##VIDEO ID:1Wh0r2aqOxc## e e e e e e e e that testing e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e love okay if we can get this started I've been asked to chair since we're a joint meeting uh this is the joint meeting of the LPA ldcc October 22nd uh this will hopefully be the it's planned to be the last meeting so uh joint me we and go Deborah is going to go through tonight just a few items and then basically we're going to do U I think questions and comments anybody might have so uh first of all we have uh it looks like we have a quorum of both the LDC uh LPA and ldcc so we'll call the meeting to order um the order of business will be the next thing we'll go through like I said deor we'll have uh a few items to go over with you and then we'll have comments and questions and answering questions any comments you wish to make if any items you want to go over again uh we'll go through them I believe Deb will will end up showing the as between the LPA and the ldcc there are not very many differences but if there are still difference remaining then then the procedure will be will'll go through them uh we'll note the differences and when it gets presented to council it'll be up to council decide um so we we do want to get get consensus tonight uh since this is our last meeting before uh before we go to LPA uh for a hearing and and public hearing at LPA hearing for Council this be our last meeting so they can't okay okay so um it's going to be important to get get a consensus tonight uh so we want to discuss that and and do what we can to get to consensus because we want to be able to hold the public hearing uh both Eli and the and the uh city council with the consensus of the Committees that this is what we recommend in way of the LDC amendments so uh first off do we have the we have the minutes we need approval of minutes for June 25th of 2024 and the chair will entertain them if I had a chance to read them the chair will entertain can you cannot hear so can you speak louder in the microphone can you hear me yeah okay okay is that better all right do you want to go back over what I just said or no okay okay all right the chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes for the Tuesday July 20 25th 24 regular session for which board yes uh this doesn't say I guess it would be the ldcc committee yes this LDC so earlier you sent us the agenda that said it was the minutes attached but it wasn't the minutes attached so I don't know that we saw them oh the agenda was attached the agenda was attached not the minutes so I don't know what we're being asked to approve okay I didn't I'm sorry I did not notice that because Dana was the one that sent the okay so we'll um if we can can we get them printed out so they can take a look at it and they maybe approve it at the end okay okay we will we will get a copy of the minutes uh before we leave so everybody can take a look at okay since this is a uh public uh public hearing a public meeting is there anyone from the uh public who would like to make any comments okay we'll close that section okay um on develop Land Development code uh comments and questions we'll turn Deborah thank you Mr chair well welcome everybody I'm glad both boards were able to make it tonight hopefully tonight is our last meeting to discuss Land Development Cokes you all have put in a ton of hours um into producing what we have brought forward to you tonight so I just wanted to give a little tidbit of information so the Land Development code committee spent over 25 days and 56 hours providing input into this um new Land Development code we also have a local planning agency which spent over 12 days and 24 hours reviewing and providing input into the draft C code kimley horn conducted three work sessions with the city council um July 24th of 2023 October 23rd of 2023 and September 30th of of 2024 and at that September 30th work session the city council provided Direction on some of the non-consensus items as well as some of the items that um both boards um had consensus on so we want to kind of go over um some of the non-consensus items so that we can tell you how city council decided so tonight we're going to go over that non-consensus but what we're looking for from you tonight from both boards is a recommendation um to go forward with the public hearing process process so our public hearing process um the first one will be the local planning agency which is scheduled for October 29th um then we also have a first reading of city council which is also a public hearing and that's lated for November 4th the second public hearing the second the second public hearing is scheduled for November 18th so we already have those public hearings already um scheduled and identified um so what we're looking for from you tonight is just the recommendation of being able to go forward because we've spent a lot of hours a lot of days um you all have provided a lot of input into this document so if you have any questions as we go just let me know and we can um go through your questions but we're going to start off with the non-consensus table um between the ldcc and LPA and then we're going to move forward to the zoning map because we want to go over some of the changes that we've made on the zoning map as well as some um changes in the permissible uses table and then we're also going to update um the board on the changes in the documents since we last met so we're going to start off with the um non-consensus table so one of the items that um came up during the ldcc was the membership of the LPA um so there was not a consensus between the ldcc and LPA city council decided that um they didn't want um those different um backgrounds identified so they wanted to remove it so they agreed with the LPA on this it was a consensus to remove the backgrounds and um whoever applies applies um there was not any interest in keeping those backgrounds so the code that you have before you tonight does not show the backgrounds it's provided as um recommended by the LPA the next item is going to be streets and sidewalks and this conversation is going to be the first in the second row on whether or not we wanted to um keep those roads private that don't connect to anything and it was the city council consensus that it should be the developer's Choice which is what the ldcc recommended LPA wanted to keep it private if it didn't connect um city council decided to go with ldcc recommendation on that one and it's both of them anything that doesn't connect it would be the developer's choice if it becomes public or private landscape AP in section 12.5 which is the Landscaping this is for the parking garage um whether or not Landscaping should be required around the parking garage um LPA ldcc said parking garage landscaping for parking garages should be optional and not required LPA said Landscaping should be required um for garages as proposed and city council um consensus was to remove the requirement and it will be optional um and doesn't need to be in the code so if they decide to landscape the garage it's going to be optional for the developer the next one is the require is parking um parking was pretty um controversial with both boards um so the ldcc wanted to have up to 10% of the required parking um compact spaces with the dimension of 8 ft by 16 ft long um City the LD LPA wanted to remove the percentage requirements for the number of compact parking um because we were already reducing the size of the parking the standard size so LPA wanted to remove um the percentage for compact parking city council decided that um decided with ldcc to keep the 10% um compact parking there was also an issue with whether or not we wanted to make at least 10% um of the parking to be oversized vehicles that was not an item of of non consensus but it did come up city council decided to remove the 10% requirement that at least 10% of the parking spaces should be oversiz requirement so those were some of the issues that came up at city council all uhhuh and so now we're going to go to the zoning map I know if you can make that a little bigger so some of the changes that we made with the zoning map was to make some of these zoning districts consistent with the the future land use designations especially the new future land use designations for the targeted areas so we made those um zoning districts consistent we also um corrected some areas where it there was no consistency and I'm going to let Sam talk about some of that as well in our zoning map we had um two different industrial zoning districts i1 and I2 we don't have a lot of land for i1 or I or any industrial so we decided to combine the i1 and I2 into just one zoning District of industrial so we did that and Industrial is going to be the gray area that's identified I don't know if you can highlight if you can zoom in yeah that area and it's that area that's industrial we have some other small pocket in industrial areas that's not a small pocket but it's yeah we have we just changed that to Industrial well this one up here has been industrial yeah yeah yeah so we don't have a lot of industrial land in the city and we decided to just merge it into one one industrial zoning District we looked at the permissible uses table to see U which was more restrictive which was um least restrictive and and they're both about the same so we merged it into one we also looked at and we will need clarification on this um we had a discussion ldcc had a discussion I need the LPA to chime in on this as well about the Central Avenue zoning District at the last meeting there was a discussion about moving the Central Avenue zoning District further north um to Magnolia so we're trying to see if the intent of the board was to go north of Magnolia to the intersections or if it was south of Magnolia but Magnolia was this stopping point so we're trying to figure out what was the board's recommendation on that so if I can add to that so we received from Mr Axel and thank you for you know checking our zoning map and providing some comments but he he was um he raised the point that he thought that the discussion was to include those two Lots North of Magnolia so we just want clarification if you all want the intersection so all the the Lots abing the intersection to be included in the central um Avenue District or not so if you look north of those two Parcels it's going to be downtown neighborhood um north of those two parcels and then to the west of the one parcel to the west of the west of Central Avenue parcel it's going to be downtown neighborhood so we wanted to hear the board's thoughts on that I guess since I raised the issue um and my recollection of the discussions might be incorrect but the parcel on the east side has been transacted a few times for the intent to to develop it as office and it just seemed to make sense to take in the whole intersection I'm really not familiar with what's on the opposite side but that was my and I didn't listen to it again that was what I understood to be the discussion at city council also so I have have no horse in this race but I just thought it made sense to take in the whole intersection that's all I agree I think that was kind of our thought and like I said I think that was the discussion to council too to go across the street is that a consensus yeah I'm good with it okay so we'll make that change to include those two Parcels in the intersection okay go ahead yeah there was another comment from Mr Axel and if we can go to the ID the Park area that um the two lcks um those two lots should be core because they are future indued um um downtown core so we are going to make that those corrections as well we could not make the corrections today because there was an issue with ourg so we'll make that tomorrow okay and then I'm going to have Sam just give you a brief overview of some of the changes that were made with the zoning map if I could just add to so we had another point that Mr AEL brought to us and that was um the Lloyd um Basel that is right away so that should not have we we're going to remove the it's actually not if you click on the count map is wrong it's owned by the post office I sold it to them it's not right away I promise you it's not right away but it shows us right away in the in the they are incorrect I can give you the surveys and everything but also your present code says right away when it becomes so that was a uh an easement to C us X okay so when the trail when the train tracks disappeared it became fee owned by the CL and I we have no problem putting that at C2 because that is it it just a mistake in any event okay I I can get you the information we don't have to waste time okay so I we'll make that correction if that is the correction as well um the north one also which is City RightWay I I don't know from the same area uh at the North that's actually city right away the yellow yeah okay we'll check I think it's just a mistake okay we'll check those I think that that was all right the other one I'll bring up later okay so I'm goingon to have Sam just go through some while you're looking just go through some updates okay um we got rid of all those mud districts yay uh so the Legend all those Legacy oh mud districts are gone we had some Legacy seal County A1 zonings um uh a flood plane um those are all gone now we've Consolidated industrial to one I I think we saw on the permissible uses table there was only maybe one difference really between the two it really didn't seem to make much of a difference um we now have the r1c zoning district for the Milton Square um Washington Park Jackson Heights area in here um and just for clarification the r1c zoning is not B zoning we are just we did not change the uses the permissible uses for the area we just changed the minimum lot size for the area and the minimum setback so that um Lots in that area that are nonconforming do not have to come for deviations every time the building um and other than that um there was just a lot of well not a lot but there were a number of lots that had incompatible fature land uses uh with zoning districts so we cleaned a lot of those up particularly like um um uh Parcels with office future land use that were either a residential or a commercial zoning that became now RP um this area that during the comp plan review LPA was uh very adamant about maintaining the existing nature of this area so this is all RP now um yeah this purple uh drag down the middle is going to be the north is the Central Avenue it's basically any parcel that abuts Central Avenue that has that downtown transition zoning District um like we talked about Magnolia it comes down here to Clon and it basically captures these Lots just south of CLS um yeah that's that's the gist Sam if I could just ask so that little section you're making RP uh so it's a little confusing because the comp plan doesn't have residential in office land use as allowable so how do you as as a secondary use it does okay part of a part of a mixed use product it will but but what if somebody buys a lot and wants to build a house and you have a guy that just did a vacate there and he's got office land use it's office future land I'm just curious how you deal with the inconsistency that's it's a non-conforming use so we would not um you have to give it a a land a zoning District that's consistent with the future land use so the future land use of it is office office today does not allow residential and Sam is correct how ever because the houses are there it would be considered non-conforming and we have a section in Our Land Development code that talks about non-conforming residential structures so if it were to burn down it could rebuild again but I'm talking a new L would not be able to have resal no you have to conform to the applicable zoning and future land so we can't fix the comp plan today but to lpa's point if you want the character of that area to be able to continue you have vacant Lots no one could build a house on right that is correct just just and that changed with the future land use designation he would have to go for a it didn't it was not because of this zoning disrict it was completely because of the future land use designation I understand yeah anything else on the zoning map has any question do you want to bring the other issue now or later cuz it's it's up to you it's it's zone right so so if it's only map it's Z map okay so if I think it was the I don't know if it was the joint session or the last ldcc meeting so if you could zoom in on what you had before about Magnolia and all that so so this came up because the ca District had been well up at Magnolia this oh this is okay I'm sorry uh the CA District previously had just been dealt with where it is in the current zoning map which is south of the new down south of the historic downtown and so it was added up there because it was intended to be for where there was Road Frontage and in looking at this map the other day if you slide a little over to the east so we can look at the area along Franklin and Geneva Drive Geneva drive is not really residential in nature so right there where he's got the pointer you've got I think a pool company a church uh the wedding Barn um the you have the old Fountain Head church that Antioch bought right there you've got the library another church on the other Corner um Franklin Street has Grace Church the barbecue place it's all really more commercial in nature if you can go south to Mitchell hammock uh so all the way you're on bro go down go down some more sorry keep keep going keep going so along Ovito Boulevard you've got the same situation now two of those he said are being changed and there's not that much vacant land there but go go on North a little bit I think you've got the 3 Acre piece on the East I don't know what's going on but I think there's a deal apartment deal being worked there now but downtown neighborhood allows that right M so going down to Mitchell hammock you've also got um that big chunk of the spray Field property so my point I was Raising is if the intent of the ca district and maybe it would be a bad name if we spread it out is where there's going to be more of a non-residential non-- neighborhood thing it's kind of screwed up because we have all these major road frontages that we have as neighborhood but they're really not and it's just something I noticed in looking at the last version of this map because of the change we made on Central so I don't know what to do about that frankly but I just think it's kind of a problem there's not that many uses and maybe that's really the key is which uses are in the table that you can't do in DN that you can do but one of one of the things I think is height right uh we can go to that we can pull it up okay yeah we did not address that you know with your email to to because I think that's a major change that we didn't understand so I'm I'm just raising the issue and you know I don't know that it's an imperative to to fix instantly but I think it's something that needs to be addressed because I don't think it's the intent of what we did to take these commercialized areas and say their neighborhoods when they're not well the downtown neighborhood is a so it's not only resal so it's less intensive than the downtown core but it's still allows mix residential and we can check the table so it's it's not only the table but when you go to I think Article 4 where it talks about the distinction and the Heights and all that stuff so I just wanted everyone to be aware that we're kind of creating this weird situation so if you look at the um downtown neighborhood you'll see that you can have restaurants it's a permissible use and and both boards look at the permissible uses table you all spent a ton of time on the permissible uses table so you can still have non-residential uses you'll see in downtown neighborhood where the peas is it this one okay because we can we're going to go table you're basically lot of Hol not F this um I I think when our discussion came up we concentrated on the segment of 434 South of Broadway and we didn't really talk about anything else and I don't think the consultant was really paying attention to this big chunk of downtown transition east of the old downtown and along o Vito Boulevard we just never spoke about it and it just dawned on me looking at the map yeah we we Mr Lopez let me let me answer your question you remember all the hours that we talked about that both boards spent on this so at no point in time did that come up during all those hours is what Mr Axel is saying so he's bringing it up now so that the board can consider it so it's not that it's not ready it's not that we did not we discussed it and didn't have any answers for it just that it didn't come up under all those hours of in the comprehensive plan identified two areas the core areas right the two core areas where we we're going to have more density and intensity and then the downtown you know transition which is in between those areas in around um the zoning then split you know the downtown transition into two zoning the downtown neighborhood in the Central Avenue core initially it was planned just to connect the two cores the old and the new and then you know there was a discussion let extend the ca to the north and we did that now we have planned and it's not now that we haven't discussed we planed the other other areas downtown transition to be the transition not to have the same you know level of intensity and that that the core would have and the Central Avenue would have so I think it's all making sense we do not want to now Start Spreading you know the Central Avenue to other areas we did not plan for that but we still have height you know available for multif family and because these are for typologies so we we still allow those and downtown um transition allows for different uses it's not only residential the future land use as well for downtown transition that was adopted back in 2022 is it allows permissible uses it says to be single family residential Town Homes cluster homes patio homes multif family residential it does allow for commercial it allows for office it allows for private institutional um Public elementary middle and high school tools so and it says in the comprehensive plan which was adopted back in 2022 is that the purpose of the downtown transition is to provide a diverse mix of uses at a lower scale than the downtown core so the downtown core um you'll see that there's two core areas it is in brown that is the OVO on the Park area and then the area that's in brown both Brown um are is so the downtown transition is everything in in between and it should be at a lower scale than the downtown core and that was the intent of the comprehensive plan so when we're talking about those uses we still allow for office and Commercial uses you saw restaurants were allowed offices also allowed um it's not at the same scale as Central Avenue and we can look at Central Avenue But Central Avenue is not intend it's intended for areas properties along Central Avenue with Frontage along Central Avenue not outside of Central Avenue so that's the major distinction between Central Avenue and um the other areas in the transition area Deborah could could I just mention one thing so I think this was a weird anacronismo the consultant in in my opinion the mud districts you heard Sam just say are are gone well CA was an MUD district that's what it was they wanted to keep it we acquiesced on our committee to keeping it if it dealt with Street Frontage so I think kind of the comment I'm making is we have these other areas and I hear what debor is saying you don't want to take something on Geneva Drive or Franklin Street or Mitchell hammock or Ovito Boulevard and call it Central Avenue District that makes no sense but in my opinion the ca District never made sense in the first place place so maybe the solution here is just call this the street front District or something so that people in the future can can if they have some allowable use or intensity that this District allows and they're on one of these busier roads that are more heavily developed that they have the opportunity to rezone or something so I I just think it leaves this hole especially look look where the wedding Barn is that whole stretch of road um from the traffic circle going a little ways East is 100% churches commercial and so forth um when you go north you've got the library and a church they're not residential neighborhoods so they're just not uh so it's a little bit of a a weird thing we're creating keeping this old name I think it might just be the name frankly and oh so it's not adopted yet if you all want to propose a different name we just have to make sure that we correct in the code but you know I just brought it up I I think it should be Street Frontage and it's up to everyone else and I'm I'm done talking about it it's Street Frontage is also kind because every well every Z has Street collector Street I don't know what to call it doesn't help much I think it's just I think we left a hold betterine Clarity name just downtown what's important is that we look to see what's different from downtown neighborhood to whatever it is Mr Axel is talking about a Central Avenue so maybe we can pull up the permissible uses table and go I think I hear what you're saying sometimes people move into areas not knowing the definition is clearly spelled out because they there's not defined state definition right so they think this or that so I think what Mr was trying to say is going come up with something name well it's it was inherited from the previous zoning so the previous Zone was was MCA so this was the ca Corridor the Central Avenue Corridor um so so if could be downtown Corridor could we could downtown Corridor makes sense but if you can go to page 90 where the two districts are defined of the code of the draft code and then after that we can look at the permissible uses table to see what's permissible in CA that's not permissible in DN and then perhaps we may want to put permissible uses in um create another zoning District or change that zoning District um so right there you've got the the purpose of CA the purpose of DN and that's really where the distinction comes in m so Central Avenue is that's what it's called now and I said Street Front it maybe that was bad but this says to create a Main Street well you're kind of doing the same thing on East Franklin if you think about it you're going to connect to the redeveloped water tower district with all these uses that aren't as intense along Franklin Street along Geneva Drive you have the same thing along Ovito Boulevard they are main streets but they transition to neighborhoods right so I think that is the difference this one connects to downtown bringing it up so this is an area of business if you go down to downtown neighborhood it's more of an area of of residence and and the character of those areas is not this and that's all I'm pointing out so I don't know if it's as much the table or these definitions well I don't I I think if we were to create another zoning District it will take more time I'm not saying create another one I'm saying Central Avenue might be a bad name it may be uh you know Main Street District I don't know what you want to call it but I just raised the point I wanted everyone to recognize it that that's it let's go to the permissible uses table really quickly so we can see what CA and DN so Central Avenue so go to the top let's go to the top so we can go through it we're going to go through this table anyway so downtown neighborhood you'll see single family detached it's permissible in both DN and CA you have um single family attached town homes and you see the DN and CA the yellow first two so it's permiss single family is permissible duplex permissible in both Multiplex permissible in both multifam dwelling permissible in both um Adult Family Care home and we talked about that that's when you have um elderly people in the home that you're caring for um by the state it's the state type of adult care home it's a special exception in downtown neighborhood permissible in Central Avenue bed and breakfast you'll see that there's a special exception in um downtown neighborhood and it's permissible in Central Avenue child care in the home permissible in both rooming house is allowed in downtown neighborhood but not in Central Avenue Community residential home you'll see it's a special exception in downtown neighborhood not permissible in CA so you'll see that there's some differences sometimes um um downtown neighborhood is more restrictive and sometimes um Central Avenue is so temporary residences that's for construction temporary constructions it's permissible in both um go down there's not very many differences lived work units they're allowed and both um accessory dwelling units they're allowed and both professional business office they're allowed in both so you can have offices in both zoning districts uh we eliminated business office because it's we put it in the title above Medical Clinic hospital they're not allowed in either one a temporary Construction office that's for people who are building a brand new building and they need a temporary Construction office that's permissible in both personal services that's going to be your re retail your um Beauty Barbara permissible in both daycare um you can have a daycare center in both um drugstore not allowed in either repair shop not allowed in either um and then you have restaurants they're allowed in both restaurants with drive-thru they're not allowed in either one then you have a bar and I am not quite sure why they're not allowed in either one I'm not quite sure CL full but they're not allowed in either one and if I had a recommendation I would say please change that to allow it there there's Central evidence nearby is that why central a I'm sorry funeral home um they're not allowed in either CA Oh a CA is that permissible oh that's funeral home it is allowed in CA but not allowed in D in um and then you have the assisted crematorium not allowed in either assisted living facility it's allowed in both Community residential home a commercial one and it's a it's similar to the residential one but it's the commercial one it's not allowed in DN but it's allowed in Central Avenue that's where you're keeping kids or keeping elderly people by the state um and then alcoholic beverage package AG it's a special exception that's like a liquor store it's a special exception in DN but it's permissible in Central Avenue um retail under 3,000 square ft and no outdoor storage it's permissible in both you can have retail um and then you have retail and this is probably where the difference is going to come in you can have retail 3,000 up to 10,000 square F feet it's not allowed in DN but it is allowed in Central Avenue um then you have retail 10,000 to 25,000 ft² it's not allowed in either so in retail it's the square footage that is the difference there retail is allowed uh retail sales with outdoor storage it's not allowed in either one shopping centers a shopping centers you can have in Central Avenue but you cannot have in downtown neighborhood then you have the convenience stores not allowed in either dry cleaners you can't have it in either dry cleaner without off-site service oh with offsite I'm sorry it's allowed in both so you can have dry cleaners as long as you're not doing the dry cleaning on the property um bank with no drive-thru they're allowed in both um micro breweries is oh no Bank I'm sorry bank with drive-thru not allowed in either so you can't have that micro breweries um Distillery you can have them in both artisian Artisan food production permissible in both um equipment rental not allowed in either that you you don't see much difference except for the size of the retail and then you have vetenarian office is permissible in both kennel you can't have pet care services you can have them both why do I I don't care what they call it why why should you care so for example if you go back to the map I'll just point out again so there's not well I'm sorry before you begin there's not much difference between what's allowed in downtown neighborhood and downt in Central Avenue so it allows retail just allows retail at a smaller scale than it does um in Central Avenue so the question is do we want to um allow Central Avenue in other portions but not call it Central Avenue but allow that in other areas of the um downtown transition which is by the comp plan intended to be on a lower scale than um the other than the core I'm I'm going to let you talk I'm sorry but I wanted to I wanted to finish so the your H so I wanted to make sure that we understand the difference between the two zoning districts to see if we want to create um a new zoning District or call it something different does it really make a difference in terms of what uses are allowed um the only uses that I saw that really made a difference was the the square footage of the retail so you get larger retail I think it's 10,000 to 25,000 um Square fet in Central Avenue but you don't get it in um downtown neighborhood but you do get retail in downtown neighborhood just 3,000 to 10,000 you want it on a lower scale so that's the question so go south of Mitchell hammock and you have a big huge chunk of downtown neighborhood on the busiest Road in town where you're limiting the size of a shopping center kind of up the street from a shopping center it it doesn't make a whole lot of sense is all I'm saying so if someone comes along and that's a spray field today and nothing's happening with it today but if someone comes along what do they do either they do a developers agreement and probably a master land use plan yeah okay because that is a huge area so it it just creates a weird thing because the slightly more intensive district is called Central Avenue and the intent was along Road frontages and just to point out another weirdness of this code and it is what it is so if you look at the Central Avenue District directly along Central on the North side that's Stonehill Plaza no you were there which is bigger than what's allowed today so we've created this weird District that makes some sense because we were concentrating on the stretch of converted houses when we talked about it north of Mitchell hamic but we didn't really pay attention to everywhere else and that's all I'm saying it may not be something to fix to today but it it's just a weird thing that's come out of this that we never talked about that's it if no one wants to do anything let's move on okay moving on so let's go back to the table of permissible uses because we have some um adjustments that we had to do to the table as well so one of the things that we did with the permissible uses table and we talked about it with the zoning map is we combine the two industrial zoning districts into one so the i1 and I2 were now um it's now I you'll see it in purple that's okay is that purple it's gray it's gray okay it looks purple does look a little purple yeah thank you so we combine both i1 and I2 into industrial we also um what we did was we created what's called M and you'll see M we did not discuss that with either board um because when we went back and looked at the comprehensive plan there are some uses that are not considered primary um permissible uses they're only allowed um as part of a mixed use or secondary use so we had to go back and change the table to reflect um that it's only allowed with the mixed use now some of our land use designations as part of a mixed use require certain percentages so the primary use has to be whatever percentage and then the secondary use has to be subordinate to that um so we put the m in the table to show which uses are allowed only as a mixed use um and you'll see that with single family attached an RP um or c1s for single family attached Town Homes C2 you'll see it there um and we also um combined we had this industrial U light industrial can you go to the light industrial so we remove all those subcategories of industrial that were in our I think strategic plan or sometime at some point so to the light industrial uses so we have we we removed those those categories from the table and now we have light um Industries and that was U one of the recommendations that came out as a result of the board and what we decided was to put the definition of light industrial to include all those categories in the definition so that it's explained in our um article 18 definition so and I think that was mainly it for the permissible uses this table just to reflect the comprehensive plan um were there any if you can scroll down I think that was it for the permissible uses table yeah we had to adjust also the recreation for some also because of the compant that were not allowed in some future land uses we also so we had what was called parking storage and it was for those um properties that had the RVs and um the boat storage um so we renamed this um large vehicle in watercraft parking storage and um structured parking was another one that's that was new so we added but we had already had that discussion there was one discuss about parking there was one discussion that Mr axo brought it's the the surface parking the surface so I I would like to bring that up yeah let's bring it so if you look at all the target areas um and you go up a little so everyone can see full Sur so you can see structured parking oh structured parking so so structured parking is allowed everywhere and structured parking is extraordinarily expensive and I think we talked about this at the ldcc once as areas develop you're going to over time have more intensive uses and a really really really good example is the city of Ido owns a surface parking lot which would now require a special exception and I think the longterm plans for the city would be when Ovito on the park fully developed and everything matures let's go make a deal with somebody and go vertical on that but to force someone to do a special exception to use and underutilize lot today for surface parking I don't I don't really understand the reason for that and why it shouldn't be in allowed use and we discussed that at ldcc and I don't know that we concluded anything but but I I just think this is a mistake to make people jump through this hoop I think it should be allowed I think uh when we discussed it uh gentleman sitting next to me who does a lot of work for Sanford is familiar with their situation and they've got surface Lots some of which are city-owned that they're looking to redevelop all over the place uh so I think it it makes sense and and we should make that permissible that that's my comment so today is a special exception right in this T proposal from the LCC was for it to be a special exception so I mean you all can have that discussion now and I think it was because it was a temporary use and they wanted to make sure that there was some um from what I can remember that there was some conditions um that it would be removed within um time frame the only way for us to accomplish that is with a special exception use order so a special exception requires all kinds of findings that are somewhat difficult so I think it's a challenge so I think what makes more sense if someone's really concerned about this I think Mr shank brought it up if in fact somebody has a greater value use for their property that's a surface parking lot when it's economic they're going to do it so I I don't think this is really a problem we have to face if somebody wants to build a building go vertical build structured parking do whatever if it makes economic sense leaving your lot as a parking lot you're not going to do so so I'm just saying in my view that spot there should be all permissible and I'm just making a comment and if everyone agrees so be it if they don't so be it I just think it's a mistake I've got a question sorry it's a little powerful what is the big difference in the steps between special permission and permit so one requires an application p is a permissible by right so if surface parking is permissible by right then someone can come and provide a s plan and that's it special exception is like a resoning so it goes through the boards go through public hearings at the LPA and at the city council spe special exceptions because they are special the city can put conditions so this is the difference but it's it's an application it costs money and time and and has to go through a process but I so the discussion and we I have no problem opening it up again for discussion was that because they wanted to be temporary in the downtown core then the path would be to put that as a condition as a special exception or the special exception would then detail what in which conditions that would be allowed so so one question because it's unclear here I think you're talking about surface parking as a distinct and separate use yes right but it doesn't exactly say that anywhere well it's a primary use a column only primary uses wanted so it's surface parking as a primary use so like we have our our parking lot in Noona Park it's a lot that the primary use is a Surface parking want to say something to say well I was just thinking that it is really forward looking to allow it we may never have it but why not allow it to Des so I I I would tend toow rather than a lot have to resort to special exception so the argument I will let the board speaks if everybody any anybody else has any other comment no I agree I I again like M sh said I I was for if have that you have property and you're there's a need for whatever reason that oh parking becomes a need and and that's all it would be is if it became a need at some time um you'd have to jump through a lot of steps to go through that to make parking available versus not so I I don't again if there's that need there's a need nobody's just going to have parking for no reason and just go well Park and you know let it but if there's a need why allow someone who has property who has an acre sitting there whatever to just use it for parking if they so desire I don't see the big problem I have no so the idea contrary to that is because in the downtown core you want to see development being built and not AG that I just say that there's no that doesn't make the incentive there's no in that's not going to make the incentive to go well if I have to sit on the property I can either sit on the property and possibly make some money or sit on the property and not it's you know no no offense CU I know Clay you know it's like say well I I can either get sod from property say well we're not going to allow sod production anymore on the sod Fields because we just don't like them peeling up sod and that's the way it goes and but good luck with that of course but I'm just saying it's it's just making a you know but it's just the same kind of thing and that well you can use the property or not it it's property it's you're you're not making it more productive for them to go vertical and they that property is owned to go vertical and get built and do stuff but the incentive isn't until the incentive is there till it makes economical sense to do that nobody's going to do it so it's just kind of hurting you to sit there and go well sit on the property and you're not allowed to make money or you're not allowed to go through this possibly unless you jump through as much steps as going vertical almost you have to jump through these steps to just allow some parking that's all I see well I the idea is that we're you're trying to move toward a a district that's more walking I mean is that is that the ideas that we're trying to the idea is to bring mix shoes to be dense to be walkable and to have hopefully structured parking to resolve the parking issue not to have cuz it's not it's not very big it's not very large the area right so if you consume surface parking and have one you know multif family building and surface parking there then it's not going to maybe you know it's not going to be the downtown that we want I can see that as a interim use M um but um so that was a discussion that why it landed in special exception if there will be another way to have an interim with the permissible so so to that it will be interim because of Economics uh as stepen said if you have the right to build vertical if you have the right to do structured parking if it's economic you'll do it if it makes Financial sense so there's also this big problem where trying to create a downtown but the biggest impediment to that is building the place around cars instead of people so maybe there's some properties along the edge let's say on Franklin Street or on Geneva Drive somebody's building something with intensity in the core and there's a guy on the edge that it's not quite time for my property but if but if uh we can park some cars here I can make a few bucks you know so I just view it as over time we don't have to give them deadlines the the economy is going to solve this problem and I think the issue that was and and David Hall probably knows better some something that was going on in Sanford if you look by their old Civic Center there's a city parking field right on first I think it's on First Street right and they they're entertaining proposals it had been under contract and it's not anymore to go vertical on that but the interim use for the city there's no special exception but there's Lots all over Sanford where where people were using it for parking and now they're building bu is that that people that have land or just they just might want to have parking that's that's your well why shouldn't they be able to so it's if you don't go through a special exception process you don't understand the burden but there's this list of findings LPA you you see them so you know what I'm talking about there's these list of things so the concern of it being interim it'll only be there as long long as it's economic but why shouldn't it be there for God's sakes there's surface parking lots still in downtown Orlando that are private you know so who knows what we're going to have I I just think it makes sense and we've heard from some people in any City and again I at you know there's it's if there's a need then it should be made easier it's like what the American Legion next to the high school I know they main uses the American Legion building but for high school kids they rent out and have you know kidss park there well there's a need so kids will park there this won't happen unless there's a need and then you go to any City and walk around and some places there's this lot that's this big and they may have little raised up three level or two Lev car parks that they're Park I don't foresee that happening here per se that we're going to have multi level at that point I'm sure the economics have already gotten to the point where they're going to be able to build but there may just be there's a building here it's requirement in these areas lot is how much parking is required in most of these area areas what's the parking requirements for most of these areas it's not it's depending on the use right it depends on the use and and it's not going to be so there may be a need for parking just like people complain about oito in the park that there's not enough parking I have to walk all the way from over the city parking so you start going out and expanding other areas it may be need is hey there's a little parking lot if I sit there and go listen I can make you know some money charging five bucks for people to park here I I don't see that that's a big problem because like I said it's why not I guess I guess that that that AR the argument I don't I don't know enough and you're right I haven't had to do this you know have to go through some sort of process to to get approved I just don't know that like my thought process about some guy charging a couple bucks on the thing is is is a real issue for me for me personally like I don't you know them them wanting to charge money for somebody to park on their land it's just it's just not a compelling issue like if there's something else that you're talking about there's another argument that I'm not seeing I I that might be so I just don't well I think the issue whe whether they're not I what's concerning is so you want to pie of lot and it's in an area that people want to park just to go to a restaurant or whatever today maybe you're charging $5 for the park there for a few hours okay but now the economic changes Mr Lopez can you talk into your microphone please it's it's worth more got to turn it on the back so it's worth more for them to to sell that property or to build something on it that's going to be more economical for that property owner and that's I think the argument or the discussion that we're having correct so uh I and you brought up a good example Sha of the BFW I mean they have a building there but they rent the I was on the school advisory Council when they were talking about building that getting the students to park on that lot they may decide you know 10 years from now that they're going to sell that property because it's worth more to them sold than have someone come and build in you know maybe a five-story office building who knows and I think that's the discussion that we're we're having now I I don't I guess I don't understand is it is a City Concern that we'll just end up with parking lots everywhere is so parking lot it's not a vibrant um use right so we do not want to have a downtown with a lot of parking lots right it would not happen either cuz parking lots if they are there there should be an intense use somewhere you know to to justify the parking lot but that's the I guess I see I see the point there but we then allow them to build an entire parking garage without having special ex because that's that's vertical right but it's still parking well I know it's the surface parking that consumes a lot of land and doesn't bring the vibrancy so vertical structure we may not need 10 parking garages all at the same time and it may make S no just bring one bring a good one that we are happy but but I can see where it makes sense to you know have a lot and then eventually build a parking garage like the city has done so it's the previous discussion landed on the special exception I have no problem opening it up again and seeing where the board feels and I just need to clarify are we talking about only the DC or are we talking about all the target areas because it's a special exception in all the areas in um downtown neighborhood CA see um Gateway West Marketplace and Mitch hammock do you know any do you know any way Council we did not bring that to um Council I I think we have mixed feelings in Council about surface parking for sure um I would not know what would be the result because we never brought it up so so just for everyone to understand a as you develop a city let's say you get some intense uses that that really make a lot of sense and maybe it's not economic for that developer and that location to do structured parking yet so what's a possible solution a possible solution is well we have this piece of land over here or this other owner has this piece of land over here so for a while let's just go do valet parking to over there so so I'm not looking at this as a way that con drains the viability of your developing downtown I'm looking at it as a way to enhance it to provide opportunity so I think to to the point um that Brian's making if you can build structured parking what's the difference let the economy do what it needs to do to get our downtown done and one of those things is to look at parking as a commodity not as a everybody must have their own little package of parking so the V FW is a great example I don't know they do meetings on weekends and Wednesday coffees or whatever they do the rest of that time their land is sitting there and and they're a charitable organization so let's find out a way to make a few bucks renting it to high school kids that's a peculiar situation in Ovito but we might have more the city itself built a surface parking lot without having to get a special exception in what's now yes it's p but it's it's kind of a downtown neighborhood area so my thought is this will happen hello in proximity but it should be allowed to happen in all those districts and I'm mostly thinking about downtown core Central Avenue downtown neighborhood as the spots I don't know that it makes sense in those other locations uh but I I just think we should take the the guard rails off and let the economy Thrive that that's the point I'm making here if you can go vertical with structured what what difference does it make that it surface if it's okay for the city on OVO Boulevard why isn't it okay for someone else somewhere else and when you're driving along you don't know that that's a separate distinct use necessarily it doesn't look any different from any other parking lot who cares and and so I don't know we how do we take a vote on a joint that's that's going to be the next thing is there any other discussion on it anyone else has anything to say Nicole I just wanted to add that the reason why it's um special Inception is in order to put a Time liit on it so if we're voting for it to be permiss permissible then it's on infinitum right yeah technically now I'm very loud that was my that was I just wanted to bring that up that it ended up that way because we were concerned about putting restri on it so it's not forever surface parking like if you see downtown you know go to Orlando that the amount of surface parking is diminishing as the economy as they're building more and more buildings there used to be a lot more spread out now they're fight now now the city's looking to build parking spaces because that parking spaces that used to exist that people used to have because it made sense it wasn't feasible or economical for whoever owned that property for what ever reason again what what makes sense to the person owning that property may not be the same for you and me it's just it's economically feasible for them just again I I bring up play in The Sod Fields because there's a value to the sod in doing that when that when the price do not do that anymore and go and build becomes greater that's the turnaround point you know it just doesn't make economical sense at some point that will turn and make real economic sense same kind of thing here why why restrict it why I go that well you're going to have an extra Park literally I can't receive more than an extra parking lot sitting somewhere that's available to be used because it isn't going to be rampant that it costs money to create parking lots and people are going to rampantly run out and go let's pay parking lots and do this all over the place but whatever proposal for my two cents worth I agree with Miss a shank I I think it that's something will control itself um I know we want special exception to have some control and uh time frame but but I I tend to come down with with Mr axman shank that that's going to solve itself so the proposal was to allow it as a permissible use in the downtown core and what was the other one C CA and DC I I really Central Avenue and dcca DN and downtown neighborhood so downtown core Central Avenue and downtown neighborhood as a permissible use so let's gain consensus if I would be in favor of that okay I'm in favor yes I'm in favor oh yes I'm in favor okay I'm in favor okay I agree I'm in favor wait a minut I'm sorry for the I am the naysayer I guess um we did it we left it as a special use for a good reason and I'm a a little bit concerned process-wise that here we are at 5 Minutes to Midnight in this process reopening an issue for no apparent good reason it's not in dispute that we've previously decided and I just have a problem with that so I'm a no Mr Jackson I'll go ahead and say a no also for the same reason we already hashed this out I think enough to move forward with it okay now I'm in agreement with it Okay no Okay clay I yes okay so we have a consensus to make it permissible so we can change it right now M and and just for future discussions we have a lot of items to discuss and um we will have to be more you know efficient with our time here okay so now I'm going to turn this section over to Dr Korea so she can go over some of the changes to um the Land Development code that has not been discussed with the boards either board so we're going to do this together so thank you so now what we going to do and and just to information for everybody at 7 something we're going to ask call order some pizza tonight cuz we we expect a long night but just to to to that nobody's hry right with the discussions but uh we're going to go over the um draft now the final draft so what we did we received the draft the same night we all we you all received it we distribute at the same time um and we have been correcting scous errors so acronyms that were not correct or sections they were not correct or making things consistent U with the language but we also are now reading the clean copy uh found some you know language that we would like to change so that we're going to go over that so page 18 is the first one the mitigative um techniques um the tree preservation the first one um before the the language says that um so these are mitig Mi mitigative techniques for deviations right that um developers would um request so one was um tree preservation before was 25% of the trees if you preserve um Heritage trees would count as U mitigation but now the 30% um is the requirement for um trees um 30 in or larger so we are changing 25 to 35 because it doesn't make sense to give the requirement as a mitigation so we had to increase the percentage so if you provide more than what is required yes it's a mitigation are we all in agreement with that okay the second change page 60 the minimum lot um use regulations page 21 we already corrected this was not accepted we discussed and we did not change so I'm I'm I'm I'm skipping that one page 60 minimum lot use regulations and if by any chance any of you by reading the code find any you know Corrections just let us know we probably already corrected but you know it's still time to um get the best draft possible to the public hearing so this one is R2 uh we changed the um side set back from 8 to 7 I think this was discussed but was never um reflected in the draft that we sent that the consultant sent so we caught that and we corrected that um page 64 the permissible uses and special exception exceptions so we had to make um changes in the language it's um where we talk about the M the the P the s we have to give kudos to Sam cuz Sam is our Navigator here and he he can navigate while five people are speaking at the same time why not right so we had to includ include the m so we are clarifying that P is for permissible special but m is only a permissible use under mixed use so that is just that a reference there page 73 um specific spe ific residential uses we um saw that there were no um so we have now um The Heights are per zoning um but we also have specific Heights for po typologies so we wanted to um make sure that you know town homes have a maximum for um um 45 ft multilex would be depending on the zoning so if it's a more you know intense use they could go higher if it's what what section is this this is section 4.5 height so you're adding a new we adding U um number seven so number seven number seven so this was uh we have the heights foro zoning but we also needed those there and of course there are also the target areas have different heights right so that is um for the zoning as well um then we have for parking there was language saying that um front loaded town homes are not permitted in the target areas that was the language that we received from from the consultant and we changed to say front loaded town homes are not permitted in the downtown core zoning district and are and are discouraged in all other target areas zoning districts because um we already have some projects going on that because of the site they small whatever they do not they cannot be um U re loaded we also changed and just this is just really clarification um the description of R1 and R1 um R1 a and R1 districts um the code um said that um the districts are single family residential districts that permit low to medium density development it does not cuz the complain doesn't allow so it's just low density when you're there I think there's a mistake right below that where you have R3 listed twice in C and D I think it's not supposed to be in C or is it it is cuz now we have um um it's allowed in two different F uses reads weird cuz it puts it in two places it's kind of weird because remember that we are allowing our three now in there's a reason there was a reason so we change that um to conform with that discussion that we had okay so so here we had to change the um r1a and R1 B uh which is C also to remove the medium it was high actually to remove the high it was saying that r1b r1c and R2 and R3 districts are designed for um high and they are for medium right is that correct okay so we change that should say duplex too yeah that's two two family residential is duplex got you yeah we could we can we can include that too yeah it's there already it's there okay yeah two family residential it's here page 82 there is language um on expired development agreements so there were um language there was language there for expiration it's p expired development agreements um we are saying to maintain beable Lots within the city um in the language before said upon expiration of a development agreement all development within expired development shall fall so we we move upon expiration so the new language I'm I'm going to read the new language to maintain beable Lots within the city all development within expired development agreement shall follow the standards of the approved development agree agreement until the city adopts a zoning District or approves another development agreement for the area so we have a bunch of expired development agreements there are in the limbo and we we just provided language there to give a a bridge so that you know the city can adopt later you know a zoning district for that area or you know mean meanwhile we still can um um provide the zoning right um standards for that area um I'll continue if someone has questions right um page 83 target areas um oh page 83 I just removed the title because the title was target areas in Downtown Development District so downtown is a target area so I removed that um uh title page 85 we removed the language talking about a1k on density and intensity um in the language um is to say in the target areas the maximum number of dwelling units or non-residential square footage allowable for a development shall be calculated by m multiplying the net buildable acreage by the residential density or applying the floor area ratio to the buildable acreage calculated the maximum buildable square footage consistent with the proper comprehensive future land use designation well this is true for every single zoning in the in the in the city so we put as a general we removed that and put it as a general in um went into the beginning of the the the article because that is how we calculate you know um density and intensity and that is not only for the target areas that is for all zoning districts so this is in the version we got and you're just telling us you did it or it's something you just did this is something that uh um it's not in the area that you have okay so you you moved it from where it now is we removed to the general to the general so it's not we did not just what section is the general just so I it's 4.1 43 I thought it was 4.1 isn't that the the top well we're in 4.13 general stand it's where we discussed the the the oh I have here cuz it looks like it's there now that's all it's there now but it's in the in the Target area it's not specific of the target area okay so we just we remove that I'm going to tell you it's where we talk about developable land because this is language if you read right this is so we we move to 4.1 4.1 is where we talk about net available AC coming out of 413 it's coming out of in 4.1 yes so we just changed that it's right here yeah so it's in the beginning of the chapter because this doesn't this I got you I got you you know goes to every zoning District um uh page 85 a um 1K Street Scapes I'm going to link read the language and I'm calling out what we changed here in cases where significant public improvements have been made to the streetcape within the past we change to 5 years of the development that makes compliance with the street streetcape requirements impracticable upon demonstration by the applicant and the required increase in sidewalk withd is two feet or less the L use administrator or design May Grant an exception to the prescribed streetscape standards however in all instance the sidewalk width shall not be last in five fees so we gave um um an extion two years before and you changed it to five to five years and we also Chang the development that makes compliance with the Street Cape requirements impracticable upon demonstration by the applicant and then um we also changed the LA the last sentence to say the land use administrator or design may also Grant exceptions to the location of the sidewalk in the tree Furnishing Zone in the case where significant public improvements have been made to the streetcape within the past 5 years so the if it's difficult to meet the street Scapes the land use administrator administrator will be able to um reduce the standards or flip the location of the Furnishing Zone in the in the sidewalk with as an exception so it's not going to be a deviation that was something that we added to the um Street straight Escape requirement in page 85 are we all okay with that page 86 um there was some language of um and what is that personal storage um a minimum I I'm having a blank here deor do you remember this one I think it was the first for should be utilized entirely for secondary use with the exception of a Lobby or office uh for the personal storage facility or maximum so we removed that sentence and we said a minimum of at least of least of at least right with 15% of the ground floor space and the minimum of 75% of the primary Street phas shall be reserved for functional space used by at least one additional principle use so there was two versions of of the Lang that was there for personal storage so we struck through one and kept the other is what we did oh now I now I can see the other face so we removed the the seven right mhm and we brought to C right correct yeah because there was conflicting um language m in C and S and that was it that was it so we removed C and we brought um seven to to be the C are we all okay with that page 87 target areas Jill there is um in industrial use industrial uses without stoor outdoor storage or display there was a weird um reference to the end of the sentence um that said in industrial uses without those storage or display are not permitted to expand in the in the target areas without a special exception use order or if approved as a light industrial use as part of a leave work development we remove as part of a leave work de envir uh development because it doesn't make sense this last sentence so um downtown uh core uh page 87 downtown core streetscape requirements we also changed here beginning at the back of the curb of curb a Furnishing Zone with minimum dimension of it was 5 ft and we put 7 ft followed by um a sidewalk with minimum dimension of 8 ft if an optional retail zone is provided with a minimum dimension of 5 ft um so sorry there is a there is a period here that doesn't show here but if an OP it's so this we had two different standards in two different areas it was not making sense the the a b and and C we're giving different um um maths so we clarify to say if you do not have a retail Zone it's 7 and 8 So it's 15 if you have if you provide um um if an option retail Pro zone is provided with a minimum dimension of 5 ft the Furnishing Zone minimum Dimension may be reduced to five followed by a sidewalk minimum dimension of six so that things now make more sense the Furnishing zone is required at a minimum 7 ft and shall include the following and then uh we remove um canopy over story cuz the code also keeps on having different names for the same thing and we need to consolidate so we call it now large trees any questions on that so just not to get into it tonight but the terminology I think tree Wells and structural soil and root areer systems is all screwed up that's not really the right language that's kind of mixing and matching let's not get into it tonight it's I don't think it changes anyone's intent okay but you guys work at one point going to confer with the kimly horn landscape architect and I don't know if that happened cuz this he's he's the one that gave us that language so if you have it really honestly the things we were talking about were soil cells which don't have structural soil in them that's two completely different things so I I don't think that makesense is that a general um um term that we could use well using structural soil is not the only way like what's going on on the Connector Road is actually soil cells without structural soil so where is it in the code let's resolve it right now cuz we can we can say or similar system right yeah we just say trees are required to be planted in tree Wells using structural soil with root barrier well so so in tree Wells using structural soil comma or well root area systems used for all of them it's it's it'ser system yeah but but you or any other similar root barrier system well no no a soil is a different thing so a tree well using structural soil is one thing using structural soil or a soil cell is what I would say right there that would cure it so let's do chal soil in a soil cell is that a consensus to clarifying there was nothing wrong with the root barrier system okay so or a soil cell and I would just say comma both to have root barrier systems you want it for both so comma and there you go okay good are we all good with that page 88 uh we changed also CU this section had Street setback Zone um wanting to meet side as as sidewalk so we removed those terms that we do not have um definition also tree zone if it's we calling Furnishing Zone Furnishing Zone it is so we changed that um so this one was was just making a um uh language consistent the same is page 88 for Central Avenue District we also change um canopy overstory trees to large trees that's how how we are we refer them in the code setback Zone Street setback Zone to sidewalk and the same thing for the downtown neighborhood in page 88 so looking at that c that doesn't exactly match what you just read to us it doesn't doesn't have the time frames or anything just pointing it out the C doesn't the modifications so before you had the fiveyear limits and all these things this is different I'm just saying if you did it one place you might want to do it somewhere else so go back this did not have the language over there to to begin with go down I'm sorry but I think we uh there was a comment to include that we talking about I don't care I'm just saying you just did the other Dance For You just read it to us which had years the final one yes right mhm so they they're inconsistent that was earlier we mentioned the twoe to 5e right but this has no time frames at all it has deviations whereas the other one was it's in the general I believe it should app so if it's in the general it then why even say this in CA is what I'm trying to understand I mean it's okay I'm just asking so we refer to 413 a 1K I I I could swear that we changed all those the one is the one is that reference the one she just read go 14 413 a1k okay never mind it points back to the same it yeah okay but we have to can you highlight deviations there because we have to remove deviation there okay it's not a deviation here so just highlight it okay highlight and then we can check tomorrow so we have a couple of those in the page 88 also removing existing Parkway strips to Furnishing zones so that we don't keep on calling the same thing different names um the and we add the minimum um Furnishing Zone shall be 5 ft in the downtown neighborhood there was no um width for the Furnishing zone so we included that um and we included the inde we included the language it's here with the modifications right yes so I have here that is that we made the change um um when recent public improvs have been installed L administrator Des may also Grant an exception mhm indeed okay me hammock we changed um the street Scapes for the page 89 for the Mitchell hammock Corridor um the street Scapes requirements for primary streets in is fa uh before said that sh comply with the standards of the DC zoning district and we move to DN because it should not be that you know intense in the in the requirements for the streetcape and then we change the reference to in page 91 uh we changed the um the medium um yeah it's high density uh residential because it was referring to have a balance of median density residential it's not m Corridor is also dense um area we Chang the name um everywhere to Gateway West and not Gateway District page 93 um space that contribute to the public realm in a we we put in improvements to the sidewalk in permanent public art uh this is a density intensity bonus and we remove this includes mural on thec side of a building in the view of the public we remove that so as long as you're there go up to table 4141 or maybe yeah keep going okay so so one of these tables I'm sorry one of them it's the next one 4142 you need to get rid of open and change it to public at the title you changed it everywhere else thank you o at this time that's yeah we keep on being creative right okay is that all over there yes okay page 93 for Green Building um in one it's B1 we also changed we added um that because we have a couple of certifications lead fgbc and we said or similar certification as accepted by the land use administrator so the actual name of the lead site thing and you do say site somewhere here is called sites s Tes all capitalized for the leads yeah so the Green Building Coalition does lead I think uh their site one is called sites s t s you might as well just say it because I think you tried to cover that this is for the Green Building this one right but if it's for S you're saying it they call it SES even for building no no for the Landen building certific it's called we added it to the cage version that we sent to them it for whatever reason it didn't track over yeah so there's there's so much quality control that we have to do in every version right but um so can someone make that note or or change over there okay um page 100 so now we are and in the Article Five does anybody have any comments so far to the article 4 do you have any I'm I'm saving them okay get done okay Article 5 um page 100 on Accessory units um do have you changed that Deborah this one yes I actually changed it on Accessory change so this one said accessory structure shall not exceed the primary structure size um and then we had to add except for accessory dwelling units CU they are accessory structures because they have their own limitation so we have to we have to change that one yeah it's the accept that you did not like right cuz um I was the one that wrote that and they said well except shows as if we giving more to the accessory you know uh dwelling unit but it's actually the accessory dwelling unit has more limitations so you cannot match the same size of the principal building so we'll have to reward that just highlight that but that is the intent so we are trying to be very transparent on everything that we are changing so that we have the okay from the board um in in page 100 D breezeways we changed um the title to breezeways connecting to structure and we change we we remove that language we remove some Lang we have to do some clean up here this is just to allow if you have an accessory structure um that connects to the uh to the house and and meets the principal structure what what kind of Breezeway we can um allow and this is to make it more flexible for people to have um additions in the house page 100 as well we changed a little bit the the table the format of the table 5.11 um this was just the formatting so it does doesn't change anything page 106 we have um on bed bed and breakfast we had limit on number of guest bedrooms so the language that we had initially is had no more than four guest bedro rooms shall be allowed within a a bed and breakfast establishment in residential professional Agricultural Center Avenue in downtown neighborhood or pug with the same underlying Zone in designation up to six guas rooms may be authoriz authorized with a special exception use permit we removed all that language and we increased um no more than six guest room guest bedrooms shall be allowed within a bed and Bre establishment and we have different some are special exceptions some are permiss permissible by right so those zoning districts that's the maximum in the city is six it was for a bed and breakfast it was four before just seems incredibly low whatever huh yeah it's not a hotel yeah it's not a Marriot it's a bed and I mean romantic place to go you ever been to Buford South Carolina like Mar that's not a Marriott it's probably got 20 or 30 room what if if how many come when there eight so that and breakfast is different so you're renting out these rooms you're also providing meals and it's a commercial business but it's allowed to go in residential areas so you you we don't want a hotel right we don't want that so if they're bigger they come in as a hotel where it's in a commercial area yeah it's it's in neighborhood upet Cather she can get and it's not a hey I know some people and they totally they start running out all their room we can put that definition bed and breakfast is not a marriage we can certainly include that page 106 um we had this air this it was it's about construction trailers um um sales office we had three sections talking about the same thing with different standards you know one after the other so we had to remove those and consolidate so it's a lot of um delici there and the new language it's just really a consolidation of uh um the standards um let me see what is the next one this was was long um page 135 intent and applicability um and that is uh article 8 now we are on architectural standards institutional use involving buildings with a footprint larger than 30,000 square ft in any District um that will require massing right or will be applicable for this use the city will only apply the massing standards designed for commercial and office use per table 8.21 and we change the table and we can go to the table as well to show um but in between uh we have the cuz the table is is is so in page 136 just before the table we added into the articulation elements that list the Arches arched forms that is already in the code but the the consultant removed so we are just adding it back it's one of the articulation elements that people can use and the the massing um at this table we just um made it more um clear that office and Commercial um this would be the after 10,000 square greater than 10,000 square ft up to 15,000 there will be one massing between 15 and um 29999 would be two and for um institutional it only applies greater than 30,000 and then we have three um um Beauty massing elements and if it's a very large building then we would require four uh massing elements so we we created that table over there are we all good so now we are in in article 12 minimum Lottery requirements um there was a request to make it more consistent um the number of um lotteries required per acreage for multifam office commercial so that's what we did with we adopted 12 um trees per acre for all of them and I think we increased the one for institutional is that right Deborah there was or we we reduced from 15 to 12 so why is mixed use slower just out of curiosity it was always lower oh it seems silly but whatever yeah Mix us was at 10 um office wait multif family and office were at 15 right I I mean I don't care I just if you're all good want to go to 12 we are fine too make it all consistent I have no problem with that be easy for mul yeah it's easier for us multi family is 12 I I see your point I would say I was going to say multi family is last not I me if you have the mix of two things that both require 12 you it seems I mean change right now 12 I don't know more trees is that what you just said yes yeah and and I'm recording it I'm recording it for future use you've seen my yard 12 it is Harris just doesn't think so thank you um okay now we are in um page 181 table 12. 4.1 required buffer yards we changed um the commercial to multifam from C2 to A2 yeah that was and that was Harry's request we did yeah why is not showing there so we we removed the indust the difference between the industrial uh light and heavy and we just have Industrial oh okay that's it um page 183 um perimeter landscape areas so it's not showing here what ex oh we removed um we removed um the the figure that we had I don't know if you can show the it's it's gone right it's gone it's gone so we had um it's for landscaped divider strips so that picture is going away that picture made no sense whatsoever okay yeah the picture end we removed that and we change the the so you're deleting stuff for Hank Porsche right every time we delete stuff we we we give him a toast we have a we have a bell that we kind of he's still here with us well it's true I mean um page 188 number of parking spaces we change for personal storage this was Al a suggestion of M Mr Axel and we adopted um his suggestion and that increased um uh it was really very low so the the standard was one space per employee with a minimum of two parking spaces um at the manager's office and we changed to one space for 10,000 ft of gross floor area and one space for two employees we removed the shift thing cuz it's hard for us to check shifts so we just I just gave you what they I know we we change that um the bicycle um parking I think we removed they did not see that right the the we just it's a new table so there's no changes I don't think we just show no didn't we remove the longterm and and yeah it's only one standard and it's one long stand it's an increase in bicycle parking apartment the consultant removed it okay so we already have that section um 15.2 tree protection remove removal and replacement what did we do here what did we do here oh there was language that was to be oh yes I found it here in the end had language that replacement uh let me read the whole sentence the value amount to be paid into the tree Bank shall be determined by the required tree calculations in the city trees replacement fee schedual and approved by city council we remove that approved by city council now the three replacement scheduled for violations um haris can you what is that one yeah so this schedule the way that the consultant had it um would have been extraordinarily punitive and so what we did is we created ratios that are pretty much the same as they are today um it's a little bit different because we do things by inch to inch for inch instead of by tree and so that's the M but the range is within the same range tolerance that we have today and so that's so that's reflected within the uh ratios that you see before you okay now so that's all I have in my list here um the other thing that I wanted to discuss can we go back to the bonus yeah the it's the fun public transportation programs so this is what we wanted to discuss it's page 94 it may be not exactly the same page just because we have been um what's the section it's the section it's the it's the last section of article four the bonus and it's the one that says has a d funding public transportation programs or onsite public transportation facilities so this one it gave um the list of possible um uh improvements or enhancements to get the bonus but did not give any calculation the only thing that has was in two said the applicant may receive up to 50% of the available bonus applied to to the net buildable area if the Improvement is associated with or an enhancement of the development but did not give you know if I give an enhanced Transit shelter what percentage do I get if I get um you know a parking share a parking for car share services with a MTI agreement with a provider how much of the bonus do I get so we did now this we put some percentage and and we wanted to discuss with you and if you all agree we can add a table so we have for the first one if you provide a parking for car um share services with a multi-year agreement with the provider you get 20% of the bonus provision of the private Bike Share program with a minimum 5year agreement with the provider 10% cover short-term B school parking shelter 1% so they have different values right in terms of you know what you so but it'd be 50% of those things based on who no I think it can get up to 50% so you could get you know a mix of those to get 50% oh so that's two separate things it's not 50% of 20% it's the maximum is 50% okay I got you and enhanced Transit shelter will be 2% extension of an existing or land bik trail up to 25% and Facilities to a trail head as determined by the land use administrator up to 20% but just if it's a Mobility enhancement or a mitigation you can't use it here you cannot use here yeah okay so I just wanted to know if we're all in agreement with that and if it is we could create a table that makes it more you know or we can just good sure I think it's pretty clear okay that's all we have so um before I turn to Mr Axel or whoever has any other comments for us so our plan is tonight to have the recommendation of both boards to the draft of course LPA will give the formal recommendation on Tuesday next week um if there is anything um if it's scrier Error between now and because every time we open the document we find different thing it's least that is it's Le you know stuff like that that the spelling checker doesn't get we are still correcting if it's scrier errors we can report to you but scribers errors are something that even after the ordinance is adopted we can do if there are any substantial changes we will um disclaim at the public hearing we don't expect those but if there are we will disclaim you know in the public hearing say you mean what disclaim what do you mean disclaim well we will bring to the board to the LPA this we are proposing this new change for the board to you know approve or not approve right we are not making any changes in the document at this point without the approval of the boards one other thing I want to add that um at the public hearings especially the city counc IL we would love for the both boards to come and support the code so that um city council knows that both they're going to see the recommendations but it would be good to have you in the audience to support it so we're going to open it up for any discussions any questions or comments on what was provided to you and any questions on what we discussed tonight so before I I I have some things but let me just ask this so so just some people know this cuz I've talked about it at ldcc so I'm on that committee but there's a separate Geneva Drive agreement that has me working together with the city so there's some things that I think are housekeeping I don't want to waste everyone's time with tonight so if there's an opportunity very soon to sit down with you guys and go over those things I can have a lot less to say tonight is that substantial substantial I'll bring up some are not so much if it's scrier era you can talk with us about it but if it's going to affect the code I would we would all prefer to have that I have some things that affect the code the rest of them I got a lot of chicken scratch here I won't bring up okay but if anyone else has stuff I'll let them go first I kind of talk enough go on so I think so there's some things we discussed at ldcc that didn't can I just interrupt I'm sorry I know have some people in the public who would like to also discuss some things I saw one hand go up but I want to make sure the boards are okay with um public comment cuz we have public comment in the beginning let the chair deter well we have public that wasn't here when we had our brother comment so we'll we'll reopen public comments and let the gentlemen make comment if wishes you can do it now do c coun it's a little easier to do it now you said said earlier I'm here do we have a do we have a microphone there multiple microphones hello Tom M Tom mcnamar I'm a I guess a stakeholder in the formerly Avenue B area which you're resoning to an R1 C and it came to my attention yesterday and that sounds great cuz there's an an issue out there with the small Lots but in the permissible use table he made the statement that you basically copied R2 to r1c and that doesn't appear to be the case when I looked at the table Sam had up earlier so if you can go that table if you copied it everything in the R2 column should be in the r uh 1 C column and it's not unless I can't see from over here I I don't know if we copied the R2 to r1c but we can take a look at it you can see it there single family is allowed in both yeah we can all see it and I see where cursor is in Multiplex to be the same that a new so this is a new multiplexes yeah Multiplex is a new use so Multiplex is different it allows up to eight dwelling units on a lot um the homes out the Lots out there are not big enough and that's why we came up with the RC zoning District cuz they're platted different correct but they can be combined into a big enough lot to be compliant well you could do that with a multif family you could say you could you could I just don't want to use l use lose use use on land that I own and you're down zoning it here okay so we'll take a look at that thanks so but let's go is that the only one M yeah well you can go down the list there's adult daycare bed and breakfast I I can't back in the cheap seats here if if you're hopping and you should just the same uses permissible us everything that's north of there it's on to now so we'll take a look at it can can you leave his R2 as R2 on the map I mean that solves this without changing the table well then you don't have they want to create a new zoning District cuz these lots are only 28 F wide and every time we want to build something we got to come in for a special exception and it takes extra time so what are you asking for so we can vote I would change it to an r2c and just say that the same uses are in there but there's another table where did you show me Sam the other day the permissive uses the text so that that was uh one of the notes down here but like I mentioned that was language that that didn't um didn't make sense as far as the okay but that's scroll up then to the r one-c that is right just leave that but the uses right you change the zoning District the minimum lot with setbacks and whatnot but the the use has changed as well so he's asking to mirror the R2 zoning District uses in the r1c so and and just to just to be clear the the two permissible uses in R2 that are not in r1c and the temporary residence should probably be in there um but it's basically the child care aside from a couple of these special exceptions and the multiplex which was a new which was a new use introduced with this code update so can discuss the multiplex and the and the child care if you just wanted all the special exceptions too don't want to lose any use so so does the staff have a problem if we just said we'd like to do what what he's asking just to mirror the R2 use and then on the zoning map I mean is there some problem Multiplex I cannot even imagine that would be possible fine that's a new use so it wouldn't be a mirror right yeah would so multile we would not be able to to Advocate with a lot size but the rest yes we can make sure that it matches the R2 okay that's fine cuz the intention was not really to down Zone what you're doing it'll save a lot of yeah the intention was not to ground down Zone at all do you want the committee to weigh in or no yes yeah I agree great it's our first person that ever spoke from the public so I did this stuff 10 years ago and I Mr Payton Mr Jackson yes yes yes okay so we'll do that now okay so it's done we did not include Multiplex but everything else is is matching okay so much easier than at Council that was the only one who had something to say from the public so we can go ahead and and get discussion with amongst both boards you ready yep we're ready okay section 27 flexibility and administration a so when the committee changed this we added the accepted provided in the LDC and the intent was that the consultant was going to come up with the exceptions and that part never really happened so I have a suggestion and it flies it flies so if we go on down to criteria for approval number three so so the mitigative techniques are intended to prevent adverse impacts there are some mitigations that have no adverse impacts but we've now changed ched the section 27A to say it's it's it's instead of there may be mitigation there shall be mitigation so I'd like there to be some way and we've talked about this once before to carve out an exception that if there's not adverse impacts to adjacent land use activities there should not be required mitigation because that's the whole purpose of it this actually came up at city council we had this discussion at city council um and one of the things that was discussed is that what we had in the past for um we used to call them variances and variances were hard um most people were denied variances because they couldn't meet the hardship language they couldn't meet that standard LPA you all see deviations today and so deviations um when we changed it from a variance to a deviation you no longer had to meet that extreme High standard of um hardship so when we changed it it was if you want because you can't meet the code and what we're doing today is we are reducing a lot of the standards so that it's easier um to meet the code and not a lot of requests for deviations so when we changed it from variants to deviations we said okay so it'll be easier but you need to provide some type of mitigation for this deviation and so what this is is you're going to have to provide mitigation and you all see it at the LPA U when they come for deviations especially for building permits um site plans they don't um you all see them some no you don't see them for site plans they go to council um but every deviation today is required to provide some type of mitigation now it used to say may in our code provide mitigation but the practice has always been shell provide um because it's we've made it easier it was Shaw in the should be shaw but the practice has always been Shaw because we always had required medication so the May was there but the practice was has always been that we um requested mitigation and if you don't require mitigation you're telling people they don't have to require they don't have to comply with the code you can do whatever you want to there would be no penalties you'll have to comply with the code you don't have to comply with the code so it removes them from having to comply with the code because they know they can go through the deviation process pay the application fee if there's one and get whatever you want so and just to clarify the language that we had except as provided in this LC in section 2.7 we have in the code a lot of um um sections that uh we give away out and I've just um today I I told about the streetcape for downtown core but those are no longer deviation so well except except as provided would be a deviation but the language of the code and he said we have never given that we have that we have for large trees we have for um if it's a smaller um width of we but that's an alternative not a deviation well that's what it means if we're deviating from the Cod standard let me just add that we this was brought up by Mr Axel at the city council meeting there was no interest in making any changes to this language so just let you know one other one thing I'd like to add is that in the section where we talk about shall each deviation shall have a mitigation we also give an out for uh deviations that are related to one another and so some where does it say that can you show us um yeah can you go down to 28 I was leaving we have the um Pizza huh p no I was be to bring keep on going down I'm sorry down down down down right there number ofation techniques if an application if an if an application requests multiple deviations each deviation shall be evaluated independently and mitigation technique shall be required for each request deviation or a category of related deviations and so in certain cases you know if you can't um provide a landscape island with a tree those are actually two deviations it's the dimensions of the landscape Island and it's also a large tree those are related to one another and so you could group those together and provide one mitigation instead of having to provide multiple mitigations for that particular and there's other ones that are of the variety whether it be the street width or something of that nature so just want to clarify that I'll withdraw it I I think in practice just make the comment the purpose of zoning in and of itself is to prot protect surrounding properties so the difficulty in drafting the code is you have to pick something and it doesn't apply in all cases so the idea in my view that someone must pay penants for not meeting an arbitrary thing that makes no sense for their property is challenging but with what Harris is pointing out and it's kind of hidden in this language if they will group them together it's not so bad we do that for architecture so architecture it says specifically to do that this is a little more but not only that what do we do and and people sometimes don't realize for instance if you provide something else already in the in the site plan or the code that we see as an enhancement we point that out and say this can be used as a mitigation we can use that as a mitigation this is something that they already providing so the idea of the the deviation or the mitigation is not to penalize anybody but it's to use that as an opportunity to enhance and improve the design design of the building or the design of the the site right so we if there but the codee has a lot of hidden Alternatives and um not hidden but embedded Alternatives and embedded um um different you know options to comply with the code and to provide variations to no deviations to the code can you go to the sign table what section is that we change that too right uh I maybe but I didn't see it um allowable sign types by zoning you have two tables I have page 212 I think okay so I I hope this is a mistake so C can you make it so we can see the districts okay so a lot of this had been fixed but the only place you really want Awning in copy signs is in your downtown core areas and they're not allowed it's kind of weird uh so that's typically what you see in a walkable area people are using their canopy over their business as signage and it should be allowed and it's just not even allowed at all and and I I hope that's a mistake but I think that the owning canopy signs should be permitted if they're permitted in all those other districts in all the core districts it it's kind of backwards I think well the on and the is permissible only where on so the sign is not on and the canopy is not the sign the sign goes on the on I I understand but prohibiting the awning or canopy sign where awning and canopies are proposed to be and are where you want them is is absurd I just don't understand we could there as well well right but this is about signs this is not about whether those things are permitted and that's where you want them in your walkable areas where you have shade where you have covered things people put signs on their awnings and so we're prohibiting them I think it's a mistake so I'm suggesting in all those districts we allow it it is it is permissible wherever the on yes it we're good with that everybody is everyone okay okay all right so this is just kind of a question for staff cuz I don't rightly understand so didn't we change specifically in the downtown and transition zones can I hear one thing yeah the projecting blad signs would that be the same there the same yes yes I'm sorry correct the same the same we changed that already but it's not uh it's but it's not changed so you make might have meant to but it didn't get changed I don't yeah like we have one table we have a projecting I think we have a separate one did we have a separate CU this is the code right this is inside the code so we changed the one and so we haven't but you fixed it in residential not non-residential looking at it U but aing and canaby wasn't fixed in either one no we no we we we just oh so we just haven't seen it gotcha okay so so this is a question for staff because let's say I just simply don't understand so in the downtown and transition zones the encouragement is to be mixed use within a building mhm so if I'm mixed use within a building which table am I using I don't understand because you have the sign so you have allowable sign by zoning non-residential standards and then residential standards and I guess I'm having trouble understanding the distinction if if you have a mixed use building what are you following I just don't know and they might not be very different different but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and you guys might have had a reason I don't get it I guess it really would depend on the use the mix use yeah the mix use so you would do the res the non-residential typically is on the bottom so you would have a non-residential signs the residential on top wouldn't have any well so you'll have an apartment complex sign and so forth and that brings up something you guys were going to fix if you look at table 14 the second table so the HOA temporary event signs I thought you were going to fix so an association can have a temporary event did you give a a table number uh 148 82 I think okay 1482 well yeah you just went pass is this big one yeah but it's the the residential one the residential one keep going keep going this is it all right so an HOA can have temporary events everywhere but the core areas I don't I don't understand why and I thought you guys were fixing that so people who live there should be able to have the sign you know I I I don't know what one of those is but yeah I want to have one I can you switch on the microphone it's oh thank you okay so the um HOA event sign is either your uh garage sale signs or um it's basically the residential sales garage sales signs so can an HOA have a meeting and have a temporary event sign I'm just trying to understand what it is so I'm looking at this saying why should residents that live in the downtown area have less rights than everyone else I don't I don't get it I don't I don't understand cuz that's where it's excluded it's every our town would can't have it is what you're saying like town homes that I live can't have a garage sale sign correct if I read that well yeah so so you're in a can you go to downtown TR neighborhood you can't have a signs right it's well in the core or in the downtown areas I mean we can include most probably you're going so if if you live in a building keep going right temporary the the the notice is are going to be inside the building if you're going to have a party or it's not going to be it's not going to be outside cuz it's dense it's it's it's over but not like like a town home like me that's sitting in the middle I'm I'm in those areas I can't have a garage sale sign okay go down to Temporary correct um I mean we've had garage sales yeah we've had garage sales every once in a while so so is it is it your core right yeah no he's uh neighborhood neighborhood I'm neighborhood your neighborhood yeah I'm neighborhood so let's see the the table I'm going to look at the sign language to just see but I'm fine it makes sense it's okay we can correct that and we can make a clarification if it's a mixed use how do you apply the table that yeah you just state that some like somewhere be in the footnote if it's a mixed use building use the commercial so I'm raising that I'm not having any of these events I just thought it was weird so but Steven's upset now cuz he wants to have a gra sale all right so in that same code section you you guys made a change I think is a little odd so projecting signs which is go back up to the table we'll have to take a look at that on my page 218 projecting signs yeah okay directory signs so horn uses the terminology different than we used to in the code no the the other one Sam that no that's right oh that's projecting so for us this was the blade sign before now it's the projecting sign well whatever you want to call it so you the hanging blade sign is the one that's horizontal yes that's let's say over to sidewalk or something right this is a sign on the side of the building the vertical yeah okay so in practice when you're you're closer to the street in an urban area the vertical sign makes an awful lot of sense so what happened here is the size was shrunk and it doesn't count toward your sign area but it is your sign so you see what I'm saying so it is an alternative for more visibility that's kind of more of an urban kind of flavor is to have this sign so it should be your allowable sign area and it accounts and it shouldn't be so limited that there's whatever you can have on the building it should be allowed to be so we increase to 4T the projecting well it says three we we increased to four but that's not the issue that I'm talking about it's the fact that you're limiting the size and saying it doesn't count it should count but it should be whatever size you're allowed for the building however you do it I'm sorry this one was three that we proposed 3x 8 um but you saying that should not count or counts what is no no no the size should not be so limited and it should count so you can look um I wish I brought the drawing but I'm working Dr fiser Who's in on on Lockwood is building in Winter Springs in their town center and it's very close to the street and the way the building situated you would not see the sign if it was just on the face of the building unless you were like standing right there in front of the building so it made sense to use all of his allowable sign area for this type of sign which they call Blade sign I I know it's different terminology here and it counted and you make it large and also up the street if people have been on 434 there's a senior set of senior apartments and they have two signs that are those types of signs so that's kind of a way in a downtown you kind of change it up and have visibility for sign signs because if you're walking along you won't see the sign unless you're staring right at the building if the building's tall you're not going to look up like this these are visible and useful it should be the maximum allowable size you can have and it should be count it's it's kind of weird this way so you're saying in of a wall sign they would use these signs and use their well the reason why was because it's mostly our multifamilies that have used these signs like Parkplace and the Ellington and so and they had additional wall signage especially if they had commercial uses so this is where these signs were typically used now you're suggesting that we can regular business can use these signs so whatever your sign allotment is it shouldn't matter what kind of sign you're doing it's based on the design the visibility and it kind of makes the city more interesting take off take off the restraints and make it count so they have an allowable sign area they're going to use it where they use it what if it's a big huge projecting sign of this nature but if it's a mix use building she's right we have to preserve also wall signage for the commercial at the ground level so so we have we have Park Place has that sign right how how much is thatand Park in right so do you know the sizes of those Park Place is pretty big because they did a deviation on theirs I remember it was 200% yes I remember the percent but I don't remember LGE the size so if it's single single use M only M it makes sense what I'll is the even in let's say you have a building and it's closer to the the public rway isn't there an issue with the building code requirements that say this sign has to be a certain height up now if you're not right up next to a sign you have no sense of how big it really is so you're 14 ft above the sidewalk with a 3x8 sign you can't even barely see the darn thing I'm just so not everything is the Ellington or whatever and I just gave you an example so he's doing cuz it's their Town Center a 10,000 square foot twostory Optometry building believe it or not and it has a lot of Road Frontage and it's a lot of big sign and it's a really big sign this wouldn't be allowed and I don't really see why well well the other thing is I I I get your point but isn't that your your point is they're going to have mixed uses so they can have different signage but why are you deciding how their sign should be allocated cuz that's kind of what you're saying is well that's what the code says right the code that's what I'm saying it's you but you're the know the code says well we're but you're saying the reason is we want to allow for this like well if yeah it's mixed use but they want to use it this way if they want to have one big one that says whatever and take away from those other you know whatever he's using the building for I I don't think again so what are we advertising signage for at the end of the day are we trying to reach vehicles or are we trying to reach pedestrians it's who are you to decide it's the no but I I think I think the vision of the city being a downtown area multimodal trying to be more pedestrian oriented right is that answer this is you're have outside you're 24 you're going to have other little you're going to have a frames you're going have just to clarify so what saying is that I I don't want to allocate anything or whatever is that the reason why we said that projection signs shall not count towards the maximum building sign area is that because in a mix building the ground floor areas and some business would not come if they don't have signage right because they want to they want to have signage so they and when you see alington is a mixed use so the ground floor they want to have whatever restaurant whatever Cafe whatever right and we want to allow that we also want the building to have it on so it's the Allington I think it makes sense to have both that is why in this case Quran suggested most probably that did not count so Mr Axel was making the point well let's that was one single use so for for that use made sense to say we're going to have a bigger sign I'll have all my allocation in one point so we have to think about both scenarios right I'm find increasing the size so that's why we can use the what the examples that we have already granted in the city to say what will be what the city will be comfortable cuz there there is really no right and wrong right it's whatever people are comfortable with so we can give think about the the the you know I think 3T in Pro in projecting I think it's a good not really very much I'm I'm not going to worry about it I'm working on a developers agreement deal with that stuff and what I'm working on but I'm just thinking of the example which was a single use on a small lot that wouldn't be allowed at sign that's allowed in Winter Springs that's going to look really good that wouldn't be allowed here and I didn't understand why so we we can re revise the signs this works in your favor CU they'll still have an allotment for well sign and still have an allotment for this type of signs so they have more square footage they can always devate this sign well so what I'm saying is don't tell people what size and what sign they have they have an allotment they use it how they use it okay so these types of signs 24 Square ft if you're right smack in front of it and it's next to you looks big if it's way up on the side of the building you can't barely see that thing I'm just telling You In This Storm I think it was the Franklin Street sign landed on the ground and and some uh locally famous person took a snapshot of herself next to it and and saw how huge it was when you're right next to it so also you don't stick the sign against the building so you have it a few inches out we're we're telling people you can have a sign but no one can see it and that's all it can be and then we're saying it doesn't count well you're making it small and saying it doesn't count let it be whatever size they want it to be and it counts you you don't realize that it is actually now you're taking the benefit away from somebody else that could have a wall sign plus that sign you're taking away the benefit from them so there's two ways to look at it somebody else can choose to have both signs and get extra square footage as well as somebody could just choose to have the hanging the projecting sign and just do a deviation and make it Greater and still have an allowance for wall signage if they choose to all right so let me just go back to wall sign and the way it's written now someone can have this wall sign not to exceed 200 square ft but if they want to take that wall sign and just flip it on an angle and attach it to the side of the building it can only be 24 ft it makes no sense I hear what you're saying and you're talking about that being an additional sign to the other signs I'm saying well what if it's your sign and think about historically how this was used a lot was was movie theaters all the time had vertical signs and and I'm just saying right now we're going to create this downtown walkable mixed use area and prohibit the most appropriate kind of sign because that's what we're doing it's not prohibited it it's not large enough to be of use and it's not allowed to be their main sign just for discussion sake what is large enough what's a Max cap on the large enough but not just infinite the exact same size as your allowable signage you use it however you desire he looking for the 2 square ft per building front foot yeah yeah which I mean so at one point in time you're advertising for the airplanes and and that's that's kind of my point signage has a direction it's directed towards pedestrians it's directed towards vehicles or I mean some people make crop uh crop signs and and th those are directed towards people that are in air in the air you're missing my point I believe I'm I'm being a little silly just for you know making a point so if a building can have a 200 200t of wall sign why can't it have 200 foot of this sign instead I I just don't get it because be well 100 100 this way or that way I I I I I see Dave's point now and I I agree with them just let them choose I I know you you feel it's taking away You're it's a benefit to get this and I don't I agree with you that's a nice little benefit you can get 24 square feet for free it's a 24 squ foot bonus that you can use but it's also well if you wanted to do if you wanted to do what's already out there a 200% deviation you have to go through the process of deviation I'm just saying is right now we're planning for a request that we don't have yet right now we don't really have a request for these signs other than on the M except that there's a 200% de you have to go through the deviation process that again those are costs those are time those are things you have to do if it's it's like saying you have a choice at the store or you have to go to three other stores to get something if you're at One supermarket and you have everything you want there that's one way that's but if you have to go to three different different supermarkets well it's there but you have to go do that you have so I think my suggestion is that we can um go back and see what are the allowances that we already provided and make a a a a suggestion so so one of the ways to do this I didn't understand what what you were doing with this now I do okay so this is in your view an extra sign for the multif family that's above the ground floor region okay maybe there's a different circumstance so it can be you're allowed to sign up to 204 ft that doesn't count toward the allotment or you can have one up to any size you want but it comes out of your allotment it's that simple and Harris you're shaking your head but this is how cities are built I I mean there are plenty other cities it's it's okay you know if the board votes for it that's fine but there are plenty of other cities that put Maxes on on signs because because of what I'm talking about signage is not Max signage or infinite signage let me just make sure cuz I want to make sure we're not going to have any issues with the ride of way and I think as long as um Karan I'm sorry I want to make sure we're not going to have any issues with the right of way if we enlarge the sign well the sign goes vertical right it goes vertical already prohibited from being over the RightWay I just want to make sure and it's already there's already building code stuff about it too yeah but you you don't allow stuff over over the RightWay in here already right so all I'm suggesting and we don't have to write the language tonight I think we trust the staff is if somebody chooses for their building their businesses to have the vertical sign let them have the vertical sign well how about is give me 8 ft I'm give me 24 Square ft and if they want above that they can take away from their other signage to go up that's all it costs them their 250 or whatever they're allowed just take it off of what there they want to go a bigger blade let them go a bigger blade it just costs then it starts costing them everything above 24 Square ft costs them it's an easy thing that's all how does the rest of the board feel about this get consensus do you have something that you have a vision for this I'm just trying to so you have buildings close to the street and to Harris's point you want walkability so if there's a wall sign and and let's say you have for example an urban form downtown grer which a lot of people have yes uh you you go to a city and they have a small form Publix which I've seen in in West Palm okay or you have a Whole Foods or something and attached either on the front or on the corner of the building they've got their big sign and it it's this type of sign and that's instead of the wall signs that you won't really necessarily see also your ground floor in these types of retail environments might be 20t tall and and not 10 or 12 and so the sign's way up there if it's a wall sign you're like like this if it's this type of sign you're walking down the street and you see it is this also something to fill the retail spaces that would be attractive to a future occupant of that space is that something that is desired by those so want to occupy the spaces it in a lot of urban areas your your visibility to the sign that's taller on the building you're not going to see it and to Harris's point maybe the person in the car if they're not driving fast might see it mhm but you're trying to do this for pedestrians and this is they can see it from 100 ft away let's say com if it's if it's on the front of the building you only see it when you're right there if you're looking up at it so this is the idea of give people this opportunity to do this and the particular circumstance in Winter Springs Town Center so everyone understands where this property is there's a McDonald's at t Road at the corner that's been there for eternity yes this is the lot just north of it so the sign on the front of the building which they want right up against the sidewalk and I think we're like just a couple feet back stepen seen itti building um you know there no one would have ever seen his sign no so now when you turn on to tus Willer road going north or you're walking there it is from almost all angles except right smack in front of it and nobody ever stands still right smack in front of a sign forever so this just it's just how things may be done and you think about how far out it goes it's vertical like that like like they're showing the words go up and down so the simple fix would be to remove the additional square footage of signage that they would get for these projecting sign and just let them have either a w sign or a projecting sign for the square footage what St said is they can have 24 Square ft for free if they go above that it comes from their lot period if they go above that 24 if they want 24t then take it off their their allotment that they have or or over 24 it it comes off of their aot right up to 24 free is what you were trying to do don't take it away well we're going to take it away now we're just going to give them the option of either the wall sign or the projecting sign they're not going to have both now no no they have a square footage they use square footage why couldn't they use it as the way they want in order to kind of meet in the middle would it make sense to increase the proportion of the sign as we add floors to the building not necessarily because it's based on I think now the linear Frontage right yeah so all I'm saying is you have an allotment use it however you want you have a projecting sign and a wall sign you have all a projecting sign you do don't still have so the interesting thing about a city is I think we took care of that earlier Deborah because we did suggest increasing the wall signage because we have removed the canopy and on sign which usually give them an extra square footage so we already suggested increasing the wall sign allotment and then just leave it as is which this is just one of the building sign because the category now is building signs so they can choose either one of these are multiple signs or multiple with the same allotment yeah just it's all one it's just a building sign so we don't give extra for single use makes sense not for mix us right sure it does it does not this this sign is not mix is mix if you have again Whole Foods or something takes the whole that ground floor and then and then you have apartments above isn't that mixed use mhm so you have a whole food sign coming this way and then welcome to the beler beler apartments that way that's why we saying that we need to to allow the two cuz there we need to allow you know so that so Whole Food we could not use all the allotment that's up to that building owner and that building developer well each each for us each commercial unit will get their own wall signage separately and they can also get their own projecting sign right if they choose to yes uniform if we allow it to be different sizes so it uniform is Bland and boring so let it and it's bland and boring it is uniform is so but it's okay Bor and too much signage is too much we not more saying they give the same amount of signage as this it's 250 squ whatever they that's what they get whether it's 2.5 2.5 per building fontage maximum 250 use any form of these building signs thank you and you can limit one blade sign if you want say limit one blade sign that you're only one vertical sign and the rest are all storefront signs any combination any combination but you could say and limit one if you only want one blade sign and say one blade sign that's it one vertical and if you're going to call it projecting sign call it projecting sign throughout or not blade cuz the other place it said blade sign so the senior apartments the seavoy I think it's called right south side of 434 right right uh east of tus Road it's got two they're not huge no no but they're good size though but again if you want to again say it's it's only one vertical then one vertical sign and then the rest are store let them use it the way they want personally whatever so they're all under the building sign are we good it's all a part of building sign building signs include wall awning canopy projecting blade sign so no additional we just increase the one square footage yeah so what is there a consensus for that for combination yeah yeah for that we we don't know the amount yet right no it's already in there yeah 2.5 for yeah so we would have to remove that language that says projecting signs shall not count towards the maximum building sign part of it we will remove that okay so there's consensus Mr Payton the only the only question I have on this is now aren't we every person that comes along they want to have their sign be bigger than the next person so I I think the city want to have it be unifor I I heard you say uniformity is boring um I think that we don't want to be like Las Vegas and everybody's next sign is bigger than the next one I I'm kind of on the idea that maybe 24 square feet is kind of small and maybe they might come in for a deviation like the other one did but I'm not a fan of saying use all your sign size to stick out on the side of a but they're already allowed the sign yeah but those are flat against the building not sticking out so I I don't understand the problem I don't understand I don't understand why we're discussing this to be honest I would rather have it be like that I I think the way it's done is fine you one person uses all their allotment for the you know the side there and then somebody else uses just a minimal same building and their sign never gets seen exactly because it's blocked and then that could happen understand where Bruce is coming from but that's whoever whoever owns the building makes that decision listen you know whoever owns building makes that decision that's their that's their building to say it happens everywhere you go out in front of any Supermarket or any storefront that has you know all the limited signs out one guy's got a sign this big and that big and this then you're going to get so wonder if you have somebody there that's cuckoo for Coco Puffs that says hey do whatever you want I own the building so that's what so that's when you go back to code saying no you can't they already have a limit it's already in there no no no but miss what Miss Bartley was saying is that each tenant can get one they don't have to fight for other tenants to get this sign well it's based on their front footage it is it's based on the FR but if we say that you can get one or you can get however many you want and it counts towards that allotment they're going to be fighting for um that sign allowance but but they do that again every place you go to that's the fight is I want to be on the board and and I want to be on the board and be the biggest one on the board and have the biggest slot on the board yeah yeah yeah that goes on now this language protect what's the difference I'm going I don't understand the difference you so it'll happen in a building that's somebody a commercial M building that's somebody else this says that I don't have to fight for this projecting sign so I think you're now you don't have to fight for the project you have a mixed use building Deborah so Harris you have a mixed use building you were just talking to me you just he's the one that keeps telling me I'm wrong so so I just wanted to get your attention on on the ground floor or maybe two floors of this building let's just use the Whole Foods example okay it's got a chunk of this building its sign alotment is based on its front footage of of the road Frontage right isn't that what it's based on not the whole building it's this tenant this use in this building has this linear Frontage that's uh for a freestanding sign for the building for the wall sign is the unit it's the building of that it's the unit it's the linear so this is a unit in the building that has a length and gets a square footage Bas yes okay so all I'm saying is whatever that unit square footage is they use it how they want now the building owner has to agree obviously okay but it's no different from we're so used to single or twostory retail structures that we're not thinking about these bigger things um and we're used to Suburbia so I'm not suggesting acoss from across from food factory mixed juice correct that's across from food factory that's a mixed juice right they got they got have retail so every one of those little guys gets a signage yeah right now their sign's not going to be so currently they could get their front sign could they get that 8 by 24 also they can with this code every one of them every one of those guys the town home you're talking about the town the town this is not that's not a mix MI it's a mixed use it's a mixed use but it's town home they would not get those not commercial the bottom is commercial they will have what we used to call the projection signs that now they call the the blade signs which are the small ones that go perpendicular to the building now sign and let me tell you as an urbn creature that I am that lived my whole life in large cities me too very um can be a pollution can be a visual pollution right or you know so so we have to have some standards and and sometimes you know the standard may be boring for some but gives that kind of you know that kind of design you know you're if everybody can put up this everybody on the everybody that has a front face put that sign up along with their so if I got a building that has six tenants on the bottom I can have six of those sitting up there same size right but that's not that's pollution to me the same way you're saying well that could be I look at that and go I don't want to see six of them sitting up there along with their facing one I don't want to see six of those 8 by 24s just as much as if I'd rather see one big one by whoever owns the building and say I'm I'm doing my apartment building that's above it they own it the seavo owns the apartment building above it that's who gets the big one just like naming rights to anybody somebody buying that sign and naming rights of that sign and then you get your seven each seven people get their little signage that goes I didn't hear anyone say limit the number of signs except for you cuz I think everyone else is like let them choose which sign they want to get so in terms of pollution if we were to say one sign whatever size as long as they meet um yeah I'm saying one blade put a limit to the so I I would say also the vertical one one maximum twoo if they are the same Ma for what building why side I'd say building side not my proposal this is because we you need put one in the center or you know that counts as both sides so so kurran made a suggestion and and I agree with it and that's you have an allotment based on front footage right you use it how you use it no but it cannot have you cannot have agreed with that so if you're talking about pollution that's going to be pollution that's going to be pollu why you're the projection this is worst potion in my mind having the ability to have eight if I got eight ten no they are small ones so 24 ft 8 by 8 by3 is not small no no no no no they cannot have8 by by they cannot have those the the town homes cannot have those that's Town Homes I'm saying just what we're talking about for this if I got an 8 unit that eight units in there they eight of these no they could not have eight non residential they can not residential no they could not mixed juice I'm saying in a mix not in the not in that no they could not have that's that's what we was saying why not because we we need to have limitation for the number of those big signs there there's a limitation on that one right now do you remember there being a limitation I don't remember there being we're looking at this the um projecting signs yes no because they were we we did not have a standard so there's no limitation of the code I'm reading it it doesn't put a limitation on anywhere that's I'm trying to tell you is going so if I got eight unit so we should have a limitation that's what he's saying we should have a limitation absolutely I agree with you yes these are large signs these are signs that are supposed to be for the building I'm getting push back on a big BL I'm going that's going to be the the Marquee sign that somebody's going to sell that's your naming right sign that whoever is going to want to Pony up to build the sign first of all and pay for it they're going to get the naming rights to it and that's going to be it I don't want to see seven of those 8 by 24 signs okay that's so let's go around so what I'm hearing now is limit the number of um projecting signs to one per building per side per per projection or one the corner yeah side one projection side or one the center you know if you put it on the corner point however you word that if you can the center and can and not limit the square footage except for the maximum allowable build building sign is how does can I get a consensus on this the projection is the light on the building no the projection sign that sign that's how it can be bigger than the 24 are we going to call those blade or projection it's projection okay projection one per building now one per side one per side it has one per side one in the Cornerstone but we have to have a maximum too the maximum would be the effective maximum would be we have 200 ft yeah yeah nut to me it's the maximum allowed for the building limit it to 200 ft the maximum for the build so we cannot have a maximum of 200 ft for why 80 Square ft is a huge sign huge so they have aot projection let's be practical here how tall is this building they're not putting it right against the building they're they're not going to use building their entire allotment I mean come on it it's not going to that's why we going to give the guid we have to four stor it's 40 by3 we can we going to come up with something so what do the bo they still have to leave room for something you know for some you're not taking 120 counts towards the maximum 250 if they're allowed 250 they then got they're going to have some other you know just like the the apartments do you know they all have some other signage they're not just going to use that let's hear from LPA I would agree with yeah that's why I also suggested increasing the signage size as the floor go up if we're going to just have one sign I agree with what Dave was saying it would make sense to have a bigger one if the the building is taller so that it stands out more I don't want a bunch of these projection signs you know so I agree with Mr shank on having one that makes sense you li to dep limit to 3 feet or 4 feet and just say you know whatever the height at the building is they can if that's what they want to use that's hun what do you what's your so what's the offer now so it's one sign for building side one sign per building side no limitation on well the limitation on the maximum size it's going to be based on the building square footage now I just heard Dr Korea say limit the number of um projecting signs on the building but I didn't hear anyone else we did one per one per side but she's saying for a maximum what's that for a maximum of I I think they got three sides they got they got three sides for a maximum of three so no whatever if they want to put one on the back side they're going to waste their time and effort I don't know what they're doing so what if you have like uh five retail individual places to rent each store doesn't get their own with this new proposal with that proposal they would yeah so with the new proposal if only one sign per side building side and that would just be the name of the building right because you would we wouldn't we wouldn't control us on the sign okay could be the name of the maybe like bring up the Ellington yeah don't don't you think it's a little odd that each retailer doesn't get to have their own sign yeah each retailer would have their own sign CU if you look at the Strand they have that sign that says Strand and each retailer have their own individ your wall sign W with the coffee shop right it do I I'm good with no but I'm not going to bring up more tonight I I'll deal with you with the coffee shop right below great as well you're okay with the proposal Mr Lopez you're okay with the proposal Mr coming you're okay you're okay okay okay Nicole is Mr Archie clay you're okay yeah okay okay all right so we have limited to one um projecting sign per per building side or or one or in the center one in the center one of those in the center of the building like the corner somewhere a corner where on the building most of them are in the corner actually and it counts for the building isn't but some of them are right okay and it counts for the buildings Griffin it counts for the building square footage but then the individual tenants can have their own wall signage whatever's left yeah it counts okay and if you guys want to limit to 3 or 4 feet whatever the out go crazy that to me is we are also to use the examples that we have here to see what is the the Ellington look beautiful and it's right above the coffee shop sign so yes okay so the next does anyone else have any um Mr Axel I'm numb so we just we ordered pizza pizza is coming to finalize if it's not if it's not going to be a recess it's going to be the take it home with you piz so does anyone else have any questions about the Land Development code is okay so what we need now Dave are you sure you don't have any other I think he has he has you have more speak speak for speak now that's right or forever hold your peace so I was going to say that because we are going to say that everybody here is coauthor to this eldy right so we all Beauty the same way as we are right to the Cod so you be bassadors you be the bassadors of the Cod so we'll give give Dave some a little extra including Mr AO and he's not going to use the term weird or to refer to the code anymore cuz he's a co-author of the code right so there's something missing okay what's that and it's pretty easy to fix okay okay so Sam can you pull up the existing code section 64m 3.7 six we don't have six anymore no this is the old the old code oh showing us that it's missing there's a lot of stuff in there miss this one oh it took me a while to find it again today because it's in a weird place after all the prohibited plants something like that all right so just so everyone understands oh today in Ovito in the park there's an exception from the noise standards of the code of ordinances for entertainment uses in the village Corp okay the Eva Drive realignment agreement provided that the same exception will exist in the code for that area which they're now both called downtown core but it's not in the code now this is weird because section 82 disappeared but this section was never fixed so that part of it makes no sense so the requirements of the noise regulations which are in the code of ordinance don't apply to entertainment uses in the in the downtown core should be language that's in the code according to so can you copy that language um except the 82 the 82 we we can change there but we can copy this language and put in the in the it's going to be in the downtown core article the the oo on the park has an Amphitheater so it had that weird language we're going to remove that so I'm I'm Teresa was pressing me to come up with something else I was just going to take care of this no what do we want I want any any any suggestion to have the approval of the board so that the public hearing is going to be a smooth process with whatever new stuff scooters are illegal totally no scooters are allowed anywhere no scooter res no scooters no scooters no legal everywhere so I said no scooters allowed anywhere and golf carts I get killed on so we're going to put in the general standard somewhere I don't think everyone wants to do that anywhere but the core it's only the core has to be in the core so find I don't think want RI roaring parties now you guys may remember it's going to be below this fix was temporarily made for the historic downtown Now's the Time and the only person opposed to it I think was Emma and she bought the only property that that it would have benefited that she made it removed from so just just I don't know if everyone noticed that that was she bought the old schoolhouse under so she bought the only property that would be precluded because it was next to residential from having the noise exception in the current Cas go it before Street Network she had no idea I put in there but she hasn't had a party yet with loud music of ordinance right LTC it's do you want that the LDC doesn't have ite we'll find the section it's arle five or six or something I it's section section yeah would we consider it Mitchell hammock blah blah blah called yes yeah Mitchell hammock area should go yeah yeah is that a recommendation I I believe that's a recommendation hammock MIT hammock clay can you speak for yourself what he didn't want to see self serving no I brought it to him I said don't you want this here Mississippi I can't speak I would I would be worried about this is already was already in the code and this was always so the downtown core you know the north downtown core should match but Mitch hamic is a long area and I would be well it's such a big area though that's where I think it would fit is you could facing things different way it's as big as it's probably as big an area as as oo in the park in reality in terms we have we would have to see the implication of that for I know there's not much um so the recommendation we bars there come on espe such a number well the recommendation from Mr was to include it into the Mitchell hammock yeah Mitchell hammock yeah so right is this like the bars we want to get a consensus that's for the bars the bar bars there why we not we want to get a consensus clay we can only do this if the the noise ordinance in the Mitchell Hamet Corridor absolutely yeah absolutely absolutely okay so we'll put the lead of distinguished chel woman side again I brought it up I'm like why aren't you asking for this you want did you have anything else yes okay you ordered pizza go home did you did you get beard I should have got be that would been great beard one section 83 as fenestration I've already finra we changed that didn't we we didn't address enough no we did you see the last last one let the finra that's his class one that we did now let was good it's it's ministration yes are you raising me are you calling is this poker3 finra okay here we are all right so three four five and six all all have issues so so just so I can explain so go back to three so the 20% and the 15% makes some sense there for the ground floors but when you get above a certain height in these buildings the importance of the windows decrease and and to to to give you a sense of this so on a streetcape where you can see it and a certain visibility above that maybe three stories the amount of Windows is visible to you and it it I think the staff would agree you're trying to bring the ground floor alive with some visibility into the space a little less into multif family so when you look at mixed use and office and Commercial the percentage is high higher which makes sense but if these buildings can be eight stories by right in certain areas and 12 stories with bonuses that percentage up higher is just money down a drain it doesn't really do anything for anybody it doesn't make sense so my suggestion and I went back and forth with staff a little on this and they changed the secondary facades I think is what you did Teresa correct yeah and it's also consistent with what we had in the code previous right but today we don't have 8 and 12 8 to 12 story buildings so that's really the distinction here is as you get above a certain height this percentage should be lower no absolutely not it should be the same up from the the ground floor in the upper floors have should have different but we do not decrease the number of of uh of Windows in in a multif family building if you go higher all all those Skys the percentage is too high I'm just telling you so I think it makes sense to match the multif family so the mix use the 20% the upper and I and I was going to check mine because I think I changed here to match the 15% for the upper fors well that's all I was getting at is is now it's 20 it should be 15 I agree with that cuz it should be multi that's that's where I'm getting at now when you when you go to um this is also a little screwy um so again in the upper floors no not mtiv no no no no mix multifamilies 2015 mix use 15 so yeah that second yeah that one that one's 15% yeah 15 15 okay so so let's think about this for a second so technically we're trying with the architectural standards to regulate the form of the building what's inside it should not matter as much now I agree when we get down to office and Commercial uses you want more visibility into the space you're trying to create a little more action but what is the building if multif family is in it and where are the windows it's a little confusing to me how we're applying this isn't the building potentially mixed use so what are you applying the multif family the mixed use the office I don't rightly understand I'm sorry what what did you understand okay so let's say you have a building it's mixed use MH and we have this multif family says 20% mixed use says 30% office scroll on down what does it say office says 30% well isn't it one building you're the ground floor so if it's mixed use then it's it's whatever okay but I don't know that it says that mix shes mix no no no so so if it's single it's a multif family single use then it's 20% on the ground floor and um so what the building is the building exactly okay so on this ground floor where you have 30% can can you go to that one for which one office office so the upper facades I think should be lower and should be the same for all of them because it doesn't matter as much so who cares what it is do you understand what I'm saying so you just said 15 15% on the upper stories for mix use and it doesn't have anything secondary story number five can you get the microphone please um number five you have it they never finished it completely cuz your secondary upper floors did not have any regulations so so that's my point so Teresa I think what you were suggesting is 15% on upper floors and one thing to just throw out out there so from the perspective of the human on the ground you might want to Define where to those Upper Floor start is it a fourth floor you understand what I'm saying no it's a the second floor up so so okay so I'm saying where you want the reduction might be higher than just the second floor just just up up to you guys well if it's multi that's an issue right because usually they are they follow the same floor plans right so if you have a ground floor and you have second floor third floor the same the same you know I'm fine with you changing it at the second floor I was just suggesting if you have a right so if I have for instance um two stories or commercial use that I want more what I'm hearing is you're changing above the first floor to 15% on all is that what you said uh well this is this is all commercial right so this bu building is mix use this one this one that we talking about it was 30% you know um on the ground level and 20 so usually in in office you have more more windows all right so I'm done with that okay so you you changed upper level floors for mix use some multi family because they will be residential right I don't mul let's just think about this for a second you have a multi-story parking garage why does it have more fenestration than a multif family building I don't get it because it's the opening so one is because you need exhaustion right from the Cars so it's the open so in in um fenestration it's any openings count as as so so just hear me out for a second so you have a parking garage and let's say it fronts on the road it's adjacent to this multif family use and you architecturally integrate it yet you're required more fenestration than the multi family do you understand but it's aistra doesn't have to be a window or door it could just be an opening but but okay different way if it's wrapped it doesn't count there is no facade right the garage front the street you want it to look better MH it's a deviation because you're going to have the same fenestration per potentially as the multif family or the office or the mixed use can I can I just interrupt really quickly we have pizza here so as we're talking you can get up and get your pizza and sit down and eat feel free to do that why would be deviation though I'm so what I think you guys are envisioning is the typical herban parking garage with a a a certain height and then there's an opening right yeah you have a comparon to building an architecturally integrated parking garage that matches your mixed use building that's ugly but but what I'm saying here is if you match the fenestration pattern of your mixed use area or your office area or your multif family you must now deviate and mitigate so that's what I'm trying to to get deal with here because what if you don't want this ugly garage build and you're going to build a nice one you're being told to be be at that same level which is 15% I'll tell you how how we would treat that we would treat that as the same building if you know so we would if that would be the case we would treat that not as a separate building right cuz if it's associ with the same build that's a mixed use building we would treat differently right now just garages need more open because of exhaustion too of the cars every every every it's all um electric cars that are that are burning batteries there's ways around that too but it costs a lot of money to put ventilation into I understand Pizza no no no can't you scrape off the good stuff Dave do you want to go to your next top so so the struggle is I left my glasses elsewhere and it's hard for me to read my own notes oh great wow go Dave go Dave he's going to keep him oh that's better I'm just going to flip through and see what what you think is Major that's that's how I'm supposed to do this right yes what's not a scrier era okay I got one okay let everyone get their Pizza okay Pizza so this is an LDC party pizza party more this is not get my charger okay Dave now that you have your glasses someone else's glasses do you want to get started you want to finish I'm ready you're ready go ahead so Article 4 the I guess it's a table without a number the the heights oh I'm sorry it's a continuation of table 421 on the next page for target areas you yeah okay okay so at some point we were talking about stories and it's been converted to feat and and I'm suggesting the feet are not enough and I shared with the staff some actual buildings in downtown Orlando but I I think we're constraining things a little too tight here so for example on a large mixed use building with ground floor retail you absolutely don't want less than 14t clearance side and even that's not very much so you might have a first floor that's 20 and then in between the two floors for services and structure you have typically 2 ft so if you have luxury apartments they might have 10ft ceilings the 10t ceilings also you're going to have air conditioning and structure and that's another 2 feet so you might have a ground floor that's 22 ft 24 ft something like that and stories above that that are 12 and here we are with those presumably nicer buildings are deviations because there's not enough height here and that that's all I'm suggesting is the the 44 and the 84 are not necessarily sufficient for 4 and8 uh 8 story buildings and I don't remember when this came up that someone didn't like changed well we change to to allow 14 ft in the ground floor and 10 right but on the some point some reason we changed from stories to feet right yeah it was that um both boards decided to change from um stories to feet because it was easier for us to measure yeah regulate and and as well as measure so the consultant when they came they told everyone that for the downtown court it was going to be um eight stories by wri anything else would be a special exception I think is what they previously said so when they came back with their height for the downtown core area it was at like 35 ft it was some outrageous number and we were like no it you said eight stories by right so how is it going to be 35 ft or 45 ft or I think it was 60 ft is what they said so then we changed it to 80 ft for the eight stories and that's the way you all last saw it at 80 um feet Mr Axel came and said that the bottom floor when it's nonresidential is typically higher than 10 ft um and so he gave us a number I think it's like 4 feet higher about 4T higher on the bottom so it would be about 14 ft so we added 84 to account for that first floor being 14 ft high is what we did and not only did we do it in um downtown core but we did it in the other districts as well that allows for mixed use so we added the four additional fee so she's right but that ignores the structure of the building and where the 14 came from so in the Water Tower District I actually have in the draft developers agreement a minimum of 14 clear personally I think that should be an absolute minimum and the idea is on the ground floor as the city matures you might be able to have more non-residential uses in the ground floor and if it's not high enough it simply doesn't work think about going into most retail or restaurant establishments it's got a bunch of height so 14 is the minimum interior clear which would take typically 16 but what if you want 20 what if you want 24 what if you've got apartments that don't have 8ft ceilings they have 9 or 10ft ceilings right here to build these presumably nicer buildings isn't allowed without a deviation and and I think that's a mistake and I'm not quite sure how to address it but I I looked at actual buildings in downtown Orlando and gave the staff some examples and I didn't bring them with me but also when you build non-residential you typically have taller floors because you have bigger physical spaces like an office building is typically not going to have in a in a downtown area an 8 or a 10ft ceiling because the rooms are bigger the ceilings are higher so I I think this is really constraining but let me just remind you that we have 20% deviation granted by staff so add 20% to 84 I think it's more than enough to account for so I think we are fine with cuz we we so let me understand given your shall require um mitigation what so they want to build a nicer building what what penants do they pay because they have to do mitigation bring a nice building I'm just trying to understand yeah that's what we would we would say well bring a nice building to you know or we use anything that you provide as a nice building to justify yeah this to bring it up I acknowledge you can get a 20% deviation which probably cures most of this I was just concerned about the sh so we don't want to discourage things we don't want people to think oh my God I have to have shorter ceilings to make this work or I have to squeeze my ground floor or you know so I just think it's I get what's going on here you don't want to I don't know release them to do anything which was I think the problem Teresa was the problem with with height okay can go back with stories people might do like weird height stories I think that was the that was the the uh the argument that if you put just um stories um they could come up with the I think it should be higher I've said what I want to say that's it well remember that with the bonus you can go higher too if you with a DA well bonus requires a DA the bonus itself requires a da oh I got you so did you need consensus on on that or you dropping that do you want me to well I I mean I I think it's an issue it's not going to affect the project I'm working on well just to be clear though which districts are you talking about that require or you would suggest greater height so the 35 makes sense because that's a criteria we already have that we're keeping in the neighborhoods MH so it would really be these these other ones we're kind of saying you know 8 or n9t ceilings is the maximum you could have before you deviate and your ground floor is is going to be less than 14 cuz you got structure of the building I I I just think it's a mistake I'm not sure what it should be and I'm not sure what the comfort of the board is but I wanted to bring it up that's all so let's talk to the board see what you all believe is should be the case in terms of height should the height be increased um and you're talking about the targeted areas right or all that's really all I'm talking about is targeted are okay so the targeted area do think so so I think I think uh something more than 20 on a ground floor makes a lot of sense if if you consider even a one-story retail store is going to typically have that clear area inside and and if you have 10t on upper floors and allow 2T for the building just if you were to do that man might make some people uncomfortable eight stories would be 22 Plus+ 12 * 7 whatever so that's 84 + 22 so that's 96 I think right is did I do that right probably I'm not sure so the highest we have in the mall no no I was wrong it's 10 and something yeah Teresa do you think 100 would be out of the question is that so I have I come from a large city I'm I'm used to that my tolerance level is different it's really what the city right what is the character of 12 * 7 is 84 and if you have 22 for the ground ground floor that's 106 yeah but wouldn't you be in a situation somebody's going build a building like this they're a sophisticated Builder they're going to be turned off because of the numbers they've got 20% deviation that the that that is built in so I think you're concerned overly concerned because you're not going to have an unsophisticated Builder build this kind of building so he's going to come in and say I need 14 ft I need this this you got a 20 20% deviation built in that we can create so so so let's just talk about that for a second and I want to hear it from the staff again so we changed the code and that's why I'm bringing this up so it didn't end up getting built but I did a hike deviation before and it wasn't a lot of trouble for for oito what's now albo Center lot one the deal didn't get built but there was approval for it was under underbuilding parking three stories of office and residential on top and it was above the height and deviation was not a problem cuz it was a cool building and that's what I hear the staff saying but that time the the code didn't it may require deviation now we're at shall and so we're deviations are sometimes viewed as oh my God I don't want to have to get one of those now I don't think you guys portray it that way but it's kind of perceived that way sometimes you just give an example of a good deviation that was so that's the practice of of what of Staff okay so yeah so what's what's uh 20% of of the the 84 is is uh 17 I'm just bringing it up if if everyone's got stomach to increase the height it will decrease the level of deviations for some of these buildings that you would expect to be built that's all I'm saying so the maximum height today is 60 ft in that area in that are 78 at the mall for the 78 is the mall um so is there um any interest in going higher the consultant when they came they did say eight stories by right and this is what we came up with with the eight stories with the additional four um feet based on Mr Axel's concerns about the bottom floor being higher so let's start with Mr Smith I'm sorry more or less is there a downside I didn't think we a to have any buing I was going to say is there a downside besides people prer so the the the downside is only um political repercussions cuz people fear tall buildings I mean I don't know else to put what's that so if anyone followed the huge war in Mount Dora about the the mixed use district and and The Innovation District or whatever they called it and they ended up having to settle and it was all about height but that guy was starting at something crazy like 150 frankly what it was quite a bit more than thees and up up up the 84s and the like the cores or uh only the cores yeah well now so the core if they use density bonus the code already provides that height will be provided to match the density yeah so they already have that embedded I mean if you if you're using this and it's 12 I think it's 12 right so let them Devi then you to take your 20% and come you know give the 20% so that is keeping it the way that it is and letting them deviate okay so I got a question so we're we're trying to hit eight stories cuz someone could stay with the same height and do exactly because I think you're right about the height and all that kind of stuff but you might only have to build a seven story building with this height is that what we're saying they'd have to lose this but that's not up we're not are they not able to do stories is gone yeah but I thought I heard you say eight stories by right didn't I hear you say that that's what the so this would be eight stories technically came out of the code because people would like stories and now so conceivably I never really thought about it but what he's saying is we could have a two-story building that's 84 I never would have thought of such or yeah or to fit the height you're saying it might only end be seven I guess they could build that yeah okay three but I I was thinking the same thing you're you're 20% deviation fits within this height cuz that would get you to 100 yeah you guys you guys give 20 anyway so so he's okay so qu saying to deviate keep it the can't give it give it to them or keep it the way that it is I don't think we'll ever need it but if they want to give it so one give it to them so so give it I don't know is what you're saying Nicole keep it the way that it is so we have three keep it what what was yours I guess I'm keep it because your 20% deviation you get to 100 also okay keep it Mr Lopez we need you to decide on are you are you practicing for something that's a bummer they stack 20 % they get density bonuses yes is nobody's bu% one way or the other they St can 20% they can get any percentage from councel keep okay my list technically like here you could go and it was like eight story like if you look at the reality oh you go eight stories high or nine stories up you can't physic like you know it' be a Spire this big would be the so it's not feasible to do so they might be six or seven maybe they he's looking for the next one I'm I'm deciding if any of them are wor you're you're calling through which ones being tormented by B pictures of people some dring who's sending you such things he left he that was torturing he got what he wanted exactly was tortur I didn't know anyone from the public was paying any attention 10 years least 15 years least 15 years yeah yeah it's long time no we're still waiting we're still waiting for ready I I think so I'm just flipping through to make sure because if I I need a recommendation I if I say something we need a recommendation from the board for going forward with the draft to the public hearing okay okay I know I'm saying that's one more let's see what is the next one make a motion to adopt oh yeah right now you're with more so are you waiting I I'm in the article with no footnotes so I don't know which one it is but I think it's it's uh nine yeah nine is the one that do last page of nine last page of nine last page of nine um 96a that is for Public Works and you you may decide you're dealing with this thing internally and we don't have to talk about it but I wanted to raise it okay so are we there umum it's the concurrence incumbrance yes the the all the way down to the bottom of that section there we go what no the a you just you wanted this tid okay so just so everyone understands and I don't think this has ever happened in the city but there we're now at an interesting Crossroads which Alexis knows all about and she can give us the latest the city is at its um regulatory limit of water capacity more or less right so one of the things that's been discussed until they could work out some scenario with St John's is as your Project's going forward and you're sitting there worried about water capacity uh you don't want another project to come along if you're working on a project and Gobble up what little there might be so what we talked about is you write a check you buy the capacity so you pay for it okay and reserve it well this Clause that never mattered before suddenly comes into play it says you reserved it you paid for it but if you don't use it in 5 years to bad we took your money tough luck and that that seems a little absurd what else do you buy in life that that you don't own it anymore after 5 years so I had suggested a mechanism they could resolve this and it may get fixed later but the idea that you tell someone you pay for us and reserve it and too bad we're going to take it away is a little absurd nothing else in life do you buy it and it's not yours that's what this is that's Insurance that's that's rent all this is Insurance you can buy it this is Insurance you're insuring so so just to share how seminal County deals with this you have they have for water and they have for sewer you do a capacity agreement you buy it but when you get and and you've maybe or maybe not paid attention to this on your your water and sewer bills there's a certain base amount you pay and that's called the capital recovery charge because you own capacity in this plant so you must pay P to keep this plant running before you use water before you use sewer so the way it works in seol county and I used to own some of these you buy the credits you pay the monthly amount so it's not like you're sitting on them doing nothing but right now it says give us the money and then it's gone and it it seems it's never happened right that you know of so so in some count you buy you say you do the same thing and then you pay a monthly can you give me that again so so so there's a base charge because you have a ERC of connection or whatever it is and you pay it every month you get a bill you're not connected you're not flowing but you bought the capacity and you're paying your share of the plan buy the capacity you bought the capacity and then you're paying the minimum the base charge for whatever the base charges right which I don't know that this is that's more of a public works thing than a code thing but right now now this language would have to change to fix this Alexis is ready to speak do they uh do they allow you to trade that it or do anything with it or what like if you don't pay this says too bad sem count um so what they have is you can sell it back if you choose to what you paid for it not what it's now worth which is a little weird but that's what they do no I check again it's gambling gamble either way that's s count yeah well that's the example of of how someone else charge right so do they have to sell it back to the county or can they sell it to another develop it's always back to the county uh it's just how they do it that that's all but do we know any other so a lot of a lot of codes say this kind of thing and I never paid attention cuz it never affected anything I was doing cuz there was never a capacity limit where you were oh my God I better go buy it so this came up frankly on the Water Tower District I couldn't get the usual letter I always got from Public Works which was the utility capacity letter because is temporarily it's not there so I'm like okay when you figure out that it's there I've got a client spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on on approval Sitting on This Land waiting for a project let's go buy the Capac capacity to make sure we can do this project and this project may take like oito on the park 25 years to build out so you buy the capacity in the city says oops 5 years went by it's gone that that doesn't really make logical sense and this is where it says it and it may be that this is too complicated for this board today but the idea that you buy something and then they take it away cuz they want it to it's kind of a little out there no it's it's you Tak a g yeah but I think I think something like the county make again if you're paying the base fees I think that could work is something you know you you pay you buy it you buy the rights whatever the rights going to cost today you buy your capacity then you pay the base fee you're not using obviously you're not running water through so that's okay or sewer but you got to pay the base fees for both of them and you can only sell back at what you bought you sell it back yeah I I have no problem with that again there there's a penalty either way if you have to sell it back you're selling back at what you got it and and you have to pay the monthly base fees so you're taking a chance either way either this is punitive that you don't get it in 5 years there's a chance that it goes away or the other way but the other way gets the money and gives the base fee which I think is a good thing for for for both the sewer and water plant is you're getting a base fee at least you're not using the water so because this may impact development that is ready to occur that there is no capacity so that is I'm suggesting if you do it like the county doesn't someone who's never going to use it isn't going to sit there and continue to pay monthly fees right okay so that's what's what's missing in in the city process and I've talked to a li about this is they don't have this way to collect these fees now you sort of kind of have a billing way because someone without an active water account still PS a storm water Fe so it's not like you can't do building it's just the code is kind of screwed up long front isar we okay majority of that's I think pretty accurate so I just want to clarify that our allocation of water from the St John's is reached its maximum we've been working with them for over a year or so we've known this is coming and we have been preparing for this such as with our alternative water supply um source and our treatment plant uh projects that we've been working on so at the moment what we're doing with St John's we've asked them to and we've spoken to David Hall about this as well is that St John's is not able to stop development so we need some sort of temporary allocation until all of our new infrastructure is in place and that is what we're working on right now so and as far as the content here we have a um code of ordinance in the utility section referred to as revenue and maintenance fee so re so typically Mr Axel would have gotten a capacity letter but it's not reserved it's not your allocation until you make a payment so if you do make that payment there is a monthly fee that is attached to this so you already have the month there is a yeah in the code of ordinance yes there's a monthly fee it's not here it's that's correct so the only thing here that I feel is a little unclear is uh we don't State giving it back we would have to meet with Finance because let's say your Revenue that you paid for your capacity was a million dollar um once that's in our system that's money that we can spend because it's for impact fees so how do we give that back so so my my issue wasn't the giving it years okay well what I'm saying whether it's 5 years or two years we still have to whether it's giving it back or we have to address the fact that we want to extend that let's say you need two more years um and you want an extension so I think those are things that we need to talk about and I think that would be something Mr Hall could address with Bobby and myself and finance so so here's my point and I don't know the answer this is Mr all question we have the code that says a certain thing we have a code of ordinances that we have to address this problem or we going to have to go have a whole set of public hearings with the lp and the council to fix this code it's going to say something why I'm not understanding what you're suggesting because it's in the ordinance that once you've paid for that Revenue the capacity there's a maintenance fee so what were you what are you saying is unclear 5 years so this says you reserved it for 5 years and then it's gone that's what no it well it doesn't clarify that's what I'm saying does it do we want to clarify if we're to return the money are we going to clarify extending it it's not gone I mean but it says here we've reserved it for 5 years then what that's that's what I'm saying you either can go one way or the other so we need to clarify that right so so I gave you the example what seal County does stepen talked about it it sounds similar to our Revenue maintenance we don't I wasn't saying we have to do that what I'm saying is the problem here is developer May Reserve capacity I think we should get rid of for 5 years because if your code of ordinance already hasn't paying the maintenance fees or whatever you call then they're paying if you want to come up or some future counsel or whoever wants to come up with a refund thing that's not what I'm talking about I'm saying just on the 5e part now someone who's doing frankly a 25e project is going to look at this entire equation and say I want to get my first phase locked up and I'm going to buy you know maybe I need capacity for for example our project is 2,000 units but we want to get the first two phases in maybe it's 400 units and x amount of retail so i' I'd rather go to public works and say I'm suggesting my client write you this check so that we're reserved because right now it says it's going to go away after 5 years and and you're saying you don't even have a way to even deal with that in your code of ordines right they paid and they're paying that's correct is it reserved also can I just ask is it reserved also it when he saying like that when he's doing that then it's Reser when he's made a payment it's reserved that is capacity that's been allocated and you pay a maintenance fee on that but that money goes into US planning for your development like goes we get it back okay I know but but you're you're on the fiveyear and now I'm saying if you want to either eliminate it or keep it we still have to make that consideration of what would happen if we're going to give it back or if we're going to extend it so so no I'm suggesting there's no time frame so so basically we change this comfortable with it but I'm saying in 10 years if you want your money back well I'm not asking for money I know you're not right now you want no time limit put on there I can't make that determination today because that's an impact fee that could be spent so how do we I'd have to consult understand I'm not suggesting once you get theang it says in here that's the only place it says it it doesn't have anything in the code in ordinances no one's suggesting that if you write the check to the city it's not the city's money the city I'm not suggesting that I just mention no I to I totally understand that but because this has been brought up now we do have to make that consideration all right so Alexis what what I was going to suggest is this because I I I hear this as a matter of the code of ordinance is not of the Land Development code so I have so should we bump this always been here or has this right no the expiration we should we can we can we can stop before the however and and and gives the detail of how to reserve I don't think she thinks that that language within 5 years is in the code of ordinance maybe this a simple suggestion where it says for 5 years just strike well four or five years if you just take it out and at the end of the sentence just put a comma as provided for by the code of ordinances period but but but I don't think the city will be comfortable by with removing theop other development Reserve that 25 years but other developers want to do something I understand that but I mean do you say okay you still paid for it do we want to wait 25 years and everybody else that may have a good idea to be done in 10 ask illegal hold on you said said one thing this is 5 years which is good words do doesn't have a time that's cor it does not it it talks about the feed okay so then what do this how does this matter then if it's in here that's on what's the because this this this would govern the development of the project right so that's what I'm saying so it does matter that yeah no it does matter and the reason for and and David hit on the head is once you reserve capacity and if he's talking about a 25 year which is a huge deal that's a lot of capacity and with St John's we couldn't even do that now cuz we don't have the capacity and we're getting ready to spend millions of dollars for a well uh I don't know the exact number but that know it's a lot um just to get some capacity back up but we may be back up at at full capacity within a year and if we're sitting there holding 25 years on it stops development so so I'm going to be Devil's Advocate and be be the guy who goes to to for your point I and I agree I understand what you're saying um so the development I come in with development I come in I go I want uh 400 I got 400 units in my first 400 units I'm going to do in and whatever square feet I want a you know whatever capacity let me boom let's go we ride out the contract and I start paying the fee I'll come in the next day and go if I really want to be an a-hole and take it all or I come in you know and go then let me do another you know but you're telling me it expires in 5 years based on this either way it expires in 5 years res that these are 5 years doesn't mean when you get ready to go to Project it won't be there won't be cast available just free it up but do I have to repay it again yes so 5 years 3 days am I repaying the fee cuz I or or because I kept paying listen I just kept paying another thing it it kept taking out my monthly fee and in 5 years two months took out the fees I'm not a developer but typically speaking when these types of Arrangements happen they're paying the capital recovery or they're paying the reservation at the site plan or maybe a stage earlier than that and so being able to get the project in within that 5 years typically isn't a problem oh again he he's making the example of you know over know in the park and I you know there was some up and down on that when that didn't well and and there's other situations where you had the bust in 2008 and so on and so forth so I'm not saying that's all for you're taking a risk by doing it I I'm not saying there should be a no this is a no risk hey get the money back and go ahead kind of thing I try to you know it there seems to be a they're saying it seem to be clearer how about that that this is one thing that we're all sitting here and you're going oh does that say 5 years well okay it doesn't say that in the code of ordinances but here it says 5 years then either put in the code of ordinances and get that to say 5 years this is what is going on rather than in here and put it in one spot where this kind of because I would fight you all day that well it says 5 years here but the code of ordinance you you know that's a lawsuit if it came down to it you could sit down and have fights about this for ages sure having in two stupid places I think it should be clarified Now understand a normal circumstances and it's just just like Harris said it's converage Bel and move forward oh yeah of course David David is different because his client owns a big chunk exactly yeah so yeah it's going to take longer but but if you change it one somebody else could walk in and and say okay I'll pay the fee but I don't well for 10 years right you can't wait can't do anything we R out I'm not saying go further I'm again you're taking a chance you're paying the fee I'm just saying it's kind of unclear having it in the split the way it is it should be year in the code of ordinance says very clearly that this is a five years not really that's really because here this is a development thing hers is a capacity charge right so they're two different things this is this is this is capacity for development and hers is hers is a fee the way so everyone understands my concern is you write the check and after 5 years your money evaporated that's okay that's what I read and so to give people a sense of things I don't know how many people lived here paid attention to the exact circumstances of lead on the par we were at a a a peak of financial markets and there was a collapse the collapse led to a very ugly situation called suicide okay the market was was gone for a long time it was more than 5 years before this project came back we don't know what the circumstances may be we've got all kinds of World stuff going on I'm sitting here directing for this client the spending of a lot of money and holding this property off the market to do this mixed use project and we're worried about water capacity cuz we're told to worry I don't know how St John's is going to going to play no matter what they say and so when the city comes up with capacity we have to secure the right to do this project but then if the financial Market's going to spin and we're there at as Stephen says 5 years and two months and you wrote this check and these monthly fees and sorry it's gone seems a little unfair what would you like to say I I was saying that just strike completely four or five years and put comma and after development at the end in accordance with the code of ordinances let the City attorney and and the Public Works staff figure out how they want to amend the code of ordinances to deal with this issue that I think I'm hearing from the development services staff we don't want you to reserve our capacity and no one else can do anything now the reality is if you're writing these monthly checks you don't sit there to own something that you you can't monetize to write monthly checks for who does that so so you want to use these how you use them how you transfer them how some other project can get them we've never dealt with because we've never been in this circumstance that's cor we've never had this issue but typically you would have been you would have received a capacity letter saying we have but it's not your capacity until you reserve so nobody typically comes straight in and just pays up front and I'm saying I'm worried enough right now that when you say we've worked this out with St John's we have this much capacity if I sit around and do nothing a new project that wasn't even conceived of yet comes in it's a single phase they get the capacity it's now gone well we're working with them specifically about projects that are under development review with like you are currently so these are the those are the additional capacities that they'll be granting us I just don't have that number right now so my suggestion is to fix this no no I understand that I think Mr Hall would have to we have to we'll have to consult with him you said we correct it's whether five years what do you guys feel about five years or not five years if they're paying the fee prob five years and then R this one is it's not that's not a guarantee I mean I do understand it's a hardill swallow in 5 years okay now P but in the same sense too it also goes back to you know if there's other development that's going to be before that so I don't know what the answer to that is as far as so we don't have an answer she's alluded to it already she they're working on other projects besides the to so they're already communicating with St John we don't know what the answers are can I just can I just add that concurrency today you have to plan for 5 years that's Florida statute 163 so you're planning for 5 years in this section of the code which is our concurrency section it's going to have 5 years throughout we used to have our transportation um but we adopted a Mobility plan and even with that the language was with Transportation as well 5 years it goes away um but we adopted a Mobility plan um so but water and sewer that's where the 5 years comes from fora statue 163 where you have to plan for 5 years um but in terms of that 5year language I would let the staff and the attorney talk it over first before we remove it just to see how it would affect you know from my point of VI i' say you know five years r at least two or three more terms I'm just fre get a get a gist of what we feel we're not going to come up with the answer tonight but that's say just get a g just of how we feel and kind of get some ideas that's that's all I'm not definitely not coming so this one will'll try to work tomorrow we have to now be quick because we need to submit the final final Final for LPA on Thursday so um I'm going to ask Mr Hall with Mr Cobb Alexis um um and Mr Wyatt you know to be able to come up with whatever language they feel comfortable that's what we're going to propose in on remember the good old days when we got a 20-year cup and it was we were like Che we the only guys that could get a full 20e cup and it was like the greatest Grand standing on Earth we got the cup for 20 years and we were like the only so what we need from you all tonight we're going to need two separate hold on guys two separate recommendations one from the LPA did you finish okay one from the LPA and one from the um Land Development code committee so we're going to start with the Land Development code committee first we need a recommendation make a motion to recommend as amended to council second all in favor okay so we have a recommendation all in favor say I I all oppose perfect unanimous you okay okay C get your T so now we're going to start with um the LPA do we have a motion I'm Not Elected I don't have to vote no say basically same thing the council side now this is a motion for recommendation of the Land Development code second okay so we have a motion by Mr Lopez a second by Mr Smith all in favor say I I all oppose say nay okay unanimous that is awesome okay if you all notice everybody got copy everybody got the minutes if you would take just a second to review them we'll we'll we'll uh then entertain a motion to motion adop comme June 25th 2024 is there a second sure okay mov in second in favor all in favor okay it's unanimous yeah uh no other discussion items is Tom GNA come back and say anything else I don't think so so before we adjourn um on Tuesday we going to have then the public hearing um it's already been advertised for LPA we will submit the um the whole package um hopefully on Thursday right this is the LBC here you have seen all you know all those many hours um with the with the changes that we discussed today so we'll amend those and submit with the memo I wanted to thank everybody this has been a long long process process you know with a lot of hours from everybody I really appreciate the time that all the members put together here to come here and discuss with us um and I I thank my staff too because they have been working you know weekends and you know so thank you all thank you okay with that uh there are no future meeting dates uh we are adjourned for