##VIDEO ID:-I9ZWvhWchk## right so now I've got to work that in and make sure that becomes and stays the exactly no that's good that I ended up better that's that's really good that they kind of got stuff that they could all work I didn't I had no I haven't even talked I like really I was out in Naples for the weekend my sister and so I I hav talked seen anything done anything I haven't t so it wasn't even like I knew what happened that last it could say like I just was like hey may show up yeah okay cool that was the last night you weren't there no yeah I didn't come the last day oh I was so I was so people that's that's Jeff had asked the night before you coming tomorrow that wine C that cork and whatever it's called oh the wine bar and he's like you coming tomorrow I'm like oh hell no I'm done I'm like I I was there I was there twice I said I'm good but showed up the first time you showed up first on then you came the second day with Tim the the guy who came the first day the U he was there all three days I'm sure he uh the pastor and then lady the other lady she was kind of grumpy that yeah she was kind like like I'm not going to say not grumpy mad but like yeah and again and like like you know we shouldn't do anything that kind of stuff Tax are going up so everything's bad know it's us they will have their meeting on Wednesday tomorrow if not aren't we supposed to talk the differences well our differen is Def mron so um we have a for already they I doubt it we have Refreshments if anybody needs coffee like I do right now thank you did any details have but it's at like something and now it's level but it's May because the is growing so that they just have so much prob yeah that's the values that like hey let's give it a break stay like this that's yeah I can't like what it is I'm like otherwise you've enterpris it you know pushed it out of the adum and pushed it to like you know lighting fees blah BL you know there's there's cutting kind of that's just wow they've stopped yeah so they stopped it knowing that they are going to have to oh they're gonna because yeah they probably yeah I bet you that's exactly it you know you got the developer pushing forward stuff already that they don't do it now but I'm gonna take care of all that roope I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to have enough money for the foreseeable XYZ there's that we need the money for so we'll give you a little bit and he you know I'm sure it's like and he built the Department as part of the development plan that we you know what I mean that was necessary and he built the whatever that was necessary that we don't have to now like us we you know live V went out it's like you need a third fire dep house okay we have to build you know that's if I get 8 billion homes going on especially and the developer you're like oh yeah yeah yeah well listen the HOA might we're doing our budget they were just like somebody asked that there was somebody somebody selling two we had two of two people selling a house town homes and um they were like yeah the comments both from the Realtors were like freaking you guys didn't raise your dues last year no how the like how hey how are they so low and how the hell did you not raise them last year like oh they're raising this year but like yeah was just like a you know like they're so freaking low they're like holy crap they're so low as it is how did you not raise them it worked because for C am it coverl C am of so you don't have to raise it every yeah exactly like yeah we raising it yeah except your reserves well no yeah our reserves perfect and well we're going to we just got money for the settlement for the the building so he our Builder so when I first went to and had lots of money when I first went to Vieira yeah we had seven active HOAs right we had funded six and the dumb asses didn't fund the seventh no and when we tried to play catchup they slaughtered us first two years I went to cam class and I'm like you know I don't think I want to do like sucks like this really sucks but oh yeah so they they didn't sue us they like threatened and then we just with I mean they threatened to picket our sales centers and fly our Christmas parade oh yeah know so we no we We R we we suit them for like for building defense but they they funded it nicely except that every every irrigation like they build a building put the irrigation in then as they're working the building next to it they like Stomp all over the irrigation and as that went on like so we get it like we have to put like $30,000 worth the pipe work and irrigation and afterwards we're like hey guys you got to kind of and they just went well you know what we've relooked at that that sett you know the um that that number you know where you come out at the end and handing over yeah we figure we over we over put in 60,000 your es is 30 so if you like us we'll go and ask you for 30 instead if you want like okay we're going to get nowhere with this so we had to have Reserve advisors come in and do a whole well we had we had them do the study and and we were good the way they were but said then they were like well we reassessed we looked at so we're 60 we over put 60,000 so if you'd like the 30 we're going to take 30 from you instead so let's move back reverse of what you if you don't payer am oh yeah pick everything wowbody all right good afternoon um welcome to today's Lane development code committee regular session meeting I call the meeting to order at 2:33 um note there is a quorum everyone is present and with that um there are no minutes we'll move to public comment are there any public and public comments seeing none we'll close public comment and move on to public meeting items development code comments and questions so I will hand it over to the staff thank you madam chair um today um you all we want to thank the ldcc this is not your last meeting but we are so grateful for um all the hours that you've put into this Land Development code all the days you've spent with us doing the Land Development code we appreciate all of your hard work so with that being said um we wanted to talk today there um about any remaining questions any remaining items that need to be addressed um and so we previously received two um comments and one um was from Miss Martin and it was um about the Milton Square how did we handle the zoning district for that Milton Square Washington um Park yes so we wanted to talk about that and we also had a comment from Dave Axel on Street skate requirements for the downtown um so we didn't get any other comments so if there are any other questions um or comments or concerns today is the time to raise that we were also hoping to have a joint um LPA ldcc meeting today um but we weren't able to get a quorum with the LPA so it's just the ldcc um so we're going to jump into the Milton Square Washington Park um owning district and the Consultants are here we have Katie McGruder and Eliza Harris Juliano here um to talk to you all about what is being proposed for those two areas and then if there are any questions you want to ask the consultants and they're here today so I'll turn it over to Katie sure so I believe the last draft that you saw um did not entirely make a new zoning district for mil square and um Milton and Washington Square um so what we've come up with is a is a new zoning District that it will be changed to with this administrative map amendment is that correct yes just a clarification sorry Katie but it's the it's these four plats uh Wilton square and Washington Park being the larger of the group but Jackson Heights and s's Edition they all kind of form this uh uh cohesive area that has these sort of tiny Lots associated with it right and so I think everyone's aware but the the issue here is that the lots are very small they've been platted far smaller than what the minimum lot sizes in the code would allow and so what you're looking for here is not necessarily A by um minimum lot size to be that small but but a means of developing these Lots by right um and so what we've come up with is an r1c zoning District that you can see here in the middle that's underlined as new it sits nicely between the R1 BB and R2 zoning districts we have reduced the minimum lot size significantly but we're still looking for that 50ft Frontage for any newly platted Lots in this area so what this is going to do is prohibit any of the lots that meet this standard from subdividing to create more smaller Lots um so if you go to the minimum lot use regulation I'm sorry the permissible use table which is provided separately we weren't given that I don't believe it was included okay well what I can go over is um basically for r1c um what we'd be allowing is the single family detached home um Town Home Development or duplex development um but no other types of residential development so it'll stop there um and then if you go back to the code you can pull up I think it was page 82 and just to reiterate lots that are already existing would be able to develop without meaning the minimum lot sizes which is pretty typical existing non-conforming lots are able to develop um they still have to meet setbacks and other requirements and so that's what Katie is going to talk about yes so we've added r1c here to the MDR um section and if you'll see the last sentence we've allowed for additional alleviation for lot development in the r1c zoning District um in accordance with Section 4.11 which is actually about puds but we think that it's very applicable to this as well as expired PDS so let's move to that section Katie before you move on I just wanted to um Talk talk about the Land Development code so we are still staff is still making changes to the Land Development code so once you go through it you're going to see that um there may be some things in here that needs to be tweaked so one of the things that we're looking at is that zoning District the r1c um we went had a chance to go back and look at the plat the plat shows that the largest um lot sizes one of the largest lot size is 28 um feet in width so we may have to massage that 50 foot width um a little bit so that at least those existing Lots meet that U minimum lot width requirement so that's one of the things that we have been talking to the consultant about um so that may change just so that you know so the per purpose of um this change was actually came up um with the LPA because the LPA is the one that approv deviations to building permits and we regularly have to bring Devi ations to any development in that area because they the Lots the existing Lots today do not meet the minimum lot size the minimum lot with or would not be able to meet the minimum setbacks so they asked us you know um to provide standards for that area to avoid the deviations so that's why we have to kind of come where they are meet where they are right and so 28 is the average you know um um with so that's and I think the 3 ft is the minimum setback 3 ft so we can reduce this to 3et okay so if you scroll up just a little bit Sam so is the board in agreement with that so I was just going to run through this real quick which I think is related um so if you go up to expiration so it was a little bit unclear I promise I'm tying this back in but it's it was a little bit unclear what happens when a PD expires and so we've added this section to address what to do um so if there is in the actual PD document ordinance sometimes there's language that says you know anything not written in here defaults to a certain zoning District if that's written in there it's going to default to that zoning District once it's expired if it's not there um then the next one down um so you have an unknown previous zoning District or an expired development agreement sometimes the development agreement will go out go ahead and spell out everything that's supposed to happen you should follow that development agreement if it's not expired and your PUD is expired if if that's expired too and you don't know what the zoning was prior to the adoption of this PD zoning and um adoption of the developer agreement then you follow the future land use district and so we've basically gone with the the sort of least permissive um or what we think they best align with within that future land use District so I I would urge staff to take a second look at this and make sure you're comfortable with what we've proposed here um and then for New Lots New Lots created within a PD must meet the minimum standards of the correlating zoning District listed above and then for previously platted lots of record those might not comply with the zoning that's now now being applied to your expired PD and so that is very similar to having these Lots in Milton Square that don't meet the minimums right so underneath number three we've come up with if you scroll down a little bit basically giving the land use administrator the ability to approve these setbacks without going through a deviation process and it's simply because the lot's too small the biggest one here would be open space we've reduced it to 10% because on a 28t wide lot how much open space are you going to be able to retain with a actual live habitable house um so we've reduced the open space requirement here um per what you've just said Teresa and allowing it to go down to 3T I just adjusted in the working draft that I have in front of me the side yard set back to 3 feet but this basically allows you to go from a um a 25t front set back to a 15t front set back instead of a 20ft rear setback you can go down to a 10t rear setback and all of this could be done administratively through the land use administrator instead of having to go through a deviation process so the issue of the open space is the limitations the comp plan because the comp plan establish a minimum usually um we require 25% of permeable um area in which is the minimum of the open space of the and usually they comply because of front set bags and rear right but on a 28t wide lot you're not going to comply with that anymore I don't believe so just mark it for your comp plan revisions to make sure that they can get so why an actual habitable structure right Katie why do you have restrictions for the bonus if it's an expired B then it's a new if it's a it's it's going to be a new development why would we restrict so if they're coming forward with a full development plan yeah and and redoing it I mean great but if they're trying to um they're trying to develop under the previously expired PUD they should not be able to get more units out of it they couldn't right because they would require but if you think it's unnecessary I can get rid of it okay and Katie one other thing for the puds sometimes there's um commercial areas within a PUD so we'll probably and it could be like a load inity residential future land use designation so we'll have to add some language for the commercial portion of that PUD so this is new language right yeah is it already in the in the the draft that we has yes okay so I'm going to write a note here to Circle back with you all about commercial and whether or not to include the bonus prohibition did anyone have any questions the front setback it seemed as if I was looking at some of the deviation applications and there was one where it was reduced down to eight go back to the table so is 15 enough for the 28 wide 92 R1 so I have not seen those deviations um you know I was kind of doing this blindly so if if there is a desire to go below a 15t front set back or if that's a need Kuran could probably speak to this too we both do a lot of the deviations it's more often than not the side yeah that's I don't remember any front actually the lots are quite deep most of these plats so despite being extremely narrow they actually some of them are well over 100 ft deep and the depth is actually pretty substantial they they rarely have trouble meeting the front or the rear setbacks it's almost always the side setbacks and the front is always Ted because of the toac a car so the 92 is should be fine with the 15 are we proposing like a 92 foot deep lot right should be fine with the 15 foot ad Devi don't yeah I don't even remember if they have do we have do you remember Karan if we ever had a a front setback deviation for those lots because I think the the requirement is more to the side because they want the 20 fet mhm for for the car to park the car no I just I did find one so that's why I brought it up just trying to look yeah for something as a a reference this is Milton Square you can see they're 28 foot by 86 so these are not the there are some that are over a hundred um but and actually you know what it is is um The Alley has been vacated or abandoned on most of them so it's added another 12 feet which gets you that 98 um well not 98 six six and six uh anyways the these ones in particular there there may be one that did have a front set back issue I don't know if there some of these have Wetlands that might have caused them to move far farther forward or the corner lots that have two front setbacks that's always an issue with deviations yeah on on any lot for that matter oh maybe the the eight because I would like to in you know just check CU I don't remember maybe it was a side it was a secondary front edge yeah yeah that's usually one of the issues is another Frontage and they can't eat it well if it's a if it's a corner lot issue we could write in something specific to Corner Lots what do we have for the side street side setback that you can go down to 5T okay so that should address that although we have 10 ft for garages and I'm realizing that a normal garage is at least what 20 ft deep so that's not you're not going to be able to have a 10 foot set back for a garage you're going to have to allow them to do it at 5T if they want a a a garage loaded from the side on the secondary Frontage I have a question you're saying that each one of these Lots should be 4,400 Square ft but none of these meet that so what's typical in a lot of codes is that if you have an existing lot of record you can put a house on it as long as it meets all the other requirements without meeting the minimum lot size um so I don't yeah that is true so for an existing lot the the square footage would not okay be an issue it would be the setbacks and how to build it it's so other lots are not split further yeah thank you are there any other questions or discussion on this ni so in the code um will there be sort of an aster to explain that like if they're looking at that they would be able to understand that there's several cross references okay right now it's just the number SE the seven right yeah so then you'll go look at seven and it'll it'll talk about um the section in the p section and then when you're in the permissible um or the correlating MDR districts we've also got a sentence there that points them to that same section so that cross references in several places okay anything else all right so do you need from us acceptance of the this District or it would be good to have consensus it's just an explanation but it would be good to have consensus on it is your consensus for for this additional additional District y okay we're good Katie let um let us know what page to turn to for the street ski sure give me one second so it's section 4.13 it's my page 92 it might be there you go Okay so we've talked a lot about this before um so if you scroll down this streetcape requirements for each are different based on the character that it is currently and the character that the city is attempting to achieve with this code modification so if you go to it's our first one so the downtown core is letter C I'm showing it on page 96 at the bottom is DC streetscape requirements and again this was um I I was shown the plan for the downtown Corp uh a presentation for it and modeled the streetscape requirements based on what was included in that presentation with just some slight modifications so um we we have 16 to 20 ft foot wide streetcape it's from the back of curb um it has a Furnishing Zone with a minimum dimension of 5T followed by a pedestrian clear Zone with a minimum dimension of 6 feet followed by an optional retail Zone um so in the Furnishing Zone that's where your your plantings go and they're typically in either grates or um Planters at 40ft spacing um and then Street lighting would also be included in that zone then The Pedestrian clear zone is more or less your sidewalk um it's minimum of 6 feet um if you're not including a retail Zone you are required to bump that up to 8 ft and then the Furnishing Zone up to 7 ft and then if you wanted to include that retail Zone um this could include you know retail signage this could be where we have storefront awnings um pots and Planters tables and chairs for like Cafe outdoor seating um stairs or entryways to residential units or just additional sidewalk um these are all options that can go into that retail Zone did you have questions or comments yes go ahead so simply when this last came up I suggested that this involved an exaction that at that time I suggested was illegal before we get into any debate about what's legal or illegal I subsequently went out and measured a whole bunch of the streets and looked at what's there on the plans and this includes both downtown transition and downtown core and there is simply not sufficient right away to do these things so whether it's legal or illegal it is still by virtue of requiring an easement an exaction by virtue of requiring construction and expense and I suggested back then to the extent you're going to do this which I think is inappropriate which we never really got into the math you have to give people credit for this uh and I felt that that's at the time what the Florida statute said well since then the state legislature has passed and the governor has signed um House Bill 479 which makes the language more Crystal Clear effect of October 1 so I'll just point out to everyone Section 163 31801 subsection 5A basically States and I'll read read it to you not withstanding any Charter provision comprehensive plan policy ordinance and I believe the LDC is adopted by ordinance is that correct Mr Hall um development order development permit or resolution a government or special district that requires any Improvement or contribution must credit against the collection of the impact fee any contribution whether identified in the development order proportionate share or any form of exaction relates to public facilities infrastructure including monetary contributions land dedication site planning design and construction so to the extent this was a desire to impose on private development the cost of bringing these public facilities up to some presumed standard they will not be paying this cost this will be borne by the public and some of these roads are not even in the jurisdiction of the city of Ovito you've got State Road 43 4 State Road um 426 County Road 419 so I think as a committee we should look at this and say do we want to impose a requirement to construct things that don't fit that aren't there that we know full well is going to have to be paid by the public in one some way manner or form I I think it's a mistake and inappropriate and we never really got to that discussion because I was asserting it was illegal and we had a presentation from David Hall and I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think what was suggested is there's some potential Nuance to what's an illegal and illegal exaction so that's why I'm saying let's not get into that let's look at this dimensionality and there's physically not enough room there so then you look at somebody being required to do this because they just own land along that road so if they redevelop they may not be adding more intensity they may not be adding anything uh but the fact remains the statute says what it says and without referencing it I think it's a mistake to have this in there and I think geometrically it doesn't work anyway now exactly what what doesn't fit because some some are optional right some di so simply the the I uh s I believe to staff and I don't know that the committee got it on June 3D I sent you some photographs that I took with tape measure of existing streetscape and I just concentrated on the not the optional Zone just the rest of it okay so you've got the Furnishing Zone and The Pedestrian clear Zone and there wasn't enough room and and and I have list of one two three four so five places at on Broadway and and on Central and the entire length of where the transition zone is along Central would not be able to comply with this so I think fundamentally what we're dealing with here is that you know we're we're trying to move the trees and the Landscaping such that they will buffer pedestrians from moving traffic as opposed to requ in that in front of the building now I think alternatively we can push the buildings back and put the landscape strip between the buildings and the sidewalk I don't think that creates the kind of environment that uh that Ido wants um but it would in no way you know requiring tree planting requiring um walkways that access buildings none of that is ex none of that is interpreted as an exaction so um maybe we could put it in an option that that could be handled on the um other side of the sidewalk I think it would be detrimental to pedestrian comfort and safety but if that solves a legal problem it would be a loss to the city and I don't think it's necessarily what a lot of developers would want to do from a business standpoint it's certainly not going to give the urban form that I think was the purpose in hiring us as but I think there are two things one is that we do not control right away that we don't own right but this provides the requirement that you have to do it and it doesn't not not for rways that we do not control so we can clarify that um that was not intention but it doesn't say that can clarify that I mean everything in the code only applies to the jurisdiction of the city right doesn't apply to anything that the city doesn't have jurisdiction about over so we can clarify that the other thing is that let's make the calculation for the New Roads right that are going to be proposed if those numbers work so it doesn't even work on the Connector Road which is a new road I'm just telling you to address what Katie raised in the conceptual plan for the water tower district and yes there was a recognition that it would be nice and appropriate in that District to have a wider streetcape it's being accomplished by more land being provided willingly for bonuses in the devel V agreement by that developer that's how it's being accomplished this issue really relates to typically smaller tracks where that's much more challenging where the RightWay is not there so frankly accepting out rways out of the jurisdiction of the city goes a long way to curing this but it's it's to me a problem and all the legislature did in that statute that was signed was clarify what that statute said already if there's an exaction and a require to dedicate an easement is an exaction a require to construct things is an exaction suggesting it's anything else is is is I think hard to do and the way this was dealt with in the comp plan was it said you can do these things consistent with state law and I think before the city imposes a standard I don't think it's good to apply the cost to developers but knowing the cost is coming back to the city you really should look real careful at this so the other thing I think that comes into play the city adopted September 16th a Mobility plan the Mobility plan is supposed to establish what the future requirements are for multimodal for for roadways and so forth and this language is not completely consistent with that because the city's further obligated and I think Deborah can speak to this to have a capital plan to accomplish those things so having a code that sets standards however sensible they may be that's inconsistent with those things I just think it's a mistake and I wanted to raise that issue I'm trying to understand the issue so one is let's clarify that does not apply to anything that we don't own right second or we don't have jurisdiction um second is if it it requires additional right away then what is provided already then yeah it's subject to possible credits that that's already the case right I just think it should be overtly stated because the complaint overtly States well the code of the code of ordinance is work you can right you can you can have credits for if you're providing more capacity than you know than it's needed for the development but the con Connector Road what is the width proposed isn't that 99 um feet it does not completely comply with what's required here it it will it will with the additional RightWay not additional RightWay addition Street tape area being provided on either side as part of the development it it will but without that it won't but that is as we've discussed in those meetings a bonus matter not a exaction matter those are two different things so if you look at someone with a relatively small piece of property on one of those streets what you're saying if you don't apply this on existing roadways that are that are out of the city's jurisdiction okay but that's really not how it's written it says if you're in the Target area you must do this no we do not have jurisdiction over if if if the state jurisdiction over the land development I'm just saying I'm not trusting this code to to move forward without stating those things that's that's just my view and I will say the state is also moving towards um more context sensitive standards um as well so I I think this is very much aligned with the direction the state is going now the state is working through some of the same issues that U Mr Axel is stating in terms of insufficient rways to deal with the kind of built environment that would support pedestrian safe and comfortable pedestrian movement because we've not done that in the past in the State of Florida and what's going to be the downtown core of the city of OBO and the downtown core I mean what we looked at here was specific to that downtown core Zone um I know we do have streetcape requirements in other zones so to speak to Central in the transition area and I just worked on a project there so I have the the plan set and what was agreed to the RightWay is are very very very constrained they're they vary along the the corridor but in this particular location you've got a requirement for an 8ft sidewalk and a 7 foot tree zone and what actually is there is a twoot grass strip a 5 foot sidewalk and one foot to grade match so do you think that's sufficient to support the type of development that we want to see along that Corridor so what what I would say to that is the answer is no but that has to be be dealt with with the study that dot is doing right now on what should this road be in the future not by telling each project as it goes in that they must give this piece of property in this disjointed way and there is an actual study going on now and I know I looked it up from our lastation is inconsistent with what the city put forth as what it wants the other thing I think is challenging is there's scads of data on on how much roadway does a certain number of car trips need but there is scant data on what width of sidewalk do you need for a certain number of people so so I think you're hard pressed to say the 5 foot sidewalk suddenly doesn't work and we need an 8 foot sidewalk I don't think there's any supportable evidence to say that because people just haven't analyzed that the same way so I hear what you all are saying this is probably a sensible goal but we can't miraculous make land appear here or just take it from people without having repercussions and this simply didn't work on Central for someone who went in right now and if we don't accept these public rideways it it won't work going forward now to your point those particular projects aren't under today's code they're under the prior code and it was a developers agreement anyway so there is a 20 foot setback and there is a a tree area so so you know I'm just saying this the way it's crafted now is going to run the city into a lot of trouble and I think there's there's an approach that's more based on future infrastructure going in or maybe applying this to which is something we did on the Water Tower District there were certain things in the comp plan we applied if you were five acres or more if you have enough property to accomplish these things then you end up with a broken Street I do want to simplify this down because I know people you know we have a lot of different people in the conversation so essentially what we're talking about is the the city can legally set the setback of the building which means effectively the land that can be de meaningfully developed at not whatever it wants but you know within a pretty wide margin so we're arguing essentially about assuming that setback is set um where within that setback does the sidewalk fall and does it fall on land that is private versus on land that is public and the drawback of limiting it to the land which is public is that typically that puts it very close to moving traffic so um I you know agree with Mr Axel that there's there's probably ways we could Nuance this maybe ways we could talk about um if for any I mean typically a sidewalk on a very small site gets busted up as part of construction and has to be rebuilt um but if it didn't maybe there's a situation in which that could be a a inl payment so that it could be incorporated into a future streetcape but I think what we don't want is to for instance plant oak trees in a place where we don't want to see them 10 or 15 years from now or where there it's not enough planting strip for them to survive and then they're having to redo the sidewalk in five to 10 years anyway I and I think as the Consultants we're not weighing in on the financial side that really would go to staff in terms of any sort of um maintenance cost that would come up well the yeah the cost side so one thing and and it's Don's favorite subject and and Gloria is sitting over there at the end so I'll bring it up in these constrained rideways and and this was a serious problem really with respect to electricity on Central for the chelonian project you tend to have either under the sidewalk or next to the sidewalk where you utility lines are which is very inconsistent with where you put trees so it's a serious problem and I just run into this all the time and you know Broadway was planned where there's somewhere for trees Central and but it doesn't meet these standards Central simply does not because it was too constrained and it probably will not and they have areas where it's just physically not there and there's nowhere to put it and if you look at putting the trees where they don't work very well the south side of the city's Franklin Street has a bunch of half dead looking sickly things the north side where there's more landscape area they're very healthy trees if you look at what went in on Central which was I think a do Grant to the city to put that stuff in it's crepe myrtles a bunch of which are dying because they're just planted with not enough room so I I think we just need to be cognizant of this and it needs some word smithing and I here I think what the staff and the consultant saying is they're willing to Wordsmith it but I think it's a it's a heavy-handed requirement that should be more nuan but but I think there are two things and I'm going to have to rely on on our legal right review to to tweak um but we want to have I think the what is clear for us that we want to have upgraded standards for the urban core the minimum standards for the urban core should be different than the Suburban right that is that is I think what we all agree how we going to achieve that do do we all agree on that well I think that's we need to discuss but that is that is our premise that and and it's it has to be the LDC to establish that it's not the Mobility plan that will established that the Mobility plan has some cross actions they are all you know intentional they they are not requirements for development these are the requirements for development so we can you know tweak here where possible of course if there is if there are other jur jurisdictions in U you know in place will have to work with their limitations I mean that that is a given that is a given today for Street trees for anything in in in state roads and counter County roads but um these are the standards have to be upgraded for the urban form that we want how we achieve that is a different conversation if there is and this is coupled with obvious viously significant increases in density and intensity in the comp plant So speaking to that and this came up and and I think Harris was the one that said it when this first came up having land use is not intensity your density it's the potential to have it so the potential have it to have it shouldn't require you to do something it's it's actually doing the something you know and this the problem with this is the fact that you are in this area no matter the intensity you do you must give these things and like you said there's there's some balance to be done but I think from from your perspective there was a statement made and that they want to know if we agree should the standards be more intensive should the standards be upgraded in the downtown court should be the standards be reflect an urban form right because that's the vision of the comprehensive plan to get the urban form staff is saying they need to be upgraded well there are different standards how to get there is the other piece of your question for later is there comments questions go ahead and I had a question um so um like the new sidewalk that's closer to Broadway are we saying that that can't go all the way down Central is that what you mean so the new sidewalk on Broadway like with the does not completely comply with the standards here okay and that's a wider road with more room that had an actual conscious design to do an urban streetcape when when it was designed Central isn't in that circumstance in the transition area and didn't have sufficient right away but was also in the past Central happened before Broadway and and the city I don't think was at a point of maturity of considering these things nor was do okay but it it was actually um the county do the city and some of the property owners that cooperated to redesign Broadway the way it is constructed now so it was everyone got together so to the point that Katie made it's not as if the large property owner down there that I represent is antagonistic to what was the word you used Deborah enhanced standards is that what you said okay upgraded standards whatever you want to call them so so people that are trying to do these kind of projects aren't necessarily opposed to that it's the concern of someone with with let's say a relatively smaller project that's doing something more modest that has this potentially significant reconstruction cost that they're going to have to do which which may exceed their their impact fees or or Mobility fees so it's it's something I'm just saying there has to be more nuance and I think there's a recognition over with the consultant that that's true so it's not a bad thing to do it's just where is there room to do it so are there other questions or comments does the go ahead Sam can we attach to this requirement some kind of verbiage to to state something like if doable and without undue burden on the owners can we do something like that so there are so there are feasibility issues for instance and I you know I don't know every road noo but for instance if there's power lines you can't put large canopy trees so we write in standards that say if there's overhead power lines you would use smaller trees that could fit under power line so we um we typically do write in flexibility for staff to respond to specific situations uh just the fact that an extra foot of sidewalk costs more that would not be viewed as a specific burden on that property owner because it's something that applies to everyone that accommodates the the needs for certain area so yes and no and and and and to be honest we already have 2.8 which is the flexibility in administration so any quantifiable measure of the code if Justified if it makes sense it's granted right I don't think we have ever denied the project because they could not meet the streets tree trees or you know with of sidewalk or whatever I mean we have granted deviations to allow because we work with the there is the ideal and the possible and we work in the possible we aim to the ideal but this is the urban area we we are writing new standards to an area that will have more pedestrians we have more you know we have sidewalk you know um cafes right so we we want it's a different creating a destination yeah it's a different type of development right so these has to have to be different standards right not I thinkk you m this is not a type of development that you see much of here in Ovito and that we're trying to Welcome to the downtown of Ovito so this is supposed to generate more pedestrian traffic more bicycle traffic people coming to OVO to come to this place from outside of ovido a place where people can live work and play and stay in the same area you can't achieve that without enhancing streetcape and while there might not be about how many people should be in the side how wide a sidewalk should be to accommodate a certain number of people there are plenty of studies about how enhanced streetcape makes for a better place making which brings more people to the place to the destination they spend more money there they spend more time there and it enhances quality of life in your city and so by providing these things you're providing a better quality experience in your city and it makes people come back so that's that's the attempt here is to create a a cohesive pedestrian environment that is inviting to people as opposed to feeling unsafe where not it's not just oo where where many people feel unsafe walking in Florida so the these guidelines and and standards are supposed to elevate your experience as a person on foot in your new downtown so you asked about consensus for urban form in the downtown town court but doesn't the complain already push for that well the complain put the vision that this is the area that we are going to that we allowed already right um uh higher densities and intensities right and so it already but doesn't give the standards so but the the whole allowances that we went through with what's allowed there and and and let me add to that already established that we have and let me add to that and it's not just the ldcc who reviewed or who um is reviewing that type of um standard but the community we had Community meetings with a number of residents from all over Ido and we had a series it wasn't just one it wasn't two it was about um seven or eight uh meetings with the community and the community decided that there are certain areas and we call them targeted areas and we've been talking about the targeted areas the community said they wanted to see um density and tensity they wanted to see height um in these areas they wanted those areas to become more urban but to leave the other areas with the single family residential alone so we did that with the comp and that was the comp pl's vision and I don't know if Mr shank was on yet so he was he heard those meetings um and they were adopted the comp plan was adopted you were there the comp plan was adopted so we we already set the vision the community set the vision and so what we're doing now with the Land Development code is we're setting standards um to implement the vision that the citizens of Ido the council the the um local planning agency set for for the city so so that is a vision so I don't think that we have to have consensus over the urban form in the downtown work because the vision's already there we've already started establishing the standard so if I'm understanding David's um issue is that we're requiring the developer to basically give up land in order to meet these standards that are outside of the RightWay for right give or take but whether or not now I feel like it's a legal question of is that a exaction can you use it as a bonus or do those standards need to be shortened a little bit in order to make it work so with that my suggestion is staff and legal need to figure out what is the appropriate way to go because obviously you like you said it's not going to fit on a lot of the areas these standards in in the public right away in the existing public right away they will fit but to his point if the developer gives the land in order to make it fit is that what you're saying yes but just one clarification to eliz's point when she was explaining this that land that is being given up is can't be built on because we have a setback regulation this is land that's in front of the building that is not developable so so if if I could speak to that that's frankly nonsense because there's a zero setback in these areas so that's simply not true zero zero so so let let me just point out something so can can I see the areas you have a map to show us the are so I'm looking at the Mitchell Hammer C this applies to can we see what area so everybody knows okay well Mitch hammock downtown for there's just not a whole bunch left to do the the your target areas you've got you've got a handful of target areas um you have the marketplace here which is the mall I call this the grapefruit this is Gateway or not the the eggplant let us talk about sorry Sam let us talk about the those standards are for the core so they are not for all the target area so Target well there's a another set of standards for transition in here right so so let's talk about the core I think let talk about one at a time one at a time because then it's getting confused because they have different characters right and let's start with sorry what's the zoning today on this area that we're talking about so the the dark brown is the core which which today is a a bit of a rainbow it's a historic downtown core and historic downtown perimeter there are two zoning districts in that area can I ask I'm G give a a quick Dave had the mic so let Dave respond so so so there's a bunch of things going on and it's the totality of it so um I think like you said and like the staff said the community acted the council adopted there there's an allowable increase in intensity or density that th those allowable intensities may or may not happen is is a fact okay so I think I don't think there's disagreement from what I could tell in the room to use Deborah what was it enhanced standards I keep trying to think what upgr upgraded standards okay so it it just simply comes down to you're right it's how much of this is on private property and do you upgrade the standards at someone else's expense in a peac mail fashion or do you do this a little more appropriately so one of the things that everyone talks about that's nice and it's written down here is this Furnishing zone now a Furnishing zone is a nice thing to have but you can't walk on it it might be where trees go and a bench goes and things go but it doesn't create so to speak the same walkability other than it's a buffer from let's say the road okay so having that area that sidewalk width I think is infinitely more important than the width of that Furnishing Zone and trees may or may not be able to go there so I'm just pointing out that imposing this burden on private developers of small pieces is heavy and suggesting it doesn't impact their property is ridiculous of course it impacts da where where do we have small properties in the downtown core downtown core it's one master land use plan it's a master land use plan there is properties so just is what we're looking at is your zoning today so your zoning today you have a hodge podge so some of it is in the core and some of it is perimeter looks like downtown so if we go to the to the table today we're looking at the setback so inside the core zero front zero side 10 and then HTP it's going to be that's going to be the zoning the setbacks 25 10 20 so but these code was not this those standards were not written yeah to accomplish the urban Vision right this this was a code written in 2005 approved in 2006 so the front setbacks range from in some cases zero up to 25 ft depending on where it's located as well as the adjacencies and so then this is going to be the new zoning District so the um front it's going to be minimum 15 maximum 25 side five oh I'm sorry it's zero zero andt so that's that's what it's going to be for all of the property um that's downtown core so for sound well so I just to clarify for instance I think C CA is DT right no D is DT is exist Avenue that's Central okay okay so for for some areas we're taking a 25t setep back and reducing it subject to the street saate requirements so I mean for instance we could write this differently that it's zero foot if you comply with the set SAE streetscape requirements otherwise it's whatever the existing is yeah that's a good point I've done at least for CA I've done various measurements along Central Avenue and most in most cases from back of curb which is where the streetcape is measured from to the back of the sidewalk is more than 10 feet so you're talking about like a three or four foot taking which currently couldn't be developed or in Dave's Words uh three or four feet some some sometimes 5T of land that could currently not be developed on because the current setback is 25 ft from the property line but again let's separate the standards from how the standards um are if there's compensation whatever that's another discussion right I don't think we disagree the standards because actually we were B these standards were also based on your presentation on the on the core right so I think it's heavy on transition I think it's too much Street for the the neighborhood District or CA the ca you got an 8 sidewalk so so 15t right so this is the instance where the current setback is 25 ft from the back sidewalk no from from the property line right right from not not a number pieces theti church that Nevers you talk about exception for outside of's jur well that entire are is outside jur so what will happen is that if the developer does not compensate on their side we are not going to have the urban form that the comprehensive plan Invision and then we should keep the setbacks existing setbacks Don has his mic unmuted so thank you for waiting patiently no it's it's fine I think it's clear that the people of the community that have participated in this whole process want the new downtown designation to be something special I think everybody here does quite honestly I think what we're looking at there accomplishes that if there's a desire to tweak it to do something a little different I'm open to that but I want to see actual language before I make a decision on it yeah so Sten could you just flip to the other the yach for meks no no the uh land so we can see the land the picture of the map yeah yeah so if you zoom in a little bit actually' be better right there that's fine the you know my concern is and you have the other map up too the area on you know South of Broadway and again North these smaller properties I know you kind of think that there there's not but I go the dent the doctor's office um uh CMA the dog thing that you know the dog thing that's there all of those are property that's in that zone yeah that are primed for redevelopment and you know so the the other thing I see is so we're going to say like well if the guy in the middle CMA wants a he's never going to knock down the do old doctor's office and you know hey somebody comes in with a number and says we're buying it we're going to put something here then they're going to require to build a sidewalk that doesn't match up but because the whole that side doesn't have the sidewalk and the rest doesn't I I don't see how that makes this work and I think that's the DA's Point yes he's he's got a development plan they're going to work at development plan I don't want to say that this doesn't matter it doesn't they got a picture of what they want to do that matches all of the stuff we're talking about and um I'll give the the people who have a long Mitchell hammock most likely will do it in a large manner that's going to also Encompass a developers agreement that will match all this it's all the rest that I think becomes a problem that you're going well this is a big onus and I understand the reasoning we had to deal with AO and the park going we're paying for it we don't want to pay for this we gave back credits for all of this everything that's sitting over in E veto in the park the brick streets the BL blop the blah blop the the potted plants the whatever that wasn't free that was a we gave to the developer in Impact fee credits we had to otherwise it would have not been built he just simply said you know if you want it that way give me and you'll get it that way I will build it that way otherwise not and I understand we're trying to get as much as we can without having the city to have to give away impact fee credits for that well so we are not discussing back Fe credits here right standards we are because if we're going to exact we're going to we're talking something in reality because I agree with Dave wholeheartedly this will become an extraction if you're just talking a small piece of property that you're saying now they have to do this and put a three whatever foot wide Etc then yeah there will be some form of extraction that's coming along it seems I I there needs to be legal but it seems that to me I kind of look at it as and and by all legislative actions it's going to be extraction at some point that we can't just keep going with a zero setback and you want to take 42t 25 ft 15 ft whatever the number is there's an there's a limit to what a sidewalk and whatever is reasonable the rest becomes it's an extraction but I'm saying it's really the little smaller properties and the assumption that it's all owned by the same people because some of it is or F it's not the same you know it just that's my concern is those areas so I echoed Don saying it's got to be either comprehensively done in some Manner and that would mean the city taking it on to go you know what Central Avenue is becoming this way and the city takes it on and goes this is how it will look from whatever that street is you know down on the bottom all the way up to the top of the round you know the round from the bottom of the round circle to the top of the round circle the city's taking it on and saying this is how it's going to go unless there is some major Redevelopment that's coming and will be taken care of but all the other all that left side is not major Redevelopment the Baptist Church ain't going anywhere and all those things between the Baptist Church and north of the townhouse ain't going you know they are they could go and north of the townhouse which that hits can go and up to Franklin that's all going to go so you know for it to to look cohesive so we already established Central we do not have jurisdiction so the city cannot do anything on Central right this is for for the state um so and and we have deviations to deviate when when needed if there is um if we encroaching private property then there is a discussion to be have right on if there are you know the increase in capacity if they are subject or not to Mobility um fee credits this is already established in the code of ordinances so it's not going to be something that is going to be discussed in the LDC here we just discuss ing the standards so should we have different standards for the urban core or should we have Suburban standards for the urban core that is a discussion and I I think what's really what really is important here is having that buffer between moving traffic and people who are walking um I think if we're talking about that you know the in CA the sidewalk could be six feet instead of8 feet I mean that maybe 8 feet was aggressive like I think that we could definitely have those conversations without um eating into the kind of core concept of having that basic pedestrian expectation of I'm going to have something between me and moving traffic one of the questions I had proposed at the last meeting was what number it would seem reasonable and and there wasn't a response so to me it seemed like we either don't want this this is the wrong thing but we don't know what is the right thing and to achieve the goals that have been laid out in the comp plan you have to have some sort of streetscape requirements they're either Suburban in nature or Urban in nature and we've been tasked to create Urban streetscape standards if we want to shift them a couple of feet that's a conversation that we can have and I think everybody's open to but you're not going to get an urban streetcape if they're not required period is there any other discussions so I I just wanted to point out one thing so you hear it stated here that this wouldn't apply and we allow deviations to these other roads but I think we absolutely have to State it doesn't apply and I'll tell you why because something I noticed in my quick glance at this updated draft we got on page 16 of the marker in section 2.7 flexibility and administration which the last time we talked about it said that mitigation may be required it has been changed to shall so what it basically says here is not withstanding all these other Provisions which said if you don't you know you do mitigation if you impact adjacent land uses now it says shall so the way this is drafted today unless it accepts these rways out of the jurisdiction you are going to be punished for not meeting what you can't meet that's what it says and I think we can't just say this is a nice thing to have so we should obligate it you're saying we're going to punish people because they can't do it without giving us their property and and that is what I'm saying is wrong so the the planning is all well and good but you need to plan the road when you plan the road not plan the road on the backs of each little guy coming in da we change it to sha because that's the practice the practice is that we require I said last time the practice I think is is wrong and I don't I don't I'm not changing that position the practice um we have always required you know mitigations for deviations on side plans you know and there is a so you're making my point because the code says you have to and you said you can deviate and now you're saying you're going to have to mitigate in in the state road we cannot require so that is that is not so and I agree with you I have no problem with that we can clarify that we we could also look at deferring to the context classification standards for the state road which would U have similar requirements they would just be deferring to a state requirement instead of ours so so what's odd about the state is they don't follow their own trans standards it's a little weird all right so if I'm hearing everything and I guess we need consensus from every everybody is to go back and look at this area in a little bit more detail see if we need to decrease by a foot or whatever that is what the legal opinion is regarding if it is on private property versus right away versus setbacks and all of that was discussed today because I want to end this conversation because I think we're at a point where we need to move on so just go back and take a look at it and come back with wording and then maybe even examples have to talk about those little nuances and do what you need to do we do not have that time to come back at this point right so that's why we were hoping to have this conversation the other thing I could said adct because during this whole time and I've looked at this stuff for many years like I still don't know where it apply I can sit and like so where does it apply oh it doesn't apply to the state roads but it applies to the main core area that we want like the downtown area the core that everybody who looking at would go oh that means Broadway and Central right no because those are state roads so this does doesn't apply it would apply to New Roads right if we have New Roads the new cut through roads that are the one little cut through Road and maybe another road does it apply to these side roads that are off of um van AR I I don't know if Van Arsdale is too high all those little roads that are in the circle I don't I don't think State I I think it's less that it wouldn't apply to state roads I think it's that it wouldn't apply in such a way that the state prohibits it if the state prohibits the configuration then it wouldn't be required it's not that it would I'm getting murkier as you like that just goes muddy the water as you talk and I go so if I could look at this and you go here's the road it applies to that would be a great help as someone looking at it I would know appes to all the roads that are in that zoning district and you apply whenever you touch a state road you have to apply to fdot for a permit so the only reason it would not apply is if they denied that permit for some reason then the city can't make you do it so you're saying it applies it applies it applies every property owner there would need to comply so down the downtown core they already did did the the improvements right in Broadway so if there is we talking about cor if there are concerns about specific roads within the downtown core that need to be Exempted we could exempt that specific Road and assign a different streetcape that's more conversation I'm just saying during the conversation again I a little time I spent looking at it that it was said oh that's a state road so it does it now doesn't apply and that's what I'm saying on then those two big main roads that we're looking at now you're saying it does apply I if you're sitting here and say we have two different it does apply it doesn't apply Harris has that are you the third tie breaker and and then we'll ask no the standards the standards were created by the consultant so they will know which roads it's going to apply to so we are reading it just like you all are reading it and trying to interpret it as well um but they are going to put language that will allow it to apply to all um roads so the current language Gloria can you clarify what what can we do in state roads in County Roads whatever they decide we can do but this is this is an issue that every municipality deals with by the way this is not just only OB the question now is do we look back at what we are providing or requesting and adjust it based on the existing right away or do we move with what we have no no I'm I I think if I if I'm going to ask everybody here they're pretty much all pretty good with yes we need new Urban standards I don't think all along here do we need are every Everybody pretty happy with the urban standards and making this all Urban do you understand what's coming forth do you understand reading this that part of it do you understand where it applies and how it applies I think that's where the problem is right now from our side is great the the pictures or the design the thoughts hey should we urbanize all this 100% I think we'd all give a thumbs up on we're there it should be urbanized uh should it is it maybe it's excessive is I think Dave's pointing out in certain areas maybe taking this much is too much Etc I think that's I'm not an expert so I'll go and maybe others would say the same but during this whole 20 30 minutes of conversation it's gone back and forth in yes no yes no and Bas answer is well the state decides so that's a probably yes most likely I I could provide some clarification when it comes to other jurisdiction and having streetcape standards on a fdot facility so for instance in maand on 1792 maitlin had provided streetcap uh streetscape scard over there in early 2000s and applied them and they applied for each project as they came in for new development and then they went and applied for permit and then they had uh they had that standard approved and obious obviously fdot had the final uh say on what was going to go into that location so there may have been some deviation to the streetcape also the RightWay wasn't available in all the circumstances either and so private easement was provided in just compensation as well because you had private property that had Public Access on it that's that's the basics if we're going to I mean if we're going to take from a from a policy standpoint if we're going to say that a certain Road may not apply to the standards because we want to have a comprehensive or holistic look at the road and then the city wants to do as a Citywide project or the state wants to do or the county wants to do as countywide project that's one thing but on the other hand other jurisdictions that provide a streetscape standards that are on state facilities and they just go through that permitting process Okay and like I said not that I'm but that wasn't the answer when I was talking about the little properties here that's why I kind of went wait now we're going all over the place so I think the only thing we're can I can I to as Dave's points is that you know with zero setback is it an extraction and is it excessive what we're at what this as a street Urban streetcape this might be excessive in its ass and then the whole other question is does some of it Encompass because zero setback a taking or that's again a legal in another question that's over here but do we feel that it might be excessive in its ask or reach and that it could be tamed in a little bit versus what's being projected in since we're pressed on time here I'm going to propose some numbers to be changed th this is not disc issue this this is a Teresa said it doesn't apply you said it does apply Harris said in in maand it applied so I think we don't have a straight answer here I I think that intended app or it doesn't app does it say it in the code that it doesn't apply no but Teresa is head of the staff and she said it does so the standards we did not create right so this these are new standards for us the consultant um created the standards so we're going to go according to what the consultant saids so there is no confusion here if the consultant says that it applies it applies so if it applies then I would simply make a motion that we make it not apply on roads outside of the city's jurisdiction period so but so let let us so what I was referring to we cannot mod mod defy what is a state road what is a so the the developer could compensate right on their as side and if there are you know it's I give up I'm going to stop talking about it so do you do you agree with the urban standards or not do you agree that we should have the urban standards or you think that for the downtown we should remain Suburban standards and if the developer let me ask a question if if you provide more then that is subject to bonus is that what you're proposing I said I feel it's an exaction and I said I feel there should be absolutely clear in the code that there's going to be credits for it period what is an exection providing an easement for a wider streetcape that's physically not there and there's no room in the ride away it's stated right in the draft that you're making someone give an easement for this area and it's also stated in the code that there's just compensation and methodology for doing so so we're back at square one because I think we all agree we want the no I know we all agree we want the urban form whether or not those can be adjusted by a foot or not I'm going to leave that we're not at square one please don't say that hold on hold on leave that up to to you guys and the consultant the question that was brought up by Dave is exactly if it has to come from the developer how will they be just compensated which then again going back to one it's already in the code so would it be it's in the code would fix it if if I put in we making advancement a cross reference to the city code that offers yes please just in the section legal has to kind of you know um provide yes the in going back yes provide what what is the reference that we should have you know yes well exactions all come down to uh justification uh and basically if an exaction there has to be just compensation for it and Dave's right the they half firmed the legisl half up basically saying there has to be dollar for dollar based on Fair M value compensation to developer for exaction um and as we went through everything exactions are exactions unless there's a justification for it and there's several cases we went through the cases that said the the Supreme Court held that the city had a right to do it the county had a right to do it in this particular case uh if we require a more more land dedicated then that may well come down like side action uh City would have to pay for it uh City didn't have the money to pay for it so this may never happen if we keep going back and forth like this saying well you can't make me have a a sidewalk this white even though that's the street standard City didn't have the money to do it hasn't had the money for a long time and it's it's never going to happen so I I mean to me and not speaking legally we have to figure out what kind of make sense so that everybody can comply and it doesn't cost the city because the city have the funds to pay for we want to see this and yes Dave is right we require property that we don't have the right to that's an exact thing the city has to pay for it there's no there's no two ways around it and and uh we can argue justification we can argue this it will never happen so I don't know I it seems like we're we're at odds on the standards applying to everybody as long as it doesn't apply to my Property Standards are great but my property has an exemption if that's so then you end up with a hodge podge you don't end up with anything so I mean I I I we have to rely on our Consultants to come back to something that makes sense or makes sense to them obviously but uh we're going on circles I'll be honest with you we're going on circles and it it shouldn't be that way uh um you know that I know I was in AO for a long time I used to come through here when you came to the turn town you turn Town Restaurant you went out by the glider base and have not the back and I did not see Ole the park until I came back several years ago to represent the city and I was I was impressed with what they had done be the park to me is a great project I think the downtown can be a great project too but at some point we've got to are standard that that have to be followed to have what we want if we don't if we can't agree on those standards then how we're a to do it so that's my two c so I I tend to agree if you know that the standards are necessary in order to make the urban SW and the staff and legal need to figure out the how to make that work with each site and what's the size of the site and all of those other processes is is my thinking so do do we all agree that there should be some type of street standard for the area let's just get that clear you're agence that we need Street skate standards for the downtown stand yes Street skate standards yes that should be different should be urbanurban State okay Urban State yes so the the so the question is how to reach there on the on the Central and and Broadway on the on the counties and state roads I think what we need to clarify we cannot change the Furnishing Zone in a state road if they don't want to change we don't we Cann now the Furnishing zone between the the street and the sidewalk is already established point we haven't discussed so there's this talk like you go ask do like if this is some minor thing so you've got to design your projects submit to their requirements you've got to submit a RightWay utilization uh permit you got to submit a utility permit you got to submit the drainage permit and they pass judgment on all these things sometimes they look at these Urban transact standards sometimes the reviewers could care less uh you know so you're designing your project before you can submit running around in circles waiting months and months and months to see if this can be applied or not applied and if you we can just look at can we go and look at Google Maps and look at the actual Street and let me just point out what I'm talking about and and also if you can provide some recommendations of what you're because you're the only one besides Mr shank who who is not um but I but I gave you guys actual what's actually there I sent and what language do you recommend uh that that's fine but just go to um Central north of Broadway on the West Side just just past the Baptist Church and and do yeah right right in there and just do a street view on those little buildings looking on the west so perfect if if you can so well we want to look at but you need to back up a little bit and look at the actual street so look at what's there that's that's I think 8 ft total that's it that's all that's there in the back of the sidewalk there's a little concrete strip and that's the back of the rideway so in there you've got that's everything that's the Furnishing Zone that's the sidewalk Zone that's everything so this is a tiny little piece of property and this is going to make sure that piece of property if it must meet these standards never gets redeveloped period That's just if you look South of Broadway okay on on that side of central you've got the same circumstance so I offered a solution and I think it it makes some sense is if you're going to develop and and we've used this in in the comp plan I think on certain things if you're going to develop and assemble five acres or more or whatever the number is meet these standards because it's not so brutal when you're planning a bigger site but these folks with little sites I might be working on so to speak the water tower district but to Stevens Point that's a negotiated code and we're working fine with staff on figuring that out I I look at all these little folks they're going to be brutalized and we're going to not accomplish this by requiring this if you require this you're making it not happen on these little sites and I know that's a challenge and trouble so over here you're on the south and you look on the on the east side there's a little more room on the west side it's the same thing but we need to have the continuation right you make it so the streetcape I don't know if you develop one of these little pieces how do they match what's North and South I think that I think that it's overreaching to say you're never never going to see a a Redevelopment of the site I think that there are plenty of info sites all over the country that get redeveloped and meet streetcape standards so I think that saying that as fact is a little off base but we are willing to work on the numbers here and and what we need to do to get to the finish line of this project is to talk about the numbers and and we keep moving away away from that and if we're saying that there's a cost issue here that a c would be uh cost prohibitive for a development or that would be too much of cut too far into the impact fee credits for the city both of those would be ameliorated by some reduction in the sidewalk width for instance so these numbers do impact what we're talking about here in terms of the feasibility of Redevelopment for the private side as well as the feasibility of providing sufficient impact fee credits if that's the solution on the public public side so I I do and you know I'm sure the developers in this group would say an extra foot of sidewalk that's a real cost so um I think it's reasonable to discuss this I mean if you want us to go back with general direction and just say let's try to minimize those standards to what we think is is the kind of minimum reasonable we could do that if we want to talk specific numbers we could do that I mean and obviously if this is not the direction you know of the chair or what have you that's that's totally fine but the most we don't have any other issues to so if you all want to just complete this sure offer up some numbers so I I mean on CA I think it'd be very be very reasonable to go down to six feet rather than 8 feet 8 feet um is you know that that solution would be great because it starts to deal with like electric bicycles and some other users of the sidewalk but six feet should be sufficient for that situation and we can't go any lower than seven feet for the planting strip because that is just industry standard for what it takes to host a canopy tree if if we go any lower than that then we're asking the developer to pay for root barriers which is even more expensive so that 7 feet is really important to be maintained we can go down to six on the sidewalk and I think in terms of the downtown core um you know we could go down from 16 to 15 on the minimum but I don't think that gets us very much however I do think we could go down on the non-residential sidewalk clear Zone to six or 7t rather than 8T to match so I'm not sure if that makes the the comment happy I think give have a range of six to eight so whenever it's possible six it's currently 6 to8 the other thing that I you know I I'm not I could confirm if we've looked at this is to ensure that if a developer wants to deal with say a two or three foot setback and fill that in as essentially a an extension of the sidewalk they can do that if they rather have that than you know two feet of grass um but that that wouldn't be public sidewalk can you go back to that that's cover that view and so look at that there is no Furnishing Zone unless the Furnishing Zone and and the sidewalk are the same there is no requirement for the Furnishing zone right here this is CA right uh no or is the ca within the downtown that that's that's core that's cor so and that's what I'm saying and that's what I'm saying well go that's down there so that's what I'm saying we do not there are things and so I I should rephrase what I said that does not apply so there are areas that we would not be able to meet the the the standard proposal if um Cent If the state doesn't work with us right so the Furnishing Zone in between the sidewalk in the street although that is the the guideline um we may not have be able to have it will have to be compensated on the other side so I don't know but the other thing I think we could look at is if there's been recent improvements recent public improvements that you know we don't want to create a a large cost to go from six to seven feet it doesn't trade so that's another thing that we could look at in terms of a a deviation and how we deal with the mitigation we can talk about um but yeah it doesn't make if if they are not required by the development plan to break up an existing sidewalk then it might not be necessary to widen it a minor amount to get to the perfect streetcape so I think that that's another reasonable kind of addition to make that would address some of these concerns or mitigate some of these concerns so what is the thought from the ldcc I'm I'm not sure I know what the question is at this point how do you feel about the reduction in the sidewalk with the okay so going back so going from 8 to six for the sidewalk requirement for Central Avenue and that is in the ca Zone not Central Avenue with in the downtown core but that's what we've been talking about as the core that's what we were looking at and to go down from 8 to from 8 to six for the non-residential in the downtown Corp for non-residential sidewalk so Dave you're talking a segment of Central Avenue so it's a segment of that Corridor so there's segments and I sent you guys an email and the reason it's hard to answer the question can we change this a couple feet is because these rights away are not uniform and the street Scapes are that are there are not uniform so it's pretty challenging and so I get what everyone's trying to accomplish I I'm just concerned about these small property owners and and the small Property Owners theyve I think to reach you know the new densities and intensities they will end up either aggregating land because that that sidewalk that we showed the first one that he showed that is very nrow that doesn't support high density next to it right it's small pieces of property it's or high intensity they're wedged in all these are relatively small ownerships that would be relatively hard to assemble so so to your point what I suggested and I just threw a number out there if in fact you're going to redevelop more than five acres now what would that apply to today what I'm working on it it would apply to uh the Citizens Bank that's Now Fair Winds which is Seven Acres it would apply to but but I think even if you made it two acres it still would solve this what about instead of uh acreage we just go by our Redevelopment standards which is 5,000 squ ft building or 500 trips the there's a whole standard some threshold that removes the burden from smaller but I think I I don't like the the removal yeah because then you end up with an inconsistent streetcape which is if we ask me for a no no I think what if we say these are the standards that we aim for this area we can get you know um we will work you know to make Redevelopment happens and work on the flexibility of the code to reach that for small then we we put the but it's not that we are waving we already giving up because when it's possible yeah we'll fight for those if it's possible if it's if it's reasonable if the if there is compensation whatever is the is the mechanism that um that is in place that we can discuss yeah that would be that that is you know an Avenue the most eligible properties in your city for deviations are existing small infill sites there deviations are made for that not for new projects they're made to fit Urban Development into small sites so there's a mechanism to get these sites as close to the the spirit of the code as possible that already functions well today we're setting the standards for new developments that are coming in and can I can let me just do this is there any thought to make a motion to accept what they proposed with then staff and legal figuring out the legal components of the exaction I can't make a motion right I don't think so is there consensus to I don't think it's only exaction Tera that you're talking about you're talking about also some and all of that other stuff right because that's more of an operational thing like you're saying as they come in you're trying to get as close as possible but they have to have some standards in order to try to reach so let me just put is there a consensus that we're okay with as is um the recommendations from the consultant with the r but we don't know what the revised is I no I'm not saying revised I'm saying the what is on the screen as is so I have one no is there any other yeses or NOS okay so is there a consensus for the reduced how many yeses did you get did you get any yeses on on your first question can you I was um Mr Payton what's your are you okay with Asis are you okay with Asis yeah so that's why I was saying can we vote on it instead of consensus because there I'm getting some of these so don't dotion fine consensus by hands is there consensus to keep it the way it is if you agree with the way what they said raise your hand okay is there consensus for the reduction which was the sidewalk in the CNN downtown court what reduction what they just said the 2et reduction in the sidewalk clear Zone from 8 feet to 6 feet in both CA and downtown core downtown core only applies to the residential in the downtown core so is there a consensus on that yes thank you we're done well I don't think and is there another to put some limitations on whether by square footage or by um acreage but what would that do so it would create hodge podge um Street skate well that goes back to my thing is like the pet bque in the corner if it's again CMS change gets an offer for them the pet bque and they want to redo so they're going to put up but the corner will not be me what the current one is it'll look like that which is kind of ridiculous looking you can really walk it it's not wide enough to really with the trees in the middle you need that extra right it wants a sidewalk there in reality um well it does if you look at it it's it's the part what's the first part called the landscape zone or what you know it's it's missing the next phase 6 side go back to the whole legal consideration of how do you get to that part on a site by site basis whether or not it's so so I suggested now the reason I didn't vote for the reduction is because to the point of the staff you're trying to get where you can the larger streetcape you're trying to get it so watering it down perhaps makes you lose it everywhere when you can get it somewhere so I do think there's a benefit to if you have maybe it's Frontage if you have more than 100 feet of Frontage if you have more than 200 feet of Frontage do this but to Stevens Point so someone that has 100 to Frontage can only do the new streetcape until they have to match what was there on the North and the South you're going to get a hodge podge anyway so what I was saying is to the extent you do this where people have to dedicate land then it should comply with State Statute and it was offered up by by the consultant in this section just overtly say that this is going to have to comply with with crit credits if there's an exaction in accordance with ordinance whatever but why do we need to say that if it's already said in you don't do it you make people do these things and they don't know they get credit in practice it it they have a hammer the dream Crushers of development RW you don't believe me but it's the truth but when I asked if you wanted if you wanted the current standards you said no because it wasn't offered with any change it was as written that's what you said okay and so but I said with the legal considerations of what need to be done you did say that well I don't know what that looks like be all those mitigation and whatnot so do we go back to do you want to go back to the previous one unwatered down or do you want to say minimum the the the new standards so so I think people if they can't do this shouldn't be forced to to pay a pound of Flesh in mitigate number one and I think if they do this it should overtly state that they're going to receive credits in accordance with state law um let me we'll have to talk to our legal to see if that would be the case um if it if it meets the standards of an exaction if it meets the standard if so going back to my original comment about 45 minutes ago about having legal take a look at where those concerns are and the language that needs to go in there regarding that can we just vote on the or not vote like I mean we know we want to do that right legal is going to go back and look at those there's some language in the code it's whether or not it's going to be cross referenced so that is something hopefully we can hear what the solution was at the next meeting but then going back to the standards is the big Point are you happy with those larger walkable standards or do you want what we just built consensus to which is smaller and like I said regardless we F how each piece gets there for consistency and whether or not it falls on the city etc etc but I think our point is standards with some legal considerations figured out and and some some relief for people that have challenging sites that they don't have to pay in mitigation if needed for if they can't reasonably comply because they just said you just heard her we changed it to sha we've never discussed that we never agreed change language you all discussed that you did we did you did discuss it and you all agreed to it and so did the LPA Don I was just going to say I think I'll just speak for me I'm happy with what's up there I think we're required to follow what's in state law whether we regurgitate it in this code or not makes no difference practically from a legal perspective we have to comply with it anyway so what's the point in repeating it I don't get it agree I'll answer the question because most applicants don't know that most applicants can't pay attorneys most applicants can't go through the process of arguing so if you overtly say it it'll basically put everyone on notice if you're made to do this you get compensated including the staff and the staff changes is there so so you have to have applied for something to understand what happens you have to go through this to to know what it feels like all right is there any other discuss question on this so I'm going to go back to is there consensus on the standards that were originally proposed on the screen with the legal figuring out the considerations and the wording that need to relate back to that statute mitigation bonus exaction whatever else words legal needs to come up with and considered if if necessary necessary and appropriate so consensus so there no reduction is that you didn't vote I mean raise your hand well if I didn't say anything unanimous three hours later did you have a second you had a second there's not a vote it's consensus consensus okay we haven't been here and everybody voted for everybody raised their hand okay or stayed silent which is their consensus I'm just I just want to clarify also for the records we are keeping the numbers correct with just legal Prov and maybe providing some language if necessary so yes yes but one other item so so Eliza brought it up and I think it makes sense in the ca district and CN is really off the road so it doesn't matter as much okay but in the ca District the point was made what is it now a 20 or 25 foot setback and you can't reasonably fit this stuff in the RightWay that the Consultants are saying there's an alternative where we don't reduce to a zero foot setback along that area to leave room for the trees that makes sense and I think that makes sense and and I think we should as a committee say please go do that in the transition zone and I think there's a little bit is there a little bit of transition zone north of the the old downtown also yes because we've concentrated in a the ca District right now on the maps is is are we putting up there we didn't get a zoning that's not a targeted area I apologize I should have sent the pericial I was so worried about sending the LC um right a draft I did not send the transition is north of the downt the historic downtown core and we didn't apply the ca designation for on the main road there and I think I'm just saying maybe that should be ca zoning I I don't know oh ca Zing you see what I'm saying because we're doing these Street Front standards but we didn't apply it on that street front or we applying a downtown neighborhood right but no that was just for off the road we talked about probably need to be up there too nor north of the historic downtown is what I'm talking about I know you mean to add a a new zoning District so you're not neighborhood on the main road and I think if if the consultant tweaks this where you're less likely to get this high intensity of the core it's okay to have a setback to accomplish keep the street out of the tree out of the road and on the property yeah I mean one thing pardon one thing that we could write in for instance is that maybe the mitigation is that they put if they can't put the street tree between the sidewalk in the road that they put it on the private property between the the um building and the sidewalk so that would be one way of addressing that but we need we can we can look at um how to Nuance that the code already has that but yeah if it's if we removed do we put it back I didn't get any other no other questions or comments um is there anything else anyone felt was well there is now this this idea here of bringing the ca north of the downtown core so do you want cons so let's talk about that because um the C was in between the cores you know the North and the South right the old downtown new downtown the the that North portion there was not um planed to be ca it what I'm saying is if you go back to our discussion the downtown neighborhood was off the main road and we completely ignored this transition land use north of the the old downtown but Central over there has a different character too right it's it's it's not as the lots are a little bigger than further south but the right away is is reduced too right oh it's to I I don't all I'm saying is if we have a standard for long Central Avenue it should go all are should be all along Central Avenue we forgot that spot so I just want to point out and I don't have a u recommendation here but what this would mean practically is that right now the downtown neighborhood allows for um basically a range of residential whereas if we make it um CA then it would allow for commercial and you'll see a lot of the yellow is residential the yellow is more residentially zoned areas so I think the concern was about the adjacencies to existing residents um I don't again I don't have a recommendation here just that's the main that's the main difference is that it's more commercial Urban and that's a main road and it's next to the downtown and we gave it transition land use and it allows all those uses and that is the main road why would we not allow those uses and if you consider what's there you've got of course the staff's favorite guy who's trying to convert a house briskets barbecue right you've got the the um cremation people the insurance company so it's already changing in character up there maybe not along the whole stretch you got Sweetwater Kids Academy the daycare the east side is almost all commercial so so there's not that much left let's let's think about that we can think about that and propos I mean you know I didn't come in for my lifetime the widening prop you know my well are you are you planning on ding we finished 419 out to the all right so you guys are G to what's the consensus from the board to take a look at the area and see which properties can be Central Avenue I think it might be a thought to you know just follow that roadway right up and make Central a central Corridor just anything that's sitting on Central Central Corridor up what should be the northern B well the transition land uses I think that is a thing that it's going to a bunch ldr I I I I think the idea was just to connect those two downtown cors so so may maybe up to Magnolia where you've got artistic hand sitting on the corner and there's something else sit on that corner right Artic they're a little bit further but no that's sweet sweet no wait what's right there they're at Vine but you've got you've got the uh woman Health kind of place at Magnolia so if you go up to Magnolia go to Magnolia you've got an office on the other side you you've got a guy trying to do that bacon land they proposed office just north of Magnolia right there so maybe it's that line right there that one lot north of Magnolia on both sides is that so so one point of clarification are if there are properties that don't touch on Central Avenue would those be DN but I think we ignored this entire transition area because we talked about South of Broadway yeah I believe that the ca Zone actually lined up with an existing zone right did U and so that those were the boundaries we followed right but all I'm saying is everybody to take a look at that area for the staff to take a look at that area I'm not sure about that okay consensus on that all right was there anything else in the code that you guys needed a follow up on felt wasn't addressed questions on Etc so a general comment we got 300 and something pages and half of it was cross out so maybe it's 150 or 160 we got it Friday it's done I think the staff's under pressure from the council to get something adopted and I just went through and have a bunch of little comments and what do you want me to do just put it in writing to you guys I mean doing it here today seems absurd agreed so I would defer to staff so what are what are the uh we can try to have another session well saying is I can just give you in writing and whether you want to share it with the committee or not we have we'll have to share it with the yeah whatever it's probably not substantial but if it's major if there directions or clarifications they major big burden so look so here for everybody's benefit each little posted is a little thing I saw looking at it today we don't want to go over that today if we can make a copy of it we can I can write something up for you maybe tomorrow and give it to you okay I know you're under but let me ask you do you have are there any in those stickers over there any major ISS so let's let's talk yeah let's talk about it until 6 so we're leaving at talk about it do you have the capacity to put something on the screen yes you know what it is oh oh not not new stuff on the screen well uh so you have it because it's the Jones concept plan on Pine Avenue you yeah can can you point us to the code reference so we can start looking that up if if there is one well there sort of maybe be one but they sort of may not okay well it's be theot spit section this this this was the how many application conference that Richard Jones came to with Z development how many Lots is he trying to put on there it's one it's two existing Lots it's 20 10 buildings 20 dlex is there a way that so you guys have it so we're going to we're going to look we're going to look so they're finding it okay you want to take a break while can we because I'm I'm I'm like we got boms in the house M reping Clean 6 o' yes we have o' absolutely testing needs Sam could you have handy the couple of pages in the comp plan for medium density and high density in in the land use element just trying to get you staged up here yes yes perfect so medium density actually started on the prior page it was a weird formatting thing there you go and just can you make that bigger perfect so that that's weird how when I looked at it I'm like oops it's on the wrong page yeah no that's it's not it so are you still just for sale over there many just I had several meetings just so so a couple more fed meetings that might change right right right you sold a bunch of stuff like that that the the bottomless PE soup you bought from me sign years you signed what I signed contract sing all of and half years ago but I did not like the way the cont yeah they time for time for doing nothing because going tce as much right glad I walked away so now I can and I see M anyway everything getting I'm not in rush I do have two one of them is well see beer seems to be doing these little tidbit projects all over the because they can't find bigger ones right when their piece came on the market I immediately in five minutes the five minutes I offer 100,000 more and me I'll get back within an hour and never back to me I sent three emails so what's really funny is people get trapped by the offer from someone else that's fictional you know and I'm like but I I'm real they waited two years offer cash 30 days to wait but they sold it for uh you're talking which p I think that one's 50 I did the project I did was 70 no I think it's more than I think it's yeah well you got to look at Harris's fancy tree chart he's got all the the counts in there yeah but I know it's the so now you're you're talking over by the cemetery right yeah the street iswh I I didn't pay attention you know if I'm not doing the deal I I got enough to worry about I'm not as retired as you yet I'll get there so and they have a stretch of like 15 oh so I I think our longest build I recall in the project I did now there's there might be another one next to another one with 15 ft between them but I don't think we had more than eight in a row I I don't think they had them that long so the the builders they all they they hate when there's different sizes eight four six you know should be good because I know but they don't like it because it's more plans to draw do you understand I I don't think that's a big deal but they think that's a big deal but sometimes doesn't allow you to have them allm I know I have one piece Pine I can have only 80 ft long 100 away 200 [Music] away wi so I can have so I am five show you something this is a multilex this is a drawing right they just did this it says you're not allowed so this is a drawing what's allowed it say you're not allowed to have a rear facing entrance but they drew a rear facing entrance it's allow like how do you build this without a rear facing I'm so confused so I think it's right here uh rear facing units are not allow there's a rear facing unit and allow picture like come on said no you can't only with a sideways car no can see maybe maybe with a little a little car that FS hand when's the break over Madam shair he he left clay bail I was waiting for that all right are we ready to get started thank you they will all right well um go ahead and get started so I will hand it back over to Dave oh so I I get a microphone now wow okay so to set the stage for everybody and I did not attend this meeting and I'm here with the permission of the property owner who raised this issue to me you're trying to find the tax map now okay so it's it's he's right where he's shown there's an ex existing duplex that that is in related ownership to those Parcels 33 and 34 okay uh so and there's an existing driveway they intend to use for Access and this is right across the street west from the high school north of 426 so go back to the plan so this plan depending on if you add to the project outline the existing duplex the the plan shows 10 buildings being 20 units on a single side plan which complies with the medium density it's somewhere in the high fives in density per per acre if you include the duplex which they probably should the the density changes a little but it's Falls within the medium density and Sam if you could pull up the comp plane real quick so so there's the the compant for medium density four to eight dwelling units an acre and go down to high density so there's high density it's 8 to 16 units an acre so go back to the site plan if you would so the site plan came in and the staff comment which was received from the owner is we're going to call this multif family and you can't do it without a comprehensive plan amendment in rezone but they can't do it with a comprehensive plan Amendment and a rezone so I think we were here talking about and debating R2 and what you could do on all these things and all this talk of missing middle housing and so whether I agree or disagree with what the current code says I think we've got a problem if you're not allowed to do this in ovido in medium density land use where it should be allowed so basically that's the issue I'm raising for for this committee do you see that and the distinction I think that the staff made but they can speak for themselves was if you platted this as a subdivision it's allowed but if you don't plat it as a subdivision and do a single site plan it's not allowed I don't rightly think it should be that way and I think the suggestion that you go rezone it would make this project impossible because it can't meet the minimum density requirement of high density so right now in I didn't have the draft code long enough but the existing code in the comp plan I don't think clearly defines what's multif family what's residential what's what's what and so I'm just putting it to this committee should this type of project be allowed or do you just make it never allowed in Ovito because that's the current circumstance I believe of the present code and if we go forward with the new comp plan there's no comp plan Amendment or rezoning that can accomplish this unless it's a plan development which you guys wanted to discourage so I'm just bringing it up to the committee and seeing what comments there are and I'm bringing this up on behalf of Richard Jones who I told him we were having meetings and he says raise this one because if we're going to have a new code and we're going to have it soon his family would like to be able to do this project and Dave this was already turned down once this was already turned down by the council not too Longo no no that what was turned down the plan because of the easement coming in it's not a public no no no no no no what was turned they didn't want to do a subdivision no what was turned down was a vested rights application this project was never submitted or turned down well so to to explain what the issue here so if they bring they have two lots there are landan locked the access is through um an eement and I think it's 20 ft right that's correct the easement so this proposal is to densify an area without giving the proper infrastructure um infrastructure for the densification because if you're providing 20 units single family units or 10 duplexes right in that area so you multiply the number of cars you know that will be in that neighborhood accessing through a nement our code says that uh um New Lots have to be have to front a road so they could they could turn this into a PSP and have you know 10 Lots internally but they have to face a RightWay they would have to provide the infrastructure of a RightWay where how they're going to do that there are multiple ways to achieve that but they would have that would be one path right now they are providing multiple um units in two lots and there is even the crossing property lines there so not even Multiplex because Multiplex is maximum what eight units right 8 units in a lot they exceed that so they do not meet the multiplex you know and plus they are crossing property lines so the only way for them to use a driveway to access a number units is to transform this into multif family and multif family because that's more and that's code right definition right the point I'm making and let's get over the so I stated and and I told him you should probably do a single project with the existing duplex there so you get the road Frontage so let's just make that one go away so the point is based on what you just said you would view this even in the draft C code as not a multiplex but multif family but going back to the comp plan this wouldn't be allowed so forcing someone to do a subdivision instead of a site plan I'm I'm just looking at this saying do we want to prohibit this from happening I don't understand why you say not be allow as multi family why would not beow as multi because go to the comp plan well multif family would not be allowed in the zoning District so multif family today they would have to do zoning the staff comment was do a complant Amendment and a rezone the only the only more intensity is high density high density is a minimum of eight it's less than six so basically let's get over the the access issue it appears there's if this is the interpretation number one I don't think there's a definition in the code and maybe there should be on what's what's multif family there's no real definition it's more than one unit more than a couple of units it doesn't say that anywhere now it's more than eight it doesn't we do have a we have a definition in there now it might not it should be in that version that we I just got this Friday I don't know if it is yeah but I know that I know that we went through and we did provide definitions for for multilex and multi family I'm asking this committee and and I'm kind of asking the let me clarify there is there is definition for single family and duplex so this is not a single family or duplex so I would say it's a multif family go back to the comp plan please look at medium density at the beginning of it which is on the prior page residential doesn't say single family it doesn't say multif family so we're working on the new code now and I'm looking at this project in the framework of the new code this project can only fit in medium density because it's less than it's more than four and less than eight units an acre it cannot go anywhere else it cannot go anywhere else okay so why would we have this code where we're trying to do flexibility and encourage missing middle housing why would we not allow it's it's 5 point something per Lots I mean per so it's 3.55 Acres with 20 units the lot in front is 0.51 Acres with two more units so 22 units on 4 something Acres okay but all I'm saying is if you add the front piece that changes a little bit but not much because it's two units on 0.5 Acres so I'm I'm just saying do we want as a committee to adopt a code that prohibits this because it does right now the way the way the staff is interpreting it does well multif family dwelling unit let's talk about that so it says residential construction consisting of one or more buildings in which three units or more are located in a single building um and then it also says um in which multiple units share an entrance or entrances located above the first floor not including it doesn't talk about the types of building um then we have a definition of duplex it's a detached Residential Building containing two two dwelling units designed for occupants by not by not more than two families either containing a common wall or ceiling floor we also have in here where talks about a duplex is on a single lot um so anything that is over um any number of units on one lot more than a duplex is considered a multifam so this is I'm sorry Start okay so I'm looking for all the different we have them so the duplex a detached Residential Building containing two dwelling units um designed dlex MTI duplex sorry about that okay um then we also have in here that talks about duplexes being on a single lot two units on a single lot um so there's more than one duplex on a single lot in this situation so that is considered multif family if they were to subdivide and provide a single lot for one duplex then we can consider it a duplex um subdivision and it's not multif family but when you have more than two units on a lot is considered multif family so in this case it's considered multif family oh that's I read that one located but look at the end and this doesn't qualify for the end no no I so it's technically not multif family by this definition because you have to qualify both things three or more un we also have another definition I'm looking for now okay so my point is lot it appears based on the current staff interpretation on the present code and the draft code that that project is not allowed and it it meets the density and the compl allows it so I'm confused so multif family isn't two two isn't a multif family two in a lot is a duplex so they they what they are proposing are duplexes but they are circumventing in this case the subdivision process understand I understand why and and that's again yeah on both cases I'm not trying to on today's point we're looking to ease things up and make this Avail this type of thing generally available and not have to go to a subdivision plan you know if it's whatever um again I'm it ain't my thing I'm just looking at it trying to understand overall you know um but as the different definitions but a multif family is three or more so it wouldn't be so so go back to wouldn't be a multi family no and I'm just curious why why why we make the big duplex I know what a duplex is and I know what more is but why what's the big philosophical reason going well a duplex is not multif family what's the philosophical reason oh lot when it's not even philosophical it's what the standards so we have architectural standards for multif family we do not have for duplex you know um it means you know different things right there there are also different building code standards kick in when you get to none of that's my my point my point is simply this and if you go back to the multi definition in this present code the draft that Deborah just read it's and there's an and in there okay so it's not three units in a single building and the multiple units don't share an entrance so it's not multif family according to this it's not a duplex according to you and that's why were you rewriting the code right those well that's my point those but it's not single family and and duplex either d and because it's more than one unit more than x number of units in a lot it's multif family that's the only that's not what this says so what is it a limbo it's a limo what we would say it's not single family it's not the black go back to the drawing so to to Mr Axel's point we need a definition for more than three units on a lot yes well we already have that now now we have we have we have single family duplex we have m right which are up to eight units in a lot and multifam is going to be more but it doesn't say that so my point is simply new code new code the draft needs to be updated the new the new the draft says per in a building and so we need to revise that to be on a lot unless okay so so to that point that's what the so look at this drawing everybody and who cares if there's lot lines or not lot lines the IDE is density the idea of the land use is density the density this density is allowed in medium density medium density in the comp plan says residential it doesn't say single family it doesn't say multif family it says residential The Zone a says what is allowed um that's my point that doesn't today doesn't meet the code today Sam Sam has a com I this is a comment and a question to staff this is really an upscale development in a nice area this is needed badly in the city we somehow should come up with if the the owner doesn't have the idea I think is will this is this similar to an apartment it's similar to an apartment because they're no lot lines so you can't sell them individually this is an apartment development technically me get my point across first then we can discuss it this is needed this is good development in a good location we see that because it doesn't have the the the roadway Frontage it doesn't meet the code it is not public right of way can this be public right of way can they have a 40 foot so public away if if they bring it we say yes please bring sidewalks necessary infrastructure this is my suggestion yes let them have this driveway there 40 foot wide public dedicated to private back back up a little bit I said that front half an acre can be part of this project and it has Road Frontage forget forget all that forget all that still this code that we're about to say goes to the council and gets get adopted would prohibit this project according to the staff's well because first of all doesn't have Frontage those Pro I just said it has Frontage if you have Frontage and you provide the 40 foot you know right away let's make it let's make it Frontage well but we we in the prea we gave that option that's not what I'm talking about what what David if I may what David's saying is that in this particular circumstance pretend that the frontage issue doesn't exist and for the sake of conversation this typology should be allowed either Fe simple or multif family is what simple we would not be allowed right simple would be allowed through through PSP in final PL but then you have to meet the front you have to have the right away right that's what we that's what we not my point at all I know so so he doesn't want that here is a single sight plan at a density that meets the comp plan and the way the code's being drafted it will be according to what you're saying not allowed and I'm asking because what is the typology that we would approve that under so they would have to combine those three lots to have Frontage right so it would be 22 units in one lot what typology is that that's my point multi have one multi that is multif family so it's a multi you have to follow the code multif family is not allowed in that Z we adopting the code we don't have to follow it we're writing it but what you say keep it saying we should let's try something but guys you all decided what is a multiplex no you all decided what is we sat here and debated with you and got kicked back Sam said stuff doesn't fit no M you're talking about thep we looked at different pictures I mean we did look at a ton of pictures and he's just bring another Al it's like having you guys did a great job I'm not disregarding the you know here's pictures I think from your hometown or somewhere you know that by where you live and all the different quads and eights and other things I I and again I'm just I don't it's an interesting change that I look at and go what are the big differences between this and if it's a Triplex then it would theoretically be allowed if this was a Triplex and somehow instead of duplexes sitting in there then theoretically it would be allowed why not what would that would be multif family be multi family so so multi If This Were If This Were serviced if this site plan were redone to have public roadways and to be slotted then it would be allowed yeah so right there is the point who cares whether there's lot lines or not it doesn't matter it's the same Project without lot lines who cares the comp plan is density the the form of ownership should not be material so the comp itself has the general guidelines right General it's the Land Development code that comes in with the specific my point according so we don't want to have General in the Land Development code we want to have specific and I understand what you're saying Dave you want to be able to allow this typology in our code under if it meets the density correct under should allow a single site plan that meets the density to be built so even if it's low density residential and it's it meets the density of no more than four dwelling units per acre you have four dwelling units on the property doesn't matter hang on go to the comp Sam and go back to ldr dwell unit no it's single family wait it says single yes medium density does not say that it says res say residential okay okay so my point is if we want missing middle housing why are we adopting a code that prohibits it it just blows me away why are we doing this so okay so don go ahead and then I have a potentially suggest comment I just have two questions is there anything that's preventing this guy from coming in with a proposal that complies with the code other than perhaps he thinks he can make more money off of this number one I mean I would think that he's got enough property that he could comply with the code if he wanted to number two is Willam mentioned this let me finish hang on and William mentioned this as an aside to me does that look to you guys like a safe plan for fir trucks getting in and out of there it it means it doesn't to me fire truck standards the drawing I have is the fire truck plan if you want to see it it's here yeah there's the fire he's got it right there there you go it he can't submit a plan he's got enough acreage that he can submit a plan that complies with the code Dave knows that but he's trying to see if there's if we can allow this without um going through the process that we have in place today so simply Don he wants to develop a project as a single site plan and the code should not preclude that and force people to do subdivisions they don't want to do yes call it an apartment complex call whatever you want to call it but the density meets the standard density is one standard right it's only one standard okay that's not you guys are completely conflating my point I'm asking the committee is there a reason if this meets the comp it should be prohibited because we're heading in a direction where it's simply not allowed because it's respects the DEA last week we put oh God we're talking in circles we're writing the code where's the open but we discussed the new the new typ DA we discussed the new typologies multix is allowed in a lot of zoning can I ask the question of the committee simply can we go I don't care what the code says that the draft is today I don't care what the existing code is the question is should this be prohibited in the city of Ovito because if we adopt this code without changing it it will be prohibited as is as is as is a single sight plan period why should this be prohibited it makes no sense that's my position and I'm asking the committee I I like that you're thinking innovatively I think it's a cool way of of addressing missing middle you just have to meet the code requirements but we're writing the code this is constra to his point we we are looking at changing the code and just like coming with all the duplex trip the triplex quadplex AP plexes I I don't believe we all swallowed that as easy as you're saying I think to me there somebody putting an aplex next to your house because there's two acres there and start pounding some AP lexes there there'd be a lot of push back here no doubt about it although it's great I'm not saying that's a bad thing we do need that but you start pounding that out it's it's not as simple I I get what he's saying I kind of look at and go that's why I asked him like well what's the there's some code differences or fire or whatever you I'm sorry you had said before that there's some you know other differences between multif family and when you get from two to three so this duplex duplex to tripx if you do more than two units per building different code requirements kick in that probably this would probably be duplex building code but it is a duplex that's what saying so it's it's not as restrictive so it's kind of like that's a reason to go well okay that's it's not like well it's more there's more code involved and they have to build it to firmer standards so thus it should be something else it's lesser standards so it's something we allow at other places so the the code works with standards right there there is no fle flexibility in the code that says if it makes sense just remove all the standards because it makes sense no no I'm not saying that but but we discussed Multiplex you all established that Multiplex was eight units didn't even get language until this past week no no Multiplex we never got the language for Multiplex till this last no but how many units that was established with you all but that was that was a single building is really what it was talking about okay no M so everybody on the staff side seems to be other than Harris completely missing my question okay yes somebody can decide to draw lines here and do a subdivision can I ask a different way how can it work besides a PUD make it make make me make make Dave's case for make it work what could we change right now if it's like listen if this whole board said you know what that kind of fits somewhere it makes sense give me a way it does because I I feel it's it kind of could make sense and if it's totally there's no way to do it I'm kind of there and I'll understand that but I heard I've heard nothing except that it doesn't need code that's like it doesn't need code and Da goes well we're writing code it doesn't need code we're writing code like so so that's my point what are what are the new standards that we we want you don't want you want more than eight units per lot as a multiplex you want um because we have we have to Define this so to apply stands we have to Define what it is if somebody you walked in with an aplex A quadplex A Triplex is a 16px too much a m family I'm saying so this is a duple set of duplexes that are in a in in a PUD in in in a development that we saying well you have to do it a PUD no not yeah I know a subdivision plan a subdivision plan okay versus so like what if if we had to change something where could it fit in well I I think before I get to and I may be like you can't and that's okay with well but before we get to the solution I just want to talk about the slippery slip that we're walking down here so so if we take two family and say that we can go ahead and have that uh a 20 unit two family development and on an aggregated site which is multif family development right and we allowed that what's stopping that from happening with single family and so that's the slippery slope that we start in what way do you mean well so I I could just say the same thing well I'm going to have aggregated owners for single family development but it's all going to be on aggregated this is the whole is aggregated like that it's not owned by individual units right it's it's rented out that's here that's the whole so this was all individually owned and ploted like my town homes fee fee simple those are all fee simpled and plotted there would be different no it's not ownership no it's not the ownership because it could be a condo system right that everybody owns their own unit but they are they have um there are several units in one lot but that would still be mul that is still multif family for us we don't we don't we don't regulate ownership we regulate multif family single family dup we regulate number of units per loss so Teresa you are regulating the form of ownership if you say this is only allowed as a pled subdivision but not because it can be a condo system it could be a condo system that I that I own you know my my can can I just say that they would have to okay so they have two options right in order to make this work and we kind of went over that a little bit so the lot um for um if they wanted to get it approved as multif family which is what it is because it's on yeah a couple of lots they would need to aggregate that lot um if they aggregated it as multif family then they would have to change the future land use to high density residential and that's where started out in the beginning when he was showing you the different future land use designations so you would have to change the future land use um and change the zoning because I think the zoning of this one is hard too project not allowed hold on hold on talking over each other so so you all want to know how to make this work so they would have to aggregate it change the future land use in the zoning to allow for multif family and then they would can do a one site plan to show it as a multif family project um we're not talking about the access at this point okay they wanted to have it approved as duplex but but it doesn't meet the density does it or the number of units per no so of heart it may not but the typology would be considered multi I'm just making sure again that okay so you would approve it as that they can't they can't it doesn't me so if it doesn't meet the density the minimum density then they won't be able to do it as um multifam um but they won't be able to do it as multif family so to high density not but de why why de zoning districts in medium medium density residential do not allow for multif family that's not what the compl says please please why do they have to first it's not interesting it's not like let me it doesn't meet the code for multif family so one Sol one solution here sorry yeah thank you we just agreed it's not multif family it does not meet the city code for multif family it doesn't meet the city code for hide and residential no you read the definition mul family and it doesn't mean it it's a gap in the current code that needs to be resolved by revising the definition right but it is only 20 units or 22 on 3 and A2 Acres it's below the the density that's allowed it's 8 units per acre so if they have it as one lot with only 20 units why can't we find a way to allow this I think this is excellent yeah we can look at that but our definition of duplex is two units on a lot otherwise it is multif family so so again going back to Eliza's point is that maybe there needs to be an adjustment in the definition to allow for something like this where it's instead of it it could be mentioned the definition issue could be solved by describing it as multiple units on a lot that would not solve that would not solve the problem the there's still a gap that basically the comp plan today does not allow multifam as a zoning District in MDR that's not true that's not true read the definition it says residential I'm saying Okay I hold on yeah plan I'm let's leave the comp plan to see if we need to do something in comp plan or if it could medium density res primary permissible uses include no it has to go back right I'm trying to see primary permissible uses include residential Urban farming Community Gardens in public and private elentary middle and high School secondary whatever so the the primary it would be a question for legal is residential um yeah why can't res it doesn't need to be there it doesn't it doesn't specify single family either so it's residential excluding multif family because they could do then a rezoning as long as it doesn't exceed the density residential it doesn't doesn't exceed the density we choose up to a rezone to what there's no zoning that's allowed mult so the question is would it solve would it solve the problem to rezone to multif family while keeping the future land use as MDR the current draft does not allow multif family zoning in this in this in this um land use because you have a chart MDR does not allow our they have to do a p zoning so so the point is why why are we setting up a code that makes people pay a lot of money and go through processes to do what should be allowed which the comp one second one solution can be to allow the R3 in MDR yes that can be a solution otherwise the other solution is to do a subdivision for that which I know Dave is going to say no but they can do a subdivision where they plat out the duplexes um and it's still consistent with the future land use and it's consistent with the zoning so what what is the definition but R R3 they still have to do a resoning but it allow yeah can one at a time please so they're they would have to do a rezoning but the we just established they don't have to go to high density which they don't mean that they could be under medium because it says residential not single family so that's resolved so then the question is they would need to rezone currently what they would need to reone for is not allowed what is R3 so we can then therefore make a suggestion if we need to add R3 to medium density that's correct and that is that that's it so what is the what is R3 can you define R3 can you go to R3 to the um unfortunately in the draft code I think all the zoning codes for for the residential were kind of put into one little narrative where it used to have R2 separate it's not separate anymore so I think you have r1b r1b BR R2 all in the same spot so R3 allows single family it allows duplex Multiplex multi family adult oh it allows single family attached town home and then it allows duplex multilex sense multifam it has some that solves a lot of that missing middle in some of these unique Katie is Raising her hand so Katie I don't have microphone anymore go so I who um I think the reason that single family is not permitted in R3 today is because the it only correlates to hide and SE residential and you can't meet the minimum density if we're moving it to make it eligible to be MDR then we should probably allow single family no no no yeah we have other so the purpose of this I think this the solution makes sense because there's a mechanism without creating a whole new typology as the staff would call it to allow what was shown without doing a subdivision they have to rezone now it's no necessarily easy thing to rezone to R3 because now you're going to rile all the neighbors and have public hearings and all these things I think they should be made aware but but honestly go back to the site plan and and this solution is adept but honestly why should it matter to the neighbor whether there's lines on this drawing or not lines on this drawing it it should have no impact whatsoever I know but but we have to classify and Cate categorize things to apply C I like the solution I don't like the solution of going and telling the family they got to go through a bunch of public hearings and write a $9,000 check however solves this problem quickly going back to the little chart that says that the the most intense you can have an MDR is R2 and if you just put R3 there it solves this problem but you have to also fix your definition of multif family we already going to do that if not already been done Deborah you just stated if we allow R3 to be allowed in medium medium it it solves their problem right with a reason Sol problem then let's adopt that or recommend I think that is a it solves that problem but I'm going to take it's going to also create some anxiety in the MDR future L but how many people are coming to do that hardly anybody because it's going to allow multi family multif family not many people are still have so that's why pugs sometimes it's because it hasn't been allowed because it does not create the anxiety to the doesn't doesn't extend to the whole MDR area the the up Zone because multif family is several units in a lot but it go can go vertical right this one is a m did did not the the council kind of direct and wasn't it the goal to try to diminish diminish the number of times you have to use PD to do something well no that was our goal that was your our goal because it it has a development agreement and all that Sam Sam has a proposal so and I think I just have one comment is that because we're adding it to medium density which already has density limits so therefore you can only do so many types of multif family and therefore I think that fits that D vertical or whatever it's still do you want unless we we create we create a horizontal multi family you know typology that's several units you know in the well so what's R3 allow uh it it doesn't really specify density right no no no it's not going to Max the maximum height is 35 ft but we allow multif family to go up to 60 so I think that we need to add a footnote to the table that it's in in in MDR it's still reduced to 35 are we down with that that's good I think that makes sense and I think that that makes the Lesser more than eight units but still meets the density of the comp plan and still more compatible with the surrounding reduces the burden of having to reson and do all that hey I'm proud they're still going to have to Res there's no property that has a um MDR and or three zoning there's no property so they're still going to have to rezone all right so um I saw lots of heads shaking on that so um is there a consensus to add R3 to allowance in medium density residential with the caveat that it has to be 35 Max 35 ft yes we're done with that one any other problems we need to provide a solution to but this was good this was the difficult one the rest of them I I think this one of them was was something you said I can't do that stayed in the code I think this was a good test as like a p simp really we're working how it you want me to tell you all right hold there's like 50 people talking where's my gav I'm so sorry okay we are writing code here we have 45 minutes left is there that you said there was one major item yes Deborah wanted me to tell her the little item that she told me I couldn't do but the accident stayed in the code so I I'm going to tell her okay I'm just going to tell her and it's just a mistake so on page 101 in the bonus provision in c1b is it the art c1b and then it happens also in number two and anywhere else the word open should be changed to public you follow me is [Music] open uh on my marked up it's 101 it's the B well it shows up in the next section two also yeah so so just to to give everyone a framework the staff asked me in the developers agreement I'm doing look at the draft code for bonuses which was a guide and then I used the exact language in here and Deborah was nice enough to tell me to point out that this language uh doesn't comply with the comp plan so I changed that word in what I'm working on to public which does comply so so it's just been missed and it needs to be fixed that's all thank you and if you find you send us all the I have littleit tidbits like that but thank you since I told her it was one of hers she wanted to know right now so know right now so if anyone has any other comments I guess if there's small things you notice if there's big things you notice note it that it's a big thing and then we'll um staff will determine if we need to come back can we set a deadline yes yes yeah Friday well yes yeah because the the yeah set I'll give you my comments tomorrow we can read my handle light on Thursday so just kidding no I want be anybody has any case any preapp case that we should discuss cuz that's useful I mean if we all right so is there anything else for the good of the order no yeah I just wanted to say something that um first of all thank you for everybody that you know came along we we computed the hours to put in the the staff memo and yeah don't tell us a lot of hours a lot of days um but um uh on the 30th we're going to have the work session with city council if the LCC would like to come participate I don't know what will be the if there's public comment you know um session but probably there will be but we will be discussing with Council I think it's at 5:30 because usually work sessions are at 5:30 I can confirm that um I'm going to send you all the table of permissible uses and the zoning map and we also have have the table that shows uh where LPA and ldcc did not reach consensus also um to give the direction um asking Council to give the direction right you make our recommendation higher though right ours is strong it's clear it's clear who who is who Okay so we're gonna absolutely have the LPA now made up of professionals right that is one of the issues that we are going to have direction from Council um and um um so there are a couple of items seen we've seen the table Yeah and um and there's also another um table that is a new table which is the sign code um per District what is allowed so we going to send these are the three attachments that I I um I forgot to send on Friday because I was concentrated on the code itself um the other thing that so Monday we are hoping um to have direction from Council and probably they will also bring their own issues and we will discuss whatever is been um um uh raised by them and then we have a tentative schedule um that is 22nd of October that may be pushed to 29th so this is you know there's still some room there November 4th for first um um public hearing so yeah LPA is the 22nd and 29 it's a it's a public hearing um then we have um November 4th the first public hearing at Council and then the adoption on November um 18th so again if it would be nice to have the ldcc you know members there if you all want to participate and and give comments and that is basically it so we're supposed to see some sort of rehash of this streetcape stuff sometime right so we are going to work with our um we're going to raise that issue in the city council so we have to put that in my in my um um one of the topics to discuss or the consultant because they are also doing the presentation and we can work with our attorney right to see what language they will provide in the code and um and then next week we are going to start finalizing you know the draft and we have just discussed here the way we going to propose for the public hearing um um the draft is going to be a clean copy so it's going to be a new code so we're going to repeal and and replace the old code so that so that is readable because right now it's sometimes hard to follow what is what especially when we started moving stuff around so uh we will all have um a draft for you as soon as we finish we'll share with you all the draft all right um last item discussion items any comments or announcements from the board Don William Nicole David I've said enough good all right and with that we're adjourned thank you thank you thank you ter you're welcome now we can start the other one I'm well I'll see if I'm done I don't think I'm going to be fly for