in that downtown core I could potentially see a minimum of maybe two stories because what we're trying to get to but would that make things there already um uncompliant non compliant I I wouldn't worry too much about what exists but you you still have to allow for smaller lot sizes so for example in the downtown core on the west side of Central north of Broadway there's a bunch of small Lots with single story buildings that probably are barely functional now and certainly wouldn't function if you go up so I I'm I'm good with the um no minimum height or stories it was stories right any thoughts everybody's good with no minimum are you not angry still thinking okay is okay and so the other this hasn't sorry I think you called on go ahead um this is not changed since the first time we talked about it in terms of the setbacks and I'm not gonna go through that whole conversation again but I have a real problem with the setbacks that you're proposing along Broadway along Central and Mitchell hammock I am more than willing to trade height for setbacks but I can't support those kind of setbacks where are the setbacks I'm sorry where are the setbacks that we're talking about it's not showing there uh along Central it's going to be the downtown neighborhood area which is 15 front setbacks 15 um there's a minimum and then a maximum and these are um the setbacks that the consultant is proposing so wherever they're coming from I have a problem with those setbacks so why so so this conversation was at one point you're worried about future Road widenings and you understand that's not legal to to force somebody to give up property for future Road widening I didn't suggest giving up property I said I'm willing to give height to pick up what they so the whole basis of one of these mixed use districts is to create a street wall which requires a building next to the street right and a setback is contrary to that so the the whole idea of some of these areas is to create that walkability by putting the building close to the street and you're saying you don't like I just don't think on on the um I don't want to call them thoroughfare streets but the major streets Mitchell hammock Broadway a lot of Broadway and Central um I don't think we should preclude which we would do under this ever widening those roads I think that does a disservice to the people of the city and I mean this will be one of those things I don't want to relive this whole conversation again but in terms of this article I would vote against it you all vote for it we move forward but I cannot support setbacks like that because I think we do a disservice to the people that live in the city and if a developer or a property owner shouldn't be constrained by that as I said because I'm willing to go higher and let them get the same square footage just further back move on yeah I personally like to see at least five foot sit back zero sit back is I mean it's just too close so we're not yet in some of the sections that come later that will vary that we'll talk about that when we get there but for this I think we should have at least five foots head back the staff also put in there that would like to discuss we'd like to discuss that with the cons as well the zero setback um but we're going to discuss that with the consultant when she comes um because I think that's a good question like is that zero setback including say it's a you know all that other area right the dining area or the garden are is that included in the setback or is it so every road different Z and this becomes to some degree for some people kind of an academic conversation if they're doing a developers agreement but you you have to worry about these smaller lots and what you're trying to create um but I I'd like to get to the height thing which they is not at all what we talked about yeah that needs to be updated to what we talked about when Katie was here because we had that conversation right okay so let's go to the next part are we finished with this so so why this seems a little kind of just [Music] weird the the dmu let's just for once and for all say we're not going to call it this old Antiquated name it's the downtown core please right because the mixed use District because I like that is it consensus that we we Chang D for downtown core the comp plan calls it the downtown core why are we calling it The dmu yes can you highlight that and it is a target area so it's just a weird distinction as it you know all these things are target areas right yes so why have separated these separate headings so we had that discussion with the Consultants as well and they felt that it could be confusing if you're talking about to to understand if you're talking about the comp plan or if you're talking about the Land Development code um so if there's a change of zoning that needs to take place they're afraid that people may think it's a comp plan Amendment um that needs to take place kind of so that's that was their conversation with us but it happens you know it happens with pgs when it's p I understand but calling it this weird thing that arises from the old comp plan it just doesn't make sense so that would be for all of the targeted areas the zoning should match I I don't really have a problem with Central Avenue because that's the name of the street and that's where it applies I don't have a problem with downtown neighborhood which is the transition area but DMD hearkens back to the old way of doing things I just think it do sense they're all target areas so call them target areas I just think it should be downtown core if you want to call it something different from the comp plan be my guest but just don't call it DM okay and the the next I forgot to ask about this how do you all feel about going to feed instead of stories and measuring height I don't know if we've had that conversation or not um stories if you go by stories you tend the height can be higher than what you would typically get if you go by feet so the the the problem with with stories is if you don't Define the minimum and maximum of what a story is people try to dance inside of the rules so let's say you do a 20 foot ground floor you can fit a mezzanine and sneak another floor in there right so that was the consultant's idea to get rid of height and use stories but if you don't Define a story as having some range you know but a a a first floor should be potentially able to be higher I agree I think um height lets you even have more flexibility in in what you're trying to do so right let's just stick with height rather than story and then when projects come in you just use visual pictures to show what it's like so even if you just just have height let's make sure that there's reasonable minimum ground floor floor to sealing physical dimensions you know and try to keep people from getting density by doing weird Heights so not an super have them have a minimum uh you know a minimum and a maximum height of a story you know and and maybe you want to go from see the ground floor is different obviously and I think the minimum is more important you certainly don't want a story that's less than eight foot and I don't know if building code even allows it I don't know if anyone knows that here's a question for you with that conversation do we allow parking on that grounds like so parking and then you can start or no instead of Lots if you can't and I don't even know if it's it's doable right financially doable but do we allow the parking on the ground for and then move up from there I don't think there's any says otherwise um today it's it's all according to height it's the 35 feet wherever the height is that as your yes that that would be counted because my my convers if we want to allow that say in the downtown core right where parking will be a luxury uh how will that play into the conversation of a maximum or minimum height for that ground floor it won't so typically you want to hide your garage so as long as visually it works I I I think we when we get to those standards okay you know one of the ugliest things when you drive along I4 is there's this beautiful building and in front of it is wide open view angled parking it looks horrible frankly okay so let's go are we finished with the table well so so what we talked about in those discussions was eight stories which we now have to translate to a height by right in the target areas and 12 with bonuses and they need to follow through in the language and we need to convert that to to feet obviously eight stories by right I mean they had the same conversation I think with the LPA and the same conversation with the council are we now at the table thank you next item and anything bonus no no no and and 12 with bonuses is what we said maximum of 12 if you don't want a maximum don't have a maximum but politically I think you have to have a maximum and we people did say 12 the bonuses oh yes okay GL that it needs to Beed into okay okay so then let's go to page 12 are we finished with the table yes 12 page 12 okay so this is the planned unit development section [Music] 4.10 and um we are deleting the some language and uh P B2 D okay so there's some language that we are proposing to delete which says the organization shall be empowered to assess reasonable maintenance feeds upon the owners of real property within the Pud for maintenance of common in space so we were trying to see if we even need this language um I would say keep I'm sorry I just feel so strongly I would say keep it in as an option and I say that because there are so many instances we hear in other counties or other jurisdictions that they are doing liid or you know nature-based Solutions and then the people who own the building and the mainten screw of the building don't know how to deal with it and so there's been a lot of conversations about can cities for a fee take over the maintenance of HOA open space all these kinds of open space so that they can be more naturally based so but this one is is is it's requesting something for them shall be empowered the organization it's the um it's not the city not so we do not enforce that so it doesn't make sense but I do think there should be an option for this that's that's going to be another discussion that we're going to have because the city I'm not quite sure if we're we want to take on the maintenance of open space so we're I would think not but so I see that language as harmless and you know to some degree necessary I don't know how to create an association with responsibility for common area that can't assess its owners to pay for it how how else do you do it I know but it's not the city the city is right but you're just saying when you give us a set of covenants that we review it has to provide a funding mechanism I think that's all that says not that you're collecting it or I mean would you agree you you review these things yeah I I I don't see the harm in it I think it just says the association I don't think it obligates the city to do anything in your when you do when you do the CCR you provide for that in the uh yeah so is it a requirement that we would require you know the Homer Association you know no documents to have that we don't have stand require that no no the Covenant should it should be should be so so was this language that the consult added is is that this wasting language I I honestly think it makes sense and I think it's a normal course of how people do things anyway you create if you're going to create open space and there's an expectation of the city that it gets maintained and open space typically is either dedicated or deeded to an association the only way they get money to do that is from those owners so to me this is more of a I don't know that it should apply just to puds it should apply everywhere I would think and and should be part of an open space or or a common area type type thing it's it's not peculiar to puds the only other way to make sure that it's taken care of would be to De it over to the city which you said you don't want and if they're not getting paid to take care they don't get the money to take care of it it's going to fall to the city to take care of it in the first one now if it's private property now it does not fall on the city right well you run into this weird situation of who are you code enforcing Vapor well if there is a homon Association we would goe enforce the homeon association if the homeon association is Def fun because we have cases that we also we don't control if they they you know then we would find every owner I think it's more a matter of how you deal with open space and not necessarily a matter of PEDs okay so it's the consensus to keep the langage yes I it's in keeping when you read the rest of it it's in keeping with the rest of the the rest of it okay so let's we're GNA go on to the next one which is 4.10 B2 H so this one um this one was a comment from Dave Axel it says please delete this streets are often made private to actually not follow public Street standards this just imposes aiv private cost with no public benefit and it says new private streets must meet the minimum standards of public streets required improvements for existing private streets shall be the same as for public streets can you define example can you define what's meant by um improvements to existing private streets I mean is that something for example is Milling it up and repaving it or what is that so so I'll give you the exact ex couple of examples that bring this to mind for me um so a subdivision on Pine Avenue was severely constrained because pre-existing ownerships allowed at a certain point like 37 and a half feet and the rest of the street was proposed at 40 feet one of the only ways to make those streets work is to have drainage in the middle which is called inverted Crown the city standards on public streets prohibit inverted Crown because it be can become a maintenance issue and if the city's taking on maintenance they want there to be certain standards so if it's going to be in private maintenance and it's going to have an association maintaining it you're doing this to facilitate this project it's beneficial to the city to not have to maintain roads so to force them to to build more expensive roads to public standards kind of defeats the purpose you're going to end up either constraining development or putting more burden on the city so it sounds wonderful but it does the opposite of what's no but maybe we should clarify what are the minimum standards we are talking about maybe and and Paul can help with that some some of these standards are not in the LDC they talking about engering standards manual but we can clarify that because what we want here and and we don't care if the public works you know director because he has the the power to reduce the width for private streets so what does this do it doesn't do anything but we want to have sidewalks we want to have um Street trees we want to have the the amenities that we require for a public street so require them for public and private streets elsewhere you know you have certain standards that that you of things you want but this language well but that's how we have to clarify what are the minimum standards that we want these are minimum standard of we can you can even name them here right as to um Street trees I just don't like this language and you want to say something yeah I I I really have many problems with this these two s sentences there please understand there are several private streets in the city I don't know if we should call them streets there are roles I have one you can't ask people to have sidewalk on a private street it's private it's not meant for the public to come and walk there no no you're talk you're talking about driveway in your house that's a that's a driveway that's not a street so that's not considered a street we are talking about so what do we mean by private is development that the homeowner association is responsible for the private that is different that is that is yeah so you're talking about driveways but I think uh and I think we have to remove the existing private streets because this is for proposed streets so if you're creating proposed streets we want the private streets to have the same standards in the sense of sidewalk in um um Street trees as a public Street re those fun a public require those in those sections okay that is the section that we no no no no you have you have standards for trees you have standards for sidewalks and all those things you don't don't wave them because they have a private Street but this language basically puts this huge burden that shouldn't exist that constrains things and and puts more RightWay in the city hands that shouldn't be in the city hands I'm just telling you what it would do the language the way it's written would force these things in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense private so it wouldn't be in the city's hands so you have a gated community they're saying here comes a new development here a gated community we want that gated community to have to meet the same standards as and I'm saying that's that's an absolute ridiculous silly mistake it's just a great expense Don I agree I'm going exactly with that direction I live in a gated neighborhood with privately maintained roads um we have a reserve plan and we have estimated costs for when we need to basically redo that road and along with roofs and everything else over a period of time depending on what those standards are that you're talking there you may drive us way out of our Reserve budget no this this is retroactive to development this is for new developments well this talks about this talks about improvements to existing streets a should be it should be proposed say remove that I I already made that comment here only new development it's only for new development it's not I just don't want to bankrupt some HOA or for special assessments hundreds of doar that is new language so they when they put it in there they didn't put okay well you you also have to consider HS do expire I had the situation in Sanford where was was which was a development done many years ago HOA expired Road got bad needed repair they said City repair it's a private Street we can't we have no right to well who's going to do it the 27 homeowners would have to get together and decide on whereas if it had been to City standards City may have accepted it and said okay we'll accept it as a public street because it's to our standards but if it's if it's a road that's 23 20 feet wide the city can't accept it because it's not the city standard so you know that's why I think going forward their their thing is new new development going forward they should be built even their private streets they should be built to City standards in the event they were to I'm just going to say I I still disagree because of the issues I'm talking about which address width and drainage design and all these things that have no bearing I think on what Theresa is talking about trying to achieve here and you know you've got private streets all over the place that Public Works was perfectly happy with because it's not their burden that this language would make impossible to create so it's new streets it doesn't matter that it's new streets that's my point if you can't create a new Street except by City standards then you're basically making private streets virtually if I have like a 10 acre piece of property and I need to create a street not a driveway to get back there and I want it dirt no that's not what I said okay then I don't know what you're saying I I gave you the example should I restate it maybe we should okay City standard in the engineering standards manual and this says City standards is that you cannot have inverted Crown drainage sometimes that's the only way to sensibly build the street there's nothing wrong with that it just is more of a burden on the public that the public doesn't want so if the private entity takes the burden why do they have to meet the public standards it's their problem so Dave I know you talked about like drainage things um that Teresa did not talk about so perhaps if we put at the end um required improvements for existing should be new um private streets shall be the same as public streets for sidewalks um and Street trees but then to his point you might not have enough space you could always if you're going to have a development and it's going to be more than a couple of homes you're going to have kids more than likely you're going to have children he managed to have the development approved right with the with the constraints that he's talking about so so proc on that particular one you want the kids to be able to to go to school safely you want them to be able to walk and go so you want them to have some type of sidewalk you know even in including handicapped people you want to make sure that they're able to go up the street wherever they need to go safely so on that particular project just keep this in mind we have a sidewalk on one side because there's no houses on the other side okay so let's just be careful with how this is applied and that's fine as long as you have a sidewalk so that people so if you that approved by as and approved because we the street trees and sidewalks but not engineering standards that's going to be something different okay so are you all okay with that yes okay so and remove the existing and remove existing yes we can remove it right now the existing that's better go ahead and delete existing the propos right new and then at the end of that and we are still in the Pud right this is still the Pud section it put as to before the period as to sidewalks as and Street trees sidewalks and Street trees yeah what WIS we have to to talk about WS as well so do you want to talk about with okay so how does your code is nonsense because it says 50 feet and it should just come out well it so there is a also a provision in the code that the U Public Works director can deviate if it if makes sense but but 50 feet is based on 12T travel Lanes which are the opposite of urban form and drivability and walkability 50 ft has got to go we need to have the land we need to have the sidewalks we have the other stuff right that we want to have in all in 40 and 37 has 50 feet I think it has 50 feet yeah it it does but but all I'm saying is your 50 foot standard is Antiquated and and doesn't make sense you're gonna fit Bobby of that what's that you're gonna fit Bobby of that because he's he's stuck on no he's allowed it to vary all the way asul he's he's allowed it to vary many many times and Paul designed some of those projects so he knows yeah I think I mean again if it's private it doesn't have to meet necessarily the public standard so I mean and I yeah as a consultant we deviated from it a number of times so and the right away isn't always 50 fet so I think yeah I mean I think from so then we have the issues with landscape we have issues with sidewalk we have all the issues you know but but I think to Dave's point I mean I do think in my opinion if you're going to Define requirements and they should be very specific they shouldn't be like meet the same standard as public streets and if you're just saying it's sidewalks and Street trees I mean maybe that's one thing but I think if you're going to talk about rideway and all these other things then you need to we need to be very specific about what's what it is going to be and what it's not going to be because it gets too gray and fuzzy we should be very specific so today is 50 ft for both but we're not on that part but the Public Works director has the ability to deviate right but I hear you I just I do think it gets confusing when you have pieces of standard here pieces of standard there pieces of standard there but uh how about I mean 50 ft is wide how about 40 feet well we're not on that now I don't want to define the width here um but do we want to just generally state that it's G to have to comply with the width in here if not we can just the width is another standard elsewhere to to me okay is that consensus I don't know what the question was I feel like it went around they want to know if they should add width here and and I think we've agreed on everything else and I mean it's somewhere else I agree it's somewhere else it's somewhere else deal with it somewhere else you guys want stre all right let's go to page 13 um um there was another comment from J um G so this is the density and intensity bonus it says a bonus to increase density or intensity may be granted to a PUD for utilizing Innovative designs to preserve open space and conservation areas promote internal traffic attainment or promote pedestrian and mass trans Transit modes of transportation as provided for and comprehensive plan then it says new language all density intensity and height bonuses are subject to section 14.4 14 which it's going to be a different section I don't know why they put that there but it's subject to the section 111 um six um actually it it's article four so we'll get to that density section so Dave um comment was this language does not make sense PUD is negotiated zoning that varies from the code so requiring compliance with section 14.14 is circular and inappropriate what is 1414 because it's been a while since I wrote my it's not 1414 it's a different section of the code it's article four section something it's not that okay you know which one it is it's one that deals with the density and intensity so should I explain my point yes so people do planned unit developments to do inov ative design and negotiate what they're doing so to say that you're doing something to vary from the code that must follow the code doesn't make a whole bunch of sense now I believe the staff will use the code as a guide to discuss and negotiate these things but to say your plan development that you're negotiating has to comply with the code that you're negotiating to vary from that's what I'm saying is illogical well so this is existing language anguage right that had before in PS that we never really used it before but this existing language this is just saying you know now there is a section on the code talking about density intensity bonus which will talk about development agreement and we will give those big areas that can be negotiated so it's just referring to that there are some big areas that the comprehensive plan talks about in in the development agreement the LDC the the way that that section ends up may alter my comment here so if you want to just leave it sit for a while leave it I'm just saying saying negoti we can remove that the whole section because now we have an area of density and density bonus in the code which thing with the develop with the Pud is that um there are sections that the comp plan allows density and intensity bonuses with it's not even the Land Development code it's the comp plan so if you want aity or an intensity bonus um you have to do certain things and if you and we'll go to it it's in on page 13 of that well that's the next thing I I agree with Teresa I mean if you already have a section that talks about it why do you have to point them in that just so that if people think that if there is a PUD you're not automatically granted density and intensity bonus so that's say we can remove this whole section from because we have a section of the code now that talks about you know density intensity bonus for whatever project that we will apply for but David say if there's a development agreement why do you need if this is a PUD why do you need that so to Teresa's Point Grant it to Teresa's point if we deal with this in the section that deals with this then you don't need specific language for PUD and you can scratch G completely and we'll push the argument into that section okay because he's saying something different than what you're saying I am but I agree with circular it's saying circular because it's it's sent into the section but the section has a development agreement but this is because this language is PRI is still existing so so so I I believe that that Theresa is right we don't need G we talk because we're going to talk about it somewhere else it's covered in the comp plan so so if everyone agrees we can just strike G because we're going to get to it we made it smaller well yeah but but Hank to your argument Dave to your argument the Pud does not just grant you the ability oh I understand okay all right just want to make it's negotia it no it's G to go according to the to the bonus in the comp plan in the Land Development code and comp plan we'll we'll get there that's why that language is there to make it certain that you just because it's a PUD doesn't mean you're going to be granted because it's a development agreement but the complaint doesn't say that doesn't the comp does say if you want density and intensity bonus you have to do these these no I know but doesn't attach to pug the pugs have yeah so the density bonus section will apply to any density I agree right okay but that is not what d is what I'm saying I said I'll defer that discussion till we get there we're not there all right next okay thank you madam J I'm ready for you Dave just start this meetings at 8: am. no please okay so let us go to the density bonus which is page 13 um part one it's um page let's see okay so page 13 is actually the Pud language still yeah yeah okay so this one is we are on I4 4.10 I4 right there we're deleting um privacy finra uh windows we don't look for those things with the um with PUD so we're um gonna remove that language everybody good okay than and then um page 15 4.10 three reuse water um the page 15 on the side reuse yeah reuse water so one of the things that we discussed was we want to make it consistent with um article 16 which is which discusses reuse water so today it is not consistent with it so we want to make sure that it is consistent so if you have reuse water covered elsewhere do you even need it here at all so I would just delete it consensus it's our Hank Memorial deletion day okay number five traffic circulation where it says a grass U right there we're um deleting that language where it says a grass medium may be required on any collector roadway or a specific segment thereof where the traffic volume is anticipated to 15,000 trips per day we deleted that because we don't do it so we're g to delete that and then Street lighting and signage we're also um deleting that because it's provided for in article 16 so that's six Street lighting and then page 18 um this is 4.13 It's the targeted areas so I know there was discussion about making them consistent with the um future land use designation so we talked about it already um do we want to do um with those um future land use designations do we want to make those titles consistent with the future Landing designation like Market zoning district for uh Marketplace future land use um Gateway core zoning District I just the one that bothered me was dud and I think we had consensus to go to downtown core if I really don't think people are going to be confused by zoning and okay comp and comp plan stuff that's kind of silly okay so page 18 part one targeted are we removed in A1 we removed the language there because it was um a duplication it's already provided for we already know what the what the core areas but not the core but the gate the targeted areas are because it's already provided for in the table of um permissible uses and also throughout the code so we deleted that language in one as well as in two and we also clarify that detached single family um it's discouraged in the targeted areas and we clarified that detached single family homes are pro prohibited in downtown so so let's be careful here because downtown neighborhood is a target area that is specifically single family in character where is that language over there it's already there it's um they put that in there let's see well you're talking to now about the discouraging single family yeah but I wanted to read the the the language now it's there so it says single family we put detached in front yeah but detached single family is specifically what you have in the downtown neighborhood District so I think it doesn't say prohibited it just says discouraged well you shouldn't discourage it in that District that's what it's for I mean that's what's there I think we could say except for the downtown neighborhood that would do it okay so well cult District I think downtown neighborhood right it's a zoning District we'll have to it's titled I think it's just downtown neighborhood well then get rid of the okay so page 18 oh sorry go ahead a general standards so you're going to change dud to downtown Corp everywhere and we don't have to talk about it anymore right and we hi we did s put that right okay so page 18 part one was that 18 go back so why are we skipping over all that stuff no he's he's going past my PES don't line up on PES stand yeah okay so um it says under 4.13 um deleted already defined in the beginning okay so we went over that I'm sorry that's my fault okay page 18 part one this was General standards so Dave this is another one of your comments so a bunch of those standards as we get further down into them understand I wrote my comments on October so yeah you put that this is aspirational not measurable allows for arbitrary review and you delete it in its entirety so some of these things if you get further down is what I was really talking about so so what these standards are for is urban form let's just call it but some of them also as you go further down apply to the designs of wider areas and blocks and not everybody can do these things which paints you into this corner of non-compliance at all times and I think we also have to face the reality that not every Target area is going to be sensible to be designed forced to be designed in an urban form it doesn't really work in a lot of places so you just have to be specific so you have to kind of go down to subsequent ones than what you're looking at to see what I'm talking about if we can go further down just tell me Well Slow Down slow down so like a block perimeter someone with a small parcel has no absolute control over that at all can't do anything about it cross block passages they can't do anything about it okay so the city's got a transportation master plan the city has opportunities in larger developments that seek bonuses to seek these things but someone comes in for example that owns a small parcel on Central Avenue they can't do any of these things it's it's not practical or possible so this is what I would call urban planning not Urban Design this is what the city perhaps should seek to do when it plans its network of streets in its Transportation master plan but not what you should force someone to do on a private piece of property I just think it's misplaced so I I think we discussed with the uh consultant and that's the portion that the consultant will have to um I think um discuss with the board and the next meeting but to give um uh way out out for smaller Lots right so I was also worried about because some of the lot um along Central for instance they are narrow and very and very long and she was talking about perimeter but you know and and most of the portion to the back is really Wetland so they would be forced to have to be broken but they would have no way because there is no really Frontage you know along Central so we have to to be careful with those things and um and she understood and we will have to discuss those but for areas for new areas right for areas that we are you know um for the West mro hammock Corridor areas that are going to be develop that's the idea is to bring a block you know uh uh composition because that's that's a good Urban Design right so perhaps perhaps not so so for example okay and you know right now there's a couple of apartment deals going through the process one of them at the old Macy's one of them North ad dwell neither one of them would benefit anybody by forcing these standards on them because they would be connected to nowhere and achieve nothing yet they would be great expense and a lot of pavement for no purpose so I just think we have to recognize reality and be careful if you have aspirations you're trying to achieve in in certain areas you have to achieve that a different way but there's also contradictory language where they say on arterials you can't have more intersections and they don't specify whether these things are necessarily if a passage is for vehicles or for people the the language is kind of a mess is what I'm saying I think they're going to have to the Consultants when they come will have to explain we told them we wanted to see some kind of visuals as well well um in defining some of these um block passages so I think we should wait before we have any consensus on this area that's fine but I will tell you that I looked at where I'm working on something and and as I've stated before I'm going to do a developers agreement but it's going to be guided to some degree by the perception of what you're trying to accomplish in this code I would think and there's blocks where it's it's an arterial on one side it's private property on another side it's it's the trail on another side there's nowhere to go there's nothing to do there's no way to change it and you know so if someone has a piece of property like that they're automatically non-compliant they can't do anything about it and I just think it's it's illogical to write a code that creates that situation I'm not saying these aspirations are wrong if you're laying out a new city okay but often times we're not we're adding a piece to Suburbia or we've got a small area with constraints like Teresa recognized if there's Wetlands there's nothing to connect to and I think those are sight by site and the discretion that the planning team is able to like obviously we're not going to do us you know to nothing so I think we need something in there for the future in these these sections but give the the planning team the ability like yeah of course that does doesn't make sense there's no way that's going to happen so you're exempt from from this but to exempt it or not have it in here as a whole I think it would so I I I disagree with what you just said you want to give the planning team discretion no what I'm saying is if there is you have your property the example you just gave where you cannot connect to something behind you because it's physically impossible yes then they can turn so there you said it again they can so here you have a property owner that's subject to the whims of the staff and can't do things that are impossible unless they say okay that's the wrong approach it I know it's semantics but you're saying it's up to these other people to decide if your property is worthy or not well you could always add we're applicable I'm saying it's like never mind most people don't have enough prop property to be a whole block therefore they have do and no they they most of the time don't there's so that we discussed that to give to exemptions for smaller you know lots but one thing that we have to remember that we we granted those target areas substantial densities and intensities with the idea that we would bring connectivity and um we would bring an overburn form so if if they are going to bring you know the type of multif family that is kind of you know put in a in a in a sight that is becomes a cool the sack right with no that we are shooting ourselves on the foot right so I would tell you I completely and totally in most cases disagree because what you're doing let's use the example of the property I'm working on right now that you know quite well and you made that same comment it's hiding behind the dwell it's constrained on four sides there's nothing for it to connect to so forcing it to be designed in a way where it's more expensive to build is either making it not happen or making housing more expensive and that's not what you're trying to achieve either that's I'm not convinced that we cannot have a a connection still there because connection another we'll have that discussion another time may I just suggest just putting it right before sites where practical and doable sites must be divided so it's not just arbitrary you have to do it if it's not doable then then we cover what DAV say uh not completely so you're basically taking if you look at how conventional apartment complexes are built and I know this to some degree is Theresa's point in some places that's all that that makes sense so if you now say I'm sorry you can't have your normal parking lot I'm sorry you can't design Apartments the way they're designed uh it may not be a place where it's feasible to have structured parking they're going to have to slice this project that may be on a dead end into this series of walkable blocks when nobody has anywhere to walk to all it does is cost money and constrain development and and dissuade things and leave it sitting there vacant now in a Target area that's different of a different form where you're going for this greater intensity now this project I'm talking about I think it's achieving 26 units an acre that's all that's financially feasible right there if you're in the downtown core we're trying to Target more height more intensity you can do some of these things but I'm saying it's still impossible in some of these places then then is this for the target areas did we the target are are different but this is for the target areas but they're different from each other so I'm talking about a piece that I'm working on today that's in a Target area that would be impossible to do with these rules can we just allow the consultant to have a discussion with us on this and then we'll you know sure keep all those comments keep that passion for the next meeting that's okay yes okay perfect thank you okay so um I'm going to go over some of the staff comments on the same page that we're on um the block perimeter which is right there e um it says sites must be divided um sites must be divided into one or more blocks including um there's one we deleted Civic and put in public or semiu space there so where where where are you I'm right there in E the first isn't this part of what we talked about we're GNA put off that we gonna I would say let's let's okay let's move on let me just and then can you please go ahead semiu is when we have private space that functions as a public so has Public Access so for instance the Allington here they have this um you know linear Park that you have the sculptures and you have the the benches this is a semi-public it's private they own it but we we can go there and sit and have a conversation there so so so do you want not have any conversations about what staff added and then just have it at the next meeting okay perfect that is perfect okay so 19 let's see is that cross on page 19 okay so that's access but that's part of the same conversation yes we're going to go past that I'm looking looking for okay so page 20 b page 20 yes so um under single family development that language for um front loaded single family as well as front loed um garages sh that language was delated and the comment was all Street walls should have a minimum of two feet set back from the right of way so there was a comment there for that language and then we deleted um the language should be in table 4.2 for the front loaded garages so setbacks all of the setbacks should be provided in um the table that talks about the setbacks that we went over already so we're trying to consolidate all the setbacks into one section Don com okay and what was Don's comment on that one Don your your your comment on this was does this language preclude town homes with two car garages yes it does why does the language do that or why should we do that we shouldn't it does not preclude it can be um re loaded no it can be re loaded it it so rear loaded is sometimes impractical and prohibitively expensive and drives up the cost of housing and uses more again this is an urban form right so so what we do know want so to clarify we do not want a house that has the most prominent the facade is the garage so in most of your target areas you're not allowing this type of density by itself right no we are no no you have minimum densities in some of your target areas that would to some degree preclude Standalone town home projects the comp plant has the comp plant has minimum densities that would in the preclude to some degre town home projects so this is target areas right it's not only so the so do you have such language in the not target areas we do we do for town homes today town homes today they we do not want the facade to be the the the garage to be the dominant element of the fa what has happened is and and I just worked on one is only the end units had two car garages the the center units only had one car garages and the driveways although we know people would put two cars in them are 16 feet wide because there was no other way to do it because it didn't make economic sense to do rear loaded but it's probably because if your withd would not you would not you would not be able to have two car garage in the in the axis in the in the door that's why you had you went for the you could with a 22t wide unit but still a two-car garage with 9 foot doors or8 and 1 half foot doors I I think to to Don's point where where he lives would be illegal in a Target area is I think the point you're making right exactly um you know you know where I live and you know what the development looks like do you think it's unattractive because I would say to you that the garage doors are the biggest part of the facade out of that house it's I'm I'm saying as an architect this is not an appealing facade at all I would suggest that was really unappealing is the thing that was built and I don't even know whether it's in the city quite frankly but the thing that was built on Broadway South of Mitchell hammock that new white I think it's town homes that back up to the road where all you see is a great big long solid white wall that to me is a whole lot more unattractive than this kind of thing you're talking by home Depot no no no no they're they're town homes or apartments or something and they may not even be in the city they could be in the county yeah I don't I but that to me is what's unattractive I don't think it's the city I don't know Broadway it's it it uh it backs onto Broadway I don't remember exactly but it's somewhere between Mitchell hammock and um St Luke's and it's on the other side of the street that's that's a la that's 426 okay that's County that's in that's in the county that's in the county but the point is that's what's ugly to me we did not review those I not buildings like I live on where the garage is the bigger part of the facade so so let me ask a question that may resolve this so the reality is the only place that has a minimum density that's a Target area that allows Town Homes is downtown neighborhood Standalone by themselves town home projects so if we just exclude downtown neighborhood I have no issue with this whatsoever because if you're G to do town homes in this core area Standalone to meet the density you're going to have to rearload them anyway if if if it's if it's re loaded then that's the language can remain if it's re loaded so and and the is should to clarify right but what I'm saying is is the one area where I think this would be a mistake is the downtown neighborhood period J so the issue is that in urban areas we want to give the the the uh importance to The Pedestrian and not to the car so your development was still under Suburban development so we have a lot of homes in oido that the garage is the prominent you know facade right of the of the homes uh but in urban sites we want to have the garage in the back or in because the pedestrian has to have the the it's the the most important figure is not the car so that's an urban setting so um the Evans Square Evans square has re loaded garages right well almost no we we were prohibited from having that if you recall the alleys went away and all the driveways come through from the front now but they are not um front loaded no they they are they're just in the back they are in the back okay yeah so the the garages are in the back so we're talking about core areas I'm just suggesting we accept from this downtown neighborhood which is more of a of a single family nature type area I don't know that there's that many big pieces left but that would cure my concern here I I don't personally I don't agree it's already in the code so we today is a requirement in the code today for any time I'm just telling you what it results in well but yours is the width it's you cannot have a 20 foot uh W wide town homeall with a door and a twostory garage that's why you ended up with a one car garage the second car is going to be parked on the driveway I made my point the chair can call call for consensus consensus to leave this in and just add front loaded is what you're doing or is this so that's the language staff is recommending there so you all have to decide if you want to do um what consensus you want okay is there a consensus to keep this in here as is for the target areas that front loaded garages cannot more than 50% of the ground level facade I am good with keeping it anyone else I'm concerned about constraining people in the down in the what's it called downtown neighborhood it's already there it was already there all the development that is there anyone else to follow what are your thoughts do we need to do a vote for consensus okay all those who want who would like to keep this the way it is is without any changes okay two who wants to adjust the wording to exclude downtown neighborhood we have some people not voting yeah you have people everyone has to vote to make aain you can't you can't I couldn't abstain from the bar conversation so this is the code today the code today is already there all the all the town homes that we have so everything consistent I think that's the overriding criteria it is there we're not changing it so I don't think it will be a problem so I'll go back and do I will withdraw my objection let it let it move on okay are we in consensus to keep it as is I am okay it is four to one okay consensus okay page 20 b oh we are already there I keep going back to the same thing I'm so sorry okay so page 20 be Auto Repair number two car wash okay so um we want under a where it says Bay openings so are we still in a Target area yes yes and a car wash would kind of be a weird thing in a Target area wouldn't it yeah why are we allowing car washing well yeah I don't think we did we did we in the permissible use table even allow them we can go back and check yes so can you please check car wash but now let's talk about Auto Repair because Auto Repair is allowed in some of the target areas so what we wanted was for the Consulting to add language that the remaining 50% of that um wall can be composed of materials other than brick stone or concrete so it says um there that the bay opening shall be located to the side or rear of the building and shall be screened from the street by a street wall a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 5 feet in height walls greater than three feet in height um above grade shall be no more than 50% solid so I have no problem with the wall but um some of the existing auto repair shops would that make them non compliant because they have front loing Bays so I'm a little confused here if we're located to the side of the or the rear why do we have to screen them what are we screening them from adjacent or so so and also think about a typical so is is a quick service thing like a Quick Lube different yes it's different than than an auto repair or a car wash so a car wash is going to have Bays front and back so nothing um Car Wash is not allowed then then it doesn't matter the target areas so the only one is service stations are a special exception in um um the Gateway uh West Corridor um uh Marketplace in the west m what about Auto Repair not not allowed okay so we can delete that so we didn't allow it in in Mitchell hammock or anything we did are you sure because we had the you may not be looking at our consensus Mitchell hamic and um the one on Broadway there's a it's closed right now but there's a car wash out at or was out at Mitchell hammock just before you get to Lockwood on the left yes there is a car wash there in that's not a Target area that was my question David probably micle thank you which one okay Gateway and and then that that car wash is outside the target area onic is that what so so I I don't understand why we're making them build a wall where the Bays aren't facing forward so it says no motor vehicle repair well we we had changes that okay so go up to motor vehicle but David I think your first question was right if there aren't any there now why would we even allow them in the downtown Corp at all no they're not allowed they're not allowed okay they that's they took car wash out so we're only talking about okay West Mitchell hammock and and Gateway special exceptions which we had the conversation because there's already there yeah repair no body work out yeah so that's what I have I have exactly that it's only service station so go to the well but there was what we proposed which you didn't change yet maybe maybe it was not changed well no it's not so just bear with me here because there's another Auto up here which is what I was looking at just a second ago where there is a note from the ldcc oh but let me tell oh this is so this was a mistake it says delete Automotive because this is not this was to for repair shops only and not not Automotive yes so we these are for appliances for you know repair shops no we had a specific discussion to make them special exceptions in two areas so I think but we went back and realized so we have to we have to bring to the right side to right you know so I think we definitely still want to those automotive repair shops as special Cor in those are what was the category it's the it was in the wrong place right there go down right there the Consultants repair shops and put Automotive okay but we have a section only for auto so they they messed up with the all right he's fixing it okay so my my original question went back to their Bay all face front but you're saying side so in our attempt to make sure that they were not non-compliant now they're going to be non-complying so why would we I get new ones but what did you say now the codee's not going to force someone who's there to change anything if they're non comp is your question if they're non-conforming I didn't hear right so because now you're requiring them to be on the side so as long as they're not making any changes to expand or as long as they're not um if they're operating today we would not require that they put this um wall around or require that the bays are moved to a different place as long as they're still operating um once the code is adopted if they were to cease operating someone else wants to come back in if they cease operating for about six months months is 180 days then they would then have to comply with the code and this came from the consultant so he's not coming from from St so so the only point I'm making here is if we're g to say that new ones because we're talking about new ones okay or ones that went non-compliant because they closed why are we asking for these Street walls when we're putting the bay openings to the side of the rear I just don't understand I think I think it's just it's not Street walls is it Street walls or is it buffer walls between that property and another property it says Street wall screen from the street by a street Wall Street I was looking on the next so we can ask the consultative they meant you know Corner Lots right I didn't know I just don't understand yeah um Don has a question Deborah following up on what you were saying a minute ago um I know you said that people who are existing can continue operating blah blah blah what about if they try and sell properly property we don't get involved with it as long as it continues to operate for um the the time period for the break is 180 days okay so if they try to sell it um and they're still operating um and someone purchases it and starts operating continues yeah we don't get involved when it changes hands we don't know when it's sold um they don't come to us unless they need to get a business tax receipt but even still they will need to get a business tax receipt but we don't make them come into compliance at that point our code doesn't say that it just says if they cease operating for 180 days they have the comment to compliance but I I think the point we're trying to make here at least from what I understand from Dave if the bays are not facing the street they're facing sideways there's no need for a wall period so I would make the recommendation to ask the consultant like you were saying about the street walls is a corner is it are they screening but B is about Corner Lots so a is you know I I just think it makes no sense I don't necessarily need their opinion to know it makes no sense right and so my question is do they mean Street wall or is it a screening from adjacent properties if it's facing to the side because that would be the buffer or the screen from another piece of property I think the sh be screen from the street right so it's it's so just ask them to clarify that to make sure that we're all understanding it the right way and beside screening can be trees or H right doesn't have to be so can we just get clarification because I'm trying to move this can we just get clarification on that and then there was something else um in C about carat um accessory car watch structure so is that for well they're prohibited so there won't be any so that needs to be figured out before we before we move on from the auto repair shops um what about something like um Action Gator or some of the tire companies that in addition to sell that auto storage area at least even if the Bays face the other way I don't know just a thought do we screen parking lots yeah well we seem to be concerned about Auto storage so well I'm I'm just kind of hanging on that we do not allow allow that use in the target areas the ones you're mentioning except for by special exception in Gateway and West Mitchell h no the sales with repair which one is the one that we included it's the it's the vehicle the the sales yeah we don't want the sales there I he question vehicle sales so then that's another question are we talking tire sales or yeah motoric no this is Car Sales then that's separate than what you were talking about yeah you don't want a car lot in the new downtown absolutely not okay the other thing the other thing we've not talked about and frankly it's ugly as hell but the fact is that it's there and it's an existing local business and that's the U-Haul rental guy sitting down on Broadway which who's not in a target areas across the street guys we have one more thing before we finish with with part one and then um if you want to just move in so the next item is three drive-through facilities and Dave Axel had something um on that one said drive-through facilities can work in an urban environment with clear design criteria I suggest design criteria instead of requiring a special exception so don raised this issue a little bit the other day and someone else also did There's ways to do so not not all banks have drive-throughs anymore but there's ways to do those lanes in an urban environment there's ways to incorporate them into your parking garage there's ways to perhaps and let's be careful um you know maybe sometimes people could have a pickup window but if it's done the right way I think at the last meeting the only drive-thru you all allow was the bank was going to say was I think because was done before we had that convers they just update it to match our what we talked about at the last meeting yeah please so um the bank is the only thing that you all will have to have defined criteria for for this is Sonic in a in a Target area on that side of the street actually it's not so drive through restaurants are allowed under special exception where in a gateway uh West um uh Marketplace and um uh West Mitchell hamc so we we still haven't Incorporated the bank thing and we should wait till they do that is that what you're saying that it needs to be consistent with the permissible uses table so what I think what we have is to give the what it's going to be the design guidelines yeah if we allow you know speci uh drive-throughs under special exceptions and it would only be for the bank so no no no we had some drivethru restaurants oh yeah we did a special exception in the other ones that's right so that is it for part one so so you're going to have to change the prohibited for banks right yes okay yeah so we have to make it what well as long as we're on this what what about a pharmacy we talked about that did we yes what we conclude I forget I believe it's Pharmacy you see drive-throughs no no with drive-thru with drive we do not have that that option well I'm just asking as we're long as we're on the subject have a bank if if a if a bank can pass something through a window why can't a phy pass something through a window or you know good with the one lane creative I think we're trying to get rid of fast food and coffee and things that generate huge amounts of traffic I think we're trying to to get away from the drivethru aspect in downtown for instance right come up with your language for banks and we'll talk about pharmacies once you do it how's that now we do have I want to just mention before we go to Artic um part I don't know if you all want to go to part two or wait until the next meeting it's almost 8:00 should finish how long is part two part two will probably take another two hours if Dave doesn't respond how long will it take us just kidding so we can do it at at our next meeting which is fine so but I want to just add that we had some um correspondents that came in today um from um um one of your fellow board members who wants to add more um special exception uses to the permissible uses table for the West Mitchell hammock Corridor we received it today um and Teresa also made some changes to just clarify some of the discussion on the table so we're going to bring that back at our next meeting Katie is coming to the next meeting Katie are you saying part two or round two part two which is the um October yes October round two round two is part two yes it is round two so you're saying the second set of comments Not Another Part to this thing so you know we have article four part one which was submitted in September and article four part two which was submitted in October well well right second round of comments yeah so we're talking about the same thing yeah okay gotcha right so what I I I did a clean copy of the table of permissible uses because I could not understand anymore what what was and actually I have issues seeing like that I have to see a clean copy to be able to read so I'm going to send what I have I have rearranged some things and we have changed slight things as well you'll see so for bank with drive-thru um without drive-thru was in office bank with drive-thru was in retail so I put them together seem like that right um adult entertainment was lost in the limbo you know so we create recreational and entertainment to have all the users together things like that um so I'm going to send because I think it would be good not to avoid having to revisit you know the same table several times for us to look at the table permissible uses and then the next you know meeting we can really have the conversation and finalize the the table of permissible uses I'm giving to the city manager as well because he had my position for 20 years so I know he will have comments so I'm going to um give to them as well and then we can discuss next time did you give him a deadline no I I need to he really bad about that he's not he's gonna come three days you know before the public hearing right but anyway I I'll will ask him to that's why I'm I'm kind of I'm GNA give only the table for him because the table is an important one so take a look at the intensity and density bonus because we're going to have a conversation about that at the next meeting um if you have any is shoes make sure you bring it because Katie's going to be here um we're going to ask her um some of the items from part from article two and three that there were questions on as well as the table for missal uses that there questions on and then article four so we want to kind of Target um our issues because we're not going to have all night to discuss these things um so I have a question there are we going to have another one with the ELD C and us to go through round two and then ask her to come so that we have all the question so it's going to be up to the board do what do you all want to do so we have to go over the table again in round two we're only going over the table because there's some new things right yes but we still have to go over it yeah and then round two I mean I suggest we go through round I suggest hold Katie off one more yeah me too one more so that then we can bombard her with all of our questions at once because we won't have another opportunity to tackle article four with her right so if we do the the round one and have her so so I had thoughts about the bonuses and you'd rather I put them in writing before the next meeting is what I think you're saying yes or bring them to the next meeting well I'll I'll put them in writing so is Sam gonna are you gonna try to incorporate comments into a document yeah if you have comments get them to me and please cite them so I know okay where they go so if you have comments and submit prior we can process right we have we don't need to process in the meeting so we have time to you know okay so our next meeting is March 12th and on the agenda is Article Five as well so or is that when we're supposed to have comments du by or no it says finalize article four two so just give me your comments when you when you're ready because comments were due last year so if you can get them to me but we didn't have we didn't have the bonus section to comment on yet have we got the bonus section September and October October is when we got the um bonus section so just get them to me whenever you can that would be great bring them with you or bring them with you okay for Article Five so we're doing three things the next meeting which is table second round round of two and Article Five so yes I would say hold Katie off if everybody agrees and for Article Five you want the comments before it would be great I I have a question um which section or did we miss this um lighting because I it's we haven't gotten to it yet haven't got yet okay it's coming up perfect anything else terara would you indulge a comment just real quick and I know we want to get out of here but I said it publicly so I want to unsay it publicly I was not attacking you Teresa when I asked you if you thought my house was ugly I was I was trying to make the point that two bedroom I mean two garage two car garages are not necessarily ugly and I wasn't coming after you and I know I know I I did not feel as an attack at all so you know I'm always happy to discuss architecture so all right um any other announcements or comments from the Land Development code members Committee Member no lovely so our next meeting is March 12th and then um we have a slew of meetings and things to do so um with that we will adjourn and how do we arrange these excused absences I still want have call us ahead of something yes