##VIDEO ID:uBVsqwHJbMI## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e requirement for larger subdivisions um when they are you know or um development of a certain magnetude nextx to residential we can discuss that we can see but um it's not a bad idea it's just that everything adds you know to the process right but we can certainly uh research that okay thank you okay so we're going to um today discuss article 12 which is Landscaping tree planting and buffer requirements um 15 environmental preservation and then parking in that order um today so let's get started with article 12 um and we're going to try to go through it quickly you all have a comments from staff as well as the Land Development code committee so if I don't go over a certain page and you have questions please feel free um to to ask those questions so we're doing 12 first do 12 we got we have 13 first okay so we can do 13 first we'll do parking than you thank you okay so if you can turn to parking so parking has not been reviewed yet by the Land Development code committee so you all are going to be the first board to review parking so there's not going to be any comments from the ldcc but your comments will be provided to the ldcc since we're doing it in an opposite way we review parking with ldcc on the 13th of this month okay so it's not going to be a consensus MH okay so on um parking parking is is going to be believe it or not a pretty controversial um type of subject only because we're still in that Suburban type development where everyone wants to be able to park their big trucks um close to the buildings um and they want a certain size to accommodate the trucks um so we are in this article proposing to reduce the minimum size of parking um to a smaller size and we're going to go over that um so we do have comments from um one of our ldcc um members about removing the minimum parking requirements and you'll see that in one of the comments it says it is my view that minimum parking requirements should be eliminated especially in targeted areas that redevelop with Urban form as the market will um provide yes as a market will provide sufficient parking that being said on street or off street parking public parking needs to be free based with fees designed to ensure at least one to two vacant spaces per block although this POC this is a policy matter that would be outside of the scope of the LDC so we have not discussed this as a board um the ldcc has not discussed this comment as a board um so in our view and staff's view in terms of we'll tackle it one subject at a time eliminating the parking minimums um we don't believe that eliminating parking minimums would be appropriate in in Ido only because um when there's no parking minimums and we leave it up to the developers typically there's mass transit so that people have other Alternatives um to take Transportation different routes in Ido we don't have that um so we may still need a minimum parking um standard um and we'll go over the minimum parkings but these are just the general ideas and then we also have another comment that says this article should encourage parking being unbundled from the uses it should either um overtly permit or encourage residential and Commercial rents to be separated from parking rents and this is that developers should not be required to provide parking spaces like apartment Builders should not be provide required to provide minimum parking spaces for the residents it should be able to be charged so they want to be able to charge for parking spaces as opposed to um just having it outright free for the residents so that's what this is talking about and then why well this comes from um a member of from the ldcc so the ldcc has not decided on this yet so you're just seeing some of the comments so we need to go over these comments and see how the L the LPA feels about it as well so we don't agree with these this is a personal opinion this is a personal opinion does not represent the board they submitted some individual comments that I've plugged in here so everyone can reference but we haven't met with them as a board and they don't obviously always agree with each other's comments you that's that's great and I'm not I mean I'm opposed to eliminating the the minimum space requirements period I mean um I don't think I mean we have a a parking issue as it is and if we eliminate that really causing even more issues down the road especially since we don't have any in the area so um I would not be in favor of that or fees fee parking space either okay so we'll go around to see how you all feel about it about eliminating parking minimums first I don't understand what the um what the upside is I guess are would we make money off of this is the city would I mean so that's tackled so two things one is do we eliminate parking minimums so that's one thing so we would not have a use would not have to provide minimum parking space so many cities are going that route but as deorah said they have the transportation because they have transportation they have mass transit in place so for us we are in that transition that we want to transition and make people change Lifestyles but we do not have the off we decided there was no minimum parking space there would be no parking on on the park well the argument from him said well they will but it's going to be up to the development to propose right but we and our point is that we understand but uh we are the ones that have to deal with the nuisance of not having enough parking so it's I just don't see what's the what is the upside I mean it obviously there is no upside the up in large cities what it is is that forcing people to use Mass Transit making it more difficult to have individual um cars I'm sorry are you asking do we want to have a city where people have no place to park and if they do it's they have to pay for the little small spots is that what you're saying two things so one would be if we kept spaces that some of them X number would be for fee for be fee based the other big issue is if we eliminate the minimum it we would leave it up to the developer to decide how many parking they would provide for that project and and one thing I want to add to that one thing is that because if we do decide to eliminate parking um a lot of times parking takes up a lot of space so you see a row like rows and rows of of empty parking spaces so we're trying to to reduce the number of parking spaces yes we're trying to make it smaller um we're trying to do things so that you don't see a sea of parking but to re eliminate like um Mr Lopez was saying if you eliminate the parking minimum parking standards then you leave it up to the developers to decide which they have no incentive to have right parking spaces correct well they may have in the sense that um their business may have to be successful for finan but it's so but it's a different perspective right we have a different perspective than we are the public sector they are the private sector they have different perspective on things um now to de's point um today our code provides an an access of parking spaces so and U there's always the comment that we our P Parking requirements um is is planned for Christmas day for you know the maximum you know possible capacity of of places so and because there is a cost there is a a real cost for the developer but there's also an environmental cost of having having paved and paved areas we need to be you know to find the right balance so and because we are becoming more urban and we are trying to stimulate other modes of transportation with mix use development we are reviewing our parking standards to require what is needed for our environment right now but we are not London we are not New York City to be able to say okay for that matter or or even Orlando doesn't have a subway station right Subway Metro Station Metro so we are not there to say okay you do not come by car okay how do I go then right how do I come from Winter Park to um oido there is no other way right so we are not there yet so we are not comfortable eliminating parking U minimums that's our position okay I agree okay Mr Kavanaugh yeah I agree minims and I'm oppos char yeah I'm in agreement I agree okay what yeah so the other discussion is now um if we're going to uh charge or not which is not really an issue of the LDC right um the city and there is a lot of um um proponents that parking should not be free there is a cost to parking so if the city would you know provide parking most of large cities you know again charge for parking or they have a park limitation of of the the time so they start with a limitation of time where how long you can park and even Winter Park has that and then at one point when it's become very competitive they start charging so my concern there is though it sounds great to have a fee for parking the problem that I foresee is a now we have to enforce it and then that means we have to hire someone else or someone else to enforce it so does one offset the other I don't think oos at that point in time and I don't think it's an L that cost yeah I don't think it's an LC matter right this is more of a quote of War so in the future if the city wants to for on street parking now we do not control what developers would do with their private parking right that's again it's it's if you have a apartment complex and they start to charge for parking I just don't I don't see the benefits don't out see the way that it just doesn't make sense mathematically I mean how many spaces we you know maybe 100 200 we'd have to hire someone to patrol every two hours or whatever yeah I could see it getting there maybe one day but I don't think we're there I agree okay okay so page four look at the table have to make this a little shorter so we we're deleting in this one yeah yeah we're proposing to delete it it's under a number of spaces a says all developments in all zoning districts shall provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the number of vehicles that ordinarily are likely to be attracted to the development in question um it the sentence didn't make sense so we deleted that um I think we should have put something else okay so we'll have to go back and add some language to that one because we we wanted it to be just a little bit bit clear instead of saying that ordinarily or likely to be attracted so I don't know if we put a question mark or okay so we'll just have to highlight that and tell them to put that clear make that language clear and then in the table page five we added um live work that's the new land use category that we have in our zoning our permissible usage table so we added that we also have some comments we added Multiplex as well along with the proposed vehicle parking spaces um so we also have comments on the side if you click at the if you go to the top so it says did we decide that in the Target it if you go back up did we decide against parking maximums for the target areas or at least the downtown core and so in the targeted areas we should have a parking maximum and anything above the maximum will require a penalty um please provide guidance on the types of penalties such as fines or making it publicly accessible and that is um a comment for our consultant so we've got to figure out how do we feel about having maximums because sometimes you'll have that sea of parking um and some it's pretty rare that they want to put in more than what our code requires but if once we reduce the standard for parking if they decide to put more parking should we have a maximum number of parking spaces and then anything above that they get penalized for it doesn't seem like that very likely that that's something that they would want to do right today they we hardly do you remember of anyone trying to put in more well in the past and I remember projects that they would come and offer more parking than um than what the code required because again in a Suburban environment and they claim that even they the building was set you know distant from the street so that people could see the parking and could see and they would claim if we bring the building next to the road and the parking is hidden behind people may not think there is enough parking so this is the you know so they would say we need to show that there's a lot of parking food people to come well that created a lot of issues because you know the building would be set back it would be less safe for pedestrians and then you need those huge signs this is the the typical Suburban pattern you know the building is set really behind and whatever so now because we are changing you know the development in the city we have less of an issue of that so but that was in the past and many cities have maximums to avoid that to avoid people over parking and our new code what they're proposing is a reduction in the number of parking spaces required in this table um so we may it based on the new code more um requests to have more parking spaces are we going to have different rules there you go are we gon to have different rules for like the downtown like the question of the downtown cor core area and the existing residential areas they do not propose a difference because I mean currently right now says single family three three you know spaces per dwelling unit I'm assuming that doesn't include a garage that's their driveway correct no that's everything including the garage oh yeah oh no I mean I mean come on realistically none of these Builders past or present the garages you can't really put two cars in there not not anywhere near feasible so they've been breaking this using the driver no no they have so everything counts so if you have a two-car garage you probably have space for four cars because you have the two inside technically and two in the driveway my question yeah in driveway so everything counts right the requirements for three today and it's being proposed to um decrease to two spaces so you'll see current parking requirements and then the proposed yeah I see that M I just I don't I don't and that is for new development right the the the all the pugs that are there I mean they already have their anding new new single family is not going to be in most of those downtown core areas you're think but it will be in the outside of the downtown core area perhaps well then you'll just get more on street parking yeah exactly people will just be all in the street no than so our question to kimy Horn is where did they get these parking numbers from the proposed and why reductions yeah to me mathematically doesn't make any sense because the way they build these garages like you can barely put two cars in there yeah I used to live in Riverside and it was already a complaint that too many people are parking in the street and it's tough getting around the neighborhood and you're afraid of kids running out in the street and you can't see them because all the cars so I don't know that it'd be a good idea to make it even smaller so the idea is that the new development we have um more um uses next to it so you're going to use less cars and be able to walk to places so that's why we said that we the the new code will rise You' got school I mean if you've got a two-car garage I mean and say you've got two adults in the house that are that are driving and then they have teenage kids and you know they have cars and I I would want to be able to have four at least there but they're saying three so what a two-car garage on a small driveway they're saying two we're today is three three the proposed is two so they if we propose a two right as it is they'll make the garage going down two okay they'll make the garage smaller and the driver fit one car that's a no for me yeah I I I can't see yeah who's proposing when you say proposed developers consultant no this our consultant Kim the city consult the city's consultant because the thing we to we may have to have an examination well because it's true that we over require parking right so right now so the the all the Suburban communities they have at least a two-car garage right so a twocc car garage necessarily provides for parking spaces because we have the driveway too at at least four okay right so that is today um this is the Suburban pattern we are changing it to be more urban so imagine where are we going to have those new um development it's not going to be huge subdivisions like leog Twin Rivers alafa it's going to be more you know smaller but but even so if I have a single car garage I still want a driveway that's big enough for two cars because I can use my garage for storage or yeah or I can use them all for cars and but even so even if even if you make it a two and you can have another two behind you know it makes it awkward for people to get in and out of their driveways as well so I understand where the theory is going my only thing would be okay if we're going to do that then the developer should have a designated area for overflow parking yeah and they're not going to do that no yeah because if you if you drop drop it down that's the developers are possibly going to say well then that's all we have to do so the two spaces per dwelling um for a single family allows a one car garage in a driveway that would comply with the code right and then if you have if you have two car garages two you're going to provide four parkings four Park parking spaces right but if if it goes down to the two dwelling spaces essentially you can only you're if the developer develops the land and the property and all that they don't have to make room for anything more than two vehicles correct correct so that's that's that's the issue we're not ready yeah I think I think if they had split it between targeted areas where you can have um the retail and you know you're you don't have to drive as much perhaps that would be more p able um but this applies to the whole city um they also have if you go down to apartment um to multif family they reduced it from 1.65 plus 0.25 spaces per unit for guest to 1.5 spaces per unit plus point they did not put in the guest parking so we added it back in there because that's that's a problem too yeah I mean 1.65 to 1.5 is not a whole make of a lot of difference that's just but they removed the guest parking so we added that back I think the guest parking is should have been there to begin with that mean what does that mean though 1.65 spaces so depends on the number of units can be there two or one well it's an apartment you go X number of units right so that's you have to if you have 300 units so you multiply 300 units it's right here 250 times the oh well he just changed it to 300 times a 1.65 they're required to have 495 parking SPAC it's not per individual spot it's it's because in the apartment complex you share right you share the patio so that's some people will get one spot some people we have to kind of yeah depend on the need and depend on the rental right it's the life of an apartment yep see that's the thing you it says single family but we're really not talking about single family homes here I mean we're not changing over night from the Suburban type of neighborhoods we are today to the more urban no the Consolidated ones no because we're not it's already it's already built right so we're talking we're really talking multif family type no no we are talking new single family new development would have to adhere to this these new guidelines I agree I mean there's not a lot of space left in Oro that's why was going but my only concern would be if someone were to buy some of the older areas in Redevelopment then they would have to adhere to this platform uh and that's what I'm kind of having to struggle with personally but this is these are minimums right so if a builder is targeting feeling generous higher income higher income which is you know two car garage people may say well I want a three car garage right I want a four car garage then it it's a different this is the minimum it's not we are not maximum question maybe it's hypothetical but you know know a lot of the areas in Winter Park that are older people are buying those lots and rebuilding those homes if we if we were to have that scenario here would they have adhere to the old of the zoning area for that house or the new one the new one okay but over there as you probably know they are building they are upgrading the house well yeah to even more to bring four car garages before there were two so because they're targeting different areas what these allow allows is people to um also go to the missing middle right so we trying to bring um um a different income it allows flexibility for for um no but I my whole point of that comparison was that everybody knows that that would be the new guidelines like yeah you know right the older area of oo you know sometimes those people investors go by and build these fancy homes they're gonna have to adhere to this they may put a bigger garage in who knows but they may not right they'll adhere to this but she made a good point these are minimums they could do oh I'm not saying they couldn't either if you if you I went and bought a lot you said I want to have space for four for six cars well I can do that sure I agree with what Deborah was saying about differentiating between maybe the core I could see a downtown core being more like that but the outer edges I think should be different so if there's a way to categorize it I don't know that's exactly why I asked that question earlier because I was thinking the same thing for the core area where you're trying to be more urban I can see limits and that kind of stuff U but for other areas I think the core area we don't even allow single family no but we can have different parking standards for the core than we do for the rest of the city and some of those proposals we saw had parking garages in some of the in the downtown core area also so imagine when parking garages are built they're built with the number of units and next number of spaces per unit yeah okay so is it the board thank you okay so on separating the parking standards um is there a consensus to do one for the targeted areas and then one for the rest of the city target areas mean those downtown core areas right downtown core you also have the marketplace you have a Mitchell hammock um and the down new down toown yes I'm going yeah yeah okay have a different think that would be better so you're okay with the proposed for the targeted areas right and then keep the existing for the rest of the city yeah yeah is m home just up there for kicks or you guys allow mobile homes now what' you say mobile home is that up there there Just for kicks we have some or do we have we have within the city well we have a few we don't allow it allow it yeah that's what I thought we don't have a zoning for we don't have a zoning for so this is new construction yeah I guess okay it's just up there yeah so we haven't edited from um our previous conversations so mobile home is allowed in a in a rural right I think it's still AOW in rural yeah in agricultural zoning okay and then what is the board's consensus on um parking maximums like penalizing them is that what you're talking about um so we have the minimums anything above the minimum they'll be penalized if they provide additional parking spaces what do you mean penalized because I thought that was when we had when you said these are is they could certainly do more than so they can so but they'll be penalized they will be penalized okay that we didn't know the developer right yes so but it's not for everything no it's not for everything it would not be for everything and I'll be honest I'm not a big fan of of maximums at this point okay we'll have to address it because that one question think we should put I don't limit on maximum you know they want to build the more the merrier I guess right it accomodate more people to come to the area so their land I'm not they want to build one house and 40 parking spaces exactly that that's it seems Seems like for them yeah I mean yeah that that would not be for single family and right llex it would be for commercial it would be for areas but what I'm thinking is that in areas even in target areas you may um let's say one is going to build um um commercial in a parking garage in a parking garage is to offer you know for the whole area so technically he's offering more for the site but he's you know I would penalize we should not penalize those situations so I it It's Tricky I understand the maximum why you know Harry's proposed the maximum because we do not want people to over yeah you know U park right to you know the pavement and all that but I think it makes sense to okay does not make sense to what if the maxk max okay page nine this is going to be shared parking 13.2 yep the comment says Please add an alternative shared parking standard for lots that are contiguous to each other and then it says Please provide maximum distance standards add exception to maximum distance standards with extra Provisions such as Valley parking um and then the next comment and this is from staff this is for um this is Dave Axel this one the LDC but those comments are that I just read are for from staff to kimley Horn so we want some additional parking standards there for shared parking then we have a comment from our um member of the ldcc it says eliminate the calculation by providing a fixed reduction as noted above and that one if you go to the above I think it's mixed if you go back down this reference is incorrect oh no that's a I'm not quite sure what Dave Axel was referring to in this one so we'll have to get clarification on that one okay so if you go to page 10 did you all have any questions on any of those pages so we're going to go to page 10 so this one is a matrix so it's one of the comments says while that one while I like the fact that there's a matrix for objective analysis of shared parking I believe it is overly simplistic to call out periods of time where 100% of the maximum parking will be used during a certain period for particular use would we get a better analysis by requiring a parking study utilizing it or Uli or other objective parking generation standard in this scenario we would simply outline the standard for the parking analysis documentation and that is from haris so we have this table in our um Land Development code today and they did make some changes to it so we want them to show the strike through an underlying version of it um but it's it's a shared parking um table by use so this is what we use whenever um you have adjacent um parking shared parking adjacent to each other did anyone have any questions on that one okay we'll go to the next one yeah so 13 this one is on page uh this one is 13.3 is parking space dimensions this was moved moved from a different section of the code and we want them to create a table for all the parking Dimensions um and include a visual figure and so we used maitlin as an example of what it should look like and we want them to do something similar so that it's easier for um us as well as the applicants to review and to use so he's going Sam is going to maitlin now um to look at the table so that's the de that is the figure but the table is to the top and it has um the type of parking the stall width the depth aisle width and stall Ling along the curve so we want something that's easy for us and easy for the applicants to review sense yeah is there a consensus for that makes sense so par size standard used to be like it says there 10 by 20 so we're going to that next okay that is the next thing so on page 11 we're getting to it now now Standard Parking size so it says subject to subsection C below each parking space shall contain a rectangular area at least 18.5 and we struck through that we don't know what 0 five is doesn't make sense so 18 feet long by 9 UM feet wide continuous curving wheel stops it used to be 10 by 20 and so now there's a reduction um to 18.5 which we struck 3.5 it's now 18 by n and so the reason why that has been um a little contentious with ldcc is because they want the bigger parking space size so they haven't decided yet as we've just been hearing from individuals um they haven't decided on on this yet because they haven't seen it but they like the 10 x 20 um a couple of them do no I can't say all of them um but we are proposing 9 by8 today our compact size is 9 by8 and 25% of your parking um spaces can be compact today so we are trying to change it so that um you can have the standard size would be 9 by8 um so that's um where that came from so we're we're comfortable with 9 by8 so we were in agreement with the with the consultant on that but now we have to see how the board feels about it teres I don't know if you want to add more yeah I just want to say the park some um for development agreements some um um developments already have um the 9 by8 in noid the park is one of them so 100% of the of the parking spaces there are 9 by 18 so my only concern with that where I know that a lot of the cars are going smaller however we still have a lot of people driving large Vans and pickup trucks that that space becomes hazardous the people parking next to them or behind them or whatever the case might be because the spaces aren't big enough and then they stick out too far into the drive me driveway so I I'm or too close to the other car yeah I mean you haven't seen my kids open doors I haven't seen that though in oo in the park I don't know about you guys they seem so big the spots I mean that's my experience you in the park but how big are they there n by 18 they're n by 18 so I'm I'm probably going to go I would rather go back to the 20s so um again because it's it's more pavement it's more so what we could do an an alternative is um to then require a percentage to be larger like we do today today is the opposite so today is 10 by 20 and 20 up to 25% is compact correct yeah so we're going to reverse it we can do you know we can you go 75% the smaller and 25% the larger the standard is the smaller one and then you have provide 10% whatever is the percentage of something you said you said about um the pavement that sort of thing but isn't it going to 9 by 18 as opposed to 10 by 20 makes it so that in the same space you can actually fit more cars not that not that they're going to pave less and only fit if 400 cars was my limit I'm just going to have a smaller well depend so if if you have the same minimum requirement so if I I require 15 parking spaces and you're going to provide 15 parking spaces yeah you you you are required to have less Paving right pavement because you only provide 50 at whatever space if if they're going with that yes so you're so they're going to so yeah so they'll they'll be able to reduce the the overhead because parking space is really an overhead dead overhead for most uh shopping centers or where any business has so that will give them additional space to build because we're making them smaller and they're still have to do the minum so it's increasing yeah but then the problem you see is you allow them to build more and then people come and there's nowhere to park because parking and I see that in some of these places already exactly yeah so and we can switch those around I mean I'm all you know the 20 well let me just say if you look at compact under D um we still have a standard for up to 25% but we reduce the um size of that as well to 8 by 16 so only to you can go smaller as compact only 25% can be smaller which is 8 by 16 in Orange County the 9 by8 is the standard so I I'm not a a expert on cars so I don't know if the extended extended Mr Smith you know tracks what's your opinion I'm actually good with the proposal um okay the 18 by9 I'm good with it too okay I'm I'm not sure the um you said if it went to that it would be 75% the 18 by9 and then 25% the new one for compact spaces that's how it's been proposed right now yeah so currently in the compact is the 9 by 18 now right so we're making the compact smaller see the thing is although I heard you say cars are getting smaller but cars like the F150 are still the number one selling vehicle exact they're not it's not and that's where my issue comes in there's a lot of people still drive pickups in large vans that they I have a TR they become I mean I'm not you know I'm not saying that they're bad or but how are the compact sizes then 8 by 16 like down there on D like is those are the compact right those would be the new compact size so we're reducing the size of the compact we're reducing the size of the standard and compact but we're not addressing here's for lack of another word the oversized Vehicles right I'm I'm I'm not okay with lowering the the standard parking space the compact I'm okay with because when they well I mean I see people trying to cram their truck and a compact space they're not going to be able to do it with that no exactly um do you find it difficult parking in Ovito on the park with with your truck CU I don't have a big vehicle so it doesn't bother me but I have an SUV and I mean they're pretty big because I I parked downtown in a garage where it's like really Compact and you know feels so wide so that's why I was kind of like w that's you're right a lot of the SUVs have gotten smaller anyway except unless you get the Escalades comp none of mine are that big so I don't I don't really notice the issue yeah TR well that's what I'm saying standard being oversized based on these measurements right trck or you know just don't fit no SP you turn your M actually the 918 is the standard most 918 is becoming a standard in most places I've done a lot of Sho rol it has become the standard and U also if you notice the diagrams the angled parking seems to be a lot easier for the B you know they're trying to your angle in in fact you you'll see in some D station backend parking back in angle parking is the is the ideal parking angle back and so with that you don't have as much issue with the big now if you got a if you got a douly it's a huge truck I mean it's there to fit like this and I think Deborah said maybe if you want to specify a certain percentage for larger Vehicles so you you can do that if if if the if you decide that hey we want to we're okay with the 98 we think there has to be some for larg vehicles you could say 10% has to be has to be 10 20 isn't that a suggestion though so you can do that way it's can't it's not enforceable right justd it's not enforcable though no not really it would be a requirement if you put it in the Land Development the land required I'm not I'm say to 10% of the standard to be aart back to 20 by1 yeah I could go with five I could go with five or 10% yeah the 9ba team seems to be more efficient that seems to be the more efficient standard now most truck less gone like that obviously maybe do I know in some parking areas they they say compact only maybe they should say you know a certain side I don't know what verbage you would want to use for that but for trucks or cars or SUVs only instead of the smaller car in there or could do like large vehicle or something like put large that's at the beginning of our discussion on this section did you say some of the folks on the LDC want to stay with the 10 x 20 they the on who own the truck our truck yeah and that because of the trucks so I I I would not be opposed but not all of them so they have not all this disc we heard from two of the we just leave 70% at the new size and then 5% for back to the 20 by1 and leave the compacts at the 25% well actually I'm not a fan of the compact size that six eight what was it 8 by 16 they fit in that so it would be 8 by 16 because the guy with the truck's going to fit in that in that spot too when the only when that's the only spot left listen to sides no so I would be I'm I'm okay with the by by across the board across the board and I would delete that 6 by8 so you're okay with a new regular size which is a new standard size of 9 by8 yeah cuz if you're telling me that's what's in noo on the park I mean I've never had that's been okay okay so is there a consensus for the 9 by8 first I'm good with the 9 by I think so 9 by 18 at standard okay over I my problem is how other people Park yeah and that's that's the big part for me I was Tell Ryan that but uh you know sometimes I'm if everybody Parks perfectly yeah yeah with that then we're good I mean right yeah but the thing is now that they're bigger there's room for their error I mean essentially that's that's I mean I see that often enough yeah and the issue everybody's there's we don't Park is is doesn't have angle parking they have straight end parking and if you watch some of those people Park especially when it's busy you want to shake your head and go this is like this crazy is there we're talking about the size of the space here is there requirements for the size of the you know the road between the spaces because that's what you said is exactly a good point yeah back you got be sure you can turn in or back out and all that kind of stuff because sometimes I've been places where it's like you're backing out and I'm not past the front here to turn yet I'm close to the guy back 20 point turn they get out exactly so is there a requirement for the side of the absolutely the lane okay so let so there was consensus on the standard um parking size so let's talk about compact spaces is there a consens is on the 8 by 16 up to 25% no no can be compact no I would just make them all the same size I'd make them all the same size okay so no compact no we understand this is just new development this is not retrofit so existing parking places will remain as they are now weekend to go back and make change this just be for new development I make them all the same size but everybody WR U drives a Tesla it would fit in an eight by right small you'll you'll have plenty of room for somebody do not park well to still get out kind wish we had a taped off thing on the floor here see the 20 by 10 the 9 by8 8 by 16 I me person I just make same size it seems aspirational like and I understand what we're trying to do is we're trying to move away from Cars you know and and I just don't think we're we're there yet we're at least 20 years away from that at best I want to I really do want to I just don't see how do it okay so there was a consensus to remove the compact parking spaces I got okay so now we're going to go to page 11 13.4 so the question on this one this is talking about backing onto public streets um it was prohibited so we put in discouraged um then it says vehicle accommodation area shall be designed so that without resorting to extraordinary movement Vehicles May exit such areas without backing onto a public Street this requirement does not apply to parking areas consisting of driveways that serve one or two dwelling units and the question was would this prude angled on street parking along roadways such as a veto and the park and then should we discourage or prohibit perpendicular parking so that's a question for the board do we want to I'm not sure I get it backing into like if you're angle parking in a downtown area backing out into the street is that what you're talking about yes yes I don't know if we have an example of this perpendicular parking yeah it does behind C Stu so that's an example in in other words you know you're reversing out into a RightWay or or some kind of drive a here you go so this is opposed to angle parking is what I think actually that me means um if you have a private development putting stre putting the parking next to the street where they can that you know they would enter like that and they would back onto the street because I think this is for it is this is for private development so we actually um um today we discourage right or prohibit isn't there some of that along Boulevard today we discourage it they wanted to put prohibit so today we discourage so we have we have a situation um that we are Cod enforcing and we made you know the um private development change to on street parking to parallel on street parking because that was a safety concern um so I don't think this is meant for for um angle parking on street This was meant for private development that would use you know the frontage of the road to park and then back directly onto the street we do not allow that today so do we want to keep it as discouraged or um prohibited so was prohibited what you're saying no it was discouraged before and then um the Consultants put prohibited oh and we discouraged it again cuz the only places Am I Wrong the one on o Boulevard there's some angle back angle parking there right oh so that on Street angle parking which is that that something we I don't think that is for on street parking this is for private development using the their private land to back directly onto the street what's the difference between prohibited and discouraged in the scheme of things a good question I mean that we would only allow one is not enforcable the other one is yeah one prohibit is so prohibited means Poli prohibit is clear right we do not allow period now I we'll have to see what is the implication of that if there's any situation that that's the only way I don't know discourage means nothing yeah so prohibited is the way it's today they want to change it discour discour right now they put in prohibited and staff put it back to discourage any anything that has an underlying was thrown in from the consultant that can be kind of hard to see but they had suggested prohibited originally it was discouraged and they they put a strike through to so would there be a sign that says back on public streets is discouraged well discourage for us would be if you if you're um reviewing a side plan with we don't like that the code doesn't you know this is probably to cater for existing situation so we'll have to research a little bit on that one yeah i' table that this this is just designed sorry this is just if they they're proposing what they're going to do um in other words you know the developer knows that it's prohibited so they just wouldn't do it and if they know it's discouraged then then they can do either war and see if they get proov yeah but if it came down to an argument between a developer we say it's the SC they one area that they want to put it on there are we going to say no or can we say no they could get a variance couldn't they I just don't think there's a I don't think discourage has any teeth it it just doesn't mean anything doesn't have any bite no so either you do it or you don't but either it's prohibited or it's allowed I would put prohibited but for instance when you're leaving your driveway right if you're if you park like that you are backing onto the street onto the street so if we say prohibited then everybody has a back end of the parking then you would have to do that you know what is so that is I think that's these are the implications of prohibited when he showing us that backend parking kind of alleviate well but if you have a driveway in your house Teresa does say this requirement does not apply to parking areas consisting of driveways that serve one or two dwelling units okay so so what what's the context that it would I just don't I don't we'll have to get more information from the consultant as well what they were trying to accomplish with it so we'll get more um let's go to page 12 so this one is going to be parking in the targeted areas so this one we want to see if it's something that we want the um West Mitchell hammock area because it's we think the West hammock area which is um both north and south of Mitchell hammock we think that area may have a different character than the other targeted areas which would be the marketplace the downtown um the new and old downtown so this one talks about no parking shall be permitted between the principal building and the street or within the required front yard or Street side yard setbacks except that we included this language except that West Mitchell hammock may be allowed to have one row of parking in the front of the building so this one doesn't allow any parking between um the front of the building and the street so we felt that West Mitchell hammock area because you know you have the already have the fast food restaurants which is a long Mitchell hmck it's not within that Corridor but you already have that style of development that's there where you have the road of parking already on both sides you have the restaurant that's um there you have parking in front you have Wawa you have that that area is going to be we think a different style um of development so we include it in here except that West Mitchell hammock may be allowed to have one row of parking in the front of the building it just allows them to have one row as opposed to double rows so we wanted to get the board's opinion on it and it talk it continues to talk about the type of parking um there so we wanted to get the board's opinion on that I have no opinion so when you say one row you're you mentioned Wawa but you're talking about like where U like where Mission Barbecue is those kind of that one row so they have one row on their side have two rows two rows I was going to say there's one on the other side also so you're saying eliminating one row well this is saying now that along with along all those different gateways M which is the West Gateway um technically Wawa is not in the they're not in there so it's all the purple area but it is that's West Mitchell H so in the purple area just eliminating the second row do something similar to right so the argument that I hear from developers is that one row doesn't make sense no because they are building the the driveway the drive so to be really efficient they need to have the two roads I I would not I have the two row two rows okay over there yeah I would the second row NE I mean I would probably mandate more of an angle parking than the straight in parking we wanted to make sure that this area had parking in the front we wanted to make sure because we think it's a different style than the other ones if you pull up the the maps that shows the gateways you'll see um Gateway West core which is the um near the mall it's um both north and south of the Ovito Mall um Boulevard but it's just east of 417 and then you also we think that that area shouldn't have parking in the front um the U mall area is another core area and then you have the downtown transition and downtown C the brown areas so those are the different um targeted areas but the area along Mitchell hammock there's already existing development patterns there so we were okay with allowing to have at least one row but um as Dr Kya said she's okay with allowing two rows in the front of the building yeah it would make sense to me to mat match it all all the way down yeah I would do two okay so allowing should say a maximum of two rows in the front right we're talking the front in the front Okay so on page 15 satellite distance to parking yeah so um in the targeted areas there's satellite parking so be distance to parking if you can pull that up some more this talks about satellite if you pull it so that you can see got you yeah so it's all satellite parking spaces within the city except spaces intended for employee use shall be provided as below Citywide outside of the targeted areas must be located within um the consultant had 1,320 ft of a public entrance of a principal building housing the use associated with such parking we reduced it to 700 feet um or within um 700 feet of any lot on which the use associated with such parking is located if the use is not housed within any principal building satellite parking spaces intended for the employee may be located within any reasonable distance so we put 700 because we figure we we measure the distance from it was from the The veto on the park the city's parking lot area to what building was it I just forgot the building Cultural Center The Strand cultural C oh the The Strand yeah so we measured it from The Strand to the the city's parking lot you all know where that is next to the okay so we measured it there and it came up to about 700 ft so it's a it's a distance um but it's less than the 1,320 and this is for satellite parking was that designed to be like specifically for the Strand I remember when we were talking about whatever those places they're building right now and we had the conversation about parking and like someone wanted to go to Marlo other places and we talked about parking like and we're like well they can park in the city lot so lot does it matter what the place they're going to or you just find the closest commercial building that someone could go into does it make sense what I'm kind of say trying to say no I did not understand sorry because we're talking about the minimum length the maximum is that the maximum or the minimum has to be located within you're talking the maximum distance so how do you determine in a case like that where they're going yeah those those that we were building there we talked about the the food factory area and I remember saying talk about no parking we had this conversation and people were like well they can park up there in the city lot so that's more than 700 feet is it so they did not they did not count you you can park anywhere right you the but but for the minimum requirement of food Factor because food Factor does not have enough parking correct they use the Lots um the 1300 next to it so lot the food Park not our not our parking lot was not counted so they had to provide within um I can show you you know because there's really no food parking for the food factory other than street parking correct there is on street parking there is a little bit parking behind but um most that's always blocked off it is U yeah it's so in this case they do not but they have the the it's City Place is in front of them but the two other um developments that have commercial development they use that shared parking agreement to count because in this area the idea is to park and walk right it's not necessarily to park in front of the business you're going to well thank you for going by the stre I was thinking we can't walk through the buildings he's changing the yeah I I personally would probably move it to a th000 feet yeah so in the targeted area is you'll see in B it says um 1,320 but outside we felt that because we're in a suburban area if it's outside of the targeted areas it should be 700 but if it's in the targeted areas because it should be more walkable um 1,320 is sufficient so this is one of the targeted areas so if you go 1320 1,320 so it's the strength to that you're someone mentioned 1320 should get you mention the food factory so it the going down this way and then yeah yeah so if they qualify on in 1320 then I'm fine I guess I guess there you go and then you can do it again I don't know about anybody else but if I wanted say I wanted to go to eat at Marlo's there's no way I'm parking out there in in that five area I'm just not going to do it matter of fact if I can't get enough space closest to where I want to be leav I'm leaving I'm going somewhere else that's exactly I'm just being honest I mean now five would be fine for an event that is a lifestyle right so I'm telling you in Winter Park in Winter Park what do do do you do you go to Winter Park to yes I do and when I but you you cannot park in front of the business I I'm actually pretty lucky but I want your luck then yeah um I I'm just saying I I wouldn't I mean now mind you I mean depends on the weather like if it's raining I'm not going to do thatly you know or I'm older what if I have a heart condition or something I'm not going to do that which brings my original point F back earlier discussion is having some sort of city sponsored golf carts to take people from that down to there because a lot of people don't want then that's going to be another cost well no I don't I don't have a problem we need exercise but I'm saying there are people that don't like to walk licens some people to to get over the oversized golf carts and use it I think you'd see an increase in business in the area I think issue idea is there's not enough parking space and we've had this discussion forever in a day on that on a beo on the park well again I every time people told me that I said I is our parking lot full already and people say oh we are not going there no and to Catherine's Point she'll leave but I bet if she knew that there was a way to get from that part the city parking lot to maros she would stay if I if I parked in five that lot five there on the map I would be willing to go to an activity at the um civic center right right I would be willing to go a festival around that Lake I wouldn't would I would be willing to go to the restaurant that goes all the way down a little further out where the on the corner as Place yeah that I would be that's about what I would do but if you go to the Asian place you would go you could almost get the Marlin Marlin exactly I wouldn't even bother I would maros and all of those things up at the front I would want to be round that are that park that's there yeah or even the one over by the gym I'm just telling you I don't know anybody that parks in five and walks all the way to maros or anything that crowded though young kids and I mean I go to the gym to work out in the morning so I don't need to walk like that in the afternoon in a nice dress I just not going to I have but I will it's I mean it's never that crowded so far so I mean I think me too I'm used to and and and I do but it's again it's it's I mean I parked in five and walk to Paneras and if if you're being more urban people that live in cities is this because you're calculating your steps what's that is this because you're calculating your steps no it has nothing to do with that so what was the question again what are we doing I forgot I think it's the distance for the shared parking mm okay for the satellite one is Citywide and the other is for targeted areas so we wanted to how comfortable you all felt with the distance requirements so outside of the targeted areas because we're more Suburban we believe a staff it should be 700 in in the targeted areas because it should be walkable you know you have them excuse people should be walking 1,320 feet so we wanted to see how you all felt about so consensus on the first I'm okay with it also because although you know I might be like Catherine say Well I'm I'm not going to walk this but there's plenty people that will and it depends upon my feeling on that day you know so so at in Citywide outside of the target areas how do you all feel about 700 good I'm fine so the other thing that may happen in the future I think will happen in the future so if for instance maros right or any other restaurant starts losing a lot of um customers because it's getting more busy whatever then they will have valid parking right you going to stop in the in the front of the restaurant leave and someone will take your car to the satellite parking that's another option right I have no problem with that so targeted areas 13 20 y y That's fine everybody's good with the numbers okay perfect so page over there driv away okay on page 17 um we have language our Consultants but language U regarding electric vehicles and the statue um changed where cities municipalities cannot regulate electric vehicles so they will have have to go back and make for that's what I meant charging stations U EV charging stations so our um consultant will have to go back and and change the proposed language to match statute okay just curious some of the eras that we're skipping like 139 we didn't discuss that is because there's nothing to discuss I see there's some cross outs I can't hear you I'm sorry in like sec we're skipping areas like 139 is there just nothing for us to discuss there no we can discuss it if you have any question well you you were just going by I didn't know if there was theal okay but if you want to discuss it if you want to do that we can do that mind you it's almost no it's okay I was I was curious why we passing something I'll threw that in it's only it's almost six it is stacking through drive-throughs very interesting topic I don't mind going Page by Page just I was trying to just Target the highlights okay I just want to make sure but if you have questions about um some of the things that I am not covering please stop me and we can discuss it okay David was going to make sure we all stay on track so diplomatic okay so on page 22 and we still have Landscaping to go over so I wanted to make sure we were able to cover those two yes I like the myself I thought we were here to 8:30 where what was that I said I thought we were here till 8:30 30 what minutes to do what 8:30 said in the notes it said 8 you did but I haven't had din I'm not saying what you need to I'm just saying it's what it said you're giving me more time thank you let's go Page by page then okay so page 22 bicycle parking um the consultant is is proposing um it's called shortterm and long-term bike parking so as staff we're not quite sure what the two um the differences but let's talk about it so C2 it says short-term bicycle parking is generally intended to be used for less than two hours typical uses include visitors and customers of retail restaurants or medical offices shortterm um bicycle parking may include outdoor bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks not protected under the weather so we understand one it's not protected under the weather and then long-term bicycle parking is generally intended for use for uh four or more hours typical users include residents and employees long long-term bicycle parking must be in a format intended to provide security for longer term use usage such as bicycle lockers restricted access cages or rooms um says or continuously monitored indoor spaces areas provided inside of Office Buildings for employees and visitors May count as long-term um bicycle parking so today we have one standard for bicycle parking it does not require it to be covered you do have to have um something to connect it to um but this is requiring shortterm and longterm one is covered the other is not covered or protected or monitored um there's some kind of security along with it so we're um asking asking the consultant to just give us one standard um give us just one um because there's a table that talks about um if it's shortterm um which is on page 22 if you go down there's a different standard for it so longterm is one um space for five dwelling units shortterm is one space for 10 dwelling units U for multi and it's broken down by uses so we want just one standard one easy standard so and if it's required to be um we we don't think it needs to be monitored it doesn't necessarily have to be endorsed um those are just additional things that we don't need so we're just requesting that there just be one standard is there any difference between regular bicycles and uh electric bicycles are they all just bicycles I just curious I mean they are they are different yeah they do we heavier they have they more space yeah that's why I was asking that question I don't yeah I think my cousin in Minneapolis has two they fold up into tiny little things and even their their uh pedals fold down he got it really smaller than a regular bike I was pretty impressed electric yeah they're pretty I would like to see one standard for bikes and then one I guess another standard for the electric bikes you think so one standard for electric bike and then one standard for the general bikes that's what I is an electric bike not fallen or like a motorcycle no because they don't go that fast yeah no electric bike you still have to padle right you don't have to you can't I mean it has a thing depends on the electric bar so if you so I just walked a road in one in New York and they have three Styles they have the the regular bank for you to to you know rent yeah they have one and they have different terms right um one that assist you assistance right and one that is electric so we got the electric it was pretty heavy yeah so it was a heavy you know and I started peddling as I normally would do the thing went crazy oh let me you know so it you that one it was you were the one you're the hamster yeah but it was pretty easy so we could see and we went to a park that had some you know elevation I was was not sweating right and people were kind of so anyway that so but I I imagine there are different types and different you know yeah we don't have a requirement that requires electric bikes today um so if we're trying to create something that would require electric bikes is that I think you're going to see more and more of those coming why would you want it a different standard what you're reasoning for only because so well you may have to get those charged as well I mean they have them now and most of the time I just see them laying on the side of the road when person's done with it but I wasn't talking about that those I was thinking the one that people actually buy oh buy yeah not the rental not the ones yeah not those I think it would be too much for us to require that for development because it's not there yet in maybe later agree so are you all okay with requiring just one standard for bicycle parking okay but the reason I brought it up was just to make sure that maybe in the one standard it makes note of also for electric bikes you know for just one standard so they also have a um on page 23 location it says this is for the bicycle parking as well shortterm spaces shall be located within 100 ft of the main entrance and closer than the nearest non8 spot to the building is measured along the most direct pedestrian route um and then it goes on but we have a comment that says the locational requirements do not make sense for multif family given that for most projects there is not a entrance but many entrances also satellite parking can be 1,320 ft from a use which do not long-term bicycle parking spaces need to be within 200 feet I would presume folks that bike can also walk I agree yeah sure yeah and then we have have a comment that says satellite parking should not apply to bicycle parking distances only because when people are biking a lot of them are employees they want to park up to where um they work you know of course they can walk if they're biking yes but keep an eye on their bike yeah so um we wanted to know if we should have a satellite parking for bik iCal distance um parking spaces I think if we have one I don't think you're going to use it sound like like you said most people want keep an eye on their bikes say so is that a consensus okay no sad like parking bases fores okay and so that is it for parking did anyone have any other questions on parking okay perfect that's now we're going to 12 12 okay so 12 has also been um controversial over the years so we have a table on page six one of the things that we did was we tried to con um we tried to consolidate things and try to make it clear for um everyone and if you all have questions about the pages that I did not discuss we can bring that up as well so page six um one of the things that staffed you'll see the language that is stricken that is um the existing language except for um you'll see like where it says two family residential you'll see a two underline that's new so staff um shuck through the all the green is Staff we included what's called minimum lot trees just to make that table clear and we Consolidated the single family residential between 43,560 square feet and above also 15,000 to 43560 as well as is 7,500 um to 1499 um two family dwelling unit as well as single family we combined it so that it's um if it's single family residential detached two family residential duplex greater than 5,000 square ft You' be required to have six trees per acre with a minimum of two trees so it comes out to about the same as the table was but we Consolidated it um so that it just made more sense so depending on your square footage of your lot um you would have six trees per acre with a minimum of two trees so if you have an acre you'd be required to have six trees if you have less than an acre it really depends on the size of the lot but your minimum is going to be two trees so this is for um any residential in the city you have to have a certain number of trees per lot and that table is still there today so today if you have a single family residential between 7,5 149.99 you're required to have three trees per lot you're required to maintain that um it doesn't matter how old your house is you're required to have that many trees per lot and these are large trees so all we did was consolidate those square the square footages into um one section so I have a question for you it's going to throw all the monkey wrench you have in your plants I love trees a lot of people are putting in solar panels and they can't put solar P panels in because of the trees so we need to make exceptions somehow to accommodate those people individuals because solar is becoming more popular as time progresses especially with Duke and LPA in their rates tell me how they're not able to put in the trees not will block trees will block the the roof line if it's close to the house yeah no you really can't because you still cause a shading effect on on the panels so that's something we need to consider I think if that happens um the applicant can the resident can always so if this is an existing Tree in an existing house and then they can come remove the tree relocate and you know for the for the requirement there's going to be situations where there would be no place to plant it on a tree yeah but there's also not a requirement that someone have solar power so if someone's thinking up their house and go oh I I I got Big Trees here maybe I shouldn't do this well yeah but they but you know people are trying to conserve energy and reduce their operating costs right for a home just like anybody else right and that and solar P Sol I think we had one case that someone you know they're going to have other problems too insurance companies a lot of times don't like them Insurance just get not renewed they don't care the only one the only the only that's what I do so I've I've seen issues where they don't like it I'm not everybody but I'm just saying that's the biggest issue is if you have produce too much power that do requires you to get an umbrella policy on there are different types of trees that um you can plant on your property that are large trees um the shade trees are typically like your oak trees um those trees and they they are pretty um they grow large um but there are other large trees that we have that you can place on your property and if you cannot place a large tree on your property you can go through the deviation process and um request deviation you all have seen it as LPA um so you've seen that and we require you know that they Place medium trees or something of that nature so we still want to have this criteria um but if for some reason they cannot plant it there's other options so it's just two trees in general it's not doesn't have to be a shade tree has to be a large tree oh from the Florida friendly Flor is this chart because um is it is two trees is the large trees we have to have six trees per acre but only two have to be of the larger variety is that what we're saying no all of them they all have to be so what does that mean six trees minimum with minimum two trees no two trees minimum what two minimum trees minimum so if your lot is so small you know or the smallest Lots will be required to have two Tre six per acre but if I have a quarter acre I got to have Min of two trees all right OU but for for example like a a magnolia would be considered and there's some Magnolias that don't grow giant canopies they grow relatively narrow what about palm trees are those considered large no they're not considered trees they're not actually trees yeah that seems fine to me I mean it seems like you're saying that the two trees is non-negotiable and so yeah sounds good I'm okay yep yeah okay okay so page seven to mention we do allow the Palm for uh town homes so there you go Palms get a little shout out um p s okay okay I'm on it so one of the things I wanted to point out is that um and Dr K mentioned it already um that it has to be according to the Flor friendly plant list um that the trees have to come from that list and um it's a guide and it tells you what um are considered large trees what are considered medium trees and small trees so we have that in our in our cold also one of the things that um has come up is um C and D where it says Street trees shall be um preferably located between the roadway and The Pedestrian sidewalk or a bicycle path and shall not be closer to the roadway than Allowed by the adopted safety standards and then D Street trees that are planted closer than 5T to a Street sidewalk or a street curve and utility line shall be planted with a root perod so one of the things that um we um have talked about is that we need to revisit the requirement given the damage that large trees um cause to the sidewalk and roadway pavement and that a root barrier is probably not adequate to prevent the damage either large trees should not be allowed in this area or structural soil tree grades should be required to promote deeper root growth um and that that came from our public works department so we've been having issues with um trees pulling up the sidewalk especially in Ido on the Park area so that makes sense okay so what on page seven part one large trees and buffer areas we have um um the trunk see this is all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 and a half inches measured at 6 inches above grade at the time of Tree installation except that medium and small multi- stem species may have a minimum container size of 45 gallons and that's something we um amended to allow um different size trees not just large trees um and then we also place the tree caliper there as well okay then on page nine D and E yeah I can click on that so we have comments on these and it D says where the adjacent property buffer is greater than the vehicular use area buffer requirement of section 12.5 the adjacent property buffer is required under no circumstances should the adjacent property buffer be required in addition to vehicular use area buffer requirements um and then we also have a new standard for building perimeter landscape where it's required and there is no parking of vehicular circulation between the building and rideway um buffer yard required U buffer yard landscaping May count towards building perimeter landscape requirements so one of the comments is that um that the area needs to d& needs to be Rewritten because it's not making sense uh we remove the vehicular use buffer requirements in a previous table and then the question is do we need um a building perimeter landscape it's a new um landscape requirement we have the we have the property landscape requirement and now we have a new building landscape requirement where the building has to be landscaped um with different things so we'll talk about that as well but as staff we don't believe that the building needs to be landscaped if you have the property already landscaped so we'll go over that as well so um on page nine they have in here um they reduced the minimum width of some of the buffers but they also included an area for shrubs so we have our regular if you go down a little bit you'll see where it's highlighted continuous evergreen shrub row breaks for pedestrian circulation allow so if you can imagine um Landscaping that we have today so you can let's you want to go to let's do Panera so you have the trees that we require but then they're also requesting now a shrub to be in that buffer area as well so if you can imagine Shrubbery between those trees as well so it would be an additional requirement we used to have in our I believe it was a C2 type buffer where it we required shuy and it had to be opaque and the problem with it being opaque is that sometimes those shrubs die and it was hard to enforce that um the opacity of it um because you you were going to if it's going to die you can see through it so there was nothing opaque about it um so they are bringing back this um shrub but it allows for a pedestrian to go through the shrubs if I guess if there's a drive if there's a walkway through it so do we want to add um that row of Shrubbery in my opinion it's just too much and to as a business owner or you don't it covers up visibility to your business and I wouldn't like having to have a bunch of shrubs out in front covering up you know people's ability to see my my build my building and business so except hope they're low shrubs we talking like a hedge type of thing you can see on that one picture you went away from it the one in front of Panera is there okay there's shrubs partway do we have it there and the shrubs there but none to the left did they just die up because the trees got big and they got no sunlight type of thing you can wonder do we yeah AR looking too good to me it just starts looking kind of junky so we would code en force them if it that was required yeah I I no I don't think we should put shrubs underneath the trees personally because once those trees get to full maturity they're not going to get any some that's and that's what I was worried about that era there figuring there was shrs all at one time so one one thing is when they the landscape architect proposes right I mean we do not if they want to propose shrubs they can they can but the other thing is if we going to require right so if you're going to require so for instance the height is an issue for police it becomes too high it maybe you know for commercial areas they they have issues because of safety so do we require the trees we do the trees we require we do requ trees sounds good but the shrubs that's the discussion so the ldcc um they also believe that the language should be removed okay yeah yeah I'm okay with that I would agree but the shrubs actually they're not for the city to maintain so even if they had shrubs there they decid to do it it's the business's problem people can't see their business they should cut their own bushes yeah we we if it's required we enforce exactly okay if there's an issue okay so page 11 building perimeter okay so this is the building perimeter Landscaping requirement that I talked about earlier and it's um a landscape area shall be provided between all buildings buildings and the public RightWay and along the primary facade the landscape area shall be equal to the full linear length of the building base oriented towards the public rway and shall have a minimum depth of8 feet within the targeted area districts the landscape area shall be equal to half of the linear length of the building base oriented towards the public RightWay excluding areas within 5T of any doorway the average depth shall be 5 feet and then it goes on to talk about the Landscaping so um one of the things we wanted kimy horn to talk about is why is this needed because it seems like it's Overkill since we already have a buffer requirement for the property itself and then they want to hide well I can't say hide but that's what it seems like they want to hide the building because we already have architectural standards as well and so it it appears as though they're placing Landscaping in front of the building which could hide the building hide hide the architectural um elements of the building so we wanted to see um the lpas ldcc did they provide an opinion on this one they did with theal landscap I think there is a please remove the section isn't that if you go up here no down down please remove oh that was from Kim so I think that was us saying to Kim so how does the LPA feel about this section well why I mean why does she why is she she proposing it I mean is that the modern way I mean what is what's I mean Landscaping is pretty so so I think the idea was that this can be used as an articulation for the building because it can you know bring interest enhance the the architecture the thing is that um we we have in our standards that for some for some facades this can be used as an articulation but when you require that becomes a requirement for all buildings um so we have several concerns um many times they put for instance we require an upgraded material to the facades right the brick or stone many times they do the base so this would be hiding the base of the building if that is a requirement so it's conflicting of putting an upgraded material that's more expensive and then hiding it um the other thing is that many times landscape very close to the building creates issues for the building right for the foundation if you have trees if you have large vegetation so again we wanted to give you can you can use it as an enhancement if the archit and L landscape architect decide that's a good decision not necessarily I think we want to have it as a requirement for all buildings I'm I'm fine with that I'm just what you know you have a consultant and she's proposing this for some reason I just I wonder why a lot of times it's it's what's going on in other areas other municipalities and the City of Orlando may have this she came from the city of Orlando so it may be required in city of Orlando we noticed that a lot of the requirements came from the city of Orlando so so the other thing and that is a comment over there that is conflicting with streetscape requirements is because in target areas you want the building next to the sidewalk right you want that vibrancy so requiring this distance of for this landscape makes the the um pedestrian be more distant than the building so imagine in Park Avenue you have the the business the you know the sidewalk aair there whatever so if you push now a landscape next to the building then you're making this whole thing um um being away from the building so I get we don't think it makes sense I don't really doesn't matter me what do you guys think yeah I agree with taking it out what is the the consensus of the board sure take out that's fine okay so page 11 um parking garages so there's a um landscape requirement for parking garage as well so it says perimeter Landscaping required for parking garages were adjacent to a sidewalk shall be a minimum of 5T in depth and shall be planted with a continuous planting consisting of landscaping capable of achieving a minimum of 30 in in height except we're interrupted by vehicular or pedestrian circulation and then B it says one unistory tree or palm tree planted than 15 ft of or fraction thereof of the linear building facade except that one large tree may be planted for each 25 ft or fraction thereof of a lineal bu building facade if the landscape area is a minimum of 10 ft in depth um so staff had a question on whether or not A and B are required um is this a requirement in addition to streetcape requirements because there's a street skate requirement um if it is an addition would this be better suited as an optional articulation architectural element as opposed to being required and then we want them to address landscaping and lighting along walkways especially between parking garages um building and other Pathways and I think we looked at the Lake Nona um parking garage as a as an example and we can do that we can go there um but the ldcc consensus for this was that Landscaping should not be required but used as an option the garage should be integrated into the building or meet the architectural requirements um of that so if we can go to the like Nona parking garage we can just take a look at that know boxy Park yeah boxy Park like Nona parking garage do you know if it's one of these I to put in likea parking garage here's the lake G okay that's it oh I can't that must not be the one I can't drop Boulevard parking let's see oh this is it I think so you'll see the Landscaping you'll see the trees there and so what they're saying is they want one understory tree or palm tree planted for each 15 feet a fraction thereof of the building facade so you can see how this parking garage they have the palm trees and they also have additional landscape is that Lake non that's Lake Nona so the question is should we require this landscaping or should it be an used as an option and that the garage should be integrated into the building it looks really pretty it did I kind of the way it looked it yeah okay and that is a consensus to keep it to keep the language okay and then on page 12 this is the Landscaping adjacent defenses walls dumpster enclosures are multif family um this requires an opaque fence wall or dumpster enclosur shall be located as follows it includes some Landscaping um one tree for every 5050 fet of of um wall one shrub shall be required for every two linear feet of dumpster enclosure and then landscape material shall be installed on the public view side now today for dumpster enclosures we um just require that the fence whatever screening is one foot higher than the dumpster it encloses it there is no um requirement for landscaping so this now includes the shrub if we can take go to Panera and look at Panera their dumpster enclosure I don't know if if any site would have the room for landscaping around this one kind of [Music] does only because of where it's located but this would require so it would require a a wall or fence which we already required the wall or fence then shrubs may be clustered in groups of no less than five each with groups being spaced no further than 25 ft and then it requires one tree shall be planted every uh 50 linear feet of wall or fence buding a ride of way and then one shrub shall be required for every two so it's a lot of landscaping going on on this landscape material shall be imp installed on the public view side so today we only require if you go to um that's really um ugly it is ugly that is ugly it is it needs to be painted they haven't painted but should we require all of that Landscaping so would this apply to like a retail building with the dumpster behind the retail building they'd have to then put trees around it even though nobody sees it I mean that doesn't really make sense to me yeah I agree I I think what we should mandate is they maintain the appearance there yeah that would be the ideal scenario so not the Landscaping just the wall correct right the ldcc so the the ldcc is the same so you can but LPA remove the landscaping and keep the wall although on that particular one you just showed us had trees around it was that just requirements for the lot itself I mean because that was for the lot it wasn't for the dumpster it wasn't for the dumpster okay yeah what was the recommendation of the LDC uh to keep the existing language that's in the previous article it shouldn't be article yeah I don't don't know okay so yeah article on page 12 12.7 M oh gotcha how many more do we have from 12 because I have 15 and 15 so we have 15 is a good discussion it is so we have um two more slides for 12 so 12 zeroscape we're telling them okay so C if you go to C oh that's page 13 let's do page 13 yeah right there high water Zone yeah so high water Zone one of the things that we talked about previously is that we're trying to conserve water um so C says high water used zones high water use zones PR a maximum of used to be 20% used to be 30% I'm sorry 30% of the Total Landscape area all portions of high water use zones shall be provided with Central automatic Automatic Irrigation Systems if high water use Zone area comprises less than 20% of the landscape area the applicant can increase the medium water use Zone area to amount equal to or less than the am amount of the low water use Zone area so the high water use zone areas are the ones that uses the um sod um St Augustin St Augustine yeah saw yeah so those are the high water use area um zones I need coffee the high water use S are those areas so we want to reduce the usage of the high waterer use zones and increase the ones that do not require as much water um so we reduce we um reduced it to 20% So 20% of your lawn now can be high water use as opposed to 30% of your lawn can be high water use so we did that um so we wanted to get the board's consensus on that is that a Max is that a maximum that is a maximum so are we proposing to increase the medium water Zone percent consulted yes but then decrease the high water the high water requires more irrigation more water that sounds good to me because I mean we don't have we have a water issue right so yeah the less water we use the better off we are we got to do something about it makes sense age looks good okay so let's go that was it let's go to Article 15 reest you need a break okay can we get to take a two-minute break that's five minut right sure okay are we going to change or it's still you and then come to me how okay so it's already Dr for what were you saying about that solar thing and how Insurance ins don't I Haven yeah not the ones for the pools not yeah now that they just because Market horrible yeah like everybody has solar panels now I don't I don't have them but I don't don't but it seems like everybody do I did see that one of those people you got these been AR with with the roof insurance as well with the roof they have to so what happens to the decedent in your probate so the probate state has to assume that amount w s live you're good soos okay can can we resume sorry so now we are going to discuss um um a section of the code which is actually Article 15 and talks about uh tree replacement and it's this is a very um controversial um subject in the code because we have developers that think we are too restrictive many board members in the P past thought that we were very permissive with the trees right with the removal of trees so I'm going to go over what is the current code and the issues that we found in the current code and why we are changing and what we are proposing so today tree replacement um is a different it's it's separate from landscape minimum landscape requirements so you have to provide the trees there are you know the buffer trees the Island Trees the street trees um in the code but you also have to account if you remove trees you have to account for the removal of the trees you have to replant and replace trees and this is how we um um uh calculate so any any trees that are less than 8 Ines in caliper do not count to be replaced so that's a huge pass right for developers so if and and they start the process by doing a tree survey so they account for every tree that is 8 inches and higher and they can ignore all the smaller trees and they can remove and we do not count them so they provide a list of trees that they are going plan to remove if they preserve trees on the site we discount them so that is another pass right so we you kill one tree but you keep one that's a zero sum so when we have that calculation if there is a balance so you count everything that you remove everything that you preserved if there is a balance there is also a cap to because we do not want to over penalize you know uh um wooded areas right if you are going to develop an area that is heavily wooded we have to we give you a cap the cap is twice the number of the lotteries that table that um um Deborah showed 12.1 that had the minimum lot Tre requirements that is the today that is the cap now the cap and then we're going to discuss later the issue with the cap as it's as it is today but let's go on so if the balance from the trees removed minus the trees to be preserved is higher than the cap you account for the cap if it's less then you account for whatever number it is and then landscape trees do not count for replacement trees replacement purposes so we have an example development is going to and this is these are all fiction numbers right um the development is going to remove 400 400 trees but it's proposing to preserve a 100 so the balance is I changed the numbers are one point so it doesn't matter there right so let pretend they is keep they are keeping 5050 so 400 minus 50 350 the cap is 75 you're only going to account for 75 trees so we know and that is a given development destroys trees right we know that this is a this is just a a um um an attempt to balance out minimally right the environment um so they will only account for 75 trees to for today's code if the landscape landscape trees required for that lot comes to 50 50 trees they will have to account for 50 and 75 one at the end you have one 12 125 trees so these are the rules today now how they can mitigate that they can the development can plant the replacement trees um so it's in addition to the landscape they can uh plant on site if they have space they can upgrade the caliper of the trees um so if you're the minimum caliper that we require today is 2 and a half inches so you if you uh plant a tree with two and a half inches it counts as one if you upgrade to four counts as two if you upgrade to six counter three this is another pass although it's more expensive for them to go to higher calipers because in 10 years apparently those trees reach the same level you know the smaller ones grow faster because they adapt faster the the larger ones are slower to adapt so in the end we get the name the same number of trees but they are counting for more trees because they bring more mature trees that was the the the logic logic and then if the developer doesn't have space then the developer pay into the tree Bank there is this option so many times developer say say to us oh you you all want more money for the tree Bank well the tree bank is one of the options we do not dictate you can plant on the on the side you can bump you know the the caliper of the the that counts as well so we the issues that we identified over the years is that some developers think the rules are not very clear and um uh we have one that participated they've actually participated in the previous LDC um committee and he claims that the idea was not um to ignore the lenscap trees in the replacement all the staff that participated at that time including Brian and say no that's has always been you know the rules um have were planned to be or the intent was to be separate so he has and other developers have raised that question too so we need whatever new rules we come up with we want to be very clear and spelled out in the code so that we do not open for different interpretations um development claimed that all treats should count for mitigation and some people think well I'm planting new trees for buffers for Island Trees why that does not count for us the the logic was because that's going to be required for a um a a lot that has no Tre so if you happen to have to start from a a vacant lot a be you know lot in the end will have those landscape trees so the replacement is to account for the trees you removing from you know the environment um the cap today is a proportion of the type of the development so it's it's um residential has one cap in different lots lots have um different Caps or different minimum lot requirements and the cap is twice that commercial office um um has one um requirement um industrial has another one multif family has another one so the cap is actually has no proportion to the original canopy that you had it's a projection of how the development is going to be so we did did not think it was Equitable treatment right so was well let's can I just one thing um we have this sustainability um Tas for task force and one of the things that they have said is that um when developers come when Builders come they clearcut everything and um there's nothing left so they want to know how can we require the developers to build around the trees or to incorporate the trees as part of as part of their development and not just come and clearcut everything so we're we're taking that into account as well so when Dr Kaa talked about about um replacement trees um we're talking about those trees that they're coming in and they're just clear cutting some of the trees that the landscape trees that she talked about are going to be required if there were no trees anyway that they had to clearcut so how do we um have the developers this is some one of the things that the sustainability task force is thinking about how do we uh have developers build around so that they're not clear cutting and then coming back with these tiny 2 and A2 in calber trees as replacement trees so that's some of the things that we are thinking about as we're developing this code as well I don't think any developer not going to build around a tree unless they have Big Lots I mean that's I think that's an issue across it's easier for them to bulldoze the trees yeah it's also an issue many times of having to provide a new grading for the site and it's it's very hard in the past when we forced some preservation of trees the trees did not survive and later on we had to come back and see well now we have a problem how are we going to to resolve you know the trees dying and so it is not an easy it's not a trivial you know um uh U matter we have I think we have to um build in some incentive but we also have to be flexible to allow you know the development to occur in a way that because many times it's better to have a smaller tree that will grow healthy than to have you know a large tree that may become a problem and because we are in a hurricane you know area that Al trees become an issue right exactly if they are not healthy so that's another concern so it's kind of it's it's it's difficult to balance out so this is a discussion that be one but that point that um um I'm going to call you miss Pierre Miss Pierre BR is um is is very important yeah we we want to be able to stimulate um preserving the trees so the new code what we discuss internally here is that we need to simplify the regulations um and also simplify for staff right so that staff can the review can be an easy U review an easier review um have a uniform more Equitable um standard for the mitigation um and we also thought that the new regulation um should count preserved and planted trees as part of the mitigation um and other cities um do that and and some cities do not have a cap and they said okay we count everything but we do not max out um but we need to account still account for a good canopy in the end right recognizing also that trees have value right trees have value for the environment for water quality for air quality for you know the the animals that live on trees um there are there's economic value on on on on trees so there are many many um uh attributes to trees right um we also have to provide different ways to mitigate trees and um recognize the value of larger trees how do we stimulate you know having larger trees we yeah we love trees what so what what is the like you I feel like you're building us up to be like something horrible like what is what's the well I don't know if it's horrible that that's the discussion we have been playing with the numbers also and I account for all three in inches so that's the other today the and I I did not show that the way we calculate the replacement is that between um 8 Ines because we start counting as 8 inches to I think 12 Ines up to 12 inches it counts as one tree um between 12 point something to 18 actually 12 up to 18 two trees 24 inch for inch well it's so we count all the inches of the tree and then we divide by two and a half to see how many trees they will have to account so we give passes right because if you have a lot of the larger in the range we we are counting the same as the smaller one so now we want to count count all the three in inches so we'll count the because they provide you know all the survey in inches anyway so what the proposed code is that we are still going to give a pant for the 8 Ines so this is the proposal to be discussed right um but developers will have to account for tree replacement in um percentage so the cap is going to be if you have trees between eight and 17.9 inches we count all the inches and you have to account for 15% for replacement in the other range the 20% of those trees and then 30% if you have 30 Ines or more and we made and I'm going to show you an an an Excel it seems a lot more streamlined so it's it's going to be now it's the the cap is equal for the role is equal to everybody so it's more Equitable right and it's in a relationship to the canopy that you had how did you arrive how did you arrive at those percentages is that something used elsewhere so we used um the the landscape architect from kimly horn to give us what would be what would be reasonable right to account in the from the the uh percent of the canopy that you had initially okay and we also wanted to give value to the the larger trees so the larger the tree the higher the percentage is so you'll see the 18 to 29.9 is 20% and the 30 in is 30% today the the 30 in you would have to replace it um inch per inch um so we wanted to keep that kind of scale of um of the percentages in terms of you know placing the value on the larger trees I like that and and so this the percentage becomes now the the the cap right that's what you have to account for and any Tree on site will count landscape trees and preserved trees um so in that same example so I use kind of you know similar numbers right for the you start with 400 trees removed um and then um there is a breakdown you know of the ranges and then I apply the cap for each range and then you have to account for 82 trees um adding all those percentages and then if the landscape trees um count as part of the percentage and if plant 50 then 50 um uh you only have to account for 32 replacement trees so in that example it shows us less than the how the code it is right now but I can show you in Excel of existing projects and the numbers vary a lot because today a lot of the cap is very inequitable so um residential subdivisions get a huge pass because if you have small Lots it's it's two trees per lot um and the one that shows a lot of uh um disparity is the one that is a town home community so they do not the requirement is low so the cap was low too so that's why it will show um different numbers um and for the mitigation we can say Okay preserve two and a half trees although we did not count to be removed they can count as replacement because actually we require the new ones are two and a half inches already so I don't know if we're going to have that but we we threw it out there um you can plant on S side you can upgrade the caliper as we had as we have today uh you can pay into the tree bank and and that is something that the contribution will increase to because today is two2 $150 per tree that doesn't really buy you know a tree and it does not account for the installation of the tree planting the tree right so according to uh kimley horn um the landscape architect g gave us the it should be uh updated to $200 per calber so we're two and a half in tree with a mean $500 and that is something that we are going to put in our fee schedule so that we can update you know with time um and then the other thing that we wanted to two other you know mitigation techniques that we wanted to discuss is that one we could also say well they could also plant on city property because that's what the city is going to do we're going to you know get that money to the tree bank and then at one point uh parks and R or Public Works would use that money just for trees so we have a policy how to use the trees the the tree um uh from the tree bank or you can enhance the root barrier in um for Street trees so if we planting Street trees along your development if you enhance the root barrier so that we avoid having the issues of roots you know um raising sidewalks that could also be a mitigation and we would have to quantify that to that can count so this is the the plan I can show you now the Excel do you have any questions no I think it's a lot streamlining this makes it easier for you guys to manage than I think it does because now there is one rule we we'll have to spell out this in a way that nobody finds of a hole or you know a limbo or you know so that that um there's always um and I've heard that you know in in the discussion in the Elder CC saying it's it's not your tree and you know why is the city you know wanting us to compensate for the tree that is a private tree I think it's because there is a value there's a recognition of the environmental you know yeah impact of trees right yeah I think we can say LDC is not completely on board with this I don't think they understand it to me it's more they're not on board developers complain they don't think it works they couldn't understand well that's not our problem well the actually the ldcc voted for the they did they voted for the percentage for the percentage Yeah but they had we had very vocal well we had one very vocal yes wasn't unanimous V for a consensus built out the property and you've met all the criteria and you've done everything you supp you're supposed to do you know there's there we all know we drive around the area there's that are not successful theend having to come down repaced thater for a period of time well there is the code requires those strees to to to be you know kept in a way that they are alive right so we could enforce over time sometimes it's difficult because especially so for instance we had a recent not recently some years ago already uh we discovered that the mall was not in compliance anymore and so a lot of Island Trees you know that did not have trees um were missing and they would claim well one fell with the hurricane so and so the other one was not in good shape we had to remove whatever so it's hard for the city to keep up with the with the enforcement but if we just cover right the issue so we had a code enforcement case with the mall and um we they had to come with a restoration plan to but I'm not going to say it's 100% because it happens right and on the uh residential side the state has pass a legislation some years ago because of hurricanes saying if a tree poses any danger to people or property property owners can remove the tree and not require um and not have to be um required to have a u tree removal permit what but they have to have uh a letter from a certified Arborist stating that tree posed you know and that was to speed up the process that if there is a hurricane coming right and we know and you have a tree that is not healthy yeah I can get rid of that without having to go through the process now we cannot require replacement trees for that tree or Restoration in number of trees but if they do not meet the minimum Lottery we can make them rebuild one for one can be a small one that will grow so that it meets the minimum requirement and most residents when that happens they show the letter from the certified arbores as well so this is the let's see if I no that's not I want it how do I move around no oh yeah oh but I'm I'm here that's what I need so this is the this scale here so these are different projects right so for instance and and we did that with the LDC if I change here to um 10% you see the numbers right will change so we were CL kind of playing around um more usually there are more trees in a in a in a development usually the larger trees are the smaller ones so we find a lot of those and we find less trees there are there are you know mature trees right but and we went back and forth to change the numbers and this is this was the final that we felt um comfortable so what if you look at the table um if you go across like line five that's a is that all in town homes that is all in okay so then you'll see that there all in town hom those are the different projects yeah so you see that just to go ahead that the the this is what the survey shows so it varies a lot right depending on the those are inches eight 8 Ines to 11 Ines and those are the total number of trees so 60 that were um removed from all in um town halls and the total that's removed is 440 so when they converted it to inches it came up to 28 um 45 they divided that by two and a half inches because that's the minimum caliper that you can plant and and then you see the total number of trees preserved on that first row which is all in so they preserved the total number of 36 trees and converted that and that became 214 so then you'll see a column for the um the code that's the current um Land Development code requirement for that project they would have had to replace 104 The consultant's Proposal the original one um they would have had to replace it by 85 um staff's proposal which is um LDC also agrees with staff's proposal they would have to um replace 397 but they removed a total of 404 was it 404 440 they removed a total of 440 they would have to replace 397 so you'll see the total number of removed and then the total number of well I think they remove these are number of trees yeah the total number of trees presed off oh the preserved off okay so they they actually so these are 3,59 at two and a half inches so this is the conversion so these are 40 40 trees Yeah so basically what this is is all in Avenue removed 3,59 in in the 440 trees they removed that is the actual total inches removed there was 24 in that was preserved so if you take the 214 off the 359 you come up with the 2,845 in then basically with the new idea is we would have to change it because we were doing it 8 to 12 but that's all configured into those 15 into the actual spreadsheet it seems fair but I don't it's going to pass the uh simplistic or more simple test that you know that you guys started with I mean I don't know what other people think but doesn't seem more simple easier that sounds good to me I mean it seems it simplifies everything I think it's more Equitable across the board what's big discrepancy between so they took out somebody went through and inventor all property right at 476 we took out 440 the ones they preserve the 36 trees right so then you go over to the right again we had right there yeah so the current code would have said they only have to put in 104 trees right that's because there were town homes and town homes only required two lot trees and that's it so why did staff think or one lot tree per lot so then that was doubled it was a 52 lot not treat that that from that's based on what was removed whereas we don't have C the new proposal is no caps it's the 15% of what's removed in between the eight and and the 17 and then 20% of what was removed of the next category and 30% of the next category that with no caps whereas originally the old system was it's one tree per lot which was 52 town home lots so it was 104 so they capped at 104 they wouldn't make you replace any more than that 104 trees a l trees whereas these other projects are reming a lot more smaller they're going to get hard because now we are accounting for every inch and this is correct well we convert them to two and a half inch you know to get number of trees because that's how you're going to you're going to PL two and a half inches but it's um we are accounting for every inch that seems good to me I mean that's if you guys can work this plan I mean I don't have any problems with it I'm Gooding so they they vary a lot so I think I think it's Winter Springs that they do not have a cap you have to account for everything that you remove you know but they are not very they're more restrictive right to development in general in the cap let's go there it's this one right which line is that one can you count no it's six right three three no five yeah five so of the commons but see they have the majority is the smaller trees so look at the the the distribution they only remove six trees larger than 30 in yeah it seems to really benefit those that are cutting down small trees um if you go back to the right the the one developed the current code would have been 346 and it goes down to 99 like all total it seems like the current code would have required more trees as opposed to the current the new proposed staff well remember we we are counting the the trees planted yeah that's a big difference today we are we it's a separate requirement yeah I'm just saying those that want to see more trees aren't necessarily getting that out of this new way of doing it yeah they are on third to the six one right but I mean going by the code you'd end up with more trees than the staff column overall yeah yeah that's the only thing I was noticing but I think it is a much more simplified way of doing it and has some logic to it it looks like it'll be easier to manage to yeah that's the that's yeah and that's the consensus yeah I think you're good with it are we good thank you I do need to make a disclosure to everyone uh case was just handed down by the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals us six court of appeals which is in Cincinnati it covers Michigan Ohio Kentucky Tennessee and in that case it involves of Canton Michigan and they had Tre we had the Court ruled that as best I understand I haven't had a chance to study the case I just saw it read a brief line the Court ruled that trees are personal property and the city does not have a right to control them so that's of course not binding us because we're not in that circuit but U there is an assault on the city's right to control the trees some people are saying it's private private personal private property you can't tell me what to do with it if I want to wipe them down pres across the country it's it's a potential right now it's just it's just the one circuit it's not not precent of our circuit but if another circuit has a different ruling then it combined that could be a Supreme Court case yeah that that's how they work at least in those as well but uh I I iess said I haven't I I just found the case just recent just hand it down and and I've got to look at it research it for the exaction presentation next week keep that in mind but uh that we we need to be prepared that that it we have to think about that but that that obviously doesn't doesn't affect our consideration here but uh I just just so and I always I found that make that comparison that for Wetlands it's also in private property right but for them to destroy the wetlands they have to go through the process there is a recogition that water is connected right so and there is a public benefit in the water quality this is air quality and other but I'm maybe we're not there yet to recognize this as as a public good right it's a surprising I mean it I think it depends and I we're in Florida so we do we do recognize a lot of these things as public goods I mean it's oh yeah that's that's our argument obviously you know preserve natural resources okay I have five more slides left okay so we can do this okay so um one of the things that we want to do is have all Landscaping trees in one article instead of two articles so we're telling them we want them to consolidate it into one article um instead of two and is there a consensus for that sounds good okay and so on page seven one of the things that um the consultant did in D Tree designation so the original language said that trees that are Oak Pine or Cyprus species and are8 in or greater in diameter breast height shall be retained or replaced in section e um the Florida friendly list includes Maples hickories Magnolia Ms as large trees as well so we wanted to if this would fall into that category because they're limiting the type of large trees that can go um on on the property so we don't want to restrict it we want to allow whatever florid friendly allows we want to have that as well in um as an option it's there's more of an option today for large trees than there are what the consultant is proposing okay so is there a consensus okay and they also limited again on page eight page eight where they talk about um Heritage trees are all Oak Pine and Cypher species um there are other species that's in that Florida friendly list that we want um to include we also need a definition of um Heritage trees as well as Champion trees so we're telling them we need to get a definition for that is there a consensus for that okay and um Dr ker already talked about this but the on page 12 um they talk about the city Tree Bank the trees are now going to go from 250 U per tree to $200 per caliper per inch so just to let you know that and then so on p a lot of what's in Article 15 is going to change based on this new um staff proposal so you're going to see a revise Article 15 and that's going to include the table as well the table 14 15.4 so that's that's going to change as well so a lot of this will change based on that so I just wanted to let you all know that and that is all that I have thank you thank you so one other thing not related to this article but um our next meeting is going to take place on August 13th it's going to be a joint um work session with the Land Development code committee we're going to talk have um Mr Hall is going to be there to talk about um development um takings um at that work session but we're also going to try to see where um ldcc and LPA are conflicting and see if we can come to some consensus on it um just so that we can we may not be able to come to a consensus on it um and we may end up going to the city council with two different recommendations perhaps three different recommendations um staff may differ from all from both boards so um just wanted to let you know we're going to have that meeting on August 13th at 230 August 13th August 13th uhuh Tuesday August 13th at 2:30 about how long will that last if I mean I won't be able to make it at 2:30 but I might be able to make it at 4:30 we also have a um LPA meeting at 6:30 that evening um and that's going to be our um article 10 of the Land Development code and Jonathan Paul is going to be there he did the Mobility plan if you all will remember um for the city so that is going before not the Mobility plan but the article that talks about concurrency is going before the LPA at 6:30 that evening as well okay we're starting at 2:30 for this that's correct should I close this nice all right night and we do appreciate all your time we know this is has been a a huge you know I don't know about the 1er have to move the 6:30 out to the following week or something this it's kind of tricky because this is already scheduled to go to council just well we can check because if I'm looking at what you're saying Ian we probably won't get out of here until 9 o' then no I think I think the limitation for the work session is going to be 6:30 6:15 we want to get a break and then 6:30 we can have the um um Jonathan Paul it's not going to be a long one all right yeah all right thank you thank you so much see you next week see you next next week burn I forgot toing something