##VIDEO ID:qoF3dPsRqPM## e e awesome yeah yeah come on up Jeff [Laughter] wither spoon okay all right good I would have made I was understand ask us to look at options that's it options I don't yeah I don't think she'll get much uh support for that one on vac no see he officially appointed Kelly as the finance director and sir he has to stay away so he has to stay away long enough for that to be his as he he pulled one of those do you really want to here tonight do I really need to come are you comfortable with Kelly being there are you comfortable that's right yeah you know and uh he said well I'm comfortable with Kell I said so am I I've already talked to her this morning I said yeah no I thought he had a good time talk sure I don't know it looks like he was enjoying himself I'm not sure tell cons how bright is SS they all yeah Michael's over there for everything he say recommending Financial just understand certaines home and I get to peek behind the curtain how we doing the doing good thing with all that crap going on up there really oh Hurrican I'm makings complete towns underneath water they found his car yesterday Mississippi enre sta told my wife she has Hotel ran the city entire bridg just okay so it is 5:30 uh we'll go ahead and get this uh work session started first up is a public comment if we have anybody uh in the room that cares to comment seeing nobody jumping up out of their seat running to the lecture I'm going to say that's no we will close public comment next up we have storm water systems Water and Sewer utility System rate study Mr cop hi thank you Deputy Mayor this is a request for Council to uh well on July 29th you did a work session and we presented the findings of the the first analysis of the utility rate study and at that work session you directed us to look at a debt financing option for both storm water as well as water sewer reuse utilities and you asked us to look at doing financing over 15 20 and 30 years and so our uh our financial advisers from willan Financial M uh Terah Hollis and Mr Jeff McGarvey are here tonight to give you that update on the information on the findings that they have found they met with our other Financial ad Hilltop Securities got the information as far as financing of them loaded it into the models and so they're here to present their findings I'll turn it over to miss Hollis thank you Tara Hollis with willan all right we're GNA start with the storm water um and we've already provided a lot of the other information on the you know revenues expenses those type of things um so we're not making any changes to that this is really just looking at running those three debt scenarios uh and then the impact of what potential impact would be on the rakes uh and so I'm going to start with the storm water um so we're going to assume that you're gonna have this giving you feedback or somebody this closer to me closer sure is that better bring it down all right better okay so we're going the the assumption that was made and in talking with your financial advisor uh Hilltop um that we're going to assume current that the debt covenants that you currently have with your existing debt those are going to remain the same with any new debt that you would take out um so that means it's a combined pledge uh for your water sewer reclaimed and your storm water revenues um so these all assume that combined pledge uh on the storm water side uh because as we've discussed before you currently have minimal Reserve um on the storm water side uh so we're looking at taking out initially some looking at you taking out initially short-term debt um starting to take that out as soon as possible so that you can start funding the capital Improvement plan uh that short term would be interest only payments for of the outstanding principle and we're assuming a 5% annual interest rate uh and then you would refinance that with long-term debt uh that would start in the first quarter of fiscal year 2027 uh and that would be taken out at the same time that you need to take out some water and sewer debt for those projects so you would refinance the shortterm plus borrow an additional 8 million to continue the CIP that you currently have uh and the information that your fa provided us right now um so all these three runs are going to be principal and interest payments at a 5 and a half% annual annual interest rate that could change um we've we've put the conservative side in uh but that would potentially change as you take out the debt in fisc year 2027 uh and then thereafter the remaining CIP uh for fiscal year 2029 through fisc year 2033 would be paid with cash so you would be building up enough so that you could start funding it as a pay as you go for that remaining CIP as has been mentioned and I'll just say it again because we have to because we're not your financial advisor or Municipal advisor is The Debt Service assumptions have been provided by Hilltop Securities so throughout the remainder of this Pres presentation so for the the three um the 15 the 20 and the 30- year maturity uh this slide is showing you you're basically borrowing the same amount uh so it's it's just the interest and the number of years you're having to pay interest um so the difference between uh the the 15-year combined principal and interest is approximately 23.4 23.5 million uh if you finance it over 20 years it's 26.3 million and then if you finance over 30 years you can just see that interest keeps growing because you're paying it for more years it would be 33 million that you'd have to repay back so what does that do to rate adjustments um again the first one in each one is going to be your 15 year middle is your 20 year uh the the the the third column on each one is going to be your 30 year um so you've already looked at adopting a two year 2% rate increase October 1st so we've already shown that going into place that's your typical uh the minimum for inflation uh so we'd look at uh taking out and doing an additional increase this fiscal year which would be February 1st 2025 uh and then the remainder of the increases are going to occur on October 1st of each fiscal year um so you can see there'd be one in 20 uh February 1st 2025 again in October 1st uh and then they would say October 1 first the remainder of the period uh and so your difference is about 2 and a half% between when we start those first couple years because we're trying to get um to pay back that larger principal payment that's going to come if you do a 15E or you do a 20- year um until you get the cash up to where it needs to be so we start with uh the 15E would take two 25% rate increases um and these are including inflation uh then that would again they all drop down to the same thereafter um a 15 uh and then a 12 and then a 10 for the last um the remaining three years in this 10year projection however we will note you typically go back at five years and check where everything is so while we're showing this you would re readjust that um if anything's different at the fiveyear Mark uh if you do a 20-year maturity you're looking at 22 and a half% rate increase uh for the first two years if you're doing a 30-year maturity and taking out 30-year debt you'd look at a 20% what does that mean this is what shows you what the impact on the rates would be so you're going to your rates are currently per this is per ERC so this is per home remember commercial is multiple erc's um you're looking at right now your rates uh for this fiscal year is 1172 um you can see that first increase would go to 1465 for a 15 year um and if you do the thir year it's 1406 so it's a minor it's about 60 cents difference a month uh between the two uh as you get out towards the end the first the first year that first year yes right that continues the second year because you're doing another 25% versus 22 and a half versus 20 so the you can see that in the second year so October 1st youd look at um under 15 year maturity $18.31 uh then 17 uh 59 sorry I can't read that very well on there and then 1687 if you're doing a 30-year maturity um and again they're after the rate adjustments the percentage adjustments are the same it's just because you're going off of a slightly higher rate that you can see the rates um are different as you move forward and what happens to the rates after the 15 years what would we would we plate off do we come back down whatever choice to be made I mean you you we would have saying you guys review this every five years if there's an opportunity to lower rates then you guys can make that decision but typically your CIP is going to back fill and you're going to have future needs but that's yet to be seen you won't know that yeah and you'd continue to potentially dear see your CIP increase that you've been doing so and that is embedded in these already so we're assuming that that this is accounting for The Debt Service and inflation and one of the goals that you folks had too is to be try to be cash funded so you know this may set up to that unless something extraordinary happens unless there's some extraordinary need unforeseen need in the future this may sit you up that okay and then this just shows you a typical comparison uh some of the communities we knew they were adop adjusting their rates as of October 1st so anyone that had posted that or we had found that information we're showing October 1st the rest would be we verified as of um August 1 so you can see you're existing 1172 you can see what the three depending on a 15 20 or 30 year would be at February 1st 2025 uh the average is approximately 1117 per ERC uh and then you can see you know the different communities around you what their rates are some we know like d land and South Daytona have adjusted their city of Orlando adjusted their's effect of October 1st and Delta a uh others may be but those are the ones we know for sure we're adjusting them as on October 1st so you're still in line with what other communities um the ones that have done recent studies are at the higher end honestly on there um some that haven't adjusted as recently at the lower ends is this only the ones that were adjusted or is this are that are going to be adjusted or is this all all of them I mean do what's like Winter Springs and Lake Mary and Longwood do you have any of them the rest of the County cities I don't have Winter Springs on here right now I think they were in the middle of potentially updating theirs we we can certainly run yeah I can show you these are the the great comp that we've always had us study and such okay we can run whatever you want but we always caution you that this really has nothing to do with you right your your Revenue requirements are your Revenue re so on the erc's uh they're not all defined as the the same thing as well so this can't be exactly an apples to Apple situation right yes because everybody has a different allowance for typically single family is although there are mult there are communities that tear their their single family residential um so they could have you know different square footage allowances but they do each have a square footage allowance typically uh I know the people in Winter Park we've done some comparisons with that spot in particular and there's is is like I got to do air quote feels like double what ours currently is but I'm looking at this and it's looking not like double so something RC has to be different right theirs has different depending on the square footage so on this one the one that was selected was the one that was closer closest to your allowance which was yours is like 24 yeah a little over 2400 sare foot so we we picked a winter park one that was that in that similar range for the impervious area square footage but that would make it kind of hard like for long wood or so the other ones you were asking about for us to know that that would be Apples to Apples as well we're happy if you there's other comps you want to see we're happy to do that for you no that's that's fine this is really just information right at the end of the day you know it's you guys know what it cost to run your system so okay so that's on the storm water side any any questions before move on no okay so similar analysis was done on the water and sewers side again we're assuming the combined coverage requirements so that would mean all of your water sewer reclaimed water and storm water revenues would be pledged um for the debt that's taken out as a combined pledge uh what we're looking at here again that this would be taken out in 2027 um with your first actual payment being due October 1st um of 2027 so this one would be taken out in October of 2026 which is the beginning of f school year 2027 the principal portion for the water and sewer would be approximately 58.6 million um again the same 5 and a half% annual interest rate uh and then the other point to note here is um we did also look at modifying the rates for the sewer system to make it a combined u a single rate right now you have two separate rates for the Alfa and the Ido system and so we're still these comparisons that we're showing you assume that that consolidation into a single base charge and a single gallonage rate for sewer would occur in February ter I was also going to point out that the five and a half% your your Hilltop folks put a 50 basis point cushion in there we don't know what the rate will actually be when you go to market so they will just be conservative that rate will change hopefully for the better but that is the best information they had at the time so again similar to the other we're showing obviously this one is a larger principal amount so the differential between the 15E and the 30-year maturity um in total principal interest payments there's a much greater difference uh 78 million almost 78.5 for a 15year maturity is what you would have to pay back um 88 million for the 20 year and then 110.5 million for the 30 year so again looking the the principal and interest combined payments are very similar um obviously they're they're slightly higher um the 15E versus the 30-year uh but you can see this one is even a a narrower differential in the overall rate um you did implement or look at implementing a 3.27% as October 1st 2024 and that was for your your adjustment that goes through as uh the C the Consumer Price Index adjustment so again to be consistent we would look at doing an increase on February 1st uh 20125 depending on the maturity the 15 20 or 30y year maturity um the 20 the 15E excuse me would require approximately 9% increase uh the 20year maturity would be eight and a half and the 30-year maturity would be eight um that stays for the first few years and that's getting you through the principal the first principal and interest payments as well as um as the plant comes online the or the new improvements come online you will have uh some increase in operating expenses and then that starts leveling out um so that we're anticipating the nine eight and a half or 8% going through fiscal year 2029 um and then being able to drop those down to six 5 and a half and 5% uh thereafter as long as inflation stays similar to what it is currently at so if inflation does go crazy those increases would potentially um change this is assuming you know a four to four and a half inflationary rate in there so the same showing you excuse me um this is showing what a typical water and sewer monthly bill would be um this is again showing the Consolidated rate so I've just shown you for the alaa system just to see what that would be um and using approximately 8,000 gallons uh of usage per month so this is just a water sewer bill it doesn't have irrigation or anything else on it um but currently you're at 12346 uh that would increase um you can see it February 1st that would go up to 12963 uh under the 15 year which is the 9% increase um why that's slightly less than 9% is because of that consolidation of the sewer rate so it's not a direct taking the um the rate and adding % on sewer side uh it's 120 950 for the 20-year maturity and 12929 uh for the 30-year maturity um and then you can see thereafter uh again because slightly higher increases for the 15E for the first couple of years um and then as those start leveling off um you can see that you know the ending 10 year out what the potential rates would be for 15 versus the 30-year maturity was 8,000 gallons is that like an average for what the city uses typical really yes some using less some using more some the don't have a separate irrigation meter yeah yeah no so I mean we can come back and show you different levels if you if you'd like to see that and we can create a a table that would show you a different us I believe you tell me that's the average that's the average that this seems like a lot oh like a lot not a lot yeah not compared to some of many of our other custom that's a that's a reasonable average monthly use and then this is just similar to the other showing you what a typical bill would be and again these are showing you the other rates if we knew they had rate increases going in as of October 1st if we hadn't if they hadn't finalized their October rates um they they may have adjustments because we're right at that you know we're September 30 is so some haven't posted updated rates as some have and so you can see where each of the Alternatives would be obviously the 30 year is going to be the slightly you know in February would be slightly lower but there those are all three right together few cents differential between the the three this first year so this February 20125 and then we're pretty much looking at Direction on the three different maturity the three financing scenarios uh and then obviously in order to update the rates in February you would need to notice customers uh and do another rate hearing meeting um for those customers to have a new rate effective February 1 just a a reminder we're not permitted to recommend a debt scenario we can't all we can do is run the num for it so okay so these these scenarios so this is we're double we're we're paying the debt on the existing capital and we're building a a a cash Reserve in the process so we're we're getting hit basically double for the for for this stuff right now to build cash reserves for for future Capital Improvements yeah I wouldn't say you're getting hit twice but what you're doing is you're based on the rate scenario the ter and you can come up with any rates it's an infinite number of possibilities but the rate scaras that she's showing allows you to be cash funded from that point forward you only need the borrowings that she showed up here if you want to be cash funded from that point forward which is a good position to be in then this those rate scenarios will do that for you right and these are putting in the making sure because your your required 120 days cash on hand for operating expenses obviously operating expenses are increasing so that number is going up as well each year so it is building that Reserve fund to where it needs to have the the so many days operating cash on hand as well as putting some into your fund yeah your your renewal replacement fund and your and covering your CIP costs it's it's covering all your metrics it's really the storm water is the one because you you have reserves in water and sewer you just you know a $50 million project is not something that you typically but we're not going like we're not going Far Over The Matrix right we're not no no no no we're solving to the metrics we are not trying to accumulate a when we look at our dashboards and our graphs and if it you know the cash fund looks like that that's a that's a bad scenario right we we are ma we are maning right to right what your metrics are okay yes it's the storm water we're trying to put some additional because you have no no F Reserve fund right now for storm water so it's trying to put some into that storm water Fund in addition to the the days cash on hand and then we're also making sure that you're meeting all your debt coverage requirements and sufficiently meeting them you know not just one a a slight percentage over because that's not going to help your credit rating okay so it's making sure that you're meeting coverage meeting your fund balance requirements and also putting some money aside okay to continue to do renewal Replacements and pay as you go capit now am I understanding correctly that at the end of 15 years this would the the rate would allow us to have all of the money we we will have paid it all off and there will not be any outstanding big expenditures needed oh no as now well like but hypothetically like I I guess we could say it's a surprise we needed this in the first place so once we switch over to the new style thing and this is probably more for Public Works built into the way utilities operate my understanding is that the repair and replacement fund will fully cover the cost of you know if we need a new tank that would be baked into the rate hypothetically with this granted we revisit every years intent okay that is the intent but but what it doesn't foresee is changes in regulation okay it does not see foresee changes in Need for capacity or I mean Bobby can speak to this better than I can we cannot foresee that you're planning for what you have now what we know now so uh if something like that we see that a lot where regulation is Chang change and you're forced to make some pretty significant changes to your treatment or or to your system in general and can't you can't know that so you need direction on the 15 20 or 30 for us to finalize the the rate studies we just need you guys to tell us this is the rate scenario we want to go with or the debt scenario we'll work with your fa to make sure our numbers our debt service numbers are as final as they can be and we'll rerun it and then we we can make recommendations based off the examples you showed I I would be aligned with the 15E just not to pay all the interest well I was I was okay with the 15y year on the Water and Sewer but I was I was leaning more towards the 30-year on the on the water I'm 15 on both I I'm curious to see 10 but I think that's probably uh nobody else probably wants to see 10 so I could live with 15 council member Britain 15 15 15 on both 15 on both all right all right we done we're done all right that's all we need thank you folks thank you guys appreciate it tell if we could just take a few minutes to switch out I figured that I got [Music] one thank you I as distrib sure you can over there yeah you're welcome I'm Jeff hey nice meet you hey Greg how are you Jeff got that right I saw screen that were going good and there was one he was down at the bottom my hunting dog had no clue put me in the wrong chair should be over you're got give me this number to I wouldn't be surprised I mean there was a lot of misf and out of that be nice P did you forer or you got do the forer too ends yeah are you guys ready are you all ready all right I think we're I think we're ready to get started here I to give you know coffee time I'm gonna [Laughter] hang okay so we'll get started here I do believe we we have one individual that would like to uh have public comment before we get started on this Mr Axel did you want to talk excuse me sir can you keep it down Mr Beav keep an on back here D David Axel uh Axel real estate 1757 West Broadway Street site 1 I did uh send an email I don't know if it found its way to you so I'll very quickly summarize you you've got a work session for the Land Development code and I don't want to belabor too many points but there's a couple areas that I thought merited uh your your review and and Direction and I'll just quickly summarize what they are and then if uh if in the discussion these things come up feel free to call on me so really quickly and I'll kind of go by the the sections these are in and for most of them I kind of have the page numbers so uh the first one page 16 section 2.7 which is deviations um during the process of working with the Land Development code committee we had changed uh the language there that instead of mitigation uh may be required it was shall except as otherwise provided and when I listened to the uh recording of the meeting we were to come up with what the exceptions were subsequently and we did not so what I was suggesting is uh subsection C3 there uh talks about um mitigation making up for any impacts you have to neighboring properties so my suggestion was if you don't have an impact neighboring properties you should not be required to mitigate which years past kind of had been the practice and to be fair the the staff's flexible on these issues but when you've got a code that by its nature may have arbitrary standards that that satisfy General criteria if a specific property can't meet them they shouldn't really if they don't harm their neighbors be punished in in my view so the next item 4.13 subsection a e Roman numeral 6 uh has a requirement in the downtown districts and and the transition district for cross block passages and it obligates the grant ing of an easement or some other Public Access in favor of the city I think that runs contrary to your property rights element which provides based on State Statute that you have the right to control your own property and shouldn't be burdened by such things so I think that merits review that's on page 93 uh on page 96 ring the same section you've got what I think is is one of the the worst things it's a requirement in the downtown core for a 16 to 20 foot streetcape of a certain design and I'll just tell you in a lot of locations the rideway simply does not exist so the obligation to provide rideway just to develop your property not based in any way manner or form on the intensity of your project compared to what you had there before I think could be construed as an illegal taking and at the very least there is a state statute that was amended effective tomorrow that basically provides all the costs associated with that would have to be covered by the city with regard to fee credits so that includes the RightWay the design the construction and so on and so forth and it was kind of in the statute before but now it's Crystal Clear and it basically says in the statute no matter how it's imposed you've got a grant credit so from the city perspective I would be concerned and a really good example would be along 434 uh North and South of Broadway and a lot of locations the entire width of the streetcape which has the understory trees the lighting the sidewalk everything is 8 ft the requirement is 16 to 20 feet so you could see what that would impose on folks uh one of the ways to deal with this is to only apply it to larger assemblages where it makes and people are capable of doing it what that assemblage might be I think in the comp plan for mixed use type things we had a 5 acre threshold I think you know something smaller could work but right now folks with really small Lots would have a heavy burden on them and based on the section I just quoted earlier they would be obligated to provide mitigation even though it might be an illegal exaction and even though the city should be providing credit the same thing applies in section 413 d2a where there's a 15t streetscape requirement in the Central Avenue District which is part of the downtown transition area in that area I can tell you I worked on the chelonian project which has its approval so wouldn't be necessarily affected but the sum total amount of room available from the edge of the the actual roadway and its curb was 8 feet and you're obligated to put in 16 to 20 obviously it doesn't work lastly and I think the council spoke spoken about it many times uh Article 15 Section 152e is tree replacement and as proposed right now although there's a percentage applied there's an intent to impose tree fees based on the on the fact that folks own property that have larger diameter trees this methodology uh without percentages but this methodology was found by the United States six District Court of Appeal to be unconstitutional that case was cited by Pacific legal rights Foundation when they brought the sheets case to the Supreme Court although that case wasn't referenced the Sheet's decision was N9 nothing in favor of the plaintiff and the basic premise was you cannot legislatively take away from people what in the executives you can't take without compensation so I think that's contrary to the direction I've heard from Council and you guys should be concerned this may not affect a lot of properties but whoever it does it affect and affects big is going to have issues with it so that that's all I've got unless there's questions from the council as you have your discussion thank you great thank you since we did open up public comment is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak okay seeing none we'll close public comment Mr Cobb did you want to kick us off or uh thank you Deputy M yes uh tonight we're we'll be discussing the update to the Land Development code Miss Katie M muger and Mr Greg Witherspoon from kimley horm are here with us to present the latest up update excuse me I'm sorry we also have Dr kareah and Mr Burns Cad and Miss Pierre here as well representing staff and so I'll turn it over to miss McGruder and uh let her start the presentation all right thank you hi everyone I'm Katie mcgreer I am standing in today for Eliza Giuliano who you saw here I believe about a year ago um she unfortunately has a very high fever so I'm here today um in her place and here with Greg Witherspoon to assist with any landscaping and tree questions all right so just to kick this off we want to have a strategic impact with this adoption so ensuring that new development and Redevelopment is done in a sustainable manner modifying the Land Development code regulations to facilitate good Redevelopment review Redevelopment regulations to serve the goals of the mobility and transportation strategic Focus area and review development regulations to serve the goals of the recreation Arts culture and strategic Focus areas um so these updates will be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan the transportation constraints capitalizing on existing infrastructure updating parking and complete Street standards simplifying sign standards simplifying zoning District standards and updating graphics and illustrations for multif family and non-residential I'm not sure if Teresa and Deborah were going to cover this but I know the ldcc and LPA have put a lot of time and effort into coordinating with us and with staff on this um so this is just a demonstration of just how much time has been put into this process so far so we'll start out with a reorganization of the LDC um we're providing a new table of contents we're shifting all the landscape part working architectural lighting and signage regulations to their appropriate sections of the code as well as making sure that the definitions are all included in one chapter at the end and easily findable um including all of the terminologies that have been requested of staff and both uh LPA and ldcc so we're going to go one um through each article and kind of hit each of the highlights of the changes in those sections so um the Preamble we just have a minor shift of language Article 2 the land use administrator has been given more Authority on um rsos and um updating the LPA membership from 5 to 7 I believe there is an outstanding non-consenting item having to do with who makes up the LPA board that I know Teresa and Deborah will speak to you about following this presentation um the addition of subdivision plans for eight Lots or less called a minor subdivision plan um and that will help for getting through the missing middle housing without such an arduous review process um and in addition of a public Outreach section to to better let developers know what's expected of them as part of that article three will have the establishment of planning Horizons for development agreements changes approval authority of architectural design orders from the city council to the land use Authority and addition of minor subdivision plans as we just spoke about so the zoning District regulations to make it a little bit more clear where each of the zoning District Falls and correlates with the future land use districts we've implemented this this table into the code um so when you're rezoning you'll have the option of going to one of the zoning districts that's in the right column depending on what your future land use is or your proposed future land use is for the zoning District regulation um we've added maximum Heights for all zoning District here districts here you can see uh this is just a blowup of the target areas which are being created through this process um and then each of the nonresidential zoning districts have been uh increased in height from 35 to 60 ft throughout we've created a new zoning District called r1c it fits nicely between the R1 BB and R2 zoning districts and this is to address this um smaller lot area of Milton Square Washington Park Jackson Heights SD's Edition um and the proposed minimum lot size is 4,400 square fet with a minimum lot width of 50 fet we got a lot of questions about that at the ldcc so the goal here is not to create a zoning District that straight up allows a 28t wide lot um we're trying to create a zoning District that will maintain main the larger lots that are still within that area and prevent them from splitting even further um and so any lot that's less than 50 ft wide will still have the ability to develop and we've added standards that allow for the L U the land use administrator to have additional authorities to approve smaller setbacks on these Lots so they won't have to go through the deviation process every time they want to develop like a single family home um we've also created a new mixed use zoning District to correlate with the mixed use future land use district and we've established um new standards for density and intensity bonus based on the comprehensive plan and so this goes into that a little bit we have um we have density and intensity bonuses based on affordable housing and Workforce housing Green Building practices whether you establish a publicly accessible Plaza Courtyard or open space or public school on your property funding public transportation programs or on-site public transportation facilities any structured parking that you include additional parking for publicly accessible um any targeted businesses or Industries or Museum libraries or other cultural facilities on your site um space that contributes to the public realm that doesn't meet the criteria of the publicly accessible Plaza above and then any preservation of a historic structure we've come up with a new um permitted uses table that we think will be easier to read and we've um gotten rid of some of the Antiquated uses that we don't see much of or don't see any at all in the city and then added any of the new uses that um are being um fleshed out through this process like accessory dwelling units and multiplexes for articles five six and seven Article Five combines all accessory structures into to one article they were initially laid out by um use and so now they're all in one section um and it establishes the standards for accessory dwelling units I will point out I um I saw in the cloud today that there was some discussion about whether or not accessory dwelling units should have parking spaces in the target areas is that something that we want to talk about today yeah that we'll raise that okay so we can get to that when when you all when you all present um so article 6 has been deleted and and the standards have been moved to the relevant sections throughout the code um article 7 um has addressed developing undeveloped Lots as well as combining non non-conforming Lots so if you have the ability if there if there's the same ownership of two non-conforming lots and you're trying to develop something they're going to make you combine them so that that you create a non-conforming you create a conforming lot as opposed to a non-conforming lot for article8 architectural design we've added transparency and Architectural standards for town homes and multifam um we've added design standards for parking garages and some minor edits and renumbering um for concurrency there's the addition of the Mobility plan and fee which was handled lar by staff for floodways flood ples and drainage and erosion there are just some minor changes for streets and sidewalks um all new roadways must accommodate bicycle traffic so shared Lanes will be required on roads below 25 miles hour bike Lanes will be required on curved roadways with posted speeds greater than 25 miles per hour so as proposed today um there's no dead ends that would be allowed within the downtown core or in the downtown transition future land use and downtown transition includes both the new downtown neighborhood zoning District as well as Central Avenue zoning District that exists today and I know that this one will be up for discussion um when Teresa and Deborah present um for the Landscaping article we're removing the required buffers in these downtown target areas um that it maximizes land use efficiency encourages walking and connectivity by allowing buildings and uses to be closer together making um the uses more Compact and incentivizes urban infill and development by removing excessive landscape requirements on constrained sites for the parking section we have reduced some of the parking requirements to um make it um more compatible with industry standard um we've reduced some required parking spaces in residential restaurant and other uses within the target areas where it's trying to be more urbanized um we've added shared use parking calculations for for mixed use developments we've revised regulations for drive-thru stacking and we've added bicycle parking requirements for signs we have added a table um one by non-residential and one residential to show where these signs are permitted in each of the zoning districts we've added some graphics to the code to better clarify um what is considered sign area what would be considered a background versus an architectural or supporting element we've also added some graphics here to better explain what these signs are so a directional sign such as this which we think is required to help someone find your business this would not count towards your total sign area so you get one of these signs per Frontage to tell people where to go and it doesn't count against you we added new free freestanding sign standards we tried to simplify this um so we have business property signs that um will apply you know Citywide to any type of freestanding business based on their size then we get into environmental preservation so in terms of the tree replacement we've developed an entirely new process for not only evaluating the current stock on a particular site but also how those mitigation calculations would occur so uh first off a tree survey is now required for all the all the development sites um and we have uh created a system whereby it's going to be an inch by inch calculation for the existing trees on site uh those that are 8 in and above it would be a diameter at breast height measurement for the new trees uh those are typically trees that are 6 in or smaller and that would be a minimum of a 2 and 1/2 in caliber calculation uh so we can equate inches to inches um there is a required uh calculation uh for any mitigation development project where we calculate all the the trees that are going to be removed by inches and then we also add in all the proposed trees and any of the trees that have been preserved as inches and that's where you get your mitigation calculation uh after the mitigation if there's still a balance to meet the re the required tree canopy uh there's options of planting additional trees on site uh or increasing the caliper of trees we've got a minimum 2 and a half inch requirement you can increase that size uh and then the the last option is a payment to the tree mitigation Bank uh that's been established and then if you take one more um as far as the ratio of replacement goes um the inches are one to one but the size is really critical and so there is a greater percentage required of replac ment or mitigation for larger trees and you know we believe and we've seen this in action and other municipalities where this actually encourages the preservation of existing trees because of the mitigation cost associated with removing some of those trees so then we get back into the utility section which just has some minor edits um in the recreation facilities and Open Spaces we've clarified the different types of open space and minimum open space by development type there are some potential conflicts with the comprehensive plan in this area so we have worked with staff to identify what that is and th those can be updated with the the staff um comprehensive plan amendments that are moving forward and then for the basic definitions we really moved all of the definitions that were scattered throughout the code to this area and then we added a bunch of new terminologies to clarify anything that was not clear um and that was through the LPA and ldcc and staff Direction so we wanted to pass it back to staff to go through what some of the non-consensus items were so that we can talk through those today okay can we shift good okay so good evening U mayor deputy mayor council members um today we want to tackle um three things apart from any other you know discussion that you may bring um the items that we did not have consensus from the boards from the ldcc and the LPA new items that were raised during the last ldcc session session and then the public art contribution so to start with the consens non-consensus items one is the LPA composition so the um consultant has proposed um that we have a more professional um composition of the LPA and that would have um from the seven members at least four would have from those um um following professions um today we had one suggestion from a council member that we would have also a cap to the profession so that we do not end up with four Architects or or for environmental you know professionals or or Realtors so to have you know um an access of one profession and one perspective in the in the LPA um the LCC proposes um recommends that um composition and also gave as a potential in U negotiation to limit to three instead of four um the LPA would like that language to be removed so that is one that uh we would like direction from Council the only thing I'm going to say is that for the LPA we are also increasing the UH responsibilities so now the minor subdivision plan is uh we giving the Authority for the approval to the LPA so on this it says should include so it's not necessarily it is hard it's not a Hardline if you don't find the you know the residents that do not fit that uh CU I can tell you when I was on it I didn't have any any of them on there when I was on the LPA so and I realized it's just a matter of you know who you can find to wants to volunteer their time and beond that I think I I think there I I agree with the lpa's consensus on it I I think the city the city council should should look at the the applicants and and make a DET termination um and it shouldn't be you know there there shouldn't be a specific requirement that the city council has to follow on that I think it should just the city council should have the final say on who's on that board I concur uh Mr Deputy Mayor we've got a technical issue and we need to recess for a few minutes to let the computer reboot so okay reset how long do you need five minutes all right five minutes I have oh jeez okay hello we're getting started ready all right so we're on the discussion of whether or not we needed these specific professions on the LPA or not so Council Burton you've been on you were on that for quite a while I was um it's a citizen board I don't know if we need to have professionals on there we need to have professionals on staff and they need to be able to explain it to those board members so they can understand what they're recommending or not recommending and by the way that would be helpful for us when it gets to us you know if it can be explained to our level U from them or through them then that's the way I'd prefer it I guess I would say I don't I don't mind either way but I do feel like we have a lot of these people on the board right now um I guess sometimes we don't though so I do see the preference of wanting some citizens with background because we they do get a lot of technical items and and some of them don't understand the background but as you said staff could help with that so well honestly wasn't mandatory that's you know to me I get that word should is like it's a nice to have if you if you could yeah but you don't have to it's more of a guideline than than a requirement then we shouldn't even put it in there because I think as amongst council members when we're looking at who would be a good fit for this board that people that have these backgrounds naturally sort of seem like a better fit so I don't know I I would be disinclined to codify this just because it would May discourage people who may be very you maybe you're a philosophy person but you are an average reader of urban planning books or something and that might be the perfect person for us and I think we're trying as oh sorry go ahead I said it is it is helpful to have someone on there uh Jr ball was on it for I don't know how many years and he was a professional engineer civil engineer and he was able to explain stuff to those of us that didn't didn't understand it but still there was a lot of us on that board that didn't have that background if I can speak for LCC that they thought first off there were other cities around are doing it I think Orlando has this requirement and some other big cities with the city wanting to go to an urbanized standard those are much more complicated and and the LDC felt like if you had more professional people they would understand it better because because the new code has expanded Co has expanded uh co uh place for the LDC on their decision making so they felt like they said four uh and they understand we can't go seven but but their thought was if we put four then that will encourage Council that's what we that's would encourage more people in those professions to apply saying this is people we want on the board so they felt like putting it out there where somebody coming in uh and yeah should I apply okay well the the this the council wants this these kind of people on there so yeah I should go and apply so I think their thought was it'll encourage more people and these professions when they see it in the code and they say at least four it would encourage more people to apply and and I think that was part of the recing behind it was and to keep up with those cities and we are going we are the code is much more urbanized as you you've know it's it's complete rewrite of the code and we're met we're changing a lot of things trying to do the urban core and develop it so it's a downtown core so um there was a feeling that um that these kind of professionals would help and that and there was the argument about the first thing was should we require it and they said no let's go with the word should so we'll encourage Council to look for these kind of people and these kind of people as well to apply and that's that was the thought of putting in the code so people would look at it say okay I'm a land Planner yeah maybe that makes sense I can go on and do some good so that was that was what I believe they were thinking and if I can just add to um what he just said the ldcc also wanted to give the board um LPA more Authority so Dr Kaa mentioned it earlier the preliminary minor preliminary subdivision plan would be approved by LPA so with a new level of authority they wanted to have some more specialized um backgrounds on the board we're no more specialized than that I I I still think it should be a citizen board I agree I I especially with the word should um I mean why why do we want to put like a gray area in the in the new code I mean if if you if you want it then it should say shell and if you don't then just take it out they are right now are recommending board right they make recommendations to the city council in in most of applications but for the minor subdivision plan they are now being giv the approving Authority but then somebody could appeal it to us so the the worst case scenario here and I think what probably the people on ldcc are concerned about is what if what if these people say no to minor subdivision this causes the need to spend more time and money and resources to appeal to city council where maybe we would say yes is that is that the concern like I'm trying to figure out what the what the inspiration is well I think um you know council is more um familiar with the approval process than LPA for the major subdivisions of the major applications right so um so one question is that are you okay giving more authority to the LPA on the minor subdivision plan if they are not you know if we not require them to be more professional yes what do you guys think I agree that's fine but let's let's go ahead and finish this I mean so council member of Britain you you want it left in as I should at the most otherwise take it out Council tuer I feel like we have consensus to take it out so take it out take it out okay so no um Delp a um recommendation you know when you Prevail put out the forms of request for people to apply for it you can put the technical background that they might need to serve on the board I don't mind that but they may not need right if if they can apply but anyway so I don't want to discourage people that may not have those qualifications from applying understood the second item um in um so go back and it's to give them the preliminary subdivision plan uh for minor subdivisions right to keep it as as proposed y um the second item is a discussion on um uh dead end roads being public or private um there was a request that we would consider um if a road does not um connect to another road so if it's a cold attack then that um necessarily puts that road not to be dedicated to the city that would be private road even if it meets the requirement of uh a city road which is 50 ft um we took it to um uh both boards and um the LC um uh agrees with being optional so if it meets the requirement if it's a 50 foot right away it will be optional for the developer to um be public or private and the LPA um recommended that would be necessarily private um and we have also different positions uh within staff Public Works is um okay with um the optional and their argument was that if um a developer meets the requirement then you should it should be a public Street and we see the sign of not connecting because we want to stimulate connect activity so if it's not connecting we see less value of having it public I like the lpa's thought on this for several years now I've been concerned about the city taking on additional streets are liabilities sidewalks are liabilities if if the street doesn't go anywhere or benefit anybody outside the neighborhood or development that is built it doesn't make sense for the public at large to cover the cost of keeping up that stuff so even though it may have been done in the past and it may feel unfair not to let future people do it just because we made a bad decision in the past is's no reason not to fix it going forwards and and this fixes a problem of accepting accepting additional liabilities and it's fair because nobody is going to not know about it ahead of time so we we don't have the issue of well maybe that doesn't feel Fair well you know coming in these are the rules I I prefer that L dccc's consensus um I mean if they meet the requirements of a public road then they should they should have the option of of um deter the developer should have the option of determining that it's public or private is there a way that we could do a hybrid of that and prior to accepting the road put it into a special road district that's how the county addresses this scenario and then there is a dedicated funding source with a dedicated millage to cover the roads and perhaps the sidewalks in that particular new space I don't know if that's something that's available to cities if we do it prior to accepting the dedication Mr Hall do you know off the bat I do not know I know there are special Road districts set up I have not looked at the requirements what you have to do but we can check that out if you want that's that's obviously a good that's obviously a good option I think that that addresses the issue of well what if the HOA doesn't do a good job we know we can do a good job of storm water and doing the we can and buy pavement and bulk we can address a lot of these issues and economy of scales to make sure that the residents are taken care of but also make sure that we got to pay for it yeah but then then we would have that dedicated funding source that people would know about coming in I I think that might be a hybrid that I I could live with I have a clarification question here if you're building a property that doesn't have anybody next to it is this would this be satisfied to keep it public if they put future connection points well if there is a possibility to connect yes right okay so we're just making sure they don't close it off right yeah but you know how that goes once once it goes in there I mean we we've SE and Riverside will never connect now well we've seen it at so many locations um I mean where there's stub outs and they Nevers never going through to Lake Hayes yeah but I see that this is what this is trying to prevent you know anybody can make a development and keep the St out and say we're going to allow access in the future and if they don't they keep it private you you would have to require um a cross access agreement with approval so that when the next property comes in that you require their development to line up with that stub out and connect to it so is that kind of a loophole I guess if we allowed cross AIS and then the next guy comes in and they say no they're still giving public roads but you don't approve the development unless they meet the cross access requirements so both would have to meet the cross access yes or the second one would not you approve the First Development you get it in writing you get the agreement and writing and when the new one comes in you make their site plan meet up is this legal to require I'm just looking at the legality of it so we talking about maybe two different things one is cross access easen from yeah but the purpose Drive is to make sure you can go through right sub for a road right to connect to a f future road so we will have to see if it makes sense if there is any if there is a possibility of an additional Road right if it's completely developed around so this is more it's it's it's more complicated than a cross access eement because it's you give me a real life example I'm trying I'm having a hard time figuring this out well would Alpha it would be an example here yes right so we are completely my area of the street it goes into the neighborhood we don't go anywhere else so then that would make this private streets so we have one new development coming at Lake jaip now which is um a 13 um subdivision um laot subdivision and it's a cold attack right so it's one road that has a colder s s h it's not gated now do is that road they are meeting the um the uh minimum requirements for a street for a public street do we want that as to be a public Street or private street that is that is the question it's not gated why would we want it to be private for why would we pay for it if nobody uses it but the 13 houses that go down it and they're invitees and guests it doesn't make any sense for the whole all over the place that people don't only use it for their purposes well that that goes back to what I said before just because we did it in the past doesn't mean that it's financially wise for us to keep doing it in the future we have an opportunity here to stop doing the unwise thing the code also not dis encourages cool the saxs today so today um cool the saxs are not allowed in in some target areas in the urban areas because we want the connectivity and also the code today um C the sex can only be approved by um by um city council we're going to we'll use the for Access for waste pickup fire Services you know First Responders all kinds of stuff is going to use that road besides those people but they're only going there to help the people who live there so the First Responders are only there because to help the people who live anywhere on any street so so are you g to take the phone call when they need when they need road work done or sidewalks done and say sorry you're a private road now we do that already with with people who are on private roads and people know they're on private roads there's very few private roads the gated communities well isn't the one off of Lake Jessup there's um maybe eight houses back there I can't remember the name of it on the opposite side from probably from where this 13 is going uh around the old Depot train depot that I think is a private road and it just goes back it's not even wide enough it does so it doesn't meet the criteria some some some are private because they did not meet the the standard right so they are 40 feet right away not 50 so um I I may be may be misreading but just to clarify this would not all of a sudden make all of the roads that don't meet the standards CR it this would be for any new development comel this is in a way to encourage connectivity right if you want to you know connect then and you meet the standards of the off a city um um road then I guess I like that part of it right I like to encourage connectivity I'm kind of like on the fence when talking about this part because you know if there's 17 houses I get it you know they're not helping anybody with those 17 houses but on the flip side like Alay Woods is a good example there's 2,300 homes in there and those roads all connect to each other and you can get through the neighborhood a bunch of different ways and you're servicing 2,300 times 2 and a half a household like yeah but again it's not for existing I mean I'm leaning towards the LBA consensus I mean no I me like if the same development came in in the future in the future still is servicing a lot of people so there's different situations but the cross access easements almost seems like the better route is that a precedence we want to set that just because the number of houses is a small no well that's why small number that they only use that street we we do that versus 12200 homes in Alf wood that has all kinds of those called a sacks and and they're okay with it well I think we need to just kind of in in our brains separate what already exists from what future could possibly exist because the they we're not going to make private roads in Alf woods and if it were built again liveo probably should all be private like all these places that only service the people there and that nobody walks on the sidewalks but the people who live there and those who are invited we're not talking about existing project we're talking about about future so and that's the thing like if we were to do it again everything that's already existing exists yeah absolutely but are we fixing the main issue I guess in the I I agree what is existing is existing but in the future we wouldn't allow it to be built the way those are built we make them isn't that the main problem we have here right con fixing that side the connectivity side yeah well it creates a big incentive to figure out how to connect or accept the consequence of you've got yourself a private road here and it's not an unfair consequence in my opinion to to have that scenario so you got 17 homes uh new homes you got to have an HOA that's got to create the money to pay for that road work there's 22 new homes on Pine Avenue that have a private road that's a private road I know but this this would just say that if you're coming and you're making a dead end subdivision similar to that one gated community right it's not gated it's not why is it private because it doesn't meet the because the road quite but it still is perfectly safe for a firet TR so this I think potentially serves an environmental purpose in that then people could have less than 50 feet wide ride of ways and have more more places for runoff to sink into the ground so I like that angle of it too so does this apply too storm water too would be their responsibility to maintain their storm water no this is just for roads so we're I think you two you two were LD ldcc and and Mer LPA public is determined by the developer I think the developer comes and once that's his call but counc I don't know where she stands a great question um yeah I mean the if they don't make it up to our standard right it's going to be private anyways is that correct M that's correct so if they're coming up to our standards then the city would take it over that's the question on the table today yes which is like a double whammy because if you make it extra wide with extra pavement then we take it over and we have extra lots to maintain but if those are our requirements that we're going over right now I know I know a different thing so that's also the the argument from Public Works the counterargument that in a way with you know not accepting uh um um private roads public roads then you are also stimulating those roads to be substandard roads so that's their argument that you know they were could also cause problems yeah okay um yeah I guess I'll I'll go with LPA oh sorry ldcc okay okay yep the ldcc suggestion LCC okay so this one we have two different um issues here one is the landscape and that was a minor one um there was a a um standard that a parking garages should have um landscape around the building have what landscape landscape around the building and um um the LPA um LBCC thinks that it should be optional and staff agrees with that and LPA thinks it should be required what about the choice of art or Landscaping because at Lake Nona they've got some very beautiful parking garages uh but it's not because of landscaping it's you painting and architecturally Lake no requires all parking garages to be landscaped city of Orlando all right well there you go whatever they got going on there they are quite pretty um so I'm inclined to go with Landscaping then but I remember more the colors than the Landscaping listen in addition to Landscaping they would yeah so we actually it would be good to Greg to clarify because one of the issues that we had in discussion is that pushing landscape um very close to the building so the issues that it may bring um it's very common to have landscape close to buildings it's a matter of choosing the right plant for the right place um all of the parking garages at Lake Nona for instance are surrounded by very Lush Landscaping uh almost 90% of which is native plant material um so I'm I propose I'm in support of landscape around buildings so and I think we initially had had some large tree requirements in that landscaping area and through the ldcc discussion with Greg present we removed the large tree requirement and it's now just an understory tree requirement in addition to shrubs and and ground cover I'm not opposed to eliminating all trees because once they start knocking into the side I don't want to create a maintenance issue or animals jumping in and scratching people's cars or anything like that I I can't even conceive of a parking garage in noo at this time uh that being said having a little fluffy native grass barrier at the bottom that would that would soften it a lot coming out of the ground yeah I'd like uh I would think it would need to be minimal for security reasons you don't want a big bush out there for some knucklehead to be hiding in uh but I I do see garages that are architecturally designed or they don't even look like garages anymore yeah is that something we're going to do too yes we have architectural standards for for parking garages does Winter Park require landscaping around their parking garages I'm not sure I'm I'm not sure in terms of the specificity associated with parking garages however they do have uh landscape at base building requirements so I don't know if that's the same or not I'd have to I'd have to go back and look at the code I'd be in favor of the Landscaping the the only parking garage I can remember and Winter Park is that weird one that's kind of behind Park Avenue I think Rollins people go to it too so this is the Rollins garage sunrust and you can see that they have palm trees and bushes and the palm trees don't add that much I mean I guess they kind of do it goes with the college but D know so Madam may you were D ldcc consensus you were opposed to Landscaping no I think a hybrid optional that's well it is optional says should be optional not required as proposed no I think it should be required so then you're the LPA well yeah I guess come back to you okay yeah I required but not with treat council member poock I don't know I I think it's got to make sense um I I would I would prefer if it was you know if they well I guess if it's required they could still they could still deviate from it correct and mitigate it in quantifiable measure from the code can be deviated yes okay so I'll go with the LPA then LPA Council woman tuer man I really um don't have a strong preference if there's shrubs in front of a parking garage council member Britain that's supposed to be my line I was I just like this is not a h i die on either way so if you guys have a preference by all means I I don't mind requiring it but it should be minimal there's nothing here that says what the what the standard will be I don't want a bunch of bushes and trees and everything else that's where I'm at too anything that would require permanent irrigation by a parking garage I I would not be in favor of that so it's one thing if you get it established or you can establish it without even having to put Irrigation in the first place and then you just let it go so if it's that's kind of what it hinged on for me is you're you got you guys have thoughts it has to have irrigation or what that's what I was asking I think we would require irrigation because I would that's like an unnecessary cost it's a parking garage nobody's hanging out there for funsies so yes um in all of these commercial cases I would recommend having a commercial irrigation system to help establish the landscape depending on the landscape design that is something that you can really curtail after about 16 months of establishment and potentially even turn it off depending on what that design is but it should have an initial irrigation system to help get everything established now do we going back to it do we have what the land do we have what the Landscaping the minimum Landscaping requirements would be though we can pull and if you tip me off with page I'd be grateful I've got a PDF cover and some bushes that's you know that's about the minimum yeah I wouldn't want anybody to have to like go and and hedge the thing and keep it from touching the paint and ruining the it should just be a low maintenance yeah so it's page would be page 218 218 but we can just get okay so it's a 5 foot perimeter landscape does it say it has to be a continuous planting consisting of landscaping capable of achieving a minimum of 30 Ines in height so it's it's kind of like a hedge yeah one understory tree or palm tree planted for each 15 feet just get make a decision a l yeah that's this I'd be in favor of taking out the the tree mandate but something down low I'm going to go with make this optional for my opinion because so and that was our we like the idea of putting landscape but we thought it optional would be better than required if we are requiring then we have to see what kind of the thing is that if if you have a parking garage usually it's a huge mass and you have just ground level landscape it does nothing right so you should have some at least palm trees something that goes vertical and that was our a little bit of our concern is bringing trees you know close to the building unless we accept um palm trees as the landscape you know for parking garage our tree requirements still apply to the Lots though so they're going to want to put in trees at some points to not tap into paying into a tree bank right we do not count palm trees as trees right but other kinds of trees right so they're going they're going to want to put in some kind of landscape in but that's the thing you put a live V Next to You know within five feet that building I'm changing optional all right so you're optional optional I yeah I no tree all right we got consensus it's the ldcc optional forget what I said had consensus for clarification do you want us to keep it in the code AS optional or do you not want it in the code and they can choose to do it oh I mean if it's optional it's not something just to the shall shall should comment from the LPA before I'm just being clear we want it struck through just got it it up so it takes a while okay so parking the second one is parking um so parking we had you know quite um passionate discussions and and different trends of the market how it it will go in the future but um the LCC um proposed um 10% of the required parking um to be compact uh with dimensions of 8 by 16 so we are reducing the 10x 20 to 9 by8 that is going to be the standard and the 9 by8 today is our compact so the El c um uh did not like the 25% reduced to 10% but they also and it's not reflected here in the table they wanted 10% of the parking standards to be large you know parking spaces which would be then the 10 x 20 of today um and LPA um wanted to remove percentage for compact compact spaces they only wanted the you know the um the 9 by8 so the LDC is basically saying they're putting a cap on the compact spaces of 10% yes maximum of 10% compact yeah but they also wanted they also were concerned about the large cars so they wanted 10% also of a requirement for um parking spaces of 10 by 20 yeah so and this I'm I just have here and I I got that from um um research showing you know the US I think clay was kidding on that one I got to go with LPA so the US Standard um um large space is 9 by 20 today ours is 10 by 20 and the compact is 8 by 16 which is what we are proposing for the compact so so basically a maximum of 10% would be the compact but then the rest would be standard standard but the LC also wanted 10% for the large ones yeah we don't need 10% for the large I mean I I drive a large vehicle but I I can fit in the standard space that's awesome 9 by 9 by 18 he could do it i' I've seen you park in a tiny little parking garage backing in it's impressive yeah so are you the LPA or the ldcc ldcc wait no you're the other way you're LPA now he's ldcc he he wants the 10% Compact and um I want no regulations at all for parking so which one's qu they both I think removing the percentage for LPA is council member BR well the LPA is removing the percentage but what's the standard lot size 10 by they only want 9 by 18 9 by 18 yes so if you deal with the LPA the way I understand it is all the spaces in the parking lot will be 9 by8 yeah they didn't they or larger if they want these are the minimum requirements they didn't want anything smaller smaller they thought 9 by8 which is the compact today is already going too far most cars fit in a compact space but the most the most choice for the property owner is with LPA is that not am I understanding this incorrectly I think it's with ldcc LDC the most choices yeah because LPA wouldn't let you have any compact spaces right ldcc would let you have 10% of them being compact so smaller than what they would let you yeah they would have the smaller spaces which means they could get more spaces in the desired PR land which would get them to their code um can I I mean I honestly would go with ldcc here and I would up from 10% I would I mean I would go to 20% I don't no I like the 10 you go 10 I like 25 I would go 10% okay well I'm with one more Nuance you could allow it to go up to 25% in your target areas and 10% Citywide see I like that there you go that's I like that you all live with that Mak sense 25 is is the percentage today for compact right so we'd be reducing it with this this one is reducing to 10% I'm with the LPA one no comat I think my syntax is not understanding the words in the LPA so I'll just like put that out there if you remove the percentage requirements it sounds like you can have 100% B compact spaces in the LPA consensus now the LPA is saying the compact today oh they want today's compact size is going to be the the standard and that's it we are not giving up any smaller space 9 by 18 is the most we can go 9 by8 okay not 8 by 16 so they did not want to have additional compact under gotcha so we get guys your consensus with three of you that LDC I'm going with ldcc I I think we can have some compact spaces in there and then that way it'll allow for for for more more parking if you drive a smaller vehicle are you good with 25% of the core or you just want a 10 across the board have 10 I don't want to go that let the yeah are you are you up for 25 no I was in I was in the LPA I wasn't looking for any look you're looking for big spots huh all right so ldcc so ldcc 10% okay can I just add that the oversized um spaces that you're not seeing on here there's a minimum required percentage of 10% so are you all okay with the required ldcc or L this is ldcc they want oversized parking spaces Oh I thought L wanted oversized parking spaces no it's ldcc and I apologize because it didn't was not translated in the non-consensus table I don't know why we would require oversized parking for those large trucks yeah I think yeah the large trucks fit nor council member po who owns the big car already he could he gave up that got more driving skills than bford I just drive better 9 by 18 it is and guys are good with that too I would take that out yeah take out the the oversized spaces just just 10% can be compact up to 10% not the extra stuff yeah no oversiz no or oversize isn't required I mean they can they they can provide if they want to yes okay okay so um the new items um one language that was removed from the um draft is the land use administrative authority to uh refer applications to city council and staff is asking that language to be brought back we rarely use that but it's just um an option that uh if needed then the L use administrator could um take an application to city council for consideration yeah I I I agree I mean if if it seems like it's a a contentious item and you know and the land use administrator sees that then bring it to city council because it could end up there as a in in a um dispute or appeal yeah agreed okay consensus yep okay um the second one um um we have we added um an a public Outreach uh process and I can try to find here the language it was like 500 feet um they had to reach out to the neighboring person to specific applications specific they had to mail them a notification and then if if required to have a meeting it's not a required if if required if and but then if they did have the meeting they had to like report back yeah if there is option it was optional if they wanted to do a community but they had to notify them and these are applications that are not necessarily hearing process so we have for um um um future land use map amendments Zony map amendments these are public hearing process a special exception orders as well but preliminary subdivision plans and then we are adding Master Lind use plans um to those applications do not require public hearing so this is different than a public hearing because we would only advertise when the item is ready to reach Council and the boards um but this would be required 30 the applicant will have to notifi 30 days after the application is um deemed to be sufficient so in the beginning of the process so that you know um uh residents could um provide their um yeah I'm fine with it no I'm not I think that that's I think that that's that's unduly burdensome on the on the applicant I I think that I mean the the signs when the when it's a public hearing I think those are sufficient I don't think they need to to to send out notifications right right after they they submit their application I think I think that's that's too bsome on the applicant um especially you know going through and trying to find all the property own owners and everything else I I don't I don't see that that's necessary well that that could be done with a property appraiser right you can just say hey I'd like to I mean like if you're a real estate person you know how to like go kind of outline and say Here's my 500 feet thing where I could have to email or you know yeah that's how we do yeah it's it's easy this this gets back to the the land rights issue I mean they if they're following the rules and they're and they're within their rights to do what they need to do on their land I mean the you know I mean at the P the public hearing sign the the the the adjacent Property Owners can come to city council and you know and and speak at the at the public hearing but to to do that to a you know a property owner that's within their rights on their property that's so where did this come from so this came from um the chelonian process right where the idea to do this was this ldcc the LPA how how where were they on this um Orange County does that this there are a lot of other munali do that several of our cities do this they require in fact uh one Sanford requires that when you come before LPA you have to present a certificate that you held a meeting and who attended and and what the result was but both but how were both the Committees about this the ldcc and the LPA what did they have an opinion on this they they both um voted for with with the language as as written the only thing that we are adding now um is the musle indu plan because it's also a process that has their own development agreements so we thought that that would be also subject to U the same kind of you know um issues that um a PSP would bring um and in the past I mean residents many times come for a PSP and they say we were not never notified well there is no public hearing process for a PSP so this would be a way to be more transparent they don't need to reach consensus this is just an opportunity to alert the residents that this is coming if there are conflicts that can be resolved the process will will take care I problem with notifying people but the fourth bullet notifications must be sent 30 days after the applications is determined to be sufficient is there no way to say it can be sent as soon as the application is sufficient because doesn't have back up a project by like 30 days before or it can go to council it should be within 30 days is what it should say you within 30 days um yeah it's within 30 days I think that's how it that what it says though because I don't want someone to have to wait 30 days to notify people no no no I think it's within 30 days just want to make sure not project the month roughly if not we can change but the idea was to make sure it's sufficient then notif I'm looking at page 24 it's under number one applicability and it says with in 30 days with 30 days so that was the but I'm still for removing it but I think I'm that's fine council member Britain can leave I thought we already had this I know we did this in in the past but well we definitely had issues come up you I think you were the one that raised that some years ago it did not pass back then so are you good wait a minute yeah all right so we're good with this okay let's go back where we were um then the another item that came up in the last um ldcc meeting was allowing R3 which is you know a zoning District that usually is associated with the high density residential future land use um to uh be also permissible under middle uh uh medium density residential MDR and um and if that is the case so R3 allows uh multifamil and of course it has to meet density so if if it meets density and you um you can allow multifam but a multif family would be um limited to a height that keeps the same character of single family and duplexes so 5 ft in height and this was a discussion that was brought uh with the a preapp that we had some time ago and you probably remember the case and I have here the the the prea it's this one and it's um a property next to Pine Avenue the Jones property that he has um large Lots that do not front and they are land locked Lots today and um they the property owner owns those two lots and the lot um in front that gives the frontage to Pine Avenue and in that first lot he has already built a town home um a duplex and he's he brought this um this plan for us but it would not meet um the requirements for R2 because it would be multifam so several units in one lot he could meet density but he could not meet the typology that is not allowed in U canot meet the what the typolog the multif family multif family is not allowed in uh in R2 so if we allow this to be R3 they he will have to Res Zone it to R3 and um multif family is allowed but then we would say multif family in R3 that has a um medium density residential future land use has to be limited cannot be a vertical multif family can be horizontal multif family the argument was that this would help with the missing middle it looks like it does exactly that I I think this is a simple simple yes on my end yes on Mayan yeah yes you have consensus okay okay so we we close this one um so this was brought by the mayor with the discussion of the um right away um if it would be possible to just accept dedication of pavement and not sidewalks I don't know how that would work and I rep app back to the mayor I don't know if that would work and how could that work because usually we accept you know the whole right away and I would imagine that also private property owners will have issues having the liability of a public um you know yeah I I understand your concern with the cost but I think that that's going to be difficult to do I think I agree I think it's going to be difficult yeah I'm not for that okay I think you can look at it through the lens of if you're willing to accept streets maintenance you should be willing to accept people on foot yeah right so they they're people too and I also make sure you know we have some responsibility for comp all correct I think your your mic is off well one of the things too Council nine times out of 10 the storm water utility is underneath the sidewalk and so it's the sidewalk is within that ride of way and a lot of times the water and sewer lines are underneath the sidewalk sometimes they're underneath the the travel Lanes but we do try to push them over underneath the sidewalk so that we don't have to tear up the road in order to do maintenance or to replace a line so that that's the difficulty and all of it we're going to have some form of En easement over it anyway for us to be able to get in there and get to the utility get to the storm water and everything so it that's why normally everything's just sort of contained within the RightWay right okay what's the next one here um the next one is to extend this was also brought in the last um LCC meeting to extend the ca um zoning District to right now it's in between only the two downtown cores so the old downtown and the new downtown and U The Proposal was to move north of the downtown o Downtown the water tower district up to Magnolia so that what does CA stand for again it's um Central Avenue okay the district for EXT it's the commercial more you know commercial um U character along Central I think that makes sense it's where it naturally is already right yeah that would be from Franklin to Magnolia yeah it's it's no different than what we have now uh from Franklin to Magnolia Magnolia before we did the comp plan in 22 uh Franklin and Magnolia had office land use and but um my predecessors uh decided that they wouldn't change the zoning so that people had to come in for a zoning change and we've been lot by lot changing it to OC office commercial zoning even though there's still some up there that front on Central Avenue that have R1 residential yeah and so one of the things that so it actually what I think my my opinion is is that any of the lots that are funning on Central Avenue we should allow that to happen but we need to do both both sides of Magnolia is what we need to do because that's how it is currently so if you said from Magnolia down to Franklin then at Franklin Street that's where downtown core picks up M you know and then you once you cross 419 and you get past the trail then you know Central Avenue would pick back up again toward Mitchell hammock you so and it would just be the lots that front that front on it I I would recommend we do it I'm I'm good with that I'm good with that I guess of both sides of Magnolia Street right now are like primarily residential there's one on at the corner I know the corner is not that lot the cor is not right so like I said it would just be those that are Froning on Central wouldn't be just the one okay so not all the way down mag just okay okay I'm do we at least go to Franklin right now no he's say go all the way to ham Franklin and Magnolia that's where the Central Avenue would come in extend it to that yeah we are going to show the Zone the downtown core would stay down map would be good all right I just wanted to clarify real quick um there is a property here um that unless we create a split zoning aligning with the back of this R1 property would be granting CA zoning to this entire site as well as as this one which I don't think is as big of a problem but would you be open to creating a zoning line here no or should we leave this one out it should be the whole thing because we're popping Franklin Street through and there's that's going to be paved all through okay so this is the only one that will go this deep as CA the rest of them will just address the properties that front the street okay perfect thank you okay now and is it all the way down is it all the way down Central to Mitchell hammock as well right when you pass yeah once you get pass the downtown then it picks back up and then then you pick it back up perfect is existing C perfect okay y that works okay thank you I have to I have to C here I was searching for it okay okay the other item uh and we are jumping all over the code but these are issues that we needed Direction is on the material on the architectural so we kept the uh material requirement for 20% of bricking stone and 10% 20% for primary facades and 10% for secondary besids with the um additional language that unless the applicant can demonstrate that the materials being proposed are consistent with the architectural style of the proposed building and I don't know if you remember the loton office that we had to require it was kind of did not help you know in a way the architecture of the building because it was not what they proposing so that would alleviate that issue I mean if you're proposing something that is consistent with the style that you were trying to you know uh get done then we will be fine deviating and we can even put language that this would not be considered deviation so you're you're saying you want to add what's in quotation marks here yes this is staff's recommendation my concern with saying you can deviate if we agree that you're doing something pretty is that there's a great diversity in what people consider beautiful but I mean I mean in the in the case of of lottin Orthodontics they were trying to mirror the ltin house and they couldn't because because of that yeah it's not only beautiful right it says that if it's the style that you're propos if it makes sense if your style is to have an unadorned block building and that is your preferred style I I don't think that the applicant can demonstrate that the materials being processed are consistent with the architectural style of the proposed buildings if they came in with a a square building brick then they have to demonstrate the materials proposed are consistent with architectural style of the proposed building do you accept that I could want to have a a completely unadorned like are you following me I know what you're saying yes a concrete block building that has no stucco on it blank art canvas if that's my architectural preference and I'm I'm okay with that so I would rather eliminate some of these standards and not try to regulate architecture quite as much so this only relates to material right I mean if you bring a completely I'm going to say uninterested building it would not pass the other requirements either articulation fenestration you know so we have we have other requirements in the code this is just to address the issue of the material layer yes but is I I just want to make sure that we're all on board that you can have as a preference an outer layer that is under unadorned and we're not going to say well that's not good enough for us no but that wouldn't that wouldn't meet the other requirements but it could cuz you could have some of the walls here and some of the walls there you could move you could make your unadorned walls work is I see what you're saying is there a way to say you can have it still has to be at least two different materials well like if it's old the loton house is one material and all these old buildings if you're trying to duplicate an old look well you've got like your roof is one and then the siding is just one kind of I feel like they have more than two material so can we just say that it would require a deviation you can yeah well but but I mean from what I understand was was Brett even offered a deviation for his property so at a time I think the the feeling was that not even a deviation would be acceptable because we never done 100% 100% around the barn for this exact code requirement and I had to pay to mitigate all these effects because of the this code right because according to our code my building was ugly it is a wedding venue it is not ugly think so there has to be some kind of in between that's not causing these mitigation punishments for things that are not ugly right we would never use ugly we was non compliance right sometimes it's not even ug make things not conrete buildings which I was not so but it didn't allow for these one-off cases right so we do have a problem with our current code but I don't know if this is the fix but I think it's the right direction I'm I'm not sure this is the fix either now we also have Innovative design right so if you if if it's a goog High Museum comes to you know to the city we have the option to say everything is off because this is a icon building that is bringing whatever but it's it's it's objective I agree so C tuer you were okay with those um I see the problem of it all being 100% concrete so I see that side but I also see a problem with leaving it as it is so I think this is a partial fix I don't know that it's all the way so I mean if there's a way to get closer to what we're looking for maybe it's looking at more some some more options here I don't I don't know the the problem you face is is what you're saying though is is someone will come in because it's cheap to do all concrete block and so won come in and and and that's architectural plan and push the push the limits on it and then and then you're left having to allow we also have prohibited materials so we can also you know control the the ones that we prohibited right we have we have 40% and 50% um uh maximum requirements for stule for primary and secondary facades oh so that's already in there I'm I'm not a fan of well I I don't I think I'm in the minority on this but I I am concerned that we have a lot of really expensive coating requirements and they don't always add value and the thing that I think of most is when you're coming when I'm coming back from metrop plan I always see that butterfly next to the deepo uh and it's painted on the side of a building that I think might just be nothing but block but it's beautiful and if it were any other material it you just cringe to think well I'm going to paint over all this tile that I've coated the side of the building with and it and it's a lost opportunity so I that I don't totally disagree with that but I think let's go with this because of what you said with the retive materials I think we're we're we're good from that front so okay I'm good with this we're good good okay cool moving on um there were so this was all based on discussions we had today um parking require so we had a discussion um with parking requirement for adus accessory dwelling units in the target areas so the target areas have um less um of of requirements for parking space and did Wave parking requirements for accessory dwelling units and um it was raised today if that was that should be the case since we have accessory dwelling unit um uh parking requirements for every other place in the city yeah I'd love to speak to that so um what we're trying to do with adding Adu allowances is to allow for a family to add an extra unit on the back of their property and that can be for rental income that could be for an aging parent that could be for housing a student who needs a little bit more privacy in their own space if you are an existing homeowner your house is typically built to your setbacks right so to accommodate an extra parking space on your site makes it impossible to be eligible to do an Adu and so while we understand Citywide there there was a a strong message that we wanted parking for adus uh we push back for the target areas which are supposed to be more urban supposed to allow for this extra unit to happen supposed to be area for the missing middle we we strongly believe that you're you're not going to see adus built if you're requiring a parking space in the target areas and I I agree I I don't think it should be required I guess hold on here's my Catch 22 here so I agree with you outside of the target area because we have required two sometimes three or four spaces are are pretty consistently seen and I I know of some houses around here that could easily turn a spot they have on their current property into adus as is and they have space for parking but in our core areas we're only requiring we switching our requirements then in instead of having two parking spots for household it's one so my concern is okay now we have the same unit outside of the area requires two or three or four and now it only requires one and then you also add an Adu so now there's one spot for like potentially two living spaces so I hear that and so my next question would be and I think that you guys would be able to answer this is are you open to allowing that parking space to be like within the required setback so if they have a single car garage could that absolutely it as long as that second space is in the driveway does that count even if they're tandem spaced that would be fine with me but would that would that it discourages but would that violate our permeable ground requirements on no I'm talking about counting the driveway at the parking space as long as it's 18 and2 wi homes a lot of homes use the driveways as their parking space right because they use the garage for something else for storage so parking spaces driveways are used for parking there is no problem with that right so what I'm saying is don't make it be an independent parking space if there's a two-car garage that already exists for a single family home in the Target area and they're only required to have one space that second target area talking about downtown okay downtown neighborhood for target areas yeah because um what are the target areas that would the core doesn't have thinking about downtown neighborhood NCA if they're in centralen Central Avenue are you still okay with no parking I'm okay with no parking I'm also okay with no parking requirement let the market dictate it if people aren't buying them then they'll they'll figure out a way to make it work but th this is one of my my my concern about this is the Adu sitting in the back okay so we got to put a parking space on the property somewhere we we don't have to though that's what we're saying right so if the Adu sitting in the back the parking spaces in the back then you're adding you're adding concrete pavement wherever right that you wouldn't normally have however letting them park in the driveway that's the natural parking area for that lot no matter if it's in the downtown or if it's in just a normal residential neighborhood the parking most of our homes have two car garages the driveway is like like like Katie said the driveways are usually about 16 18 ft wide you can set two cars m there and when you have a family that has three four five drivers then yes some of them do end up in the road right but the fact that what I don't see feasible is making someone build a separate parking space to go into the back of the house right in front of might as well and park in the driveway and walk around no and that's only if they have a setback on the side that's enough to get a driveway back there to that space right and that's rare on an infill l very rare so I mean but you could we park on the driveway what you're describing they do have a front yard they could expand the existing driveway they could they could decide right but that's also not as very aesthetically pleasing or good for the environment because you're removing open space and now you have front yards full of concrete you make it Devil's or semi- permeable so we' got two people who are cool with nun are you still a nun I guess if I mean it kind of sounds like we already have more parking than we need in these spots we just aren't counting garages or driveways well if you think about a single family a single family lot requires it three three parking but isn't there no single family in the core areas no but I mean if you're talking about an Adu outside the core areas yeah I wasn't worried about those I was worried about the ones the target areas I'm driveways and garages in the core area well that's what I clarify this is because it's not going to be for the um down core because we are not stimulating single family homes there okay and this only applies to single family homes so it it's going to be to the downtown um neighborhood and and Central LA in central which is can we instead of just saying the target area can we just say park no parking requirements for adus in the city Hallelujah we definitely can yes that that is going to create issues in the neighborhoods in the in the local streets in the areas there are you do not have you cannot access where would where would this create a situation because there's HOAs all of the places where it would create a situation and I'm thinking about the the non Agway areas where this is even hypothetically possible and the roads are plenty wide there's plenty of parking already I can't imagine well AAS can change their their regulations to allow adus um and then we can have adus in areas there are none um um do not have uh Home Association but still are very Suburban in nature that people have no way to move around than having a car so the issue is that do we do we want to densify without requiring the proper infrastructure for cars if we were in a city with Subway with you know a lot of you know uh Transit yes no problem remove the parking requirements but we are not there yet I say let the market drive it there's one other option that I could propose and that would be to allow adus up to 500 squ F feet to go without a parking space and over 500 square ft to 1,000 s ft to require a parking space 500 ft is pretty much a one person unit um and when you're over that you could have more of a family type living situation which could demand more traffic just thought that okay I'm good with that perfect all right cool okay you are all writing it down right so the second one here is the changeable copy sign um there was um the questions today about why do we still have the black um uh background only one color and maximum of 20% of changeable copy sign you remember that right I know there's a story so the Cross Life sign oh yeah so it interestingly the boards still support that so that's why I I've never supported that from the time it came to the LPA so that's why we supported both so the both boards did not you know um uh proposed changes I'm fine with that I do we have a good reason I mean I I understand there's one-offs but what do you mean you you want to have full color versus we have full color in I mean like St Elementary has a colored sign and there's nothing wrong with it um oh but it can haveen stinum because it's not regulated by us but by the county is that the deal correctol but this also pertains to gas station signs where they have the green diesel the blue ethanol or the white ethanol and the red gasoline right and if you notice um WAW was is all red and every other wwas around has the different colors to delineate it and it's already being violated at some of the new the gas stations that have improved their signs so it's that's what I'm saying so I I don't think I think this needs to go away I think she's saying it goes away too I thought you were saying the opposite thing no I'm saying let them have color let them have let them have color I don't want to regate Joy we got consensus you got color let's move on beautiful so we we keep the 20% I thought you were opposite what are we just get rid of it just make it color right yeah doesn't have to be black background this is going to make the Methodist Church so happy can they can they build their changeable copy sign now under how it's written now I haven't gone and double checked okay I don't I don't want to get off yeah let's not keep going off the pant we'll be here all night no so just let them let them have full color full color but keep the 20% off the now 20% of what the sign okay so it's the maxim changeable um copy is limited 20% of the sign area that I think is fair so so 80% is static and then 20% can be a scrolling flashing here's our gas pric okay and no blank background and no one color can we also somehow limit the flashy flashiness of it we have one right we you can we went through this recently you can only cycle 4 seconds at a time or something okay is this is in there already it's it's already in there okay but it's one col I I read that part now I can retire in peace see I brought it up just for you okay we're getting rid of the black background right as well okay okay moving on Street trees Street trees and I think I checked with um Greg so um he was okay with that um Street trees should count as replacement trees inches though remember we're getting away from the terminology of replacement trees everything is going to be okay but the inches you put in on the street I think should be counted that was my replac so they count as required inches correct so so it's not it's not even Street cheese in general it's required trees should be counted as replacement they already correct correct so correct this is the new code not the old the existing code does not count right the proposed code yes okay so they're not in addition to they're they're they count currently it says in the new code they don't count so I was saying they should count so this is how this is how anything required should count towards replacement yes yeah this is how we had you know um written so it's missing the the champion trees there what what what pages are we in on this we are in page going all over 287 287 okay no RH orison yeah yeah we're kind of going all over 287 through 289 but it may not be the the I'm seeing 236 on my end 236 oh are you do Pages the little gray box Pages that's what I'm it's in a lot of places by the way yeah I'm I'm control fing it and it's uh all over the place over that that's a little funny huh so the change that we have now is that every lot would have to showed their survey and we have percentages page 21 oh my goodness it says Street trees shall not count towards the minimum requirement right we're going to correct that yeah but that's that's what I brought up there and on all of this tree stuff I think the spot we were trying to get to when this came up a couple meetings ago is it does not feel fair for somebody to be to to have to plant a different number of trees or pay a penalty if you happen to have bought a Grove to develop versus a virgin Forest like I get that they're different things but by Pure Luck of the draw like if you're the unluck yeah I got to air quote unlucky person to get the one that has Heritage trees then you have to you get fined and you get to decide what land you buy you don't just have want people yeah but so you then we would discourage people like we penalize people for buying land that is not a Grove so we would I guess we would incentivize all the Grove land to be built on on first but then when there that ceases to exist and it's no longer a choice then I guess you could say oh you could choose not to buy there and build it and you just this is the price to develop in Ovito we're going to punish you in a way that that people who had grows were not punished we're punishing people for cutting down big trees that's the bottom line it's not about what land You by it's about cutting down trees that have been alive for 50 60 70 years that can't be replaced by planting two and a half caliber trees I totally get that I'm reforesting my backyard it used to be Grove it was completely empty is there a mechanism you're reducing the value of your property I am I'm reducing the value of my property by allowing the trees to to continue to grow so if I continue to let the trees in my backyard grow such that they become sport0 years old but you're adding adding we go back what is the question oh har don't tell me you're going to show me a picture of a tree I think I can say it pretty easy should Street should Street trees count as replacement trees yes yes okay that's what I that's what I brought up question yes that's what I brought up they should do you have any other questions do you want to you guys went way off the topic we still need but we still need to address so Mr Axel did bring something up on the trees and I'm trying to figure out where it is figure out where it is6 what was that he said 15 it was section 15 and what was it 15 15 2B it's it's two it's page 287 287 and 289 and this may not be exactly how you know we showing here do you should we show the language do you want to see the language make this big 2 I went too far or this is kind of a the the summary but I can show the language as it is so with the boards one question that we asked and they all said yes to this question is that should we um ask for restoration you know should the city ask for restoration if you're removing trees when you're developing and the answer was yes so if from both boards both boards okay and Mr axel said yes to that question too if I'm not mistaken so the question is really what is the formula that would be a fair you know um um proposition um before the uh the minimum um requirement was based on a future type of development and we did not want it was not equable Equitable right because you have different if you building a town home if you're building um you know um commercial is the requirements would be different so we established something that is related to the canopy that you had on site so when you bought the site and every site will have to account for a percentage in the by inches um of and we established that 15% of the inches between those ranges of eight8 um inch to8 18 Ines in C in caliber so are we measuring based on the time the person who is clearing the land purchased it because in that case I can let my canopy grow and it's no problem I can go back to Ground Zero at any time with no zop you're going to show the survey what you have on site so it's not at the time you purchase the land no okay it's when you're going to develop right you you show what is the survey you already have and we're saying this is what you should account for 15% 20% and 30% of those ranges and we made some different simulations and then um to account for those the the D the the the uh inches that you come up in the end um You can count the trees you preserve on site and any landscape trees any minimum required trees and now also Street trees would count for those if you have still have a balance to account for then you either plant additional trees on site or you pay to the tree bank or we allowed um and that you know uh also suggestion to plant on on the street on public land if there is if there's a park that needs you know um trees then you can um plant elsewhere um so is the only difference between the current and what is proposed that street trees now count towards the requirement no no all rep that how we calculate the replacement um is different that we are also including landscape minimum landscape Cape requirements as part of the mitigation so trees that you were so all trees count any new tree counts and any preserved trees count so so what is Mr Axel's concern let him say what is his concern I think it's that he may have two two comp but I think it has to do with the inches doesn't certainly David Axel Axel real estate 1757 West Broadway Street Ido so yes the staff is accurate that I feel there should be uh some requirement absolutely I agreed with that the issue here is while I may have disagreed in the with the interpretation of the code in the past there was a cap this eliminates the cap and puts in place a percentage so very simply like been asserted here if you happen to have a parcel with larger trees you will be unequally treated compared to the person that has fewer trees so it's putting the burden presumably for the public benefit on the private few with bigger trees it's exactly the formulation without percentages I'll give you but it's exactly the formulation that the US 6 District Court of Appeals determined was unconstitutional I think that's a mistake when we looked at this uh and we went through these scenarios quite a bit the example that popped up was the beaser homes town home subdivision which happen to have large trees and the burden was well over 100 Grand would have been applied to that property and the the cap even though in my view the Cap's been applied in a way I don't think the codee's written we're not talking about that anymore the cap would be gone so someone with larger trees Bears an unequal burden so the simple question is does the city of Ovito and the public at large own those privately owned trees that are part of that real estate you're confiscating their money you're saying those trees benefited me you're taking them away but there's no scientific basis at all for that and that's what was determined by the US 6 District Court of Appeals inches by inches it's not the quality of the trees it's not their environmental benefit it's not the environmental degradation and you're not counting what you're planting everybody should be required in my view to plant the same I was supportive of some mechanism to make people think about it a little bit we all like trees we all like to save trees but the idea that you have a zoning that you're going to allow and a use that you're going to allow and a density that you're going to allow except you must be punished because there's larger trees and the idea that you don't have to buy it well what if you already own it you're being screwed and it's that simple so at some point in time when the heavy hit party comes in and has their project come forward and they don't like this math if they're willing to go through the burden of legal action you're going to probably lose because it's already been something that's gone not this particular case but this was uh a referenced case when Pacific Legal went to the Supreme Court about legislative exactions and got a nine nothing decision on sheets I think you're marching into dangerous territory did not have a cap now you all heard when we were here about Sugar Mill which I happened to own it's going to Fair better under the new code why is the interesting question most of the trees are smaller caliber so it's going to Faire better and it's okay so I'm not here about a a particular piece of property I think it's a dangerous way to go and that's that's my concern with it that's simple it goes back to the question should we require or not right so because if we are okay requiring then it's really trying to fine-tune what is the um best formula now it will all Al always um hit different proper differently because they have a different you know combination of trees right the canop is going to be different the project is going to be different some preserve trees some have that you know that Target right to preserve trees some removed all the trees and we are talking hundreds of trees when we tried to preserve the trees at at um Evans Square didn't work it didn't work well that was one case right did they ever have to pay for that tree after yeah we made them pay didn't we we yeah we had to go through a process yeah seven or $8,000 okay we had to go through the process in the Supreme Court case what was the resolution I I'm not the formula didn't work but did they come up with a resolution a new formula if you know Mr Hall you the case was cited when something went to the Supreme Court it was us 6 District Court of Appeals and David Hall will tell you and he's told our committee that might not apply in Florida spefic specifically but quite frankly if a Pana judges in in a You Know A District that serves Michigan found something to be unconstitutional based on federal law I don't know how that would suddenly be different here if someone challenges this so this particular issue didn't go to the Supreme Court the result was the town of Canton Michigan had to give the money back it it's that simple it also went to the Michigan suprem court maybe this isn't the right way but what is the right way so to me the percentage was a mechanism to make the pain less but the other mechanism which I believe the staff didn't like was to very simply have a cap if you're required as a a type of land use at in some table and I forget which table it is 121 or whatever it is to have 15 trees an acre or 12 Trees an acre then you shouldn't be required to plant more than 24 uh and you should count all the trees every single tree including Street trees which has been provided today that way there's still a mechanism now I think the the staff view not to put words in their mouth will be that's not enough teeth to make people try to save these trees but the simple fact of life is in modern dense development which you're trying to encourage it's extremely difficult to save trees with all the grading requirements and all the other requirements that is true it's really really hard so someone is going to get hammered by this so we need to come up with a number for a cap so you need to do what you want to do that's we are proposing is the cap this is a very interesting case uh I think is can we punt on this until Mr Hall can give a little bit more familiar with it yeah well I I am familiar it's Canton case Canton Michigan it's six circuit which is Michigan uh Ohio Kentucky and Tennessee uh the the Court held there their holding was the city doesn't have the right to regulate trees because they're private property yeah I I like I'm I'm looking a little summary and I want to go read in more detail we instead of punting on it can we agree to this and then come back and determine if there needs to be a difference in the cap or or if it's or you can look it up and see if if that would apply to that they private property as far as I as far as I've been able to found this this is a case like nor cases I mean this this case they said treat are PR property you can't regulate it I have no and was this federal or state oral Federal Federal cour six District like I said it applies to Michigan Ohio Tennessee and Kentucky no other jurisdiction we're not bound by that case but there but there is it was interesting in that they 100 trees were in the way of a drainage ditch or something so they removed it for a specific purpose so I me think I think there may be more Nuance there than that we are aware of so the idea is that in urban areas you're going to densify right you're going to destroy trees and then the city is going to balance out minimally we do not compensate the same number of trees right you see here you just you the this is the cap 15% of you get how this makes me want to chop down the trees in my backyard before they get big enough to count though right like that that creates an anti- incentive for people I know like the thought has actually crossed my mind but you know I I don't have any intention of developing back there but I've got an acre and I I think it creates a bad I think it has the opposite effect by accident because if you remember when uh Stonehill or whatever came in Mr CL came in and he said I remember when I was little and they had Aerials there were no trees here this was completely reforested and we dinged them real bad on clearing it which you know under our code that's what the code was but I'm not sure if people are starting to get Savvy enough that they think well I'm someday 40 years from now people are going to say I got this giant tree because I irrigated my backyard oh I didn't irrigate my backyard but you know if you did you know my parents had trees that were this big around that were 30 years old so I just regionally this first of all this is a cap so we did not remove a cap we changed what the cap was to be more Equitable with the type of development secondly there are multiple ways to mitigate right so paying if is one of them uh looking at other opportunities to benefit the city in other ways is another one increasing the size of trees that you're planting is another one um and planting more trees is another one right so there's four different options for alleviating your mitigation responsibilities I can't speak to any type of legal issues I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar by any means um but I can tell you regionally in a survey of what all the other communities throughout pretty much the entire State of Florida or doing is something similar to this where the jurisdictions are looking to to get compensation for the tree canopy because it is something that benefits more than just the single U parcel owner however how they Define that I'm not an attorney but this is not an unusual practice it's a it's a fundamental um issue of whether or not the city values the tree canopy and wants to protect the tree canopy and the benefits that are associated with that so we're incentivizing protecting the tree canopy I I don't think there's any anybody saying we don't want to protect the trees I think what the mayor saying and may Mr P is we want a fairway we want to make sure it's equable we we don't want to be subjected to a unequal treatment uh amongst clients and like the mayor said if you've got a a vacant lot an empty lot cleared lot as opposed to a tree lot it's going to cost you more yeah that's probably unequitable it's likely that that cleared lot already paid PA mitigation fees for clearing the lot well and by the way that cleared lot and the tree lot prior to this and with this proposal would would behave the same the vacant lot would not be required to have replacement trees and a tree lot would the difference is is that prior the cap was based off the required lot or double the required lotteries and so if you're an office that's 10 per an acre and if you're multif family that's 15 per an acre and so that's kind of arbitrarium in itself in of itself and what this has tried to do is apply a percentage based off of what's out there in the field there's a rational Nexus between what it is that's there and what we're requiring for replacement and that's what we're trying to achieve and we we feel like we came out to a the proper percentage I could show you the some of the uh we did 10 test cases that compared what our proposal is compared to what the code requires right now and the majority of times the existing code actually comes to a a far higher number than what this proposal does the one that uh Mr Axel has uh stated before is one of the higher cases that we had and it's because it has large or old grow trees on the site and I just want to add that um at the ldcc meeting Mr Axel also raised placing a cap um on the required number of trees um the ldcc did not agree with the cap they wanted to go with what um the staff was proposing which is this we had a um Excel spreadsheet where we went through different scenarios with the ldcc as well as well as LPA and both boards um decided to go with what staff was proposing instead is there perhaps a hybrid way where we could allocate the requirement to meet the community's need and desire for a canopy to people who may have like I may do prevent my canopy from growing so if you're a person who in anticipation of someday developing says well I'm just not going to let my canopy grow and you deprive the city of this for many decades as you sit on this land and wait keep it ugly and empty um maybe instead of just penalizing the people who have the trees already by happen stance we increase the tree code across the board equally for everyone and then we have instead of a pick your poison for people who happen to have virgin uncut forests or have allowed their Grove to be reforested then everybody will equally share in the the communal good because I I agree it's a communal good to add tree somewhere and maybe nobody can meet the tree code completely on on site and maybe everybody should I mean I see this is kind of weird but like why should only some people have to meet their requirement I I've i' I've lost your train of thought there okay so so where where are we at with this I mean whether or not we agree so this is this is my this is my thought process is keep the same cap that we have two times the required trees but but allow the replacement tree or the replacement trees to or sorry the required trees to count as replacement trees because that's all I always wanted was but this is not acable right different code we're doing inches instead of trees so you can't you have to big people that is something you could do you could just say you want to maintain the existing code except change the change the philosophy I don't want to do that like I'm okay I'm okay with this and you did say both the ldcc and LPA discusses that link and and there is no there was no consensus there was consensus on both boards on what we have if you think about this and some of the Dr C said there is a form of a cab that if you think about this 0 to 8 in or 0 to 7.99 in there's no mitigation whatsoever you can remove that tree and there's nothing when you get to 8 to 18 Ines okay you calculate the number of inches that those trees con and then your replacement is if I understand this correctly the replacement is only the is 15% of those total inches yeah you can remove 85% of those inches and so it's 15% when you get bigger yes and our has always been that way the bigger the tree that's more more punitive but it at 18 to 30 in the number of inches your cap is 20% cuz how big somebody show me how big a around like this is like the pregnant person at at the about the shower but is it are we think are we talking circumference of 30 in diameter diameter at breast height picture you know this high it's you know that's 24 in right there okay so if it's this the tree at the wedding Barn is 55 in okay just for reference so like that's a substantial tree yeah it is that's a Heritage tree you know so I mean you do have a c and that your mitigation is only going to be up to that whatever that percentage is that's your cap it's just it all adds up and then if you take into account that all of your minimum required trees now count as mitigation toward that so I mean the way I'm still wrapping my head around it but I do I do agree that those percentages are the cap of they cap the mitigation is okay councilwoman tuer you're okay with this well in the the development I don't have a better solution in the Land Development code in the landscape section and all the other sections caps the amount of required trees as well right so there is a there is a a cap in terms of what you're absolutely required to plant as a minimum requirement in a new development area councilman Briton I'm good with it for now all right we're good we got consensus for for the record though I I think this case is problematic and we should perhaps be prepared to revisit this yes so the other um the other request today was to have um a list of trees and we are going to discuss that as the adequate uh Street trees trees that should be adequate in in that could be used in lie of requiring the expensive root barrier so I would look at it the other way I would look at it as species of trees that should have a root barrier right so it's only one right no it's not only one I it's it's definitely the quirkus right it's definitely querkus virginiana the the live that's a good point that's perfect that's the better way to look at it yeah yeah if they require it they have it if they don't they don't I just didn't want to require them for trees that didn't need them right so um and I believe that we had in the code that there was a minimum width before that root barrier was going to be required to be begin with and we also in the code uh put a list of trees in there that are adequate for uh 5ft spacing or 5 foot I don't think it was smaller it was 5 foot spacing that uh shouldn't have any problemss with with u with uh uh with deteriorating the the heartscape around it but I think it would be easy to come up with a list where you could say you know these five canopy trees need to have barrier yeah but it would be nice to have a list that we can use use uh in public works can use when they are replacing trees that are already creating issues with side you know with sidewalk whatever that you know I I'd also just like to to clarify too it's not it's not as simple this tree is the correct answer in every situation uh it's going to be dependent upon uh the the conditions that the tree is planted in the health of the tree when it's planted and the maintenance of that tree in perpetuity so even a crepe myrtle you know here in Central Florida can get get to you know a 24 or 30 in calber and have some big Roots so it's it's not there's there's some Nuance here that we have to take into and I think I pointed that out too I was like I know even some of these trees will cause some issues but also some of the trees in these root Berry protections will also have some issues right yeah so I just didn't want to overdo it I guess if that's what I'm saying yeah okay is there something you need on that or we good with that I think you're all good with that good if you're good with that okay so what what I want to make sure I understand the consens they're supposed to come back and get a list of trees that require root barriers correct okay so it might not be all the trees yeah yeah I was under understanding that that crate myrtles even though they get big their root system doesn't spread out and damage roads if they do say you get print them next to my my pool and it I just didn't want to require like a small business who us to put in let's say 10 trees to have to do a $10,000 root beerer system for every tree if it didn't necessarily needed okay what else we got um we already talked about that so this is something that I wanted to discuss because it was discussed with the boards having a mandatory public art contribution we end up discussing that this is should not be in the eldy but I wanted since we discussed and I want to Direction on that as well um so today we have um that uh any uh Capital Improvement project from the city that is not infrastructure related so if you're building a new facility 1% of the cost of the uh building should go to the public art uh fund up to, $50,000 many cities are adopting mandatory contribution um from private development as well to fund public art because usually it's not being funded from the um uh general fund so the discussion that initially we we proposed the same thing 1% and the boards um reached consensus to drop to 0.1% um to apply to any building permit in the city and with no exclusion except for public schools because they do not have um uh they do not go through the building permit with do and with no cap so this would apply that's just increas in the cost of construction it's 0.1% which still in the cost a Shakedown still yeah it's still well but it's but as we're talking about you know affordable housing and then you increase the cost of construction that's but let's see how much that is and that was discussed and the board said this would be fair everybody would pay and it's 0.1% so if you have a $20,000 building permit valuation you would contribute $20 if you have you know $5,000 for a $5 million building yeah so it's not going to be and even you know all all the developers from the board um thought that this would be a fair um contribution if we value public art if we're going to have um um a city that you know that um invests in public art and if we not going to get from the general fund from taxpayer dollars 2% right no no it started as 1% so we went from 1% to 0.1 yeah but so is public Arts still going to be a mitigating it could be mation mitigation is an option right so I can mitigate a deviation and an offer for you know money to the public art this would be mandatory so this would be like a a flow of money coming to the public art uh board every month and it will be you know it becomes an impact fee for public art yeah public art impact we should call it that just call it a public art impact fee I me well it's it's a mandatory contribution I'm just valid observation Point 0.1% I I would say I be okay with 0.1% because then if you need it for a mitigation so if you want to mitigate using public art then you you apply the 0.1% or some maybe something bigger May something bigger be that would not give yeah that that is different so right now what they put in the code to change the to put a monetary value was $5,000 for each mitigation credit for public art so this would be like substantially lower than that sub yeah so this would be this would be sense in a lot of you know small um building permits and um and U uh but it would be from all building permits in the city so we would get in volume that that is a way for everybody to contribute a little bit and public art fund had a um a a flow of cash to be able to fund the programs that we are planning to have and that saying that that's for the city too we would be we were 1% so 1% is already in the code of ordinances um when we created the public art program that was already there I mean the city can if we update the code of ordinances we can rethink you know yeah because does the city need to also pay a 1% premium on the the police station of someday for public Arts so we can revisit that if we if we bring in the Cod the code of ordinances Amendment but I wanted to have Direction on that cuz that was discussed both boards um recommended that change but then we discuss that it's not really an LDC matter it would be better in the code of ordinances yeah so if the if the city has to follow this it's $320,000 I was like let me make sure I do it on a calor it's capped at 50 50,000 50,000 okay well but still if we change the code of ordinances you have the ability to change that percentage as well okay I'm okay with this are both boards fine with the0 one both boards LDC both boards were okay actually they were the ones that proposed that and the art board and the art board oh the art board probably wishes board is happy as as well yes I'm not in favor of this but I think I'm in the minority on this one too it it's it's so so dominous now it's it's like a so do we have consensus yes yeah yes good okay thank you I think I'm done with the um with what we had here to discuss but we still have time to well we still need to discuss the the the 16 to 20 foot Street Scapes well I got some things too oh sorry I think we all got some things we might have to have another I don't know how you want to start yeah I think I think Mr Axel my note show he's he was four points we discussed one I think there's three points I I can hear you I think we do have I might know show Mr actually had four points one was the trees which you've already discussed but I think there are three others I would suggest we discuss them so we don't at final hearings we can discuss tonight since this is a workshop yeah we can go ahead and do it so page 16 was the first one with the deviations so anybody flipping can we pull the code up as we do this you said page 16 yeah 2.7 I think okay that's too can I get a quick reminder of what the three questions are so the first one was um on page 16 2.7 I believe Devi um the Shell versus well no it said basically if the deviation has no impact to neighboring properties then there shouldn't it's it's it's a word choice it's should versus shall it's it's right there on the bottom line of a 2.7 yeah so let me clarify today it says may in the code and we require to any um deviation to propose a mitigation um so one one I think one of the things that has to do with the council is that if you see the bottom where it says acceptance provided in this LDC and I think one of the things Mr Axel pointed out was that those exceptions haven't been developed yet well we have some areas so for instance in the code today Street trees if you cannot build them because you have utilities that is not called a deviation we accept that so so if you can't do it then under the current thing with the percentages since you can't put it back you have to pay into the tree fund or now it's truly deviation with no penalty I think today if it's right you cannot place on because of utilities either you place um on your property if you have you know you know if you're providing shade to the sidewalk or you or you pay the fine and plant them someplace completely unrelated to you okay you're pay to the tree bank so it's a deviation so that it it and that is what it is proposed to still be or do we know off hand yeah because we still have Street tree requirements yes so I think he the suggestion I I think it is perhaps unfair to require people to plant trees somewhere else if you can't plant them on your well maybe it's not unfair let me Ponder through this coun I believe the thing is is that he want if there was a situation where you were unable to mitigate okay and sometimes you have that with setback requirements where you have a deviation for especially side setbacks you really don't have enough room in the side setback to truthfully mitigate let's say putting the air conditioning system in that side sit back and what I understand is that he was asking that because it says shall be required the mitigation shall be required what happens if you have a case where you just physically can't put the mitigation in there what happens then um there are cases I've been trying to there have been a few cases where we said mostly on single families but we've said there's just no way to do mitigation here we looked at the lot the lot characteristics the way they were the way that the building was structured and a lot of times it's you've got an existing building uh and and it is I hate to use the phrase but it is what it is and uh you don't have an opportunity there's no opportunity to mitigate it's just not doable physically doable and so the his concern was that because it a shall you have to do some form of mitigation now oh but is even single family homes they mitigate for instance in this case of the AC with landscape right we so I think it's I don't think he I don't know it's more for commercial it's more for the bigger mitigations that he would um if it doesn't impact the neighbors I think is where he was going then you shouldn't it gets into also subjective right super subjective I think the whole intent of this code is to make it easier for people to comply with the code so that we reduce the need for deviations um in the case where there is a deviation we have created a list of options um that they can now because a lot of times people don't know how they can um do mitigation um so the best thing to do is to try to comply with the code and if you cannot comply with the code then you do have to go through the deviation process and in that case we have not denied a deviation because we do we do requests for mitigations I know in the past and I know Mr cob can speak to this it was virtually impossible to get a deviation because you had to prove so many different things and we was impossible to do a variance because you couldn't demonstrate hardship yeah that's why we went away from variances and went to the deviation process so it would be based on design rather well they could still appeal this and bring it to council right some point that can always be done but miss Pier is absolutely correct I mean the the intent is to get compliance right we are also in this LDC we are flexing a lot of the code the standards we upgrading updating the standards right parking requirements so all all the deviations that would um apply to parking spaces to are we are helping them you know so we are kind of flexing and making you know the standards more um adaptable to the the uh existing conditions so we should have less deviations being requested all right I guess what's what are you guys do this is a should or shall MH is it no it's not can you elaborate thank you I don't have to call yeah I'm I'm looking at this and it's Axel Axel real estate 1757 West Broadway Street site 1 so in in essence I brought this up at the last meeting and and the issue is we have a series of because you have to choose choose numeric standards some that don't fit all circumstances and may be relatively arbitrary so for example I think was Mr Curly's little Halfacre came in where he shrunk setbacks the deviation was I think more plannings that's a a deviation you could do you're affecting the neighbor by shrinking the setbacks the example of of Sugar Mill which came forward in order to better preserve some wet lens and still have sufficient parking there were a couple of different deviations one was the size of the parking spaces which is being changed now another one was the number of spaces in a row from 10 to 12 well that has absolutely no effect on a neighbor the size of the parking spot has no effect on a neighbor the a number of spaces in a row has no effect in the neighbor either the the M the deviations warranted by the circumstances or it's not the mitigation it's hard to figure out well why should there be mitigation when you're not affecting the neighbor and that's all I'm pointing out so I went brought this up the other day uh Deborah reminded me we did talk about changing the May which is fuzzy to sh which is required added that end of the sentence the discussion was that either the consultant or staff will come back later and this was lost in time with these exceptions but the exception part never happened and that's all I'm saying so I suggested one of the exceptions could be taking I think C3 which says the mitigation supposed to um diminish the effect on your neighbor well if there's no effect on the neighbor why are you being required to do something so flexibility that's just that's just the position I raised do what you do but that's the issue I raised that's it so I'm just so it for instance if you have more parking in a row you know you may have less shaded parking right so a mitigation could be you provide additional trees to shade more parking so and that may not affect you know the because with multi family with multif family it's not the neighbors it's also the community that is going to be benefiting from that development right in case of multif family we have you know it's hundreds of families that will be leaving there so it's also to protect you know into so my issue and I staff uses common sense right we do not you know although some people may think that we want the money for the tree bank and we want the mitigations no we want to provide good good development good design right to protect you know the residents so if you have no mitigation it's also a an incentive not to comply with the code right to me this is an issue of fairness of application of the code we talked a lot about that with the trees this is saying that if you're not meeting the code but you're not affecting anyone subjectively that you shouldn't have to mitigate for it that's what I'm hearing I mean yeah I see believe it as is uh they can still if if it's such a one-off case Bring It Forward as an appeal to council which is what we have right now but but I think need to make sure that the mitigation prevents adverse impacts to adjacent land use activities like it says there right so to to because I saw this when I was on the LPA a few times where you know it was what they were deviating but we said put a tree over here which had nothing to do with what they were deviating you know because that was the mitigation which to me was was you know yeah unrated so so we just need to make sure that if if they got to mitigate it's to prevent the adverse effect of what they're mitiga it relates to the reduction of the code yeah yeah okay so do we need to then make sure that we add in the exceptions or do we just need to add a oneliner that says all mitigation will be directly related to reducing the impact of the immediate Neighbors of the deviation but it's not the neighbors it's also the lot itself and the lot itself yeah to either the lot or an adj yeah I was about to say that in the list that we have below I'm just going to travel down there is language that talks about this I think the pick your poison language right if an application if yeah if an application requests multiple deviations each deviation shall be evaluated independently and mitigation shall be required for each requested deviation or agreement group of related deviations and we're changing that word from group to category but the point behind this is that sometimes a deviation is related to other deviations that happen you know for instance if you reduce your parking stall size uh or if you're reducing the parking count and then it affects other things that happen it might be a bad example but anyway if those deviations are related then one deviation is required for those that group of deviations so this I think is kind of addressed by that but may when possible we always try to mitigate directly there are things that you cannot mitigate directly right because they like these a lot of these things are just not totally related like well I guess an EV station maybe if you have extra pavement then you might otherwise somehow that is related but uh public Art's always in there and I think well if we're paying for public art somewhere other than on site then it's not really related I I I actually just thought of one that is always Rel if you're deviating because you're not able to put a landscape a terminal Island and then that's a landscape tree and the size of the ter the terminal Island and so those would be related and you only have to do one mitigation for that grouping just an example but then the mitigation could be paying into the public art fund which is installed someplace miles from where the the cause and that's how we have funded all the projects of the project in the in the public so we keep it in the way it is all right so what was the thing about the the sidewalks there hold on the second item was the cross cross block passages page 93 so a crossb passage um helps to create block sizes that are walkable so you have a couple of different target areas that are fully vacant right now and so why the the theory behind a cross block passage is if you're just doing an extremely long building or an extremely long block and you don't have areas where a pedestrian can actually get through that block so for instance you have a parking scenario where you're parking behind the building and you have to walk a half a mile around to the front entrances to that building Orange County Convention Center anybody ever walked around it correct so what we're trying to prevent is you having to walk an extraordinarily large walk to get around a building or around a block when you're trying to get to the other side of it and so these distances are studied and they they align with industry standard for um where these uh are located on certain roads and their fdot classifications and and how um how far a pedestrian would be willing to walk in that scenario but how do you compensate the land owner for putting it in you have them design it to have either an undercut through the building or that they lay out the blocks in such a way that it provides these pedestrian access points but you're requiring a a land owner to you're requiring a landowner to to create a public space in the middle of their property no it's just it's providing pedestrian connection so there are different ways said no sometimes it's for their own development right it's to create good Urban Development but if it's for their own development then then they get to choose to do it they can choose to do it but we're requiring to do it I I understand what you're saying about walking around if you don't want it we can strike it yeah it's to create the block that is walkable if we want to stimulate you know pedestrian you know um um U pedestrianism then we have to create something that is just the scale right of of uh people walking are we going to require it for parking garages too like a 400 foot cross oh definitely so you walk through the middle of the parking garage no you just don't build that big of a parking garage you situate the parking garage so that you can maintain a block size that's walkable this is another I think I think the issue is I think the issue just adopted in Orange County or is about to be adopted in Orange County in Orange code is the place of the public easement I think that's the issue if I if I heard correctly that was the issue okay well just take out the that it has to be in a public easement or a a track that's dedicated well it's a or right in a public easement or public publicly accessible track or provide for unrestricted Public Access so you do not have to put an in easement or a trct if you leave it unlocked for people to access but if we're on board with the idea that this needs to be walkable I'm striking we can massage what are we striking it's the last one it's Roman numeral six we're striking all of Roman numeral six so leaving that it still has to have no longer than a 400 or 600 foot so we're not taking their land or use but they have to make sure people can walk across it so it still gets the point with that yes I'm good with that does that meet your issue it does no it does I like I like everything about it I love everything about it but the lawyer in me no so no I'll just say do we have consensus yes and for the record the lawyer and me looks at this and I I see how this is problematic so I'll leave that sitting there we're good but I like it the non- lawyer I just want to make sure I understand is the consensus to delete six or is the consensus leave it alone delete delete six but still required got it still allow okay so if we're allowed to regulate things like setbacks and everything else I think we can regulate how long a wall can be so we can just we simply can say you may not have walls longer than 400 ft uh so I think the issue is you just have walk through private property yes so I think the issue is six so will people walk through there anyway but maybe they can make people feel uncomfortable or unwelcome or something and that relieves that from a legal perspective I look at that and think okay well they can make them feel unwelcome and people will do what they do but then we don't have a problem where we have can we can we make a decision gra yeah yeah we have consensus there's consensus I guess okay consens it's still problematic y yeah but taking out we took out six right yeah okay it's much less that so now to the the sidewalks the crosswalks so we have placed specific streetscape requirements for the major roadways that are lining or internal to all of the target areas um specifically the ones that I've heard issues with are within the downtown Corp and Central Avenue the goal of an urban streetscape is to provide a better pedestrian and cycling experience we've been hired to urbanize these target areas this is a major component of making these places feel walkable feel safe to be on foot and not in a car it is a a a fundamental tool in planning to require specific Street Scapes to create an urban form um the idea that you could only apply these Reg ations to a site that's 5 Acres or more defeats the purpose of it because you're trying to create a continuous streetcape and connectivity um and you're not going to get that if you apply this to larger lots and not all of the Lots question we we can I say one more thing yeah yeah um per our last ldcc meeting last week we talked about looking at sites that have had sign ific public improvements within the last x amount of years that we wouldn't require you to like rip up that sidewalk that was just redone and redo it so having some sort of mitigation strategy for that again the mitigation and deviation applies to this as well so if it cannot be accommodated for whatever existing conditions are there staff is going to work with that applicant to make it work I I I've heard a lot from Mr Axel about how this affects small property owners we're talking about along Central Avenue not in DC but we're talking about like five or six feet the current setbacks along Central Avenue are 25 ft and we're reducing them to Zer or 15 and so that's measured from the back of where the street Scapes required they're basically going to earn land back for buildability with what we're proposing along Central Avenue but then they have to use you know 16 to 20 feet of it for for this am I understand correctly this isn't what's showing on the screen right now is for the downtown core along Central Avenue in the ca zoning District it's a 7o7 foot will you go to ca just so I make sure I'm saying the right numbers but this is the same area where we have a 25 foot buffer and now we're essentially eliminating that buffer and putting in 20 fet of streetcape is that correct can no okay so I'm Miss so Central Avenue streetcape is a 15t streetscape and it's from the back of the Curve curb so we're asking for an 8ft wide sidewalk and then a 7t tree planting zone um and so the sidewalk here we talked about possibly reducing to 6 feet but the 7ot tree planting zone in order to not have to do a root barrier you need 7 ft so these can be flip-flopped based on existing conditions um but but what you're trying to do is create a street that has Street trees that provide shade to pedestrians so that you're getting people walking along this area so 15 ft from back of curb probably has about seven or eight feet to where the property line starts so that next area will likely Fall on private property which is what I believe Mr Axel has an issue with is that we're asking for that property to be either dedicated or in an easement because the city will take over the maintenance of that this is this is common in every municipality I've ever worked in I'll just say that I feel like I'm missing the issue with it right now for downtown core it's a bit more um specific um and I will say I I modeled these Dimensions off of what Mr Axel is proposing in the downtown Corp okay um and and he wants it to be optional and that's a valid opinion it's like too much right away basic correct so so what we are talking about here is there will be some pedestrian realm located on private properties but in exchange for that we are also proposing so we're not taking it exactly we are giving people the right to occupy it well then I guess we are taking it back then but but you're giving them additional entitlements in these target areas to build more densely to to build more units to build more square footage of commercial and less setbacks and less setbacks okay and it's also okay so then the caveat there too is if there's not enough right away now they have to put it in an easement to make it ex correct okay the only thing we have to be concerned with and he's raised issues is it's it's a taking uh I mean in takings you know you have to compensate the property owner I think that is a valid point it's a valid there should be some sort of mitigation in the form of impact fees and we talked about that at the ldcc as they would be entitled to if increased capacity you know um then it will be eligible for impact fees so if you're extending the right if it's signed walks if it's you know would be Mobility seems fair impact fees and and what that is also standard across many municip the new legislation does reinforce that it so with a Mobility fee like you would pay x amount to create this space anyway so if you create the space in the process of Redevelopment it takes away the need to pay in yeah so then you're not paying it so as long as we're making it fair with money enti compensation by some means but there there may be situations CU um Katie talked about flipping right so you ideally it would be the street the Furnishing Zone and the sidewalk because the sidewalk is protected but we may have to flip to have the sidewalk and the furnishing down using part of the sback and and the reason that there is that flexibility and that would be through your deviation process is really for existing sites so again if there's been major public improvements and there's a new six-foot sidewalk that's been installed we should not be requiring that developer to rip that up and plant or and and do two additional feet of sidewalk when it's just been invested in and that language is not in here because we just talked about that last week but I do think think that that could help with the small lots that Mr Axel's talking about to point out that the deviation process would allow for accommodating existing situations where there's been public improvements okay so that can be added certainly okay okay we'll work with staff on the language for that okay we good all right was there anything else I think there probably is but maybe we should try it another day that was from the the list now now you've got I will say well do you I don't know who wants to go first go go for it go for it um I met with staff for like three and a half hours today and knocked out most of this so but I do think there's some things that we should mention that I like commented on in case they change them um so 181 is not really a comment it's just that I haven't really seen this it's a section 9.6 it's in the old code so it's not changed but it says we should get a presentation every year on our level of services for our roads and everything so just thought I'd put that reminder in there that I have not seen that every year um uh page 198 is that the grade 198 198 the number at the bottom so I don't know what SE yeah I can find it by 19 we're talking bicycle Lanes okay we going 19 got it yes 198 that does not look like oh yeah scroll down okay so at the bottom here we've talked a lot about bicycle lanes and I am a big advocate for not putting them in the road so I just want to make sure what we put in here is still in line with vision zero that we just went over and we incorporated all that um so I know less than 25 miles per hour on the next page they can be shared with the road and I'm okay with that and then greater uh it's going to be bicycle Lan between 25 and 30 35 say that again between 35 25 and 35 it's going to be a bicycle lane yeah so 25 and 35 you can have a bicycle lane I just want to make sure we're still putting it up out of traffic or putting some kind of balled safety system even at that level so I don't know if there's consensus to do that um I know it says if it's above 35 m per hour that's when it's required for the language but I just want to make sure I mean if that's what Vision zero has in there I'm good I just want to confirm that's what we're doing here so and bikes are always allowed to if they feel like the if you feel like the lane is too narrow or people yeah you can go on the road I just want to make sure we're putting in a safe option in our code now because this is when you do it yeah so if you're looking at see right now it does not require that it's separated is that correct it's it can be a lane bicycle lane but adjacent to a travel Lane without SE just marked yeah so like I would never ride in that lane I would ride in the road because nobody ever I me the consultant would be supportive of adding a barrier so I just wanted to add a barrier there because we've talked about it two years straight even if it's a even if it's a n i mean you're adding cost so you're dropping So you you're removing the bicycle lane option it's either either sharing or you can have a bicycle lane in the next section but it has to at least have it's in here somewhere it's a bicycle path that we call but it say Ballard it'll be a protected bike lane we call it and I'll work with in our office and there's multiple options you can have um it says it an e on there it has it we have that option sh path or physical barrier which may consist of tubular markers traffic separators so there are some options but maybe can we look into that to make it more safe is what I'm asking yeah so so here's a difference though between shared use paths shared use path has to be 10 feet um and it so what we're talking about is a protected bike lane so it has the physical barriers of what we're talking about in a shared use path but it's applied to the width of a single oneway B the 25 to 35 mile yes and I I'll work with our transportation plan to do that okay awesome I think that was a good thing to fix uh okay 220 we knocked out almost most of these so bear with me I think we right I guess this is more a goal question here so we added in that we don't allow rubber mulch and similar non-natural materials for mulching and like I don't have a problem with that but then right underneath and G we allow artificial turf um which is counteract rubber mulch it's a rubber mulch turf field which again I don't have a problem with it um but then in G3 it gets even more weird um artificial turf is considered an impervious surface even though it's perious which okay if something is blue we're going to say it's red because we don't like I just don't like how this whole section kind of contradicts itself I don't really have a problem with any of it I just want some justification here so in in terms of the Florida friendly uh landscape unfortunately artificial turf is considered an Imperia surface and not a Florida friendly material sure and so that's where we got this language um so this is all for the purpose of making things Florida friendly which is fine all for the purpose of making things more Florida friendly but also getting a landscape that works right and so we didn't want to have we didn't want to just eliminate artificial turf entirely it just didn't make sense to us uh in professional World question so I'm good with that I just want to make sure I got the background here but if we're saying it's um impervious here we're still counting as perious for storm water calculations on everything else which is I think what I asked sta cuz water's still going through it as far as engineering calculations so that's completely dependent upon how it's installed and that's why we took the default position here that it is an impervious surface because if you're actually installing it for uh longevity you're putting it on a compacted Crusher base and that's not considered a pervious surface I don't know that I like that if it rains and the water goes through it not around it drainage underneath and it continues to get less perious over time does continue to get less perious over time too fair enough why why no rubber Mals though it's terrible I mean it's not good it floats were there any others it FL fls it fls yes I do have others uh we hit that keeping us on track I'm trying to keep going no I think he forgot it existed thanks for reminding us I was kind hoping for you know one okay we're hoping just to have one 232 he'll let you do it at the end of the I this should be a quick one as long as we're on the board I just wanted to say I suggested getting rid of the distance requirements on cart Coral spacings because we don't have that currently and we just got feedback to get rid of that entire section so and that's from talking I just want to council knows I I talked about that and we thought it was this is not something we want to regulate right we do not want it's just to prevent devs all over parking lots no we're we're good okay uh all right and then 235 again this is just something I pointed out so it's not necessarily A change but I had it kind of in there backwards where parking had to be close in the park target areas and then far away Citywide where it's it's just backwards and need to be fixed so I just wanted to point that out that I brought that up this is on our list okay uh 237 okay so I don't know if there's a fix here so this is talking about stacking with drive-throughs so my example was Starbucks in OBO in the park that it backs up and gets onto the Main Street there so right here we're saying you have to do a study to make sure you grab all of the stacking but I didn't know if there was a way to say that the stacking had to start and end within the property so if it did overflow it's not getting into Street traffic so I don't know if there's a way to put that's what it does say and then the the star here is is allowing for some sort of leeway I I can talk to our transportation planner and see if I guess I guess he advises fix the issue we have right now then I'm good with it I just want to make sure like because we have a case right now where it overflows and then it blocks the the request is that the I guess is the is the request that the stacking be on site the stacking is fully captured on on because this is numerical can somebody ask for a deviation we should and we will not Grant I mean and we always approve deviations so I'm just saying we need to be careful doesn't make sense we would say no if you if you state that stacking has to be on site then it would be period it would be it's not numerical okay I'll bring that back to into this this point if we flipped it to what I said and it's all on site then you'd have to enter from the other direction on Starbucks and then it would back up and cover the whole Plaza so there's no good solution there so it shouldn't be deviated and it shouldn't be but what's the definition of stacking is it stacking from the the box or from the window from the window to the wall until intrusive thought sorry okay okay uh 239 239 yeah we're getting there I promise um that was good okay this table I'm just going to say looked ridiculous and there's a lot of things that I think need to be fixed on these biking requirements and I know staff said they wanted to look at this requested that I just want to put out there that I Flagg that as well and as far as bike racks on the next page 40 is there a reason we only allow two types of bike racks just out of curiosity we I think I'll speak for Eliza and say she Cycles everywhere and she gets so frustrated when people install Innovative bike racks and they do it incorrectly and they don't function well and they don't hold as many bikes as they should so simplify it these are easy to install I mean it's up up to they could be very cool artistic things I think we should should we add a caveat for that yes if I could this is not uh this is not taken out of a catalog this is a type this is an inverted U type sure okay there is a lot of flexibility in terms of how that inverted U is applied right the artistic ones that are adjacent to the airport uh the um what's the airport name the small airport with the the Executive Airport those are legitimately inverted use they're cool I just I mean I know the local schools have different ones in these that work really well so I just know there's other options I don't want to like eliminate options that work but I totally want to get rid of options that don't so yeah there's more to throw in we look at this I would like that okay 262 this one's a little funny um I think it's an error the menu boards so I've never been to a McDonald's where the menu is this big um so I just don't understand this requirement where the maximum height is 8 feet and if that's the case then the sign can only be half a this will be this has already been updated okay we're good we fixed it um 268 and I think that's my last one I have on here okay so this whole section we have 17 days for temporary signs which I Now understand did have a background and someone didn't just pick their favorite number that it's two weeks and like a weekend to put up a temporary sign but I feel like for for Simplicity it should be 30 days or 60 days for putting up like a temporary sales sign and my argument for this too is when the city does an event they don't go through this process and they do temporary signs way longer than this so like if a HOA wanted to do like a community sales event or something they can only say it's happening for two weeks versus like a month so it's all over this whole category but that that the 17 days is three weekends right yes yeah so thought that's fine I just I do think that's out that was that was the rationale was three weekends yeah that pretty temporary that's it all right I just got one okay and there there's lots of things where I I could go off on a tangent but I Adu that is the hill I think is worth worth spending some time on I'm sorry mayor just 17 is good it's not good we didn't not is I think so there's a there's a method to the madness and I think Mak sense thank you sorry on the adus there there are some architectural standards in there that I think are unnecessarily strict uh that it has to match the big house and I got no special problem with it not necessarily matching it so if you guys are are open to somebody doing a cool something else in the backyard um there are no architectural standards in single family as it currently stands so I don't know why we would Implement architectural standards on an Adu so not to complicate things but I know that there was an LPA ldcc back and forth about whether we can have these in front of the house or not did we land on an answer it's not going to be in front of the house I'm okay with not having architectural compatibility if it's not in front of the house so one issue with compatib we were going to discuss that anyway because we do not require um architectural standards for single family home correct so it would be you know an interesting thing to how how are we going to check you know if it's matching if it's not if it's compatible plus if you are bring that's not important to you I'm not that is a hill I'm not willing to down so are you I'm fine I'm fine with that okay so we'll get rid of that and then the other thing was the the size limitation having to have a master house in a little house I'm not sure like if you're a minimalist and you also want to have an Adu but you don't want to live in the big house I guess you you just live in the Adu I I don't know it feels extremely arbitrary to have the 50% so if somebody wants to build 2,000 foot homes instead of a 2,000 and a 1,000 or whatever yeah but then it becomes a lot split on yeah and and remember does not count as it still is the same thing so if you have two small ones like you get what I'm saying like this it's a thousand and a thousand versus I'm going to live in 2,000 like why would you not allow somebody to have level of service standards that are you're notely separ single family a small rental space I get it but what if I want to live in a little house but do you there do you want like but I'm not because then I have to have an50 foot but you know I mean like I think this works which just two yeah I'm not aligned okay if nobody's into it all right those those are my Hills everything else I I knew I was going to not win on so we'll skip them it's my bedtime same yeah I know but you you had that look like you had something else you wanted to add she do that Mr Britain we're late can I read three sentences to you on the uh Compton case I had a chuckle about this okay in a nod to history buts the court of appeals noted in its opinion that on April 13th 1772 almost two years before the Boston Tea Party a group of colonists revolted against the Crown's long-standing pine tree Act act this act prohibited colonists from cutting down white pine trees on their own land without first obtaining Royal license and subject to violators to fines That Grew with the size of the free the tree fell the colonists ignored the act and a group of disal tree owners captured the British Representatives beat them with switches maimed and shaved their horses and ran them out of town we on this city council should be careful about the these tree Acts I don't and on that note and on that note we're done come on no no was perfect thank you all thank you the the whole case is I started reading it too