##VIDEO ID:BAhJNWJKWf0## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e that's right so it it does not go retroactively this is moving forward good do we have consensus for that we we have a consensus yes okay so the next um section is the discussion on the bicycle facilities and that is 11.1 D1 so um we um have established there are three types of bicycle facilities um shared Lanes would be uh allowed or shall be provided and it's already the case where the the limit um the speed limit is less or equal to 25 miles per hour so um that would be for local roads so that means that bicycles and cars can share the pavement Lane uh we remove the obligation or the requirement to have the markings on the streets because that would be you know a huge you know cost and and and U Endeavor for Public Works of course the city can Mark if there is any important route to you know to for for approaching Trails so it doesn't prohibit the the city but does not require so that that's the first one bicycle Lanes is when you have a road that is um that have um a speed that is greater than 25 miles and um lower than 35 and and of course bicycle Lanes is just the striping of a a lane that has the same level of the pavement and we'll follow you know the uh the standards of fdot and then the KE keyho Lanes we already explained the last time what they are right um they will happen when you have um when you Crossing you know from a lane to you know a turning um Lane and you have the the the bicycle in between and um a bicycle path would be then required for for roads with the that are have speed greater than 35 and that means that they need to be separated from the pavement Lane either by you know an obstruction by a little you know uh curb or by some distance with landscape you know so that would also follow FD FD um standards and we also had you know language saying if a developer upgrades you know one facility to another so if you are required to have a share lane but you're providing a bicycle lane or bicycle lane to a bicycle path then you can get Mobility um um strategies that can count as Mobility strategies or I think we also allow for deviations we have now a new new section of the code that gives the guidelines for mitigating techniques mitigative techniques so this is the proposal any questions is there consensus have we good okay moving forward [Music] um so this was that language that we had let's let's wait for our scrier to catch up he's doing a great job listening to everybody at the same time when we have meetings so uh 11.1 D2 and that was language um did I uh yeah so I'm sorry I was in the wrong one um that one is is the width of the sidewalk that we bumped from uh five 5 to six ft and then uh also the setback between the edge of the pavement so we clarifies the edge of the pavement to the sidewalk we increase from 4 to 7 ft so in this and we also are saying in the end that the minimum sidewalk and planning strip standards may be reduced or accommodated with the approval of the scene engineer to accommodate to parallel parking okay so when we have situations that we have the width of the road is 20 ft um of the pavement and we want to have uh it's good for the city to have U parallel parking outside the pavement then we can work with those um change the numbers for the strip of landscape and the sidewalk to accommodate to be able to accommodate parallel parking because landscape we can have we don't need to have continuous right we could have um um in base so um we put that flexibility in the code as well any questions so same question again because there's a lot of Roads including some brand new ones that don't all always have 7 ft on some of those do roads the sidewalk is against the curve so again is somebody going to be found to be having a problem building next to one of those roads if it's not a new road if it's not a new road then the the code would not apply for reconstruction right so if the city goes into reconstruction then you know the new code would would apply not for resurfacing because that we had that question from LPA if you're resurfacing a road and you're not reconstructing the road then you know so and just a language thought and and I'm not coming down one way or another in the the article which we haven't Revisited again which I think it was the zoning section which had streetscape stuff I think what you're now calling a planting strip is known as a Furnishing Zone there so it just may require clarification here because it's not entirely grass so I'm not coming down one way or another I'm just saying there should be some consistency among these articles well a Furnishing Zone kind of um implies a little bit more urban right a little bit more for urban so so you're right that's why I'm saying I it's just there's a it's a planting strip or a Furnishing Zone I guess yeah so maybe in the definitions we can you can make the so I don't want to get caught up on it now just okay yeah I I have a comment so in a 50 foot wide Street half of it is 25 you would have Trav Lan of 12 ft and then you have 7 foot of grass well if it's a local it can be 12 yes 24 yeah or 20 10 if it's going to be the reduced right but let's say 14 12 oh 12 sorry 12 yeah 12 and then seven for grass and then five six foot for sidewalk so that is 25 ft so and then the other half is 25 so the parallel parking will be in the S foot section right yes so what we discussed is that we may reduce for instance the sidewalk in one side of the road to accommodate the parallel parking and in the lens lens landscape strip and the other side would have you know what is left yeah but the parallel parking 7t is enough cuz the car is only 5T 5 and a half so 7 foot is fine you don't have to usually it's eight right usually it's eight so okay so we might have to that's that's why we gave some flexibility and you also have the curve so we might have to give some flexibility there okay any comments there there's the third dimension but I think your road widths are minimums so if somebody's fitting all this stuff in there it might not fit in 50 technically may be the case too right to give but we gave ourselves the possibility of deviating from those minimums when it makes sense to accommodate for um parallel parking so the 7even foot could be six or five yeah okay that's great we have a consensus yep moving forward you got it so that's the one that um um we discussed um this oh it's the it's the it's the three it's it's the commercial and the local I think you have to pull a little bit yeah I don't know if you can show both but this one is one that we discussed that uh remember that we gave the prohibition for dead and um roads in the downtown and downtown transition and then um for the rest of the city we gave the um they can they can exist if the applicant demonstrates that there is no way to connect if there is you know um River Wetland you know something or even development on the other side that prohibits the you know that impedes the or prevents the the connection to another road so that's one and that was already discussed but then there was a discussion that if it does not connect so if you have a road that does not connect to another road is automatically um being seen as a private road that the city would not accept now Public Works um had a different perspective because in their argument is that um since a private road can be substandard and we wanted to have standard roads then um he want they wanted to give the option if you build two buildings to the city standards then it's an option it's optional for the developer to be private or public it would not be you know strict in the code um we we discussed yesterday with the LPA and LPA still liked the idea of keeping those streets private if they do not connect so now you would have to we wanted to hear from the ldcc how how you all feel about it all right what's the wish of the board I I've got a comment on that go ahead so I I think that it's extraordinarily unfair because of somebody's conditions surrounding the property through no fault of their own that suddenly this potentially small subdivision gets hit with the cost of a private road while all the pre-existing ones are public so it's it's really a huge burden and I don't think it should be forced so I respectfully disagree with the LPA on that I don't know what everyone else here thinks if if you build it to public standards it should be allowed to be public yeah and and there was a push from Council to that and I don't know if there there will be consensus or not in Council but Public Works agrees with you any other comment Steve yeah I agree I I I think with uh Dave that if they you know if they make it uh the city standards then then it should be it doesn't it shouldn't have to be forced to be private even if it does not connect right I I personally tend to agree because why penalize the developer if he has no option to provide a second access therefore it should be if it is up to City standards and they have no other way to connect then it should be approved by the city and accept Okay so we'll make the comment that LC um c um would like to have that language removed and we going to discuss then uh we have a work session with Council in September 30th and uh we're going to um discuss all the issues well we're going to discuss the whole code but also the issues that LPA and ldcc are not did not have consensus okay we good the next one is just the and this is just an illustration of the Cross um um sections that they did not match sometimes the language and they did not the math did not work so we are asking the the consultant to match the language and of course check the math so that the math you know even if it's when it's AR ranged because they're giving a range the the math should uh should match so this is just you know um a comment that they will have to correct that for the final draft okay um we have um now it's 113 G and it's that language um on shared cross um cross access um um ements we are saying that um cross access eement between adjacent properties shall be required to minimize the number of driveways and provide proper spacing of driveway accessing a road unless determined um impracticable by the city engineer so again there is a way out but that you know if it's practicable we would like to have it and um so that is um the language that is there so I would like to hear from um you all how do you feel about it so would it be considered impracticable if you have a neighbor that doesn't want to cooperate that doesn't have to it's going to be to up to city engineer yeah but if you cannot provide so what we could do at that time is ask for a step right and not the connection and we have been encouraged I think would be a better word sh shall be encouraged uh you know because I mean I can think of at least three in pop my head instantly that go yeah they wanted it the neighbor said nope then the another one wanted it nope nope you know well if it's to no from the neighbor then we can I don't think we can force right another neighbor but we can ask for a stub right so that if conditions change right then that is a possibility Mr microphone's getting ready to go so so I have an example and Harris probably remembers this one so chelonian which is mixed use uh there was some discussion about requiring a stub to the South to the little church next to Margaret warden's building so just for everyone to understand you know a a a two-way driveway connections usually 24 feet but it takes up more space than that with curves and and Curbing and things like that so that would have lost four parking spots for that project so might it be practical to provide a stub sure but it's pretty devastating to to the parking count when it's something that might never happen so in that particular case we have had multiple driveway connections without those adjacent properties so I just want everyone to understand this sounds like a wonderful thing make everybody have cross access driveways but it's kind of putting again the heavy burden on new development when you have existing stuff next door uh so it's it's sometimes challenging that that's it I I don't know how to fix this you know Stephen had a suggestion but it's can appear innocuous in writing but heavy handed in practicality yeah I just don't like the word sh because then you're at the I'm going to say the word total mercy of the city engineer just go well you have to do a stub and I never thought would uh could you do the stub and still have parking spaces there or you're then putting a stub with no par losing Park yeah then no I think that's ridiculous then you're you're at the mercy of the city engineer to just go well I want a stub and you're going like well I lose four parking spaces well figure it out when and I'm all for listen I you guys know I'm for neighborhood should be connected I'm like these you know there there's a lot of stuff that definitely should be connected currently now um that should have been connected from day one um but there's some that's impractical because again if your neighbor just goes no we're not going to do it and that's the way it goes we're not writing an easement we're not letting you you know go over the property they might say no we're not doing it today and when they come in for a Redevelopment project with the stubs there then there's an automatic connection right there so if if you don't require a new development then there's no there's no ability for the progress to be able to happen I don't know why I'm swe yeah but you're giving up four spaces or three or four SP if you're giving up a couple spaces for you know that that's think of it as a homeowner saying well I'm going to do this something and you're going to give this up for the hope that maybe someday your neighbor you know you're going to build a pool and something something that you have to do that well if they allow you you can do this but it may never happen but maybe it would but we'd like you to spend another $5,000 on a pool just because your neighbor may want to do something there's no well it's it's not it's not a May uh may want to in the future it's when redeveloped that will be a connection point and so that I mean otherwise otherwise there will be no sidewalk extensions otherwise there would be no cross access if we don't make these for prog progress in the things that we want and make a commitment to understanding that there is a cost then it doesn't happen and so if you if you say shall incourage that's basically if I feel like it if you say shall it be required and but on the other hand I'm not insensitive to the conversation of it it it does CA something it does something I look at Sprouts and ALDI and just go you know I remember the conversations and they're just like yeah we don't want to give it so that's the way it goes and life lives on and you know again I I'm for Access I'm for listen every every neighborhood every one of these you know commercial things should be connected if they can but so so that is the challenge sometimes when we put words like encouraging or we would like it's a Wishful you know but but it's it's a attitude the the person that built it didn't have that requirement to go like well you know theoretically you could see something was going you know Alberton have been there for years years there been a you know something next door to it those things had been there for years but now it's oh you're going to redevelop Sprouts and get that whole thing so now you're required to somehow lose for spaces or do something so you're going to take the brunt of it for well Albertson wanted it oh I it was the other side who did not want was a they totally both wanted it um but the brunt is on now you're saying the brunt's on Sprouts comes in and redevelops it and says okay you have to build these and you lose four spots or whatever they lose they're going to there's some loss that they're going to occur somehow whether it's in terms of parking or something because well that guy May if he redevelops then he has to you know we're boxing him in by making you pay we're going to box him in it's think it's a wrong attitude well I I think the issue if I'm hearing it correctly is that the lack of definition about impracticality is what's that issue and maybe if we're able to spell that out probably true but let me just toss out another thing there and you know from our discussions on the Water Tower District that you have the risk management department that freaks out over every uh use of city property right we can't do this without this we got to you know there there's this caution so giving somebody because you're obligated by the city unfettered access across their property without an easement agreement or insurance or maintenance uh obligations is a bit much so I'm not sure how this gets word smmi but in practice whenever I've had to do cross easements we we come up with agreements to do them and a good example of that and you're familiar with it is behind the Kyoto Sushi we've got an easement agreement that multiple owners worked out yeah uh but it's in writing and it's recorded and exists so the city was patient while that worked its way through and it was beneficial to everybody so it happened but the way it's written here it's like tough luck you can't require an a written agreement you can't have insurance well unless it's determined impracticable so and we are open if you have any suggestions we can take to city council right so so I I think we've raised our concerns I don't know that we can word Smith it today if you would like to be sh encouraged you know sh be encouraged to minimize you know yeah get something for it you know shall be encouraged and there there is in incentivizing if it's incentivized then maybe both sides will want it um but again you know you start looking at all the obstacles that could be in the way of actually doing it again you're hitting the one side and the other side and just goes no I don't want it and we'll hope that somay down the L they well yeah I well the one side is the future the other side is the past and so either we continue what we've been doing or we we move forward the future too Aldi could go redevelop and now you're saying well they if it was in place then then well they have to now they have to right so you know well yeah every Everybody in the past got a gets a pass and everybody in the future doesn't get a pass say if you again I think it should shall be encouraged and how are you encouraging them but those are not just words then by giving something there is incentive well I think the incentive is first of all for businesses to be connected usually it's a good thing and they that incentive is not having the same trips I'm George vely here and go at one of his things and go nope we don't want to connect it no no no no and you're like George why would you not want this connected like holy crap this is just needs to be connected some people and some you know I would think the same for Ali that would have been why not why wouldn't you want that connected nope we don't want want to connect it it's they feel they don't want to connect it but it's well 4 hours there was a very practical issue is that they they fear that it would impact their parking in the sense that it would block people right you know but that would be manuver if they if they were if it was in then the the words would have been tough noogies that they would have had to do it it wouldn't have been well yeah we understand that it would be hard with your parking but you are forced to do it unless determined in Practical by the city Eng of year and I go you know Bob's a nice guy and you know I don't dis disregard that but Bobby's not going to be here forever and you know you're putting things in I don't think of the person sitting there now it's just who who's going to determine the practicality of that and it becomes a problem I think it should just be shall be encouraged and there should be just like just like everything else gets encouraged or penalized gives some encouragement to it and then there will be an encouragement to it to to going through the getting the risk management getting this getting that working out a deal with the other side if they're first eff is no no no they they might come to the table if both sides get you know something for it so well we we hear you loud and clear uh we have some other members we haven't heard I'm just going to ask have we are there any other municipalities um or counties that we can look at yet that have that strong of language I think so because that actually our um almost all of them say shall almost all of them have some level of trying to require it yeah our our our consultant our Jonathan Paul was the one that told us that we should have some um some teeth in the code to require and we we talked to them well we have been trying and we manage in many cases by pushing right we push the connection and but we don't have teeth to require yeah and that's the thing and joh and as you mentioned which I was going to mention I'm glad you did um johathan Paul is our Mobility um plan person and his whole thing and which we have embraced is to try to keep as much traffic off the roads and get that internal connection and we have not been able to get the internal connection because that language does not require it says may um and so we changed it to Shell so that we can get those internal connection along 434 there's a Planned unit development being planned and we're trying to get connections to different areas um on the west side of 434 but we don't have teeth so this will allow us teeth to allow those connections and there are other developments where we want connections as well especially in the in the new um areas targeted areas where we want connections I'll just join Steve and saying i' i' appre appreciate more of a just things to entice it to happen or instead of and for neighborhoods too for yeah developing neighborhoods right future I'm just going to point out that the only time that meeting we've all sat with little circles that people showed up and said hell no no connection no connection no connection no connection I don't want that road open uh Live Oak I can you know sit there and pick the five roads the sanctuary that we sat and developed that you lovely had you know that it should connect to sanctuary and Sanctuary came out and said hell no and then like I said that meeting of how shall we do this which was a farce in my mind but you know 50 people came out and put circles on everything that said no no no and no do not yeah the only thing that they need to understand that's fine that's that's that's an option right the consequence is that do an option there no what I'm saying is that that that attitude is an option but then the consequence is do not complain by being stuck in the same roads right oh no no I I that part of it I'm saying that doesn't I don't think that says that up there that says they're going to connect well if there is if it's determined to be impracticable so let's imagine existing neighborhoods talking about not the existing ones you're talking we're talking about future and we talking about cross eents not about Street connections you're talking about Street connections which is okay that's I it's the same principle but it's different um um I just you're you're you're I'm gonna say it this way you'd be putting Council in an interesting position if it was Street I I was thinking that's why I asked at first and I when I saw um development Pro buing I thought it it included Street connections too because then I would go well Council would then be in a very interesting position to have neighborhood after neighborhood walk in here and go no but code says you have to we haven't touched that we're not no no swe got you thank you sorry Nicole you have something you want to say can you please pick on a microphone can you I was going to say that I am in favor of requiring it um we don't have we have connection issues there's only so much we can do as far as destroying and putting in more roads so we can this is one way we can help with traffic so I am in favor of requiring it okay me personally I built four projects in the city and I connected all the four of them because I felt it was beneficial and I did not lose any parking spaces however though I am very sensitive about imposing something where it is a hardship on the developer maybe the city can look into compens in for losing parking spaces for example when you connect a driveway you have 10t side uh setback that you cannot use maybe in this case where you connect you can use these 10 ft on both sides for a parking spot that may compensate for the loss of parking something has to give in so I'm in favor of imposing it but I'm sensitive for the fact that we don't want it to be a burden so let's have it somehow happy medium so that's the comment any other comment I'm sorry I had another question so we're trying to reduce parking requirements with that going into effect are they really losing a lot of parking I don't think that affect anything no no okay so it wouldn't it's not hurting it's just putting a connection in place so that that's not necessarily true so people have some idea of how much parking they need for their business M and you know the example that I'll give you that that I mentioned uh which was chelonian that was uh there 60 parking spots is what was planned and four would have been gone and on a small isolated project that's pretty significant so the other thing I mentioned that kind of keeps getting lost in this is make someone do this and again in the absence of a cross easement agreement you're basically saying the neighbor can drive through my property at will whenever they want and I have to fix it I have to build it I have to take care of it it's kind of heavy burden and so I think there needs to be some language here that you know if if you as the developer ER say okay I'll put in a cross easement but I need my neighbor to enter into a reasonable agreement with me if they won't do it giving them access without that is is a little bit of an imposition you know think about your own property and your neighbor just can decide to drive across your property whenever they want because I mean it's it's that simple uh so it's it's their right making all traffic go on the main road is not a good thing cross easements are usually a good thing but there's some practical things to deal with here of how does it happen and to Harris's point you've got to start somewhere I'm just saying there has to be some word smithing here to allow someone to say I I can't do this without some form of agreement it it creates all kinds of burdens insurance I it's implying that there will be an agreement there there will be an easement right AC cross access easement if you're allowing people but an easement and an agreement about about these men are not not necessarily the same things would the city be a party to the agreement because if the city is not a party to the agreement it should not be in the code that should be between the the two um Property Owners is that correct that's correct okay so that would be between the two Property Owners the agreement if the city isn't party to it we're not going to put it into the code but if the neighbor refuses and we have no definition of impracticable then you're kind of putting someone in this pickle of saying we are forcing you to give your neighbor a property right and they don't have to agree to anything no but then then the cross access would not um happen you would just stop at your you know property right that's usually I'm saying it doesn't say that and we can talk about this till the end of time I think what we're saying is we're not comfortable with the language as so how would you like so that's should shaing c yeah so first of all know Mr Jackson Jackson yeah okay should we have a vote because I hear one two can you turn your microphone on Mr Jackson please is it not working okay maybe it's not switched on the back should be green and then just press the button you have to press the button and it'll turn green there you go that's it so yes you just turned it off okay yes not technical I just think sh I do think that if you got to join Property Owners they they should come to some trp try to work out some agreement but if the city don't have any any say in that then uh then we need to have you know have somewhere where the where it it's mandatory in in a sense so we have three people so far in favor it's you uh Miss Martin and Mr Jackson but you want some additional language somehow uh and then three yes listen the burden on the developer but I I personally I think it's very beneficial I I would put it anywhere I can but let's be mindful and sensitive to the imposition on the develop great that's that's committee I'm good I'm good me I like to see sh may but I'm fine with sh sh I understand the reasoning and I'm all for it like I said I think somehow word SMI but I I'm saying that's a hard thing to work through so now we have a majority I believe if we came up with a better definition or a definition of impracticable would that make everybody feel more let's not get caught up on that today though right so so I I think something that recognizes the reasonableness of having your neighbor enter into an agreement to open the cross access which is a little different from providing the stub um you know it's it just gets difficult when you're next to a property that may not do this and to to Sam's Point and I've seen this in several places can you mark this with parking until it opens is there any reason you would to do we would not be opposed to that okay right because what we have is the connection when it happens we would not be opposed to deviating from the code if that helps the connection because the connection in the parking you know if I had to wait the connection has a greater value right but it's hard just for you to AI had a cross access easement and they did not build right and when the other side was willing to connect they said no we're not doing that so it is hard you know even when we had the crossx assement in place for old properties to connect because for whatever reason they thought it was going to impact their the the operation of their side they said no in in the city unless we start a fight right a legal fight then you know we were not going to move forward so this is something that we need and um so if we we have consensus to move with this language I think so okay yeah with some objection but that's with some consideration yeah let's see moving forward let's see I have to sorry my computer yeah the other one is is language that um uh Public Works asked us to put it back and that is the minimum separation driveways um distance between driveways um for that area um area Drive PL Plaza Drive executive rrive in K Court shall be 75 ft and that is to avoid you know a bunch of you know driveways um very close to each other this language was removed by the consultant Public Works asked it to bring it back so we are bringing it back that's great do we have consensus no problem okay and the last one is a section is 11.7 which again the consultant what we are because now we are re um U revising the you know the drafts that are coming back from the consultants and sometimes we find language that they did not provide that is original language in the code that they did not provide in the draft and we need to re revise everything because we changing the code There's an opportunity to revise all the language so this language we are bringing back and that talks only about you know um General guidelines for roadway construction and uh you know striping in Street lighting um so that is that's the code today do we have okay okay for that okay so I am done with streets and sidewalks so I'll pass to um Deborah excellent thank you thank you so now we're going to go over utilities quickly we had a couple of comments um from the ldcc on utilities so we're going to go to 16.2 and then H Central service required in certain situations we deleted that section it says all new residential development in areas with severe soil limitations for septic tanks and all non-residential development is required to provide or to connect to a central Sewer Service System temporary sanitary sewer service may be permitted on an interim basis if deemed by the land use administrator to be consistent with other objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and we had a comment from Dave Axel that this is unreasonable given areas with sewer unavailable according to State statue and will reduce housing inventory and affordability so we struck through it Dave did you want to comment on that no okay and then on J septic tanks um we also struck through this one um septic tanks and conservation areas septic tanks are allowed in conservation land use areas only when necessary for facilities required to oversee said Conservation Area percolation test as sanctioned by the septic tank permitting agency Shall Serve as the determining factor for allowance of a septic tank on a particular site we had a comment from Dave Axel that this is inconsistent which is what I think you meant to say with accepted science and a potentially unwarranted expensive imposition and it will reduce housing inventory in a affordability so we also um deleted that did Dave did you want to no and LP there's also consensus from LPA to delete that language well to be clear to keep septic out of conservation areas okay thank you which is the opposite yeah that's what I was going to say I think there's some in I think there's actually some uh confusion here Dave are you saying you want this language in or out l out out so that that doesn't mean you don't have regulatory control over it or that the health department wouldn't it just means you're not creating this constraint and some of this in my mind has to do with and this may have changed so in a lot of localities you don't have conservation land use which is kind of in in your comp and you guys is it gone or do you still have it we still have conservation okay so the problem with that is that is not ground truth so this kind of can create a constraint that's artificial based on a guesstimate map in a comp plan and that's all I was getting at I'm not trying to put septic tanks in Wetlands or anything of that nature it's just the Practical perspective of what happens yeah for conservation future land use designation um we do require once you figure out based on a survey of what is conservation you come back in and um with your future land use map when you're doing a future luse map Amendment and designate those areas as conservation so most um there's a lot that's not ground truth and then there's some that is yeah uh my concern here is that there's another regulatory agency that regulates this and they are very meticulous so why are we duplicating their work the county health department and the state regulate this I went through this process myself it is a nightmare therefore why are why is the city doing their job let them handle it we just should say here or I suggest that we say as per approval of the are you talking about J septic tanks we're deleting we're we're talking about deleting it if it's gone it's gone yeah we don't say anything we're not putting l that's better yeah so it's only LPA wanted it back in we agree with the staff then we we go ahead and remove it y any comment I think no agree consensus okay now 16 point which was 11 now it's five fire hydrants this one is fire hydrants and fire flow requirements and there was a comment on um location of fire hydrants which is B says the fire chief shall determine the precise location of all fire hydrants subject to the other provisions of this section in general fire hydrant shall be placed six feet behind the curve line of publicly dedicated streets that have curve and gutter and at properly property lines of non-curved public dedicated streets hydrant spacing requirements are located in the engineering standards manual and we struck through by um development type so we struck through through that language there was a comment from Dave Axel that says locations of fire hydrant should be left to building Cod fire codes and the engineering standards manual it should not be in the LDC table 16.5 should not be added um our comment on here is Staff agrees um with LPA also had consensus on that we have a consensus on that did you have did you want to add to it no we're if the if the consensus is to delete that's all I wanted so I'm good okay I just want to make sure is sta staff's consensus was to delete it or I'm confused to leave the location of the fire hydrant to uh building codes in the engineering standard manual not have those yeah they consultant have added the table to the LDC and we thought that was problematic because we require a certain distance but you know we don't want it to become a deviation every time somebody cannot put the Fire H exactly at 400 feet because it varies in the fire department can say they have a little wiggle room to it so we we moved it to the keep it in the engineering centers manal and do not put that table here do we the six feet has that always been in there yes okay in in the code or the engineering standards manual either I'm I'm thinking in front of my house is a fire is a fire Hy that's so if it's not underlined the current this is existing language if it's not underlined so that this was in on the in our current code but so for example this underline language we're saying to put it in the ESN so that's what staff added after um going through the comments and he just he's now Mak by say in general in general like oh yeah it is in general so we're going to use fire hydrants as the protective barrier for bike Lanes right I'm just joking trying trying to get you to smile so we agree with that okay um so the next section is section 16.7 which was 16.5 which is the lighting requirement and this one was the exterior lighting and it says exterior lighting shall provide adequate illumination to safely guide vehicles and pedestrians into and out of and within a site and deter vandalism exterior lighting sources shall render colors Faithfully so that the pedestrians and vehicle operators are able to distinguish colors and differentiate objects within their field of vision and be arranged as to eliminate glare on site and spill over onto adjacent properties public streets and highways we added into this language that light sources shall be provided at regular to provide consistent illumination where required so one of staff's comments that we have for kimly horn is to provide a division between RightWay lighting and private lighting because it's going to be a little different so private lighting um it's going to have a different interval than um RightWay lighting so that was our comment to Kim we horn is there a consensus for that I see no problem there so Where What Where are we lighting liting no no which which what are we asking for consensus for to for the kimy horn to provide a division between RightWay lighting and private lighting okay fine okay and so then the next one is D under new installation general requirements we added some language in here and you'll see um we put in each um site we add in development Order final engineering RightWay permit and site construction um permit applications shall include um an exterior lighting plan so we um specify what type of applications need to include an exterior lighting plan um and then it was always required to be prepared by a Florida register engineer and then at a minimum it shows what the plan needs to contain and so we added just um so you have a which was already there location of lighting fixtures B height of um light poles we added type of poles and type of Base then we also added language um and K and L which says all lighting fixtures and poles and the public rights of ways shall be provided by the developer and shall be dedicated to the city we are now wanting the polls to be dedicated to the city from private developers which we've been requiring but we wanted to put it memorialize that in the Land Development code and then we also added ensure that the trees do not conflict with lighting fixtures and poles which has also been an issue so we want to make sure that that is clear that looks good uh so I I've got a concern that I don't know if it gets honestly addressed here and I think Gloria will know what I'm talking about so we now have this special district for Street lighting and there's a question when you go as a developer and do the polls you're given these options typically it's it's Duke OU whoever is providing that so the there's buy them outright there's lease them there's do all these there's these different methodologies so one of the things that I found a little odd is before there was a lighting District the city would take on the burden I think it was after 3 years is that right Gloria the developer paid for three years or something like that the developer always pays for two years okay so here we are the developer is going to be on on the the tax role in the lighting District paying for Street lighting while paying two years in in of Street lighting I don't understand the double dip under the new scenario so that language has kind of stayed static but now there's this District that does things uh so that I don't know that that's something that's addressed here but it's just like these mechanisms haven't caught up to each other is all I'm saying do do you understand what I'm getting at yes I am not I I don't know how to fix that I am not vers on what exactly the lighting District the liting district is to pay for the like I'm not exactly sure I understand your point but right now the only thing we're changing is that right now when we go through Duke for our polls we pay uh main uh rental fee forever and ever and ever so the switch is that we are going through OU and the city will own those polls we don't have to pay a rental fee so in the long run is more economic so the two-year fees still applicable now either way we do where do we regulate the 2ear is it the in the code it's in the developers agreements usually uh it is in um or the site development order it is in one of the permits but but is it in the code that we have that requirement or is it in the application because if it's not in the code then it's something that we I don't think it's in the code I'm just saying no the twoyear requirement if it's in the code then that's an issue that we need to I don't think it is% sure where it is it is somewhere established that you PID the twoe main that is only for it should be either here in the utility section or well I'm saying I think it's an esm thing and I'm just saying there's an inequity because the created updated yeah right right so I'm but if it's in the we need to update now everyone's here but but I don't think it's in the code or I don't think it needs to be in the code but it's it's unclear so when the developer shall provide I think what I'm hearing Gloria say is we'd like you to use OU and buy the fixtures yes which is very to the city right but which is very different from an option they might think they have on the laundry list is pay this high rent forever and it's a lower fee up front I don't know that that's clear here so if you're trying to accomplish something accomplish the something I I don't know that it's clear so basically what do you want from us here because this seems to be a little different issue he's bringing but it it it also is here provided provided Which Way provided with no future rental fees or or what you know I'm not sure the right language because they're charging for there's maintenance and and electricity is one cost and then there's their Capital recovery which is the rent so to speak which is what you're talking about trying to avoid right so I think the first section would say provided is just that the actual RightWay lighting is going to be provided by the developer and which is that is now code okay everybody in the right away if you are adjacent to a RightWay you're supposed to provide RightWay lighting so that hasn't been changed the only thing that has changed is is that the city has changed their methodology instead of renting the polls from duke we were we were given guidance from Council to buy the polls and then eliminate that rental fee I'm just pointing out that that's a heavy upfront burden on the developer compared to the way it was and they're still paying two years worth of rent when they're being taxed on speci tax to pay years two months of actual two months two years uh two years of the um yes of the monthly while getting a bill on your tax bill as for a special district to pay the same thing that's all point now it's I I understand that I'm trying to understand where the because that's what happens now with everything so you're saying the conflict is between The Upfront fees now and the two-year the high up front Fe for providing the the two years hasn't changed since the city instituted a special yes that's correct years what I'm pointing out here is you always had the obligation to provide you're now saying what you want them to provide is the lighting without rental fees which is not it doesn't say that here if that's what you want but it's going to be dedicated to the city right it's Dedication that remove the rental so right now the the way we done it we have done it for two uh facilities now the dwell and so what we have provided as the twoe normally Duke will give us the fee for two years right of the rental maintenance fee and then we will tell the developer the amount so right now what we use is the OU contract and then we use that amount to calculate the years you're missing the point so I someone could go to do and I I don't know exactly how UC does it but the way Duke did it is you were given a couple of options one of them is you developer buy the fixture and you're paying for electricity and maintenance only okay the other one was you're paying less upfront and there's going to be this rental fee because we will continue to own it so do you feel by saying dedicated that that solves that because you have to own it yeah to dedicate it yeah is that I think that's what all right just trying to understand and if Mr Hall can step in to see if that's what it means because it what I think the difference now is that there won't be rental forever from um or the two years but I'm just saying it just so everyone knows I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but it it's a heavier bigger check to write up front I I understand I think would be correct I think the only thing that we need to clear clarify is the 2year which is something else two years is in the engineering standards manual so I'm just saying there's an issue that should be resolved especially if somebody's writing the big check to provide these things paying the tax District fee later and then being told and PID for two years but you're paying double so that's not to be cured here tonight I'm just pointing it out okay point one take any comment so that's it yeah I think it just should be clear with would the man like put some word in with the manner that the city is like how they purchase you know again it's a purchase because you could dedicate a lease over to the city I could give you the lease you can again what's been going on if it's dedicated now don't you just take over the lease now from you know from duke if I me what what do you call it it's not real is that fee ownership is personal property right now Duke install and we let them know there's no meter there's no meter or anything Duke only adds the number of polls to our role and that's it should we say instead of provided purchased by the developer ACC current purchasing or whatever agreement some according you know some wording that says according to you the de and should be dedicated to the city or provided by the developer according to the city's current standards for lighting and purchasing so that if it does change again then it change you know but this kind of like I said if you're it does put a big burden up front but I'm more concerned with it doesn't really spell that out that oh yeah by the way right now this is how we want it done I would put something in there according to the current standards or you know however the city wants it done there some verbage in there that expands on that after you know provided by the de developer according to the current city lighting purchasing standards something like that David dedication doesn't imply the the transfer ownership dedication would yes could lease can I dedicate a lease to the city yeah could you dedicate a lease you assign a lease ass you assign a lease so but it's not it's not a dedication then because when we dedicate infrastructure it's it's transferring ownership right correct so can you dedicate lease to or it would be a different sign Le yeah so you can I we can try to can we David can we somehow say that it has to be free and clear of any um assignments or that once they dedicated it has I don't know if you have to get that detailed dedicate ownership if you just say dedicate ownership doesn't that cover it and ownership B that so so Gloria do you do you now so the developer writes the check to OU you now for like water and sewer do a bill of sale does is this something something you would do that so so somehow this has to say ownership so if we just change dedicated to shall sh shall be dedicated to shall dedicate ownership they have to have ownership to dedicate ownership ownership shall be dedicated to City ownership shall be dedicated to the city so and ownership in front of shall I guess a question is we also get the is the same language that is on the Water and Sewer that utilities will be dedicated to the city but they're putting them in their own pipes they're not getting them from Joe Blow who's renting on pipes I've never heard of that I guess it could happen well somebody supplies the pipe well right but you don't rent it it's not a lease structure set up but with ou is not a lease that's the thing and I understand your and I understand your your point which I wrote it down to brought it up that we might need to address it like that some verage in the the city currently assigns to you know that assigns ownership just some little verbage I you should clarify that a little bit better yeah I agree with Steve I don't think you don't get too datailed in in here because it could change a year could change so so you don't have to go back to change the code I agree with Steve just a a language refering to the city's current and then you adopt some policy the policy is apparently that you've already adopted you're going to get them all from OU now and blah blah blah blah it should be dedicated to the city in currence in in accordance with the city's current policy so so how about at the end of that sentence you say in accordance with esm standards or something like that so you guys are updating your engineering standards manual and we're saying we're kicking this to the engineering standards to say the how is that something that would be in there Glory that would that something that would be in the ESPN uh we are doing it now I don't believe it's seeing it now but I will discuss what think that's not necessarily a thing for the uh it would be a policy City policy because it might be in your lighting ordinance right I'm thinking so I would just set the end of that sentence say in accordance with City policy that way it's whatever I think it covers it and then it allows you to make that change have changes the code I try to look at something we have to change the code several times if we just refer to a policy then we can as long do it gets changed without a committee it's okay so we'll just go ahead and add the word at the end there to the city policy's what if we do not have a city policy right now can we still require then we have to do we have to do I know but if it's here doesn't require City policy well if you don't have one you don't have one well but then I can does it mean I cannot require because I don't have a according to the city policy people are going to challenge where is the city policy and if it's not there because I don't think it's in the street lighting District because that was you're doing it now without a policy so I'm just say well it's it's a standard in the code we should have done no the what the methodology glory is doing now is not in the code it's just their preference which they're doing right so if if it's okay now I'm just saying fix that we should reduce that to a policy yeah it could be a short I mean but we should reduce that to policy you got it two two things so I have U developer and ownership shall be dedicated to the city are we going to have in accordance with City policy City policy and do we have consensus on that from the board yes okay we do okay so the next one is 16.7 um we had a couple comments on this one um and basically it was yeah here we are we wanted kimley horn to bring back some of the areas where they deleted um and we wanted to make sure that they check the section references so under seven illumination of streets sidewalks and common areas it says all public streets sidewalks and other common areas or facilities shall be sufficiently illuminated at the developer expense to ensure the security of property and the safety of persons using such street sidewalks and other common areas or facilities so we ask kimley horn to bring that section back and then uh we also wanted them under G they have specific regulations for outdoor lighting plans we wanted them to include a um separate section one for private and one for public for that section so is there a consensus on that one on the on the whole change on seven um illumination is to bring back okay and then um G specific regulations for outdoor lighting PL that's to include two separate sections one for private and one but are we passing judgment on the exact language now or just saying the seate sections um just those two things that I okay yes all right consensus okay and then under and then under G1 pedestrian area lighting um um kimley horn had some language in in here under SE we placed and they're talking about pedestrian area lighting and this is lighting of the walkway Bikeway and Trail lighting um so they had in here under SE be placed a maximum of 100 ft apart and we were trying to figure out how that how they came up with that that number because further down they talks about how spacing should be 2 and 1 half to three times the height of the pole which does not equal 100 ft apart here so we were trying to figure out how they came up with that number um so it was just a our comment today so so honestly the spacing should be determined by the lighting plan and they should not have anything to say about it in the code because you've got illumination standards every site's unique you place them where you need to place them to meet your standards so what distance apart they are is is an absurd thing to require because it severely constrains the guy doing the lighting plan as far as I'm concerned I I don't think you should say it at all just my thought are there any other thoughts on that any comment I think 100 ft apart is too short because almost any lighting fixture these days it's it's 75 ft both sides so maybe 150 would be better but why why say anything so you have illumination standards if there is yeah if there's a light illumination standards for the site then we use that so that's what you're trying to achieve is what's in a is the range of foot candles the spacing is not Material now I will tell you uh I don't remember off hand and the exact height but The Pedestrian scale lighting that's on uh Broadway and going on the Connector Road and on Geneva Drive it's actually not that much higher but it's higher than 16 ft it's like 176 or something like that so I think the 16's a little low and just so everyone understands the lower your poles are the more fixtures you have it gets difficult and expensive and especially you know think about a parking lot you're putting them in what normally a tree island and trees and lights don't get along so you know a little bit of leeway if if you're allowed to have a building that's 35 ft High Why does a light pole have to be limited to 16 feet high and I get it it's pedestrian scale but maybe it makes more sense to it's not much of an adjustment make the 1620 so that some of these other fixtures actually work yeah so when we were doing research about lighting standards uh we looked into dark skies and some other uh lighting initiatives that are going on and to be quite honest with you with the surrounding metro area and in Florida 16 is the standard for pedestrian lighting it also was The Pedestrian lighting scale that we had in the code of current so that didn't really change what did change in here was the uh we lowered the the poles height from 35 to 25 and the code that we have for parking lighting and stuff of that nature so the consideration it's understood that the so so I guess I'm I'm a little concerned with you have a parking lot with with a sidewalk what what part of it's the parking lot and what part of it's The Pedestrian scale where's the heights come in and and so that's not well I think yeah you have a little bit of a blended area there so I'm just telling you the sidewalk that's kind of that's kind of a sight specific conversation scale sidewalks on Broadway Geneva Drive Connector Road the height is a bit higher than this I don't think that's necessarily a problem if you can deviate it's it's only like a yeah 20% deviation it's not that big a deal it it's just I'm just telling everybody uh one way that this came out in a very very very expensive way for the public is the standards were held in the city park parking lot at the lower height in in Ovito on the park at the same time there was the requirement for the fluted bases and it became extraordinarily expensive to light a parking lot it it was almost absurd um so there was at one point going to be the community center where the post office was torn down and the lighting proposal was an absurdly high cost because where there were four or five taller poles suddenly there had to be like 20 shorter poles it's it's a big big cost when you do these things and you just got to be careful so so you're saying this isn't really for parking lots the 16 ft right no okay no it's not for parking lots it's for pedestrian facilities so if you have a trail or if it's if the yeah if you have a walkway or something of that nature and it's clear clearly delineated that the lighting is for The Pedestrian facility 16 ft okay any other comment good so are we getting rid of the the two spacing things that would be C uh one C and and um then it would be 2 C also which are these weird spacings Harris is this something that you usually check the just we check Loom I think works suggestion was to base it off of um a ratio of how high it is but why why bother so you're meeting an illumination standard it it seems pointless to start telling them distances it's another thing for you to measure for no reason yeah you've got is okay with removing the so I I just need to understand so if I can put a huge ball no the height still limit we don't want that right right but the heights I didn't take the height maximum height yeah the max height still there so I'm just saying take the spacing out because it serves no purpose what is the consensus of the board that's fine yep so we remove it C from one one C and 2 c 2 you have a 16 jaw it's not going to hit you need more poles than 100 ft apart lightting to meet illumination standards at all so that's kind of ridiculous it's in there but it's ridiculous to be in there or out doesn't matter yeah okay okay so now we also changed the height and Harris went over we changed the height um from 35 feet to 25t for pedestrian lighting that's parking lot oh sorry parking lot I'm sorry I'll tell you I'm I'm opposed to that for the reason I raised you've got buildings that are today allowed to be 35 ft High which will be allowed to be even taller and you're just creating the need for a lot more polls and a lot more expense I'm not in favor of it that's just my thought okay what is the consensus of the bo5 same the building's height would be 35 so 35 I mean would there be some again a ratio yeah the consider the consideration here is you know the amount of glow that we put up into the sky the ambient lighting and so the higher the lighting is the more glow you have in the sky and it's like pollution at the end of the day and so we're trying to M minimize that and on the other hand as Dave pointed out there is a cost associated with this so the the lower the max height the more poles that you have to be able to put in to be able to light properly light a sight so there there is a cost but we again we went and looked at um some of the literature that's out there and we looked at some of the other codes actually uh Oola requires 16 foot with some exceptions uh so some some codes went one uh to an extreme in One Direction I saw another code out there that was 20 and we thought 25 was kind of the simal county does 25 at this point uh and some other codes do 25 and so that's where where we landed you know that's a suggestion so what you hear Harris talking about is an actual um I don't know what what you would call it some sort of sort of sustainability type thing which is dark sky compliance I would just require dark sky compliance because that's more about the type of fixture and where it directs light and what he it's very prescriptive we tried that in the past have you it's very very very um um you know so requiring C things like cut off fixtures and and fixtures that direct light downwards and and honestly I'm supportive of that but I just know what's happened to people now I don't know how many more big parking Fields will be built in OVO I don't know how much this matters uh but it just drives the cost up considerably it's really really hard to do to lower the fixtures because the spread of the light to the ground is is less and there's that many more fixtures it just makes for a very busy site plan sometimes now if most people have two or four rows of parking it doesn't much matter it's when you get into buiness bigger fields of parking so I don't know how many we'll have left so what what can we do to alleviate this I'm doing as as it is or as they've changed it well then I'll give up any other comment and we'll keep it at 25 and the last slide on utilities before before we go to um signs it's 16.1 and this one is talking about utilities to be consistent with internal and external development um a talks about Lo um located to serve future development whenever it can reasonably be anticipated that utility facilities constructed in one development will be extended to serve another adjacent man developments such utility facilities um potable water reclaimed water and sewer lines shall be located and constructed so that extensions can be made conveniently and without undue burden or expense or unnecessary duplication of service to ease future connections to the properties utility lines shall be extended to the property line whenever feasible so we had a couple of comments on this one um Dave a had the added language which could be construed as an an illegal exaction utility lines should only be required to the extent needed for a project and to comply with technical standards of the engineering standards manual and when staff reviewed it um the engineering standards manual already requires utility utility lines to be extended to the property line and not Beyond it and I think Dave what you were talking about was extending it beyond the project no no so so basically you're building a project you've got wherever Water and Sewer are or reuse or whatever you're connecting to nearby so you should only be required to extend them as necessary for your development you're not creating the need for the adjacent property to have uh this connection so imposing the cost on a developer is saying benefit your neighbor and put this line and now I get the city wants these lines and wants them extended but you're actually saying to somebody spend your money to extend these lines for the public system and it's just not appropriate now I'll tell you kind of weird situation Winter Park actually has areas where their utility serves in Orange County and they had a mechanism for reimbursement you know if the adjacent owner went in so that you you got your money back I think that's from the perspective of the city an impractical thing to deal with but telling somebody we want the line extended to the edge of your property because you happen to have a bunch of Road Frontage is is kind of a heavy burden it's it's very costly Alexis I have a question if the a development developer does that to extend to the property line um to serve future development do they have are they eligible for um impact the credits for water or whatever the line is no cuz they would be providing capacity above their own project it's not really capacity it's pipe well isn't pip capacity for water not the way they do capacity slow okay I have to jump in and say they may have a point uh we we we can't require a developer to do something for no reason it doesn't benefit him without compensation so um perhaps some kind of mechanism of of reimbursement or credits or something like that we need to look at on that exaction I I do kind of agree with you yeah but it is current code but we haven't done it so is this the current code it is I think this is what is called looping I went through this one time years ago that's this is not necessarily looping so this might be extend and stub to the end of your property Loop looping is a system requirement wouldn't you say Alexis so so I I've had situations where you have to Loop to to and if you need the loop and it makes you go to your property line that's different what I'm saying is just extending it because it doesn't go somewhere you're just bringing utilities to your neighbor at your expense through through no cause of your own well they go hand in hand so I think both is a burden so if it is not required for the property and we just heard from the legal council why impose this on the developer to extend it to the neighbor's property so we should consider that so the suggestion I guess is to delete the last sentence what is the wish of the staff are you okay with deleting that last sentence I would defer to public works well I mean the idea is to you know start expanding which is what to facilitate development yeah we want to facilitate getting everybody on Water and Sewer not you know septic anybody you know just but to have the ability so it's a good idea but again I think it's a carrot you know we need a carrot somewhere in there they need credits they need something again obviously that the attorney said to be coer the way it is so if we made made to a where you know and it does say whenever it can be easily anticipated which doesn't mean you have to do it but then the bottom line does basic say kind of a little more but I think it should be worded that it's you know we give something for it and figured out what that would be and how to give the character because listen I'm I you know to me it's we need to get sewer sewer and that's the goal I agree with with with requiring it I think that's a good idea but uh the offset is there got be some kind of compensation for it yeah we can't just make a developer spend these own money to benefit our property next door so we're going to figure out some way to either credit well that's why I asked about the impacting credits if this would be eligible I understand you asked I'm just saying we haven't done it can we review this and think we need I think I think there has to be something yeah I you know exactions we we've gone back and forth in but but this I think pretty clearly would be just selling you you've got your you tell serve your but we want you to run a line over to the other property line and we're not going to pay for it or give you credit for it that's yeah that would be an exaction without compensation so I think that would be tough to F and it's not to provide a line over the property line it's up to the property line over to the property line over to your neighbor's property so he do have which makes sense yeah but the developer doing it should be expect being compensative for that so he's not writing his own check for it either through impact free credits or something we have we're going to have to look at that I think otherwise we will be challenged on that yeah we will be challenged on that so is this something we can leave in here and and let um Public Works figure out how they would make this happen yeah because now you're not really changing anything this is how it is now just keep it so what I'm saying is is now and not recently but I've been in situations where I've had to object because of the expense and Public Works has said we get it we're not going to make you do this so I don't know from an LDC perspective there's a certain amount of authority of the Public Works director in an engineering standards manual to say this isn't practical and not make you do it this is in a code it's non-numeric you're now forcing somebody to do something that Mr Hall saying could be an exaction it's a really bad place to put it unless there's some at the end of the sentence presuming appropriate connection credits are granted or something um you know you you've got to give that way to they get them compensated which you hear Alexis saying they don't as a matter of course do right now so you're you're marching into a trap by having this in the code because I think Teresa will tell you there's no methodology to deviate from a non-numeric standard right that's true but we've never asked someone or required it so we've never been in that situation right but this puts it in the code and makes it required right so change sha to May well even that or say if we want to address that in the esm we could say subject to the requirements of esm subject to vision of the I think that's good deal with well that gives the Public Works director the the authority to to say no have to yeah right that works for me or or if if they do want it then say okay here's your credit for it here's here's how you'll get credit for it so shall be extended to the property line whenever feasible sub supervisions of the esm for the for the requirements or the standard subject Provisions well because the esm allows allows variation put that so so if that's sufficient to allow the Public Works director to say you don't have to I mean that's a little fuzzy but then you don't have to do it what's that better than what it is now yes correct right so we'll do it that way it already says whenever feasible so um you can to the provisions of engineering well I think at the end at the end of at the end of the end of the last sentence where it says we're feasible put a comma in subject subject and subject oh that would we good to and subject to the provisions of the okay then we have make sure the esm revised to reflect we're updating it currently okay so it's something that we can address okay good good timing okay and so the next one oh is there a consensus there's a consensus on that I take it yes I'm seeing heads okay all right um then the next one is C sewer system conversion requirements it says all developments shall comply with chapter 54 of the code of ordinance that we truck through the city shall require the reasonable conversion of existing land uses from septic tanks and package plants to Central systems when the system is expanded to within 100 ft of the property line and daveo had a comment on this one conversions should not be voluntarily involuntarily required um so we just said that it was subject to chapter 54 of the code of for is chapter 54 this is basically it doesn't make a re ordinates you got a UN code code of ordinates it's been so long since I've taken a look at it and Public Works provided this language so because I'm all for making connect if possibly I'm 100% so I remember honestly if you have a code of ordinances and you're just saying new development complies with it it has to anyway yes like eight years later the failed it do matter doll to connect it doesn't matter what it says because new development has to comply with the ordinance anyway so I think if if the end if you delete what's at the end I don't care oh I just was wondering what okay that's fine yeah to comply with anyway so Alexis do you know what Co with um offand chapter 54 of the code of ordinance do you know what that is I couldn't hear chapter 54 oh are you asking what it is yes is it like that studio in New York that's different the utilities that's going to be the SE yeah it's just it's um talks about utilities and Sewer connections 200t of sorry it's right there it's a 200t of such y so that's we're referring to that so in practice I don't think the city's ever gone and actually done that where we put in a line and we're now going to force you to connect unless they have the agreement so some some people have what do they call it the the dry line or the connect later agreement yeah I I don't remember the city Force feeding that down anyone's throat though because the politics of that are very ugly here we've come to you and say write us this big check and connect it gets nasty quick okay I I think the city has that in their code yeah and I I I did I have a dry line on 1065 East byway all the way to the street for future connection there is no that it is it is there but but there's no sewer to connect to yeah so is there consensus sell that before you have to connect okay there's consensus on that language okay can you put LDC that's the only thing you haven't sold your home okay so that's it for um utilities it was there were there any other questions or comments or concerns on utilities no comments okay our last one tonight or today is going to be signs all right yay for signs wait a second that's the old there can I do a quick 10-minute break before we go to signs par I'm sign I don't think we need consensus just the stabl one took one witho Park we have like all these strict sign rules and they can only have this they can't have the sign and then we like gave it away and I was like what do you mean we like gave this we like crafted this for ages and it just kind of like yeah they can do whatever they want the signs now but but if they if they want to have this name up there times what Ric it's ruined everything I can tell you that we have our sign person here who will tell you that she enforces all this with the oo on the Park oh yeah but but no council gave it like we had all these different multiple none of these signs and then we said no okay we were asked oh can't we get get this this this and they and conceeded back oh yeah put put these signs in between the two signs that you have like that are mod yeah you can put another sign in between instead you just can't have the the dancing Statue of Liberty no dancing listen banana guy and no banana St no yeah the the Smoothie guy that's who he was the smoothy well they approved their own signage master plan right yeah we kind of gave that back but signs recently haven't been in a controversial issue in the city right it was you know many years ago when we adopted the the present sign code no it lot better yeah break oh we on break lot of my text to the city manager assistant city manager Rel decides we defer to your judgment on this one so we can all leave then Harris are you multitasking over there so Sam is the sign man or who's who's Harris oh you are is the sign all right no she's done don't you know she's done that's where Don sits well who is the sign person so Don's very upset ever since we didn't give him parment spot K she a sign expert is for's our expert nobody wants cupcakes pumpkin vanilla pin I'm going to have oh what a child what any any plans later right when you're good cuz right now you're limited going cut thank you de for I would not do that yes it is oh my God no no de come back we need to finish that I said I'm going to I'm going to your house did you need 10 minutes of giggling oh Cas Sanford you'd probably find interesting we have a restaurant tour who's been there forever Nam shant and she's got a lot of violations she put tables and chairs out front so so so she moved she was somewhere else on Sanford Avenue right or she I think she same place oh okay but she put up a tent without a permit she down without a per every Civil Division judge why because she's been there forever and I guess they all they eat there hilarious nobody would touch her okay that's funny so we're g to get started and we're going to go to signs so you have your we're going to go to signs all right please proceed we're going to go to science so I want to introduce order not as bad as that I want to introduce Karan Bartley who's our zoning administrator um she's going to help me out I'm going to do the presentation and she's going to be here for questions but she's our sign expert so um I will be relying on her to help me out with the presentation so we're going to start with um signs and um a lot of the comments in involved formatting and creating definitions for different signs so in 14.7 uh we do have comments um 14.7 a two so we're talking about design standards and then it talks about consist consy and um this is new language that's being added it says all free standing and projecting signs on the same site must contain a consistent and cohesive design through coloring fonts size base and background colors um we had one comment from Dave AEL that the requirement for consistency is too constraining we also had comments from staff um does this mean an entire shopping plaza or parcel um some businesses have a common logo and um color that is unique to their brand and then others um if you want the whole shopping center to be the same the ones that have their own logo and different colors um may not match so we want a definition of consistency or what is consistency in this case because we as well staff don't believe that everything should be the same um is there a consensus from ldcc I think so that makes sense I yeah I think it should the consistencies should be thrown out okay so we're consistently supporting inconsistency consistency did you put l see so are we saying delete that section I think so I'm saying I I think we're okay with removing it yeah uh yeah we get we can remove that whole thing because you start looking at all the different types like because then you have the special event signage you have all that other stuff you start looking at all this weird things that are allowed it just would be ridiculous to say it has to be the same consistency yeah we talked about Ovito in the park earlier and there are businesses that want their own different logo but because we have that Master sign plan they have to comply with the specifications of that sign plan very limed yeah and that would be the same if like you know uh Al count a shopping center said hey if you're in here all your signs must conform to a and that would be the requirement of the shopping center but you know same kind of thing but if not like I said let the business have their red if Red's their color and they have whatever let be R than green Dave's nasty green signs that are all over the place you know that kind of thing I don't remember who picked that color it's it's been like 30 years now I have no idea and then I mean we have science standards like you know I'll say that the best one that we always look at is like Wawa who we only had one color on the neon you know and they could changeable copy changeable copy they could only put they they put green on their Diesel and it's like can't put green on diesel it's got to be red and they were kind of pissed but you know and some other things that came in and wanted neon around other things that didn't comply it's like I it's black background and one color it could either be green or red right but we won't know how they are charged like we don't know if the rent is cheaper or not because we don't get into that level of detail so we won't know that like you said OVO in the park has standards for what you do in OVO in the park and like I said if a super if a you know Riverside here Riverside Landing or you know that they wanted hey all our signs that are going to be in here are going to be coordinated you know enforce them to it that would be up to whoever's renting there would say well okay then that's part of the deal is I'll change my logo to be you know just a little round you know some of those you know walkable ones I'm going to say have like they're all round signs that come off the building and their logos on that sign and they that kind of thing but that's the the commercial property that designates that so this would require consistency for things that's outside normally when you have a development agreement you'll have a master sign plan most part but we don't want properties outside of a development agreement to have this requirement of consistency because there's so many different types of businesses with their own logos we don't want that restriction okay and there's consensus on that right we agree okay then um we also added in that a master land use plan must have a master sign plan um that is a new language also and B which is underneath that sign area calculation um it says the total sign area shall include the background and frame but not structural supporting elements outside of its frame where sign is composed of skeleton letters characters and symbols applied to the background which is not a structural part of the sign the area of the sign shall be the smallest rectangle triangle or Circle which may include the display as depicted in and it refers to a figure below and then where a sign is built with two faces back to back the area of the sign shall be the larger and then it goes on if you go down to the and it talks about that those areas and how to measure the um total sign area and so um in the first comment we have is from Dave Axel and He suggests adding revising to either allow actual area of odd shape as shown in the figure revising the language as follows re rectangle triangle oval Circle or combination thereof I cannot see the rest that's it oh that's it okay so that was your language Dave did you want to talk about that so the only point is you know someone that has a creative sign shouldn't be punished because of the shape so drawing these other shapes that have nothing to do with it around it just makes their sign smaller and all that really matters is what size is the lettering or what size is the physical sign itself which may be more than the lettering not what shape it is so so that's all I was doing and I've come across this in lots of different localities and you get into some really screw ball analysis but usually and and Quran could probably tell you you hire a sign designer who's doing this in CAD who can very simply say okay here here's my area he'll know how to measure it he'll draw the area he'll tell her the area it's not that it's a hard thing to do so you usually get from a sign plan here's the area right all right so it's not like math you have to go do not necessarily okay they they give me the dimensions that I right so I'm just saying don't don't constrain people let them have a little creativity and don't punish them and just simply accomplishes that now obviously you're not going to do the exact area inside a maple leaf with what I wrote but it'll be close enough right it's just adding flexibility any comment we agree to that all right so let me clarify because I think I was a little bit asleep here with the previous one because so the consistency so if it's signs on the same site no we're not on consistency anymore more I know I know that's why I'm I think I sleept on that one CU I spped on that one because I let it go I just want to clarify if it signs it's signs on the same side are you okay to have different signs yeah free standing signs freestanding signs the ones that face the road we're saying the signs on that site don't have to be consistent that's all usually we have two fre standing signs right how many signs we have on a on a site so so I think one of the examples is the site could be a shopping center and could have 20 businesses with 20 signs that's wall signs he's talking about wall signs versus you're talking about freestanding signs these these were freestanding signs right added that staff added that to clarify no no she's bringing consistency back up sign but the language there was there all freestanding signs that's what we added because we didn't want I'm not talking about the main road sign let's clarify this well because the language there was all freestanding signs and projecting signs so projecting signs are the ones that are vertical to the building right um usually there is a a consistence do are we okay well not necessarily because what if you have like uh different uses in the building that all have projecting signs why should they all be consistent why why should they be different business lot of them have cuz design is a good thing for design to have uniformity no no okay just wanted to clarify you all said now to different logos different fonts no logos and fonts is different on the no this is the type of sign that you know the size of the sign the shape of the sign so if we have a freestanding sign the sign facing the road if you have you know Alf Square you could have different looks I mean ventos used to be around they around their sign is round on the wall versus others that are this is not wall sign right it would be freest standing and I just wanted to confirm staff um because we didn't agree with the original language we put we included free standing and projecting signs so we included that language but um we've deleted this yeah we just deleted it I'm just making the point that it's not logo it's it's the consistence of uh so science can be also clutter right visual clutter if you have a bunch of different shapes and sizes and whatever um if you're okay with that restricted on the number of signs on a property the number but in in on the same site right this one was asking for consistency it's the it's the same reason why we required the master indu plan this a sign master plan right like Al park has for consistency a consistency throughout but you know they have more signs than I'm going to say others have they work have more signage available than I'm going to say the public here you know the this here the ALF they don't they have the big 64 square foot isn't it 64 yeah the square foot of the square foot before the big Monument sign so the monument signs are consistent in their shape right but the signs the individual tenant sign that goes on those Monument signs and then what other signage are they allowed they're allowed a little bit more signage on there but not it's not like they can have 32 signs that are going to then sit fronting that roadway so this is removing that this is removing the consistency yeah it's not saying we we you don't need to be consistent you can have different free standing signs in one site but we never really regulated yeah we don't do that now we never really regulated how I could see the consistency more for the projecting signs which is like in the Alfa Square shopping center it hangs over each individual business I could see that having some type of consistency but their individual wall signs will be per their that is not wall sign again was we we were restricting to free standing and the projecting signs there are not necessarily freestanding sign either the freestanding sign are the monument sign the bigger signs that's what I'm saying which we never really regulated the size and shape we regulate the size the size yes but not the shape so this would was going to be a step ahead but it's fine if you because typically those are only one sign per Frontage so there's no you know not not multiple signs on each Frontage now we do if you're all fine with not consistent that's fine I was just I was just clarifying an opinion freedom because design for me matters so you know in a site I think it makes sense that's why in ml in a musle indu plan or in a de development agreement a musle indu plan we want to have a master plan a master signage plan because we want something we want the consistency and we gave up more that's what we say no this one is does not even apply to the master Land This is for everything outside of the no but the master land use plan must have a a master signage plan for consistency purposes and in the case of V the park we granted more signs to have the design element there so if we are okay with no consistency that's fine I think we we already said was going backward I just wanted to clarify place I would say yes but that doesn't mean every place it doesn't all have to look like you know the same everywhere that we can do that there's places down in South Florida and other places that yes in Vieira maybe or some others that every sign has to be X and Y and Z that's now this is just for one site I know so I can have multiple okay so we're going to go um to sign background did I cover sign background so did we did we agree on my change to sign area did we agree on that I don't remember so let's go back to sign area uh sign area calculation and what was your recomendation what's in writing there replacing the language with do we have consensus on revising the language Circle accomodation allow actual area of odd shapes for revising language as follows rectangle triangle oval Circle or combination so we were going with the second one the second the revising how would that um if you put it into the sentence how would it read in a in a odd shape wouldn't we box it in somehow no well create a a regular shape around it no they would put whatever works from this list or the combination let's talk about let's go to the next slide first let's go to the next slide first let's go to the um if you go down yeah the images and we'll talk about how we measure um the area Karan if you you can just explain to them how you would measure the area even on the odd shaped one so why are we discussing that if we're changing it because before we change it we let's discuss how we how we do it today well what's it matter because we're changing new proposed language so what's today matter well just to see how I think she boxes yes so we can see how it's done today to see if we even need to make a change okay yes so if it's just the skeleton letters and there's not a change in the background as far as color or Texture then we create the smallest Circle or Square or rectangle around that now this odd shaped one is very unusual we don't typically have that but it we would have to box it around because it's very difficult to and it's just around the letters right around the odd around the letters the um where the um the sign is odd shaped so I would create a rectangle around that it's not around the letters it's around the whole around it should be the Border if it's a different color yeah it's the sign it's the whole sign or the words it's the whole sign so you're proposing to have the actual no what are you proposing it's right there and right I I cannot read it okay so where can you clarify is it around the the words it's around the words or if there's a different color it's around the the it's around the sh so it's not around the so she would do a square to that one like something like a square to the odd shaped for to the leaf LEF would be a square would be a square around the leaf around the leav so what is the language that they've they've actually proposing so it's only a slight variation to what's in the proposed area thing now Dave is suggesting adding revising to either allow actual area of well we're off that not the or the the second second half can you type in there revising the language as follows rectangle triangle oval Circle or combination thereof so I think you're referring to this Dave yes rectangle triangle Circle or combination well you left out all we how could we forget I don't know how you could that would be bad that's disgraceful now would it help you Teresa if I on that little diagram give you an example of exactly how this would be used sure yes okay go to the diagram how I think it would be used so look at the one that says logo store Nam okay so that would have in essence um you follow it and oval over a a rectangle no no no logo store name the odd-shaped one that says logo store name no they're right there right there it's a tombstone the tombstone would be a combination of of you know you would draw a rectangle around the rectangle and a circle around the other thing it's that simple it's that simple it's fine well so how would you do the odd shaped because that was an easy one the odd shaped is a little trickier so so you're now telling the sign designer to calculate and it depends how creative the sign designer is I mean honestly that one if it was me uh I would do a rectangle over a rectangle for the for the bottom but they can do it any which way if they really want to sit there with 27 different triangles that's up to them they're going to have to do it and present it and she's going to have to that is fine I mean that's the flexibility is there they can give you the actual Dimension either way right right let them do what they want the flexibility is in CS they good right both verbage said the actual dimensions the C can give you yeah this sign in a 4x3 whatever that inside of that equals you know that's a 4x3 sign instead of 12 foot it's actually 9 do it doesn't allow you to use actual Dimension doesn't say that that's the say that you added that didn't you no I thought if you rolled up you're set no no no no I we're going with the the second part not not the actual area the second part so so that the sign designer giving her at least here's the triangle here's the circle here's the square you know or to the actual area so I I I to the actual they can usually get that off the go just go yeah this you're going to put a box around it says 4 by3 is 12 and they go it's 9.76 You' be happy getting the thing that says the dimensions that are calculated from C are 9.73 I don't care rather than putting a box where they just give me the total I still ask for the dimensions so that I calculate myself so so if you say the actual area she's going to have a hard time confirming it frankly right I let's put it this way if she puts the Box around it says 12 and say 9 and it's more it's fine right less than what she says so she's fine with it I'm just saying you know it would be more I'm trying I'm trying to give them ease of review well they have they can put the box or so you're happy with it the way it is the way we changed it yeah the way we were changing it okay then that's that's conses yes okay all right the next one is going to be the sign background so this one says the sign background shall include the area behind the lettering on a freestanding sign or wall color texture and or materials used on the sign background if different from the color texture or materials used on the building exterior shall be limited to sign area as depicted in the figure below when sign are enclosed in a border or highlighted by background Graphics the perimeter of the Border or background will be used to compute area so we had a couple comments on this one um Dave axel said the architectural articulation by offset and set or material change should not be construed as a sign area as such articulation should be encouraged not punished and then staff said that we measure the only around the sign for the purpose of calculating the sign area Dave did you want to so honestly with what we just did to the prior section based on what the staff's saying that whole sign background thing just come out it it serves no purpose so so basically if you scroll down just to to illustrate it so that second picture which they're saying is prohibited should actually be from an architectural perspective encouraged and this I'm not suggesting somebody just paints it a different color you you might have brick work or a different architectural thing where you have when you design these buildings you have an area where people can put their sign up which is a good thing so that that's not prohibited because that's part of the architecture I think what that is that is saying specifically here that you'd have to count it as your sign that's what it says if you bring a sign if you bring a sign read what it says it says says the way it's written that you would count that whole area as a sign that's what it says so I'm saying strike it and it won't say that let let what is the language there if you scroll down Sam go to the um picture this U figure 14 6.2 no where where is the language that describes that let's read it's above that yeah sorry it does talk about on the signed background yes so I'm saying so if it's part of the architecture that's not the signed background it's part of the architecture that's not the way the drawing that is what it was meant to so we can clarify that well why bother because you don't need that at all what I'm saying is the sign's already counted for the entire size of the sign this background thing you don't need to say it at all what what this is to avoid someone bringing a whole B of a different color to the to a facade and then putting the letters here and counting that might be their architecture if it's the architecture that is going to be approved with the architecture PL I'm saying if it's a sign then because there is Li but a sign is a physical thing so so if somebody produces this sign and it's huge then it's a huge sign well then we would count that right as a sign you still would count that without this language because they still are putting up why why is that prohibition is there can you give up it is because um they do not want you to have a signed background that goes all the way across the building now some sometimes it is an architectural feature but sometimes the signs do come with a different color background to emphasize that sign so they do create a different color or a different texture right that's part of the sign but sometimes it's very difficult to differentiate what is um Mavis uh tire was one that I use as an example they have that green color that goes all the way across but I believe that probably was part of their um architecture background it was not necessarily just to emphasize the sign so if they if say this the the wall was white and they had just read where the sign is then we have to include that different color than the rest of the wall so we were trying to I'm follow I'm okay removing it cuig so that would be architectural not the sign correct or would it be the sign no that would be architectural it appears to be it's part of the of the construction right not what that section says I'm yeah that it's kind of a what it says is kind of a i i until I saw this I I didn't understand but yeah those two bands that come across yeah they're decorative towards the signage more than architecturally you know something um because it's not it's not repeated on the other wall it's not you know that kind of thing the stripe the two stripes yeah the two band stripe that goes across you could easily say well that's part of the sign just as well as saying it's not but you look at the gas stations they all have that as well around your canopy oh yeah that's but I think the verbage kind of as they said kind of the verbage can be read that way that is that an architectural feature because they have paint that wraps around like that or is that signage so I will count where the K is and the circle and the red around the Cade that's what I would that they broke it up but but I can just giv those two red bands are part of the signage that that that's I don't know if that's an architectural feature the two red bands is that an architectural would that be would that be considered an architectural feature those two red paintings the the red stripes or would that be just paint she just said it's not good architecture that's not counted as an architectural feature is it that is an interesting one right that's what I'm saying it kind of becomes one those it's so I kinde with Dave you're kind of the sign the sign the sign it gives you the ability whatever you want to call the sign and it actually gives you what you just said the sign is whatever get rid of the background stuff because it's because you see it's separated it's not continuous right there yeah this one I think they are using to emphasize the sign right but it's it's not the sign but it's I like this I think this is good I'm not say it's bad I'm just saying it's I agree I think you could just as easily so going back to the language my my point is taking the signed background thing out you now have someone who can use the judgment to say oh give me a break this is a part of your sign without without telling people they can't have this architectural stuff which this can be construed really poorly and make for bad architecture because someone designs a series of let's say Urban form retail buildings or whatever and they're told their entire architectural area is now counted as sign yeah we have never done that but that's what this allows I think it says sound background not not the architectural but it's okay I'm okay removing it I have no problem do I think your interpretation is that you really don't ilze this you go look at the sign at the sign no she does uze I be very restricted you can take both of those examples I think and especially M and go those bands count as part of the side I I did I had Mavis separated it just like the one with the Circle K I had them kind of put a break in between with that kind well it gives them the flexibility now so already have the F you can tell them well right now that whole are is sign it's not allow they what do you want okay separate you still have that ability even without that so so I'm suggesting that we remove 147b and the associated figure 1462 that's what I'm suggesting 147 isn't that the signed background that's B1 just one no it's B1 B1 I'm sorry B1 and 1462 I apologize okay so are we in agreement to remove these two pieces yes do you think I'm ask you do you I would remove that one you would not you would not remove it okay how would you revise well we can say architectural features are not considered sign background but it says the opposite no color texture background well but that is the sign background no if it's a sign if it comes with a sign it's a signed background if it's in the building it's a building all right so kurran let's let's go back and look at Mavis okay so you today said that you had them count these two stripes right I had them count what you had them count the two stripes as sign area or not first you made them a separation they made a separation kind of like you saw the Circle K they kind of created a space right they kind of cre those space so why would taking this that we're saying take taking it out why would that be a problem for you because I guess we want to make sure that the sign background is separate from the architectural background right no so so go go back to the 1462 drawing and so that could be that band there can be an architectural feature that now says right here in this picture and according to that language is prohibited it's prohibited as a back sign background signed background not as a as an oal feature but they're they're not mutually exclusive they're the same thing the way you wrote The Language it's the same thing it's not sign background and and Architectural feature different so read it carefully and we have AR color texture or different materials which is a design element of architecture and the whole thing counts as a sign I'm promising you somebody's going to do that and you're going to get in a pissing match taking this out cures that problem if they have a physical sign that has a background the whole thing is a physical sign so Quran if we just put there the sign background shall not include then he he's happy am I yeah that's what you want it should not include the background that's why I'm like you can take it out and you can still interpret it the way you want you can leave it in and still interpret it the way you want so so I don't really care so if on the picture of if everybody else wants to leave it in leave it in on the picture of what was it Mavis is that what it was put it may so so today I look at that and it doesn't appear to me that those stripes have anything to do with the building design okay so to me today you want to call them sign you call them sign they're obviously there to point to the sign right right but she did not include them as part but she probably can I would say today it's very easy because we we we approve architecture right PL if it's in the architectural plans it's an architectural feature if it's not there if it's chose later as a sign it's a sign but okay go back to the language then and just say that that such background shall not include architectural features approved with an architectural design order exactly all right I'm good there we go shall not but I'm telling you that diagram is problematic it is what was the language again shall not include architectural why we say elements I I think that that graphic is problematic because if I have the allowance I can do a long sign by an architectural design so it's not prohibited by by the four right it's not prohibited it's it's it's prohibited to circumvent the code but if I have an allowance that is a huge allowance I can have my whole Frontage right so I could have a background that is a sign if it meets the the requirements of the code so I think we should remove that that I want to remove that Graphics Graphics yeah and I don't know what it means this was consultant language the red and it just this will be replaced I delete because I asked them Sam I had asked them to remove that and they were going to replace it with something else I would zap it yeah so let's remove it right now and see if they bring something else we we'll see what something else you have to take the reference to it out of the and then we now I like that yeah it's fun when you do images that one can can you can you remove the reference to uh here sin just as depicted just zap that the all right now I'm okay Sam do we have consensus great is stepen his agrees but he left so it doesn't matter okay we're moving right along okay so then the next one is on um it's five where it talks about parking garages so we're not going to talk about number three multiface signs yeah we can talk about number three okay so if you have and I I don't know what terminology to use for it but if you have a projecting sign that has two faces do you know what I'm talking about it should count once not twice and this says it counts twice that's new language both so I don't I don't think we should count a double face sign twice ju just like when you put I agree because we if you cannot see demo at the same time yeah so I think one of the ways people deal with this is a double face sign with a angle of 45 degrees or less or something like that and we had that too in the code should not count because somebody might do something that's not straight vertical is work for you what the a double face sign with an internal angle of 45 or less 30° is the max 30 Dees yes 30 degrees is fine yes I just think you shouldn't Hammer people for doing a nice sign like that okay is that is that a consensus yeah we only count one side on 30 30 Dees where so I think new language that a a two-face sign with an internal angle between the signs of 30 degrees or less should only count as one sign correct does that work do I say that again s you got that it is one sign so we should not restrict it I mean no if there is an angle yeah then it should be one both sides Sam do you got it no I do not if there is an angle you can see both both signes at the same time I I would say it counts as both sign two multi I'd say two I don't know that there's more than two that makes sense can't be more than okay so on a two on a two- face sign with an internal wait let's say a two- face sign I get rid of the on a two-phase sign with an internal angle of 30° or less between the sign pH shall only be counted as one sign Prett tight that's pretty tight good consensus I think so yes we go with that would say multi well how are you going to have a three face sign it doesn't really you're you're on the side of a building typically and you I don't know how you do a third face who's the pointing at yeah three Ste right with three sides it's not going to be probably the same um I don't care if you say multiple sides I don't know how you do three sides and have an internal angle of less than 30 degre on them it's not physically possible because the circle has 360 that's true you can't technically do thatat so so it would fail so I think two faces is fine if somebody really wants to build a three sign like I never seen one yeah we we actually our staff wants ktim horn to to make a definition for multiface we don't have one okay then yeah so we want them to Define multiphase so what about the 30 Dees then I mean we're letting that fly leave that okay okay all right so the next one is going to be in I don't know which section is B um number of five that park right there so this one is um parking garage says parking garages shall not be counted as building Frontage toward the maximum allowable sign area except for any portion of the ground floor that contains a non-p parking Hues um so our comments as staff was the parking garage should have its own sign and they should be regulated so we want the parking garage to have their own sign um and we also had a comment please provide an explanation about the allowable square footage for parking garages um because we want them to have some kind of Regulation and they didn't provide regulation for it is there a consensus yes and then we're talking about freestanding signs and C um one this one is freestanding signs includes and they're talking about all the types of freestanding Signs Now directional signs shopping center signs Industrial Park signs and Office Park signs um we had a comment that directory signs should be included also we have a definition but no written standards for the directory signs so we want those to be included as well that tells you where the businesses are said the ways that is there consensus consensus okay so the next one is the table um yeah this one is industrial freestanding they deleted a lot of the freestanding signs from the code to reduce the number of freestanding signs allowed so we're saying bring those most of these signs back um so the industrial park um freestanding in individual premise in the past we allow one freestanding sign um to comply with the it couldn't be any more than 40 square feet maximum height of 12 minimum setback of 10 um it had to have a landscape area equal to the size of the um sign area which was 40 square F feet um so if that was deleted we told them to bring that language back but what they can do is reduce the maximum sign area um as well as the landscape area and we're recommending perhaps 20 square feet I'm sorry what they did for the industrial part and the office part they all had entrance sign and also individual signs so what they were doing is remove the individual signs and kept entrance signs so and I notice a discrepancy with the entrance sign that they care for the industrial park they reduced that to 40 instead of the 64 which we had in the original code so what's the odds of the city having a new Industrial Park pretty rare possible because a little land available for industrial and they're trying to put apartments on it right now I know so what is the request here the request is to bring the language back we we didn't mind having the number of freestanding signs that we currently allow in the Land Development code they're trying to reduce the number of freestanding signs U we're okay with the freestanding signs that we have today consens okay so there consensus Okay so 14.9 there's a lot of comments in 14.9 this is the types and locations of allowable permanent signs and this is talking about building signs and Karan please jump in this is the awning the canopy signs the marquee signs the wall signs hanging or blade signs and projecting signs also freestanding signs um so a lot of this U was revised or deleted um and we had a staff had comments about these things um so we wanted to know um what was that first comment I don't even have that first comment please provide visual aids for the types of signs um because we wanted to make sure that when we're talking to um developers or when we're talking to Residents they know what these signs look like so we want a lot of um pictures we want visuals so that people can see what these signs look like and there are some missing um tables from that we previously had we want those tables placed back because it when people see something in a table format it's easier for them to see they can see the maximum height the size all of that and it's easier for us to just um give it to people so they can understand it so we want the tables put back in here and then we also um com they combined we're asking them to yeah we're asking them to combine the hanging and the blade signs with the projecting signs and keep this standard for the awning um so we're we're going through and just telling them some of the things that they left out and some of the things that we want them to put back in and um definitions that we want them to create in this section so we've got to see it again when they do that yes so there's no point in belaboring it now right the plate sign is like veto on the park that big sign on the wall pass yeah I think we have to go through the process later so you you will see this again later but it'll be in its final form um well perhaps perhaps for hoping okay so the next one is going to be um the abandoned signs added new language but they didn't underline it so we want them to show it as being this is C we want them to show that as being new um because we don't have that in our current code so um and then there's another section where they deleted which is setbacks we want them to put that back into the landan development code and Karan did you have anything else to add on that one once we're no longer doing business on location is that like wall signs included or no like you got um things out of business bet went out of business sign up there for a year before J or somebody came in you know they like having the signs up the commercial owner because it feels like it's got something it's active person not so I don't know that they no longer doing business sign it's a I don't know if that's really what you want we want to go after person like I said businesses usually like how to get sit up there a they don't want to pay for taking it down first of all and better than having ripped off sign having tot it like that it so so I don't understand there's this whole definition but what happens where's the what happens yeah it's new language so but they Define what it is but they don't say if if you have one What Becomes of it so I don't understand the point well Quran what are you trying to achieve here well she didn't write no that's new language keny horn added we we can just say that um there's no language and how do you tell somebody's maintained their sign that's kind of tricky gee that doesn't look like it was maintained we can always code in force um when the sign is not in in good maintenance cuz right but I I just don't understand the whole yeah and we have actually for the uh where McDonald's is right now for mytic when they demolished the building they left the structure of the freestanding sign for a while and we had to code en force them for them to remove that so there is always the code Code Enforcement process so I don't know if we need more regulations in the code to deal with that let's delete section c it's afor you then you know code enforcements can already do this in other manners to sit there and go like well how long have they been out of business you know that kind ofu try and do it this way other maners to get rid whatever so that's my suggestion zap the whole section for c for abandoned signs who cares what the consultant says we're going to zap it okay I have three more slides that's gone remove this section do we have consensus yes to remove cor are you okay with removing them so why did they strike multiple frontages or did it go somewhere else okay thank you so 14.10 other specific signs this one has been um a big one as well for us this one is changeable copy signs it talks about the um maximum of the sign area a changeable copy sign area so it says a maximum of and it used to be 20% of the total permitted sign area of a free sanding sign may be used for changeable coffee so we had a staff um the count the consultant went to 60% and we took it down to 40% so from 20 to 40% is what we're recommending um we're not quite sure how Council will um look on this one because as as Mr shank knows um sign area has been pretty controversial so it's up to you all how you want to recommend this you can do the 60% that the consultant recommended the 40% staff recommended it's I think 60 is fine we had no problem with it just keep it what's the preference 40 no today is 20 today is 20 so 60 is three times what we allow today so you're you're asking we're recommending 40 staff is recommending 40 so we're going from the existing 20% to 40% I think 40 consultant is at that could be s it could theing sign could be as big as 64 for shopping centers the size of the shopp typically it's 40 square feet for most individual businesses yeah 40 is so are we in agreement I don't want to start seeing because they will all they will then these will pop instantly back in this includes that electronic messaging as well that's been pretty controversial here at the city what about people that do that on the trucks and Park parking spots have you seen that seen it we used to have one here was in um the shopping plaza so are we in agreement with 40 there you go 40 is consensus another topic that has been pretty exciting is that um it's the message so the message is five number five there it says the message on the changeable electronic variable message and Mr shank mentioned it earlier variable message sign shall be limited to one color on a black background and display for at least four seconds so we um are recommending um well the consultant recommended as well that we strike the limited to one color but it still must be displayed on a black background display for four seconds so um there has been issues with multiple colors on the the electronic variable message um board um so we've in the past created this language so that it's only one color and that one color it could be multiple colors but it has to be displayed for at least four seconds one at a time one at a time not different colors at the same time well that's kind of the so we are REM recommending removal of limited to one color which means they can have multiple colors so so but what you're saying I think is limited to one color at a time which is striking it would make it that they could have 20 colors at a time is that okay yes they can have flowers that look pretty with different colors flowers so the thing is Not Just Flowers what about hummingbirds the way it's written kind of limit the the technology right it all I understand now and and that was again it was a different time in different council at that time it one you know Council wanted more control and did not want to have you know a lot of you know so you got to be careful because you're you're almost allowing a TV screen no you can't have that you can't have the you're just because you're saying it's copy only correct that's copy only well she said now could be flowers and things we get a picture if you go I Al has it already if you got the entrance to Alfa they have a small version again which is the L they have a tiny version that's less than six square feet is that why yes and there it's on a separate standard that's for the HOA is the HOA is allowed to have changeable copy board for information to they use for this purpose that we are but they have a full color it's usually like a flag a US flag that they have they have the American flag walk by like I said the first that was one of my again text like what the heck is this how does this get allowed just because I'm more Curious how it got allowed um no because again 40 square feet you look at that it's a you get 40% 4% six I'm going back to the if you get a 40 foot sign that's 16 square foot of of changeable area changeable sitting and every one of these they're going to all put it up there there's no doubt about it given the opportunity they're going to PE all their people in there are going to want and go oh yeah I want that changeable copy and that kind of stuff um do we want to have that sitting on all our I it's going to be on the main roads do you want to have this big block of colored sign and and like everything the next the next ask is going to be well we want video full video because technology allows for it now is video be the next hey we should can we get video can we do that next I don't know that we want full color sitting on well we restrict flashing signs and those type of stuff um we can have 4 seconds it giv like it boom it's up there it's got to sit there for four seconds and and you do have it's got to have the mechanism to you know bring the illumination down but that's a lot of so you can show fil of DAV and Goliath but you can listen we can't even do that little clation is all right so are you saying you have concerns you don't want that or I have I do I have I have big concerns about is that what you want for the community I'm going to be honest with you you know you were talking about the the exact opposite all the same signs and so you like the same signs of consistency looks there's looks do you want to have a city that has so are you happy going back to 20 I'm actually happy happy going back to 20 and so let me I was going to ask that if you're giving now this I'm actually happy going back to 20 and I I could go with the colors the different colors but I I would go down 20 if you're going to go to multicolor and allow again the pictures the images and stuff like that it does you know everything El sh it's a distraction it's whatever but I just look at as it doesn't it doesn't uplift the city and make it look better by having these type of signs sitting there changing every 4 seconds that to me is not a a wow that looks good it kind of cheapens it out my my opinion so if we go back to 20 you would agree to what St is suggesting I could go back to yeah I'd say colored you do we have we can always change it later on if we need to most of them their messages just run they don't flash their messages just run so that it's readable and one you have a 4C time that means you can't it just has to be up there for 4 seconds not a run all right so what I'm gonna it doesn't say that you can have moving it just says changeable copy that's boom up there four when you have the words 4 seconds minute I'm good with that for at least four seconds it's got to sit up there four seconds not running across so it running across is distracting when people are supposed to be driving frankly exactly they're not supposed to be on their cell phone they shouldn't be reading watching TV on a sign either the gas stations have a very difficult time with the 20% on the gas stations they have none now right what do they have now they do the way they put up the amount for the gas and so forth how do they what do they have now they get 20% but we have to really work so so well seeing as we're concerned about gas stations I mean can we very Hest like I that's they're still selling gas and doing well it's not affected them that greatly so the things that I was going to say is that we can it's a it's a quantifiable measure of the code we can deviate if it makes sense yeah so if you're all comfortable this signage is the level of comfort right how how how comfortable me personally 20 if we're going to if it's full color and 20% I would go back to the 20% and again this isn't Orlando and this is in 50 and if you want it to look like 50 that's 40% or 60% and having the signs and have that's what it will look like and I don't think that's what we really what about Time Square or Time Square with 1,00% that is beautiful go to go to go to Japan too I mean it looks cool listen I I love it it looks really crazy and cool but I don't think as a suburban community that that's the look we really want to have it's our urban community that we are we don't want that yeah I know how to change for youah I don't really think that that is the look we really want and especially I said I'm using you know right here 434 but you know you start going down to um 419 you know you're going to start seeing these signs pop up and I I and they will pop up multiple places and I just go I don't think that's the look we're really going for personally so back to 20% is no change the only change would be in number five five yeah it would just be that five the color if that's what you guys want I'll go with what Stephen said okay so we'll go back to A1 and say l is that a consensus do weens got so you want to know you want to know the special wording for you Deborah what is it except that outlet malls I know except what except that outlet malls I wish we had one here except that what outlet malls she likes Outlet m they can put one right right over the Border in Winter Springs could be nice out mall they got a lot of area right next to four the 47 okay so five is um we're going to remove limit to one color and just make sure that it's on a black background and display for at least four seconds got okay and then B multif Family Signs um in this one the consultant deleted the single family freestanding signs um so we want them to put that back um we asked them to put it back in an earlier article because they were remove the freestanding subdivision signs and a lot of them are internal to the subdivision like live o c some is that or is it okay okay so is there a consensus for that yes okay single family we also had a comment on the um temporary sign permit which is a 17 day is this is under temporary signs and it talks about temporary height of the of the signs and then it talks about the duration of the temporary sign and this one is um a permit shall be required for each 17-day period and each 17-day period shall not be consecutive to each other and this is just for um temporary signs so an our comment to kimley Horn says this should not be a standard that applies to all temporary signs under this section as the nature of the signs are different so what they did was they went in into different um into a different section of the sign code this temporary sign is for the attention G signs or people are out and we talked about it earlier with the banana guy out there so they took this and applied it to all the temporary signs and so we're saying the standard should not apply to All Temporary signs I appreciate that because I don't manage to sell things in 17 days what was it well they removed the grand opening sign and the interim sign which had 45 days so it's all um 17 days sign now and they also removed the special event sign yeah so we want those signs to come the duration to come back I think signs should be allowed to remain for as long as it takes them to give us updated drafts how long's that a year I mean why is it 17 18 days why not 30 days days per quarter yeah so this was for the people who are out there you know the little I know I know but but there's a lot of grand opening and uh so this one did not originally apply to Grand Opening so that one had a different duration in K that was 45 days 45 days for the sale and you're going to have you know special sale and once a quarter you could do it put up 17 days although I agree that 17 days is a kind of interesting number right it's not three weeks could could be two that's yeah okay that's that was the okay that makes sense see is there a consensus on on bringing back the duration of the original days yes and so we also want them to create a table showing the duration of each one of these signs so that it's clear is there consensus for that yes that's create table okay and the last one did you consensus okay okay perfect the next one is construction signs and eight so the current code says for construction signs one construction sign per construction project is permittable and shall comply with the following standards then it lists the zoning districts um and then it lists um type of development if it's an individual premises if it's a subdivision um special exception then it has the maximum sign area and you'll see that um and then the setbacks so our question to the um ldcc is should construction sites be allowed to have two temporary construction signs instead of one are I problem if the area is Big Two may be okay you see maximum square foot is 32 you know half time so so let me ask a question because in practice what I've done when there's construction and someone wants to do leasing is you know I'm usually done and it's someone else I've always told them do one sign right now can someone really put up a real estate sign a construction sign or whatever sign that gets a little ridiculous frankly so so and cluttered so to me if they can't get along and put up one sign then too bad frankly so that came as a has had a leasing sign up for however long I've lived here there been a four Lease sign sitting at the wind Dixie Plaza forever it just never gone away well that's a real estate sign that's a l forever but but that's one of I'm saying if someone's building having all these multiple signs gets a little stupid because you can have the real estate the interim sign and a construction sign so that's I think have one temporary sign on a site frankly yeah you know plus they can wrap their fence the wrap with the message on the fence as well so I think one sign is good we have to be careful of offsite signage I but it's always it's always a complaint from construction folks because then you have the contractor you have the subcontractor you have the they honestly how much business do they get from having a construction sign up that's that has been my that has been my line for years but the S know they may get a lot of business from so that that's on there and I'll tell you Stephen they asked could they put never ever a sign over on another piece and I said no cuz I want my I said no no and I like that you know you're able to do it you just you list out and they have all that whoever share the sign so I don't know that it says that here that's my suggestion right but you're recommending one sign uh well we had a um someone um one of her council members just in one of the notes asked if we could have two signs so I just wanted to raise that as um a question I don't think there's a limit today the way this is written so whether it's one or it's two let's limit so people can't come in and say we have all these temporary signs one construction sign what's the wish of the committee one one one construction sign but what about limiting temporary signs these there's a whole long list and presumably today someone could get every temporary sign allowed on one site right well they can't have them all up at once but real estate sign always have okay they can have the construction sign with that and maybe interim sign as well which is limited to 45 days the interim I don't know I think it's kind of busy but I'll leave it alone okay so one sign one construction sign one construction sign and my last question of the night even so is the the council member that asked for multiple signs going to be on Council after December yes okay just check I'm just curious because why do we care what they say if they're going to be calling J murals so we're gonna talk about murals so this says unique hand painted I mean I'm sorry hand rendered I just flip this the thing sorry unique hand rendered works of art such as paintings and mo mics oh my gosh these are not sign so we are removing it let me simplify these are not signed murals or art they are we are going to remove it so this is okay the art the the the code of ordinance already says that but this is this is Art so it's going to be so the question to the board is um should the percentage be um should the percentage of the tax be increased so right now a mural shouldn't be a signed okay I think in your definition somewhere you should Define that if a no in the art so the public art in the code of ordinances we Define you know uh if you if you're selling something that is not a a that should not be art right if you're advertising that is signage but if it's a mural if it's an art you know artistic you know um uh compos position then it's yeah should the tax be limited well it's taex art is tax is Art yeah can be art okay yeah why limit why limited it the text could actually advertise the business then then it's advertising well but if it's art it's not going to be regulated here anyway it's I'm saying one of those well just instead of limiting the amount but this is going to be somewhere else and not in here anyway right so we you all this is your first time seeing the mural so it will be in another section of the code if you all agree with moving it it's already in another section of the code I'm telling you it's the public AR in in the um um public prohibited know it's prohibited adver you know what what words what words you know what are the 200 words that define and you see like all different size words I think in Mills there's a an art there's a mural on the side that has like Happiness joy well we have one that says welcome to a right exactly so that was a postcard that we commissioned that that text we have no issues with that now if I'm selling selling Coke here right that is a you know Joy Coca-Cola Coca-Cola yes coca that's what I meant just prohibit commercial Tex and that's what he say yeah that's prohibited so um so prohibit commercial tax no mural in the mural it's already prohibited I can try to find the we we'll have to make sure that this language because they move the language here under um signs no we have to it's not a sign it's not a sign let's put we're going to move it REM tell them to move it not to move it to remove it remove it from here and make sure though that they didn't they did not they did take it out so they put it here so we'll tell them to put it back no they did not put where did they put it this put here no this is new language they're not bringing from somewhere else because we do not have it that in the code I know I know but we don't have that in the architectural section either no no we have in the code of ordinance for the public art policy okay so that's I'm saying it's already there I can try to pull it now right now okay so we'll have them remove this so you said public art policy is there a private art policy no so if somebody produces art on the side of their building that's a mural you're not regulating it at all you should is what what I think well nobody has have done that we would do do that through the architecture review right the architecture review doggy place all those pictures of dogs some do yeah and we have the the food factory has a murau um so it's fine but they they would have to provide to us through the architectural um plans I got you well I think somewhere that says that having a mural you shouldn't be allowed to have advertising text on it or it's a we that's I I'm trying to pull the code of ordinances we already have that in the in the code of ordinances okay so then I'll go ahead so it's it's consent the board is not concerned about a percentage of text more well we're taking we taking everything out well the whole thing goes okay the text is limited in the code of ordinance is that how much you can't have understand and that is on public buildings right or public and private buildings so we'll have to make sure before we um adjourn but that this is all that we have so you all have completed um the articles is that the only time ever yes that's wonderful sign and mobile signs it's cuz Tara wasn't here she just takes too long that's par forever that's sign have have you seen those trucks stepen you're talking about like those mulch trucks no like have you seen the trucks driving down the street that might as well have TVs on all four sides it's awful like moving billboards do we have in the prohibition of the code it's so slow here I don't like truck and I love tjs but tjs next I can't next so they just like the exercise so they Park up by the Sun Trust and walk back to their restaurant that's it oh is that it yeah yeah they it side storage yeah they just like the exercise somebody else so we're um the consultant is going to prepare they're already providing us with um a couple of the Articles we're expecting to get some more staff is reviewing them first before we um send them out to you all you all should already have access to the drop box that um includes article um we haven't sent yet I'm going to we so so we're going to yeah and I was going to cuz go ahead no you go ahead so we are in the last stretch right of the LBC so now it's really focusing on getting it right and and going through the boards um I'm just while I was here I prepared um email to send to council um so I'm going to start sharing with Council and the boards at the same time um the articles that we received back from um um Kim Le horn and we reviewed now we have been changing stuff because now it's too late to continue to ask them to do this and that or so we wanted for instance consolidation in the article three that today every application has the process pre-application sufficiency review compliance review and we are consolidating that in one section um so you haven't seen that right we going to sit down but we are not changing really the content of the you know um so today I'm going to send an email with a Dropbox link with two articles there Article 2 and article 7 that have already been you know reviewed by staff we are finishing and we um article three so I'm and we are going to be alerting you all now you know you have article three uh uh we we also want to have we have to create a table and we needed to go through the you know uh the two boards um to be a to create a table showing where the LPA and ldcc are not did not reach consensus because in the work session in September 30th with city council we would ask Direction because hopefully we are going to have one recommendation going through the boards and of course in the public hearing May changes may happen but we would like to have one recommendation to provide to um um city council so this is the so now we will have to be more you know um be we have to be quicker in you know if anybody sees any issues to you know um communicating uh communicate to us we will have I don't think we are planning to have any work session before or any meeting with the ldcc and with the LPA before the September 30th but after the September 30th we we are planning to have a joint SE session again so that we can review you know the issues that were um um brought whatever and uh Our Hope and our plan it's more than a hope it's a plan is to take to the LPA in the end of October and Council in the first and second meetings in November so now we'll have to work really fast and um um and efficiently so that we can reach that U um schedule okay okay y so you should receive today as soon as we are done here the um email with the link we don't have to read itday no it's up to you whenever you want to read your homework as soon as you get you have to read it oh okay yes okay so you still have the Dropbox if you need to go back and check anything right the drop the the Google drive right is still there but now you know the final one we are going to put in a draw box because now we have to we need to have control over the drafts now okay all right now we'll move to discussion items uh discussion of future meetings we already know that we have a meeting on the 30th the 30th with is with city council I mean you're all invited to watch and come if you want but it's a work session with city council okay what future meetings we will let you know all right it will be after uh September 30th okay sounds good I have no more items to discuss no more comments we'll call the meeting toj had a question thank you Nicole had a question I just so they sent us today while we were here um with some questions so we'll have to um get together and read you know and try to um respond I don't know if we're going to have time to reveal that prior to September 30th so her question was that we did not they did not see they were still waiting for the Zoning for Milton Square for you know the additional zoning districts they'll see it in article 4 when we submit it when they give it to us it will I know but there won't be a if we need to have another meeting to discuss that we do have one um on the books for September 24 so we haven't seen um article four yet I'm not quite sure if they submitted they submitted today but they also the email has a lot of questions to clarify so we we have not reviewed it at all um so we'll have to we'll try to figure something out so we can get it to you you guys the other one that you did not see we never discussed was um well for article one they did not propose any changes and it's a very um limited article it's a preamble yeah so we we we are not going to have um um um proposed amendments to that one the definitions is the one that we have not we are kind of finalizing it and we going to submit to you all but we haven't discussed so if you see anything we're going to try to to submit that quickly we are just going through all the articles to see you know please define this to capture all the you know the requests to include new definitions and um and we're going to send to you all and so maybe we if we have a chance to have a meeting before city council we will have them to report to the city council if there are changes because at that time city council would already have received the agenda because we have to submit the agenda one week prior okay okay so and thank you for the flexibility in meeting with all this especially so early absolutely thank you all for the great input and leading us through everything you're welcome thank you all right thank you thank you while we are here