##VIDEO ID:BG1wetjihfI## for for e e e e e for e for e e e e for test T Test one two one two all right we're we're ready do you have the Mr microphone again Harris all right uh good afternoon everyone it is 2:34 we'll call this meeting to order uh I understand we have a quorum I also understand the chairwoman is arriving shortly so I will just fill in for her until she arrives uh I was told that the minutes are not ready yet so we will pass on on the approval of the minutes till the next meeting uh public comments is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak seeing no one we'll close the public comments section uh the public meeting items the first thing is review of Article 13 parking and then article uh 14 and 15 and so forth we'll start with article 14 thank you Mr chair um before we begin discussion on the Articles that's listed one of the things that we discussed with the board previously was um public art and um when with our discussion we talked about a couple of things one public art being part of mitigation and then two um public art as a mandatory contribution um so Dr Kaa is going to talk to us about public art she's reviewed other municipalities um and how they cont make contributions some of them the cities or the municipalities contribute um a certain percentage based on public projects and then other cities do both they have public projects contribute as well as private um development contribute so I'm going to let Dr Korea talk to you about public Art thank you so um yesterday we met with the public art board and um uh we had a good discussion so I distributed today this is a list of um cities in um in the state that um um ask for a mandatory contribution for public art um there is a longer list that shows the contribution some cities that also require the city to contribute which is our case so um the public art ordinance was when it was created it requires 1% um contribution for the city when the city does any um Capital Improvement projects for facilities up to a cap of $50,000 so um this one is a smaller list um that only shows the cities that require also from the private sector so there are on the screen you have the proposal uh from the public art board so we have you know different columns and we can go over to the first one is the municipal participation which would be um the city 1% Capital Improvement project this is already in the court of ordinance so it's there because this is already um codefied now the question that I need to I want to ask you is if you all think that the private sector should have a mandatory contribution to public art well the public art board yesterday said yes and and the way they um and we had a a large discussion on um what is the level of contribution and you can see it varies from different cities um and uh it gives you know either based on the valuation of the property and and that is just the building you know the valuation of the building it does not count L value does not count horizontal you know the cost of side plan you know infrastructure um and then some would give a nominal you know amount per square footage so there are different ways and and that's why I distributed the the list but their um uh proposal is that we would so yes um they answered yes um 0.5% um for project or in case of subdivisions um it would be um assessed at the sgo level uh for subdivisions greater than 25 Lots so if you have a subdivision a town home subdivision or um detached a single family detached home subdivision that is greater than 25 Lots you contribute $1,000 per lot yeser they went over different scenarios different amounts this is what they proposed they also proposed the thresold um for the commercial would be uh or for the non-residential would be uh I would say non non res for the non single family or the the subdivision would be $2 million so if you have a building for an apartment complex or you know a restaurant a shopping center whatever or whatever that is great in $2 million the building valuation then the the fee would be assessed um to a cap of $50,000 and then we also discussed the exclusions so we would exclude affordable housing um single individual um um homes in duplexes and probably Multiplex so if you have a small lot that is being developed not part of a subdivision um then you are exempt um adus um parking garages um interior renovation and if the the building is a reconstruction due to fire natural disaster and then Public Schools so this is the proposal from the public art board um and I wanted to offer that for discussion here at the ldcc no sorry for my tardiness um is there any discussion I have a question go ahead uh so this contribution and it I don't see it specified is this intended to be a contribution to the public for the public to spend or is this intended to be an expenditure within the project by the private development on the private side did they specify it would so it I think we could this is something that we could create either you can you could spend on your project if it has public use right or you donate to the public out fund so the the concern I would just raise if it's donated to the public art fund is given ongoing changes in how the supreme court views things with the Sheet's decision and not being able to do what might be called exactions legislatively there's architectural standards we have that enhance a project that's private MH asking for art no matter what this group thinks that benefits their private project might be an easier lift than give this money to the public because this is not necessarily a mitigation this is a a give it thing the the other just comment and I think the thresholds and caps kind of modify this but if you figure the typical single family home that we be built in noo now and I don't know that there's very many places left for subdivisions of 25 to 50 Lots anyway I agree so it might not ever happen mhm if the typical house probably starts at half a million these days that's 2% yet the other amount is 05% so I kind of look at this as to some degree unequal because the single family homes that have the benefit of save our homes and and a 3% cap are paying less than half the rate of non-residential or or multif family projects it seems a little off-kilter so I I just had the question in that comment until there's other discussion discussion or questions can you elaborate on your first point of your recommendation of not to give it to the so so the the sheets decision which I raised at another meeting basically although there's as uh our able attorney will tell you there's nuance and some non-specificity to Supreme Court decisions would that would that be the way to that would be correct okay but they were pretty clear that what may be considered an exaction if it's done legislatively as opposed to executively it's still an exaction so the point point was if you can't take it from somebody with executive action you can't impose the taking from them legislatively just because you adopt a rule so if you're telling someone enhance your project with a percentage of your money I don't really perceive that as too different from build with better architecture but if you're telling somebody because you want a permit to give me money on the public I think that's a completely different thing and I don't know what the level might be and whether there may be a challenge but my view is if there's questional questionable legality let's stay in a safe place and kind of telling someone do art at your own project is a little different than give me money so would you recommend one versus the other if in fact this board supports which I'm not saying my support or sport if this sport supports some sort of imposition I'm just saying my opinion which I think has some good founding is let's not collect for the public let's have this done privately at at their project you know that if it's still an option is by any chance the Supreme Court you know decision is clear that would be an exection then there's still the the remaining option because for for us for the city for the public art and for the policy we have always supported private sector instead of giving to the public art um um if they provide the art themselves because that's the goal the goal is to have you know and in in a in a way it's easier because if you give the money to the public art fund um it is subject to the public art board we have to go through the process we have to go do through a call to artist we have to you know to manage you know the construction which is not something that we you know it's one of the things that we can do but it's not our main you know um our Core Business um but the private sector providing public art the only thing has to be in a semi-public space right it can be in a private space but people that people can view so if it's in your home in your Clubhouse hidden only for your internal residents that doesn't count but if it's in an area that is public for public view yes it counts so um just a scenario say it was a multif family and there really wasn't public because it wasn't Muse it was just an apartment so there wasn't really quote open to the public space with the art board and everything else instead of giving money could they do an equivalent piece of art and give it to the city for placement somewhere in the city or would that that still have to go before the art board and all of that other so there were different ways so the Allington gave their their piece those three pieces in their you know it's on their private private property but it's for public view the dwell put in the um their sculpture in the roundabout and uh the public art board accepted it um so there are different ways and so both of them were multif family you know Apartment project that um provided and that counted in there in in in that those specific cases was not mandatory it was mitigation um that we are also going to discuss today um because now we are also putting a establishing a minimum amount for contribution again it's optional you know if you contribute to the public art board then you know uh we we are U proposing a minimum contribution but this one would be mandatory would be a and and I'm just going to say because you see here in the special notes of those um cities they all um um make that note that more than 300 communities in the united states require that and it's I think the the Nexus is that public art has value for the city and it's it's so it's a valuable contribution any other thoughts or comments if I can jump in on on Mr Axel's uh discussion exactions he is correct exactions government exactions are prohibited unless there is a clearly defined public purpose and um if you recall the uh discussion Nexus and proportionality so uh just the government give me money yeah that's prohibited so um but we all know public art is is a good thing uh and it it's sorely lacking in a lot of places um so what I would recommend is that if if this board this committee says yeah public Arts is good and if we can this could kind of make sense subject to uh further research and Reporting back to the board and and to the city council that um yeah that we can we can can check these these and there are a lot of cities who doing it uh perhaps they haven't been challenged so there's no I haven't I didn't find any case law in point pretty much what Dave mentioned Sheet's case come close it's not on point um so I would I would suggest the discussion be in terms of if you think it's a good idea to uh have public art and and required then any recommendation be subject to confirmation that it's it's it's it's a it's not a government exaction uh which is defined as a taking that there there is a clearly public purpose and a clearly clearer path to say okay these are okay so we're a recommending body obviously to the city council it'll be City council's ultimate decision uh but when we get there then we'll be in a position to to have researched all the laws see any laws any cases um in any of these jurisdictions U that have C more cases and and report back to uh to Council in this committee uh on the exaction aspect the initial my initial response is yeah it's probably an exaction uh and and probably can't be but um if if this committee feels it's a good idea as does Teresa as do I think public art is is very good and has value and so forth um then if we can figure out a way to do it and maybe what Davis suggested have a have a requirement that you do public art on your thing as part of your project that may satisfy but we have we'll have to look into that further but um I would say don't get hung up that no we can't do pear ex exaction it pro May will be likely but there may be ways that we can do it that doesn't violate um the fourth and fifth the fourth and 15th amendment uh so I would say I would recommend discussion be is it a good thing and should we encourage it and if we can figure out a way that we can do it without it being an exaction that's not defensible that uh that we do it otherwise like I said we we will have to make that determination at some point because my initial response when to asked me that probably is an exaction do it this way but there may be other ways or there may be case law somewhere this says it's not but we have to make that termination but your initial reaction was what I just kind of drained off sorry my near dis action is could exaction okay yeah it probably is an exaction right uh but there may be ways to structure it and go around it which we need to investigate because public Art's a good thing and I think everybody will agree that public Art's a good thing uh and I think three more than 300 communities found a way not to be an exection so optimistic I'm optimistic decision was April of this year most of these would predate that I have a question after you're done okay um go ahead uh I just want to understand if this was discussed there's a threshold and a cap so just for the sake of argument your project is is your construction value I assume is what that's talking about or is it land plus constru no it said that it it does not count land it's because we already have in the system of vertical construction so if your construction value is 2 million is it the percentage of the 2 million or is it the percentage of the amount over 2 million I just I'm just no that's the minimum threshold so whatever is so if you're above 2 million then whatever it is we will calculate whatever the the percentage so just some quick math for everybody so so I'm working on a project right now which I'm selling the land and it's roughly um total cost and I'm um in my brain I'll subtract the the land cost it's about $65 million okay so I look at this $50,000 cap and that might sound all wonderful but we're going to be for that project the 50 Grand might be 0.005% or something like that it's pretty low or or less right whereas someone else at the lower end of the scale is hit harder and so I think where you can hide 50 Grand in in 60 million obviously a lot easier than you could hide it in 2 million or 3 million MH so it may be that this is a little heavy-handed toward the small folks and I just want to point that out the big projects it's it's like a rounding error almost the small projects it's pretty harsh because because it can be makeer break so we did a research here just to say so for instance because it was mentioned yesterday McDonald's new the new projects McDonald's was valued at 1.250 so would not meet the threshold um Longhorn wood it's a little bit above um the clinic that we had Mr Dr uh mosit in the north would be 3 million um we just wanted so the the shopping center that is being built at the corner of Chapman and Central you know the second one is at 3 million or 2 million and something so it would also you know be so even unless I did my math wrong like the 3 million times 0.5 that are that goes above the cap so pretty much you're asking 50 Grand is that unless I did my math wrong yeah well um 3 million5 um would be um um 3 million would be 30,000 for 1% mhm right yeah I'm probably 15 I know right 15 yeah I'm do it would be 15 15,000 so it would be above below the cap right so I so to me um I mean we we can discuss this all day long I guess my question is um is there a motion to mandate as requested by staff um public art contribution versus where it is now for mitigation or volunteering so so um is there a motion to make it mandatory foration we do so it does not replace this is a different thing because a mitigation so let's say all the other projects you know that are not in the cab whatever they have the option to donate to the public art board as a mitigation technique for if they are requesting a deviation that is going to still be in the in the LC and for that and Harris is going to um show the mitigation portion we have we are um putting a minimum contribution because the code today doesn't have just say a contribution and we did not there was not for staff to establish the amount so we have accepted from $500 to $25,000 it's at the generosity of the developer and we wanted to have the LDC get some guideline to what we should um because we do not want to negotiate that kind of thing so so the mitigation they can still use still use donating as a mitigation attempt continuing on it's are we going to make it mandatory uh for every project that's over 2 million all that kind of stuff um my personal opinion is no because it aims at a very it aims like at a specific area I um I don't think I'm like looking going well why should it just be your you're a a commercial that's above $2 million in buildable that's this kind of stuff that I go and I'll go back to our tree discussion go it should be Equitable so if art and and I this I hate this term because you can use it in way when it's good for the for the good of all the people and good for the community well we've known how that we've seen that go for the worse where people come in I'm going to say the bad developer can you know in some areas not here and they've C the government to then say well we're going to take these areas of town and say we're going to there for the good of the community we will declare them that they're no longer you know and and then make a make things easier for developers to come in and so that that term for the good of the community then if it's for the good of the community then put it at1 and everything pays for it because if one pays for it then for the good of community it gets back to that tree discussion where it's like well if I have a th000 trees on my property that are of 2 then I'm I get I take the brunt versus you don't because you happen to have a piece of property that years ago as we've looked at Maps I we we look at these maps from years ago and go yeah that's where the celery was and they wiped it clean and for years and years nothing's on it so that's that's a good one to own if you don't want to pay a tree but if you do so I think to me it has such an it's like a narrow band that it's aiming at that if our cause is for the good of all they make it for the good of all it's still a it still can be used as a technique to mitigate and I would say I as you know I sat and create helped create the the art board I'm totally into the Arts and I would go out and help get more but I think this is just a targeted range that kind of so my question too because there are two things right so that's why I think we need first of all we need to answer the first question is that do we think requiring whatever it is cuz whatever it is is is manageable right do we I look at it the other way and go if you can't make it m do we think no we can make it Equitable it's it's whatever we propose but my question is that should we require or not that's the first question right because it's how you attack a problem I I could I could attack a problem and say should we make it equ and make all the cause why this is a good thing and it's e and we should and we should and we should and try to make the shoe fit into the glass slipper but the shoe ain't going to fit you know you that sometimes the shoe doesn't fit into the glass slipper that's you're saying you're answering no to the to the to the question yeah I answer no to the first question but I think it's the reverse it should be you you presented something to me that goes well this is inqu Equitable so why would I say even yes we should do it you should if it was if there was an equitable version I would say well I could see how this might be able to in my but this is this is still a proposal this was one a proposal from the public and behind that is I I agree with the first comment from the from the attorney is yeah I do don't think it's going to pass the Nexus overall I think it's going to have a problem there so Don and then I have a comment yeah just just two Thoughts From Me first of all I think there's enough question about whether this is permissible or how it will be done that I don't think it's something we should be rushing into at this point secondly if we're going to mandate this kind of a contribution and I'm I appreciate as much as anybody the role that art plays in the culture of the community and improving it I just think as a city we've got higher priorities we've got roads that we're not able to maintain properly we've got aging storm sewer systems in some parts of the city there's a lot of other places I'd rather see money go quite frankly not the general fund that's why we cannot fund it's difficult for the city to fund public art from the general fund CU it's very hard to compete with all the other needs that's why a lot of cities ask for a contribution from the private sector right to fund that's the reasoning can I make comment that this is this is obviously a proposal from public Arts board um does this committee have any thoughts on on suggestions for Teresa as as what you would see as an equal way of doing it I have some comments and I know Sam has so let's finish up that range of thought maybe that will lead into that conversation right actually my comments might be a suggestion I just want toess Express a concern and uh some kind of a direction I see most every city including Ido is trying to come up with some ways to generate more revenues ofu just like any other City they have come up with many things one of them is uh the street lighting uh now they're proposing the trees now this is another one public Arts several things but again please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say I love Arts my wife actually has painted several pieces she may take art as a retirement project she's done a nice job so far so I'm in support of finding ways to encourage donations and contributions to the public Arts but we should be very careful when we keep adding more and more and more to the citizens because anything we add it is us who pay for it it's the people who buy these homes who are going to pay for it so instead of as Steve just said it is directed at one segment the developers and the home buyers maybe maybe this is my suggestion now maybe we should make it more Equitable and distribute the burden among all the resid such as I don't know if this flies or not but this is just a suggestion maybe imposing a $5 a year on every lot in the city might do as good a job as this but this is just a suggestion for finance to work out so we should make it Equitable not burdensome to a segment of the society so that's my point thank you um and then um I agree with what Don said there's so many other things that need to be done from operational to the built environment in the city and um again love art love museums love all of that um and I know affordable housing is a huge issue in the city so and I think I made comments on it like when we first started this whole process of incentivizing affordable housing and there's all these incentives you can get for height for this for that why can't we make public art contributions one of those incentives um you know in order for if they put in some affordable housing or lower below rate apartments or whatever it is that then um or wait let me say that backwards if they put in art or contribute to the art fund then they can get incentives to do whatever they want to do so which would then alleviate the cost going down onto the potentially onto the home buyer so take out my affordable housing comment that was backwards affordable housing should be an incentive to get more stuff so that was another incentive that's where that was coming from so okay so anyway that that was my instead of mandating it I think we can use it as a carrot instead um so just a thought so I I have one remaining suggestion now from what I'm hearing there's not a lot of stomach for this but I'm kind of key in on something that that Stephen said and I did you know I was rounding the math subtracting the land after Teresa said that so I just looked at this project I'm aware of and I know exactly what the land costs and exactly what the project costs and what size it is so I just did the math and it's 0.007% so Steph threw out this random what if everything was 0.001% okay so if you look at this the purpose of the threshold is to not Hammer the little guy the purpose of the cap is to not screw someone to the wall too bad so I looked at well if it's .01% and everyone does it no matter what it's acceptable and have it be something you spend on your private project period okay so I'm not sure what to do about this the exclusions and frankly and and I think Teresa acknowledged there's not that many pieces of residential land that won't be multif family projects in this city where you could do 25 Lots so it's almost silly but it's also kind of hard I I guess where would you do this when someone files for a building permit and here's the cost so for the first one yes for the second one as if as proposed in the SEO for the PSP so so I would just say I'm like Mr property rights when you hear me talk I'm all about people's private property rights so I get really nervous about exactions but doing a modest contribution to enhance your own project doesn't feel like an exaction to me .1% I think is manageable and I just took a project that won't be the biggest project that comes to a veto and it would be 0.07% with this cap so I don't know if it's 0.1% 2% but if it's manageable then it's something that we can at least do and get some art yes you're talking about 1% no 0 so so I did the math one on everything just used I just used the $50,000 on everything on on residential on everything on resal vertical construction on everything is that something that the No Cap that the the see because then then we would change for the second column would be yes 0.01 or 0.1 sorry 0.1% remove No Cap no threshold and no cap subdivision and no exclusions no exclusions not even affordable housing on um conclusions that that was going to be my question affordable housing parking garage well I'm fine with parking gares but affordable housing reconstruction I don't think that that's I don't know reconstruction you have to follow you have to follow if you're if you're reconstructing do you have to follow current code or do you get to go to the code that was 1979 when you built the house fine so Rec construction is the new code the same kind of thing then you just pay the 1% and you pay the current fees Public Schools we do not so Public Schools would still remain in there and would have a problem schol there because they'd be excluded anyway to make the yeah I don't know I have a so mine was a suggestion really AFF it was a suggestion I really wasn't getting into the exclusion so I'm not well I think if if if we want to move forward forward with that recommendation we need to talk about the exclusions and I mean I guess um if you can Define if you have affordable housing defined then I think it could be a it is defined as as a percentage okay it's it's percent of income it is it's defined by it's defined by the states right yeah I wouldn't have a problem I'm going to say this we have two affordable housing units of rentals right now and they were built with some of the best and greatest ferally funded tax incentives ever given on Earth so affordable housing is usually so taxed so anybody that's going to build affordable hous a profit Mak Venture it's a very profit making Venture there's very little it it's probably either the city or county is doing it you can exclude them they get their own rule but if it's a for-profit like I said the two that are here very very profitable Venture the the gentleman that did that and he sued us multiple times but uh very very profitable uh Ventures for them at the time and again great Federal incentives that made it that 0.1% wouldn't make a difference to anything that was going on whatsoever during those in reality so there's been discussion about not making in a mandate now there's a proposal not a motion yet but a proposal to make it to keep the Mandate but change it to 0.1 is there any further discussion before somebody makes a motion and let me just clarify and it has to be on your own property yes that's the other C it can't be Don the peace could not be donated to be put on public is it an option I I think that's dangerous because well because some people don't want it that's the thing the option of donating is that we I would prefer frankly if they put on their own property because that's less management for us but some people don't want to do that they want to donate cuz they want you know they don't want to to have something if you want to as a here's the option is that or then it becomes another 0.5% for ongoing cost to if you're going to donate cash then you know what it's 1.5% because then we have to carry the cost of maintaining the yart from that point forward there's some way to figure that out that the city does have to take care of something from that point forward so if you want to give a 025 1.25 or whatever that might be a little extra that that one become 0.1 becomes because there are ongoing cost for the city from that point forward if you want to donate cash it becomes a it's the reverse of paying cash at other places so to speak you you're getting your Deb your credit card you know charged at that point so okay cool motivation the beginning is that we're trying to get public art in the city in the city public now we just negotiating out of so I I would say no so publicly viewable so so for example they talked about right over here on on Clara Evans in front of the Ellington whether you like them or not there's the three cartoon characters the French fry the the french fries the the acorn whatever it is they she loves them I I don't like them they come from City seal by yes I I know the celery looks like french fries so it should be at McDonald's I'm just I'm just trying to be funny and yes it's kind of a weird distinction the in the rideway at the dwell enhances the dwell it's at the dwell so that's a little tricky so I think publicly viewable privately maintained privately provided keeps the city out of the maintenance business keeps the city out of the crosshairs the dwell was kind of a funky case I think well I think they they have the maintenance so are they doing the maintenance so there ways to to thread that needle if I make a motion I want to avoid marching the city into a potential landmine of doing something that someone may consider an exaction you know if you want to support art do it in way so publicly viewable is different than but but if there is an option in your property or donation if it's an option is this is this an ex action cuz it's an option so there's no such thing as an option when you're dealing with a monopoly that's issuing you to but let's imagine so I have situation because the first the first contribution that we had for the public art was $10,000 was the self storage at at Lockwood um that um he did not want to initially he thought about putting some um murals but it was going to be hidden whatever so he so if you have a self storage that there is there there isn't really a purpose to put a it's not GNA bring a lot of traffic there is no but he still right would would uh um contribute Nicole did you want to finish well [Music] sounds I'm just saying that's a concern that's all I think I think David Hall expressed that yes it is a concern so all I was trying to do was find a way to do this where it's not heavy-handed it's doable it's reasonable it's not some big amount that'll break you and it doesn't become an exaction concern at all so Teresa raises a good point I don't know what to say about that so I go through permitting a lot and voluntary doesn't feel like it when you're on the giving end I'll just tell you it it's just the way things work if you want a permit noo you have to go through the Ovito staff so encouragement from them might seem like imposition to someone sitting in front of them you've had the conversations you guys know what I mean so I'm just trying to keep them out of these crosshairs their conversation just before that triggered a question in my mind do we Define somewhere what is considered art we do in the code of ordinances so I can't come in and build six giant topiaries of King Kong or something and call it art or can I if I'm doing it in my own development and do you want to be the arbitrator of that if I try to do it if it's if it's in the private property the public art board is not the arbitrator of that if you're donating for um public land yes and if you're putting anything in the public land the public art board kicks in um we have you know we have defin it's a very broad definition so um yeah it's beauty is in the eye of the be Beholder right so it's kind of difficult the only thing we say there are you know it cannot be any message of hatred you know that kind of thing right um okay but it but we do not Define the the boundaries of say if dones we'll write that in the ordinance if Don likes it it's art yeah I um you know that the smaller percent I think would be fine I I still am an advocate for incentive but if we are going to mandate it I do like the option because not all pieces are going to have that public you know public area except for the public right away and therefore then it it falls back on on you all again so um having the option I think would be would be great and more flexible so so is there basically we're just saying because Municipal is 1% we're saying now right so it's 1% across the board everything would be 1% I'm sorry .1% my brain my brain went looking at percent by 10 I know no I'm looking at percentage and I'm looking at 1% 10% of our percentage no no I got it I bet I bet is there a recommendation is there I'll make a motion to uh put forth instead of this uh 1% across the board .1% 0.1% sorry about that I'm looking at it going saying the same thing that's what I mean is 0.1% across Ross the board um no exclusions at this point that's a talking point I'm sure and the possibility also as a talking point just to keep that alive is some methodology possibly to give um directly cash or some donation versus private property art on the property we'd like to see that possible it may not be is there a second I second hand that okay all is there any discussion further discussion on that motion so we're with if we go with that motion we're kind of throwing a little work back on on the staff to Wordsmith this right so while I'm going to make the changes here show again in the end of the meeting beautiful because now we are in the final line we need to none none well we can't impose it on public schools Public Schools we can remove from the list because we don't see the building permit anyway anyway yeah M oh good point why not I'm I'm really asking it's such a small amount Nicole so so I'm working on a luxury apartment complex the deal I'm doing it's not affordable affordable would cost a little less it's $250 a unit at the level now it's really not very much and to Steven's Point private developers that are making a profit come in and get all kinds of government incentives to build affordable housing we don't need to give them anymore they they're making money I'm telling you so the Adu as an exception is that a brand new Adu separate or is it I have a garage and I'm changing it and I have an existing structure and I'm changing it before we were exempting single family you know individual single family homes anyway so the Adu was just mhm also part of the the single but if you're not if every vertical Construction in the city that pulls a building permit if that is they're all eligible to the contribution we are fine too [Music] so everyone's a developer by definition when they develop there would be no exclusions right I'm try to cook to add it's not that Dev you can't decide who's doing it and not doing it and charge or not charge I don't think we can legitimately do that that goes back to that Equity of is it just developers building this versus all development within the city regardless of who and how big except for the C so I think the argument is that if everybody contributes a little bit it's a percentage of whatever whatever it is then it's Equitable because you're giving the same treatment I guess the best way to look at if you remember the lady scales of Justice she has a blindfold on so you really can't look at the applicant so we couldn't distinguish between a private person building a house as supped to corporation that would not be that that would not pass must say your Adu was $100,000 to build I'm just raring at a number it's $10 right okay but my point is is when we listed all of these incentives from the federal that go to the developers they're not going to individual so that they are which actually you just bring up a good point because if I have a single family house and I'm building building an Adu I don't want to put the public art on my on my property I don't want people to come by and look at it so I do want that option to contribute my $10 I think it's important yeah it's important that's why I was in there I just figure find a way I I also agree with the like I don't want to carry costs for the city so if there's a way otherwise then it's just 1% no we are fine I mean all our our public he fund has been right through contributions right so we are not no no I like but you're you're you're right when now you're putting for everybody you have small contribution that will not result in anything tangable in public Arts right great are you changing your motion Mr shank no cuz he said no I said that they could use it for oh oh okay okay okay okay and that that's is what was said no exception whatever okay so is there any further discussion nope all right can I'm sorry can you just repeat the motion so the motion is to .1% across the board no exclusions you want us to develop a methodology to give um cash or donation of an art um and it can be on private prop property publicly visible right okay publicly publicly was there a cap on it no no caps okay perfect and no thresholds yes no thresholds perfect so all in favor all oppose no motion carries next item so I'm just curious the no is why Don the no is why reasons okay just curious okay so our next um topic is going did we finish the conversation yes okay so our next topic is going to um we're going to discuss mitigations next uh we wanted to go over the mitigations that we plan to include into the Land Development code and Harris um Burns cattle is going to discuss it so we're going out of order from our agend we are and then we're going to the articles I know you guys can't wait to get to them but we well good evening everybody uh are you all able to see um yeah okay is that does that mean we're going to be here late because it's still just afternoon I are you foreseeing the future I well I was about to say I can't foresee the future I think there's a possibility that we may be here late okay and then I'll be quiet let it move on so we we decided staff decided that we wanted to kind of provide a list you know like a cafeteria of options for mitigations we did this in the architectural section for um architectural mitigation uh and if developers had provided those on site plans we would accept them as well but we wanted to go ahead and provide a comprehensive list and also provide a list for Mobility strategies as well and so that's what we're going to be going through and a lot of these are consistent with what we have in code today as far as the mitigations go there are some some uh minor modifications to the language and the mitigations but the mobility strategy section is is new um as far as providing a cafeteria of options and how it counts so um and you all can stop me as we're going along if you have any questions so the first one and this one is directly from the code as it is in the architectural section for tree preservation if you preserve 25% of the uh Heritage trees out there on your site then you would get that would count for one mitigation complete streets were going to identify the section it previously identified different section so that's changing but it's only because our code is changing wide sidewalks this one it used to identify um I believe 6 feet but the way that we we revised it to say at least 2 feet above the minimum requirement and that's if accepted by the city engineer so it's not just you know if you provide it but it also needs to be something that's accepted as far as a you know an acceptable design to the city Harris do you want us to wait till the end or throw things no you can go ahead throw it right now so so just a a a something to think about and I know you're going to like come up with some drawing or something right of what this is MHM so there's something in the code now and it has kind of the old way of thinking of bicycle Lanes where they're next to the vehicle travel lanes and I will tell you just my participation working on the Mobility plan and hearing the council there's this distaste of putting bicycle Lanes next to vehicle travel Lanes so I'm just saying for you guys if we call something complete streets the old definition might not make sense given the direction of the council where do the does the bicycle go so so I just I'm just saying be careful when we diagram this what does that really mean yeah the current diagrams that we do you have or exactly that where you have the which they exactly don't like right and so we may want to revise this to enhance Street which means that you're providing uh in addition to what it is provided in the code or complete streets that involes what you're talking about but that's a good comment in fact do me improve you for what Sam can't read [Laughter] that Sam can't read what they right I'll get C or provide okay all right moving on where did that go anyway all right so we did wider sidewalks uh Mobility strategies we're going to get into the mobility strategies a little bit later on but basically what this says is any anything that counts down to Mobility strategies can count towards a mitigation strategy and it counts by whatever it's denoted as below and we'll kind of get into that a little bit more but basically one equals one Mi One Mobility strategy equals one mobility or mitigation so on and so forth okay uh communities of Lifetime uh this this is an initiative that was put forward uh by Department of availity Affairs and it's really to help people aging Place includes the provision of elevators and buildings uh master bedrooms that are located on a ground floor so on and so forth and that's existing in the code current low impact velopment um this is engineering solutions for storm water including uh bios whes porest Paving uh green roofs and then we have a minimum coverage for green roofs if that were to be applied charging stations uh with a percentage of the amount that would be an acceptable mitigation use of environmentally friendly design practices which include solar solar energy solutions Health design Solutions uh which includes Community Gardens internal bike Lanes outdoor communal fitness equipment this is another one that's included in the current code version of the code um public amenities patios and plazas landscape mini Park squares greens vertical mix use public art we put a number on the public art uh of uh contribution if that's if if that were to be provided in lie of uh an actual R piece being placed out on the property uh and that amount being $5,000 subject to change in the fee or in the fee resolution from time to time uh the opportunity for other mitigations and then finally at the bottom here we have a conversation about uh the number of mitigations that are required for site development orders which is uh and it reads if an application requests multiple deviations each deviation shall be evaluated independently and mitigations may be required for each requested deviation and that's different than the section below which talks about architectural design mitigations and in the architectural design section um you're re you're requ required a Max of three mitigations for the project and that's it's based off of percentage of mitigation so you know typically in your architectural design order you have multiple buildings you have multiple deviations whether it be for finestra roof modulation articulation whatever the case may be but we go based off of whatever the highest deviation is in that in that uh project and then that's the amount of mitigations that you provide so as you can see down here if it's um 20% or below you require one mitigation 20% to 50% is required two and then 50% above you required to provide three mitigations and so they would be they would be able to select from these cafeteria of options that are that are above and they have an additional one here that talks about architectural elements that are provided for the project any questions so far uh another important section here item C where it says a mitigation density intensity bonus or Mobility strategy used to satisfy one criteria the Land Development code shall not be credited to meet another criteria set forth in the Land Development code and all this we're we're trying to prevent any double dipping between satisfaction of one portion of the code to another portion of the code okay all all right and now to the new shiny section of Mobility strategies um it references the compant section where the mobility strategy uh requirement comes from and when we listed these improvements we listed them we weighted them into how many strategies they account for so we have 05 1 2 3 and then the opportunity for things to count more than three uh if the land use administrator city council deem so and uh so in category 4.5 Mobility strategy we have bike repair station bench Street Furniture uh additional bike racks and for one mobility strategy uh we have increased width of sidewalk to uh an increase of at least 2 ft above what's required cover bike racks or bike lockers bus shelter without bench shower for employees micr Mobility parking space with signage pedestrian cross sliding traffic calming measure two Mobility strategies shared path minimum of 10 ft zip car bus shelter with bench covered bench raise crosswalk har Harris you might have cover covered it when I was out but how do you what's the metric for determining how many Mobility strategies someone has to have oh no that's a very good point I didn't uh that's in the comp plan section that talks about chip generation so what do do you know offand what the thresholds are is it PM Peak trip generation or something yeah give me a second I can pull it up while he's doing that um the bus sh all of that needs to be Ada do we need to spell that out that it's Ada I think it's a law right yeah yeah think Federal Regulation covers that and then the shared path minimum is that 10t wide or 10 ft long and are you saying that this counts as two if you do this amount of Miles this amount of 10 ft wide wide right so then could be but how long are you going to require it to be or are you just saying that they pay into the trail program because is it just a trail in front of their house in front of their development is it a mile half mile quarter mile no it's a good point um obviously these things would have to be accepted it this is kind of a cafeteria of options for us to be able to pick from although I'm not sure if we necessarily spell cuz we do at the bottom spell out the ability for the land use administrator to the land use administrator or city council May determine a proposed mitigation Mobility strategy equates to a greater number and so maybe the language should be greater or lesser so so Harris if you go back to that yeah go ahead so just to to kind of a suggestion to cure Tara's question I think so the problem with setting a length is you don't know what length works so I think the way to deal with this is 10 ft wide that makes a viable connection it's got to connect something to something yeah yeah cuz connection might actually be more important than well so so the example that that I can give which was a project it had a developers agreement mhm but it was kind of important cuz the project had one connection and needed a second and it was up from 8 foot wide to 10 foot wide by the council at the final hearing and it was the chelonian project which is the town homes going in on Central right now which created a connection that Sam really likes because he he'll walk on it and it's almost done and it connects the public streets in the subdivision through private and public property to windy Pine Lane so people can walk through the project and from the project but you can walk from Central through the project to OVA park it made a real connection its length doesn't really matter it made a connection if it was half of the length that made a connection it would have made a connection I mean does that is that a good example I agree it is so before it was um per 100 feet but the thing is that we cannot yeah we cannot say that that's enough or that's good you can provide less that makes more sense option you can do this it's whatever part of it whatever makes sense it a lot of things in the code is that if it makes sense we would accept so this this is something that we are not forced to accept these are just a list of things that this is the pool you can you can offer yeah let this keep someone from saying I did this little stub to nowhere and I want credit absolutely yeah I'm I'm good with that yeah okay I pulled up the code section or I mean the comp plan section for Mobility strategies and this is the way that it reads out of the comp plan so we it the comp plan requires up to six 600 or greater but it goes by chip generation and it's um PM Peak right thank you haris okay so back back to the uh Mobility strategy we adopted that change uh we have zip car we went through these right yeah okay got it all right so for three Mobility strategies we have share micr Mobility system micro Mobility access points and addition to vehicular access points additional vehicular access points from the minimum required Mobility Hub enhanced streetcape with shade trees along pedestrian Pathways and sidewalks enhanced lighting at intersections or pedestrian Pathways for added visibility and safety uh enhanced accessibility pedestrian systems uh at intersections which is the the crosswalk singals that talk to you or you know that that type of that type of uh accessibility and then uh subsidize transit for developments within 800 ft of Transit stock uh so so are you going to Define Transit stop because we're never going to have what we might call real Transit around here so is this buses is this what what is that it's a bus stop this is the pink Links bus come on it's a minimum of a bus stop with a sign it's the minimum right well we already have like a bus shelter so you know will you guys Define what one of those is yeah yeah we can provide I I wrote it down definition for Transit stop trans and Transit stop okay and then finally uh we outline a monetary contribution and this is part part of the reason for this is sometimes it's easier for a developer to provide the monetary contribution as opposed to actually providing something on their Pro some type of development just because of the the act of doing it can you scroll back up while you're talking I just want to see prior ones we we defined the rate as 10,000 uh is it how far did you want me to go that that's enough finish what you were saying and then I've got a question oh uh which is going to which can be updated in the city's fee schedule every year and then we have other strategies that aren't outlined and there can be uh can apply and then again the number of strategies can be uh adjusted to greater than that and this is particularly targeted at um some of these you know like the shared path minimum or these enhanced streetscapes so on and so forth some of those may be uh deemed worth more than the three or two Mobility strategies uh for the development go ahead David so so going back down to the number five where you had going back down keep going the land use administrator thing o other strategies so just an example I want to throw out and maybe your your opinions have changed now and my recollection may be a little off I think when we did Evans square and had to do strategies there was a desire from Public Works to have certain signage so they said can you provide this signage it might have been another project so it was wayf Finding signage for certain things that didn't exist that the city wanted and it was kind of a request but it fell into what would be other strategies so is way finding signage a Mobility thing or do you just want to leave that in other strategies I think it's would to leave us other St because it's not directly okay well saying I've had the request in the past can you do X for the TR said yeah we'll do X so so this keeps that open open yeah okay that's that's my only question there any other questions or comments about the mitigations or Mobility strategies questions thoughts comments do we need a one last thing all the way back to the land use stuff so one of the things in the code which I don't think you took out talks about if there's an a deviation and the deviation affects adjacent PR property the mitigation should be something that benefits the adjacent property usually that ends up being you know you had a less wide buffer you add more trees I didn't exactly see that kind of stuff there so how do you do do that if it's not there because we're already down in Mobility things talking about land use administrative disc discretion do we have that all the way up at site plan deviations so so be you guys do that really pretty much all the time your buffer narrower you couldn't fit everything put more trees in here or do this or do that is that sort of in the list or is there a catch all to catch it because that's all the way back to site plan deviations yeah right I I zoomed up here to number 13 which says uh you know if an application requests multiple deviations each deviation shall be evaluated independently and mitigations may be required for each request right but if you're stuck with the list no there's there's also other mitigations right oh number 12 okay yeah so if there is a CU this is is is if there is a clear way to mitigate we will accept that so if you have AC the same way as on Mobility you still have St discretion okay that's it sorry about that that's all right M okay do do we need to vote on this or yes we need consensus on that is there a consensus to accept all this I'm yes yes yes and and this should go in article two right that what we're going to put in the flexibility of administration because we have article two talks about deviations so we've had a we've had debate on this yeah but but yeah you're you're absolutely right flexibility Administration is in 2.7 then we've kind of gone back and forth where we wanted in section two or section four article four I feel like that's a staff decision okay well so so like right now it's architectural ones are in article 8 yeah correct do any of us care where this is no as long as the staff can find it and the developers we'll figure out a I think we have consensus do whatever you want do whatever you want put it in the area you think it works best yes yeah and we'll keep them all together so that it's easy for everyone to find okay that's fun just create a table of content oh you want confusion so we can mix it up yeah if you want this go to page 10 okay one those M I am okay so tonight today we're going to try to go through these articles pretty quickly um we will get into some um pretty heated discussion especially in parking um so but I'm going to try to move this along so I just want to let you know up front what's going to take place I already know it's going to be a little controversial for parking okay so we're going to start with article 10 which is flood Wes flood planes and drainage and erosion okay so there's not many changes in article 10 so we'll go through um this article pretty quickly so this article was reviewed by our public works department and um in 10.1 you'll see that we added 10.1b six we added roadways um as a new permissible use in the flood planes so that's one of the things we added there and then C1 we struck through a lot of um things that's already conflicting with our code of ordinance so we refer to um our code of ordinance well actually 1709 um in C1 you'll see that and then we also added as amended from time to time so that we don't have to go back and change our Land Development code article 1709 um so it's self- amending and then we also make make reference to the engineering standards manual and that's in B storm water management if you go down and we struck through a lot of the conflicting language or language that's already covered in our code of ordinance so that's why that language is removed and then we have a um that is basically it for article 10 it's just a reference to the flood planes um ordinance that we have in our code of ordinance and we reference the engineering standards manual um and we struck through everything that was conflicting so Alexis you said you guys are updating that now your engineering standard manual yes did you all have any questions on article 10 it is something that is already um they were trying to make it consistent with ordinance 1709 which is in the code of ordinance which section Alexis can you answer that about the flood plane roads being allowed in flood planes I can you turn your mic on please I'm sorry I spoke to Paul Juran and Amanda Cortez and I've been on vacation I'm sorry and they both said they had reviewed that section and make comment so I can get back with you on the answer okay what is the section I'm we we can get back with you on that um but our engineering department um reviewed this and they put that language in there is flood planes it's the flood so that language is in what section is that in if you go down where it says roads so in flood Plaines it's 100 500 years so a road in a flood plane unless it fills the flood plane isn't altering the flood plane and I think up at the top under 101a you have to meet FEMA standards anyway so if you fill it you have to do compensating storage anyway so I think and Alexis can correct me if I'm wrong on conjecturing they already do build roadways and flood planes so I think they were just making the language consistent with reality all the time all the time otherwise there'd be a lot of fewer roads is there a consensus on this an article 10 yes yes okay you can put ldcc okay so the next article is going to be article 11 streets and sidewalks so on a table um we found that this article was a little confusing and in some places contradictory in terms of the roadway width and what could fit into the roadway width um table 11.1 um staff is requesting that we bring back um the commercial that's shown there the RightWay minimum standards and then we also added a local non-residential um category because they talk about a local non-res non-residential C category but it's not listed in the table so we want them to put it in the table um so they're going to have to add the standards to it what's a commercial roadway I've never heard of a commercial roadway before so the commercial roadway if you go now it it is a road type there should be a definition in there it's in the comp plan I think isn't it keep going down that's local local but the the figure above Is loal Res right SoCal res fig should be next so we do have a um arterial collector um and Commercial so commercial I believe it's going to be the um does it say it in there the commercial on the bottom of that Deborah do you want to go through the whole thing or get comments during you can ask me as I'm when you're done with her question if you can go back to the Chart sure did they answer your question they're still looking not yet we're still looking can I can I throw in my thing now sure all right okay can you go to the definition let's go to the defition I know what it is but because I always just go by DS so I've never heard of uh so my experience in oito for example like noral Road are commercial roads like dri industrial that's a commercial road I don't know there isn't so it's the roads within that development that's a commercial development is it in theod development Cod my experience but let's see what they say in writing we got to figure out a definition roadway that's no fun like I said got to leave it confusing in the otherwise what need me for what are people hire me for if it's not confusing we're just making your job so easy that's right make it confusing so I so they can hire me you know it's not even defined in here in the Land Development code so we need to tell them to put a definition in it so so Deborah in my experience it's a local road that serves a commercial project yeah that's what I said it's normally nonresidential local so if that's what you're going to make a difference you make it that a local Road that's non-residential yeah all right are you ready if and but if we place it back Define it KH so is street or road what what does it say what did you right can't even see it okay is it is it commercial I'm sorry it's a commercial commercial Road Commercial Road cuz you have we have local non-residential and Commercial I know so Gloria say to put it back inside put it back in the table but if it's the same thing then one is going to have to be deleted okay MH you ready yes okay so you scrolled really quickly and you guys are adding diagrams which are further down right M okay so just for everyone just to understand Mitchell hammock is an arterial and has 11t Lanes Broadway which is under construction today is an arterial and has 11t Lanes um I don't know what you'll call the the new Connector Road or it has 11t Lanes so all all I'll say here is this table is somewhat at a date also if we're moving toward Urban form then this is what's known as like the tiered definitions of roads which is a Big Dot thing but they if if you've read it also have this transect methodology for looking at Urban stuff which this doesn't cover at all and so I think and Alexis in your update of the esm are you addressing these things like travel Lane widths and all this other Stu stuff or not so so I've run into situations where the code says X and Engineering is fine with Y and so I think this is clearly in conflict with what's been going on and happening I think if you look down at the bottom of that table so there's some asteris next to um collector Road next to arterial as well if you go down where it talks about additional WID will be re oh no not that one it says may be reduced to 22 feet I can hardly read this because it's so far away but 22 feet with approval of the city engineer so that one is going to be for um your how many asteris is that three okay so that one which one is the third one so I would say you would need to add something like that for the and then you have you also have one for um you have one for collector as well as for the local so the local the comment I'll make to that so so everyone understands and there was a lot of discussion about some of these roads and also at Council about some of these roads and at the CRA about some of these roads The Wider the travel Lane the faster people want to drive the ner the travel Lane the safer it actually is for people and so a local Road should absolutely not be forced to be 24 ft wide cuz what you're doing is killing children I don't know how else to put it okay so you're doing what killing children you're killing children with with the wider Road you actually are oh that's so extreme I'm just saying that and I'll tell you why later because I get told all the time when like when I'm doing projects that that's what I'm doing so I had to throw it in there I I so so all I'm saying is let's make this chart not you have to ask permission to do the right thing but let's make it the right thing and you have to ask permission to do the wrong thing which is the wider Road frankly and it's a complete change of thinking but if you're familiar with do stuff it's toward narrower roads the transects are toward narrower roads um and of course you know if you if you ask our mayor she wants them even now but uh I think that table just needs a little work so I'm not ready to support it till it gets a little work and I think when you look at your diagrams I thought I saw really quickly some of them with 11s and tens yes you know I'm sorry go ahead I'm done so so I agree I think especially if we are promoting um alternative modes of mobility and walking and biking uh we really need to be leaning towards that 11 foot especially in our downtowns and urban areas um so sorry for the big trucks I drive one too sometimes but you know it is what it is um they should be going slower anyway Lanes I just need yeah so um so I I agree I think that this needs to kind of be more reflective of the direction do is going in and and bike ped safety and and all of that and I would say 11 and then like you said if you want to go up to 12 for some reason then you need to ask permission to to do that and if there's a way to incorporate the do transect I'm not exactly sure howo fits into all of that but that might be another option cuz there that's the direction they're going so what is a T1 through T5 is that what they I think that's what they've got so I'm just saying I don't know that this is quite ready for prime time yet um and I've had other projects and it's always been discretion of city engineer and we've gone pretty narrow and then we start running into issues with the fire department that that was what was going to be my point so we have the issue of on street parking right in local roads plus the conflict between uh on Street Park and uh um fire trucks so just a little editorial comment if a fire truck can drive on an interial in an 11t Lane they don't need 20ft clear to get somewhere that's ridiculous yeah if they're driving on an 11t Lane so there's some like disconnect there that's never been dealt with I I I understand what you're saying but the issue is that in residential environments people park on the street and then the the truck has to clear and so the assumption is on local residential roads in particular that somebody's going to park on the street and then the truck has to clear that that vehicle to be able to access an emergency situation which is a little bit different than in our your Arial expence I don't know what that Pine Avenue subdivision I worked on was called we had a really Narrow Street at some point so we actually have signage that was in the development order that's there no on street parking so sometimes you're just sorry you can't park here where the where they're too narrow uh but I think I think we can you can alleviate that by saying this is travel Lanes only and doesn't include parking you know if you got your notes under the table it's not intended if you have a narrow Lane on street parking no well there's no street parking that's has to be approved by the police department but also as you know the street parking is a traffic cing device as well right but my point is I'm not trying to say that these lanes are inclusive of on street parking when we narrow them because that kind of gets absurd but that's that's in practice that's what it is right you have a um 24 Lane that people park on the street so I I we hear you we're going to revisit that and we come back and and I think if the local because of that you know consider that but I think for the arterials and you know those Lanes at 11 versus 12 that's where my priority would Mar so so we'll have to revisit um at least the arterial and collect roadways um okay so we'll bring that back to you all okay so the the next thing is going to be before you move on uhhuh you might not want to do this because I know you like it in your code but if the engineering department is updating these things if changes from their standards are subject to their approval engineering changes to the esm are not deviations so to speak so if this should properly be a public works discretion then all you do is say the roadway width shall be as per the esm and you're done now you may not want to do that because you have all these little transect drawings you want to do I'm just saying that that chart kind of is is different from what's in the ASM and it creates issues in the past so maybe you just say let engineering decide how Road how wide roadway should be and that's that is the reason for the footnotes where it talks about it can be reduced upon approval of the city engineer which does not require a deviation um to okay point taken I'm done and most of these updates to the transportation section will follow fdot okay so the next one is going to be your um bicycle Lanes shared Lanes keyho Lane and um bicycle path so um these are your bicycle facilities and we made some changes to the um what the consultant provided so your shared your um Keyhole your bicycle facilities it says maybe provided in on Street facilities or on off Street facilities and then your shared Lanes says shared Lanes shall be provided where can you read that for me oh yeah that makes it better that is so much better thank you okay where the Post-it speed limit is less than or equal to 25 milph and the anticipated average annual daily trips is fewer than 4,000 so we we kind of spaced it out so your bicycle Lanes um you have to provide if it's between if it's greater than 25 miles per hour the speed limit or up to 35 miles per hour and then it has what needs to be there minimal bicycle lane shall um withd shall be pursuant to the latest version of f do fdm um bicycle lanes are not required in residential subdivisions with fewer than 100 homes or on alleys and then you have your Keyhole lanes and we have pictures of these because we we weren't quite sure at some point what a keyhole Lane look like and um but we'll pull that up a keyhole Lane um and this is provided um this is where um bicycle lanes are present approaching an intersection adjacent to a bus Bay or parking Lane and so we'll pull that up as well and then the next one is going to be your bicycle path and that is greater than um 35 milph um but may be provided in any context then Li of providing bicycle Lanes bicycle paths shall be designed pursuant to the latest F do fdm um and then it the bottom language says any bike fa facility category that is upgraded from one category to the next meaning if it's upgraded from your um top which is the sharan your shared Lanes to um a keyhole lane or to a bicycle lane or to go down to the bottom or bicycle path so if it's upgraded from one category to the next above the minimum requirements shall be designed pursuant to the latest version of fots and sh shall be eligible for Mobility strategy or mitigation so if you upgrade your bicycle facility from one category to the next it's eligible for mitigation strategy so you want to pull up the pictures to just show this is a shared Lane um not sure if I can make this actually a little bit bigger there we go it's got the painted bike on it shared with the car it's pretty this is a real picture just kidding so your share um the shared Lane was any road um or development less than 25 you're not going to paint bikes on all of those roads right it's just known that it's shared or are you wanting them to have that designation on there I think the language says that it has to be painted let's go back to the language to shared few marking shall be provided where bicycle Lanes or off Street facilities are not required and then it says where shared lanes are provided in residential subdivisions or alleys shared Lane parkings are required that's required we discussed that all right so I'll just make a comment I don't want I I I think the markings in a residential subdivision is a bit much um and to providing bicycle Lanes in a residential subdivision I think is a bit much and what residential subdivision is above 25 mil hour none so then because number three bicycle Lanes it's 25 to 35 and it says bike lanes are not required in residential subdivisions with fewer than $100 homes does that even need to be in there if residential subdivisions wouldn't even be over 25 M hour so those are my two items so because I just think putting markings on your gated subdivisions you know if that's what this applies to it's irrelevant I'm concerned with that too agre I think V restrictions we have the bar and it's 25 mil an hour anyway the travel speed so why Market what' you say I'm sorry I agree with Tara just said because the speed limit is 25 mil hour anyway so why Mark the the path because it's still a shared the safest way is to Mark so that both you know pedestrians pedest bikers and drivers know they are sharing right but um it's going to be a cost for for the city and for Public Works to keep on I'd rather just I me if you have to Market I would just a sign up next to the underneath the speed limit sign that says shared Road one at at each entrance when you're Mark be done it instead of the constant painting that just I think it's isore in a residential Community to have that all over your street uh but for me it's not the isore it's it's just that it's a cost yes that too cost least so I I would suggest I don't know if any consensus or whatever but I I would suggest the requirement of the marking so it may be if it's if it's a path right for a tray or something so it's a if it's a street and I think it it's wise to do that yeah cuz you have trails that cross that absolutely that's a Crossing it's different I think but or as you're coming up to it to note that that Crossing's coming I think those are unique situations not to have it throughout the whole subdivision where there's no Trail or pathway so is there a consensus to remove the requirement that the um pavement is smk yes in the shared Lan in the shared Lan residential areas yes yes alternate yes yes good great and then my other recommendation was the bike Lanes um I'm sorry madam chair I'm assuming that if you're not saying anything you're in agreement that it's we're going to take that as a agreement okay um no news is good news bicycle Lanes U my other recommendation was um removing them from the the residential bicycle Lanes I just didn't open for discussion but I just didn't see why a residential sub subdivision would have a Bic let's show a bicycle lane and then the keyhole Lane and what residential subis is over 35 mil hour because there's a difference between a residential subdivision and a residential street street is one thing residential subdivision another okay so maybe the wording is just I don't adjust it because that looks like a residential street but not necessarily A subdivision to me in that picture okay let's go back to the langage and you have definitions of what a residential street because like that be like well you've got two houses on that street so that becames a residential street now you're going to again be forced as the city to main you know paint this know two miles of roadway because there's two homes on the residential street well they're supposed to be on all of them anyway it's just subdivision so I would make a recommendation to REM it says it says bike lanes are not required in residential subdivisions with fewer than 100 so we can just remove the not we can keep bike lanes are not required and residential subdivisions and take out with fewer than 100 yes that is my recommendation it's your show but do we have any residential between above 25 miles hour that was point an hour I don't think that's yeah ja5 it is it's a local street so 35 is only the mentioned the other do Residential subdivisions have a speed greater than 35 Alexis do you know no we don't have it I don't even know why we have resti no but the roads are more than 24t wide and people drive 50 or 60 against the law that's greater to to my earlier Point design speed that's at 30 the design speed's too high so yes so then the question is you guys have design speed versus posted speed sorry design speed versus posted the first one you have posted speed T do you mind speaking on the microphone sorry perfect thank you I apologize okay in the first one you have posted speed limit and the second one you have have design speed limit they're very different oh yeah it has to be posted yeah not design good catch so just to understand does the Land Development code apply and this this you're going to like this question to City constructed roadways or is this public roadways Pro uh constructed by private developers so it seems to apply if you're reconstructing an arterials part your project that's the public roadway right so when the public builds a public roadway are you saying the Land Development code is imposing these standards on the the engineering department that's what it says if it does not exclude right okay so so uh just I just reviewed with Paul your game last week The Almost 100% plans for the Connector Road which has a design speed less than 25 miles hour and I don't recall the markings being on it it's easy to add them but if that's the intent then I I should say hey this is the way it's Direction it's going and I don't know if Alexis will have this conversation with him or not but I didn't really pay attention but I don't think it was marked that way he did have a comment to post it as 25 miles hour which means if that's the case and this is the direction they should be marked right brand new road if it's greater than 25 miles this hasn't been approved yet I'm talking about the less than 25 where you mark it as shared oh the shared yeah so I don't recall seeing that it was marked in the design the design there's a little window of time to tweak those things striping is not that big a deal or for markings for that area I think it would be a good suggestion because it's it's dense there is the trail I think Thursday we had this meeting Bobby and and and Paul and I on on that road and you were out of town so you might not have seen that I don't know if you would look at it normally I don't think it was there we discussed with Paul too and Gloria this one but he probably he did not too many moving Parts yeah he did not connect this hasn't been approved yet also right what's that this hasn't been approved oh I understand but if this is the direction you're going it's easy for us to add this marking to that road today I would say that's a good a little harder a good call yeah same I'm sorry for interrupting your pictures no problem uh but do we have consensus to remove the language with fewer than 100 homes are on alley yes okay we said this was Tara show she gets to decide this right you've got the knowledge I'm trying to be in my role this is your expertise right all right then we're going to trust you this is a keyhole Lane uh basically just uh for those not familiar where there's a break in the road um the bike lane continues we I'm sure most of us have seen that before and then just real quick the bike p uh also a lot of us have seen this it's its own independent you know essentially a sidewalk for micromobility so that's that's a separated bike path do they have it noted as a separated bike path or just a bike path well and do we Define how needs to be because it's one thing to have Ballers and another thing to have bushes yeah it doesn't we don't say that it has to be separated but it's it's a good thing to put something in there about it being if you're going at that higher rate of speed and you want your children run over I no we don't want we don't want come on that's my I know that's live o those people traveling down they're going to kill all those kids riding to SCH scho so Tara it's like 30 ft off the road just to share with you T I'm sorry when I was working on and it was winter spring so I shouldn't Pi on Ovito when I was working on the storage project there and had to do a public information meeting with 80 people there that were all yelling at me we were going to fill the place with drug dealers prostitutes and kill school children okay so so it was just what we were evidently going to do so did you have dead bodies too cuz we had in our self storage we're going to have dead bodies no no no one told me we were going to have dead bodies oh so so because it was near a school and because it was Self Storage we were going to run over school children I'm just telling you so so I just couldn't resist throwing that in there we'll just do that in the school zone anyway right but I think it's important that we add in um bicycle path that it needs to be separated um of Separation Yeah by some type of barrier MH or distance right we want a barrier right so our trees is a barrier physical yeah physical barrier like the Ballers or some type of barrier I don't know would you consider trees yes planted at two and a so so my example would be and I don't know why we haven't had our little Coalition meeting lately 434 the future it's a it's a six foot landscape separation with trees in it there's no other physical barrier but a tree is a pretty healthy physical barrier if it's a mature tree yes you build wall even read trees run what's that even a medium Tre is not R have you done this I'm not going to talk yeah I I definitely think um for those higher speeds and I'll just say you know I'm sure some of you guys have seen going to um Winter Springs down 4:34 you have a wide Road and you have a bike lane people drive in the bike lane all the time all the time they just wander over and then on the way back Wander over so to me I'm h you ride on the sidewalk you're saying I will never ride in the road maybe a separated bike lane but never in the never in the road so anyway I I really think if you're going to have a bicycle path that has to have some sort of physical Separation on higher speed roads I'm just saying a tree is good physical separation absolutely complete stre okay so there's a consensus to have a barrier between the way in the bike path if the barrier includes trees I'll say yes if it doesn't I'll say is it can include trees bushes or shrubs yes okay now the the police department won't like the shrubs if it's a continuous row because that violates Community uh it requires through environmental design seped sorry it requires more width right so if there's width yeah oh and then they'll grow into each other so you can have a concrete little MH barrier right just to guide a little yeah wall build a wall quit channeling ex council member henin down there actually Steve henkins answered everything build the wall stop with the walls trees was The Pedestrian facilities yeah concrete barriers going along with drainage okay so pedestrians for um two if you go up to two there okay go down to one sidewalks okay you were there okay so we added here it says unless the consultant added unless further regulated by article um 4 or section 11.2 sidewalks shall be at least um it was 5T it's gone to 6 feet and WI um sidewalks shall be a minimum of what four 7 feet from the edge of the roadway so be particular edge of roadway or edge of pavement travel Lane that's two different things yeah especially if you have a bike lane mhm now and there so I think you mean edge of travel Lane pavement right um we can check and see but I believe um Gloria added I'm sorry our public works department added that language question is is the bike lane even if it's separated contined no this is sidewalks no no no I know but considered part of the roadway because if it is and that's another s ft so and this goes back to which article was the zoning article with all the stuff in it about okay so four has problems this has problems so just to tell you like look at a lot of the New Roads that are DOT roads look at Broadway near the high school now the sidewalk is physically at the edge of the curb there's no room at all so I don't know how this is even possible so I don't know what Gloria meant but I don't know how this is even reasonably possible so the other thing that we need to consider is that if we want to move from 5 to 6 um as sidewalk I I I think five is kind of old news and six makes sense but I'm I'm worried about the S feet from the edge is not practically possible they to do a depiction of what this would look like so I I guess Alexis you can ask Gloria what does she mean cuz I don't I don't know is everybody good with the changing five to six feet soing bigger I think six would be better so consensus on that you guys are going to get back to us on that 7 feet go ahead consensus so there is consensus for six but not for seven did you highlight the six feet ldcc consensus for six feet and then we have to ask more questions about the 7t ldcc okay so then 11.2 did you all have any other questions on this section I'm going to go to 11.2 let's go to 11.2 um we had a lot of questions about um the language because a lot of this did not make sense so we're asking the consultant to explain um you'll see the comments on the side so you'll see some of the comments um our public works department says that the the one that talks about dead ends um doesn't make sense um so we're trying to get some more um ex um explanations on this section an 11.2 I don't know if you all had a chance to read through it but we're we're still asking the Consultants more questions about this because the the numbers the dimensions do not add up um if we're working to um improved connectivity would you recommend not allowing dead end streets unless there are limitations such as wetlands and water bodies I mean we're trying to promote connectivity that's all I keep hearing yes so we do but for instance so now we have and and I agree with you I I'm not a cool the sack fan at all but um um we have a subdivision coming at Lake jessip um so there are two you know reasonably large lots and they are coming for 13 Lots um with a kulak that's the only way to be to because we also want densification right and this will be an infill project so it's not um a large subdivision that and they cannot provide but I think it goes back to that remember we were having that connect that conversation about Connections where if it's absolutely not feasible then then it is what it is but but I think we should pretty much push towards no dead end streets unless there is a physical barrier to prevent you from connecting to somewhere else or well the physical barrier in the sense is development there's already development around right so it's not a water body it's not just add and another thing that we discussed um it was been a while ago that if it's only a one way in one way out that the street should be private and not that's the other thing yeah yeah so um that that's my thought on that I don't know if anyone had other discussion and if you you would need consensus we% but I think one of the only meetings we've seen it for years I've seen you go design stuff that has connect connect connect and then the next thing is get rid of get rid of get rid of cuz there was everybody was up in arms about to connect the connect the connect they want the connect and one of the only meetings when we had uh oo at the park where it's like put the dots on and it was like do not allow any connections anywhere at all you do anything but no connections don't open connections don't allow but I'll tell you I I prefer to have the connection that that the person said Community said right now we don't want to connect but the connection is there right sanctuary and other stuff you know should be a connection to sanctuary and it was they came up in arms going no and it becomes a board issue that goes well okay we're not going to connect so but if we were to put it in there uhhuh so put what in there connection con no no dead end streets unless it is physically impossible to do it such as info development so we already requireed to two access points to larger sub so if you have more than 25 units um or a multif family we require have cacs in there so this would also be the place even though you have two things you could still have dection like we talked about chelonian there was there was no practical way without wiping out a wetland and making everyone in that little subdivision next to windy Pine mad to put an actual physical Road connection well they're discussing the CUO sack so Chelan doesn't have a cuer sack you have more than because it sort of does but it a loop so you're saying it's not a there are kind of termin the subdivision is a c theck in a way right the whole thing and that's why we we would like to have the two connections so we all I'm saying is the connection was not vehicular well it says limited to where Wetlands water bodies and then Teresa brought up or development is already there so you yeah cannot literally Force do anything but a yeah cultis so just the distinction again because I think we're talking about streets is the connection there was non-vehicular the section of the code she's talking about doesn't today save vehicular no so the thought process was find another mode of connection and it was the 10-ft trail and so it is as she said so to speak a oneway in one way out physical subdivision for cars cuz there was no real option but there's a connection cuz it could be done and that's something we also want so we want actually we want people to we want to stimulate people to have other modes of transportation right yeah that your your situation is a little unique because you still have two access points onto State Road 434 but when you only have one access um on a roadway if it doesn't connect anything else it should yeah you have three yeah with the non vehicular well but they count as one right because it's the same right do you all want to put in in this section that if it's only a one way in one way out that it has to remain has to be dedicated to the has we private well I think items you know I brought up the dead end streets where you know that there should not be any unless you physically cannot get it in I think we we can add something that say Co the sacks or that end roads are discouraged right so I think that's something that or prohibited or well discouraged because we would allow if the conditions if you can demonstrate or if the applicant demonstrate that there's no other way right prohibited unless like up there unless you're saying unless it's physically impossible I think they kind of sort of have that and we kind of we can put we put it there yeah we can put better language can you can you put the language can you type in there so you're not asking about the private thing now you're asking about no not not yet I wanted to finish it de end okay go ahead you you have to do that anyway well the the code can't overrule the fire code this code can't overrule the fire code so there's no choice so is there a consensus on that great and then your other question was the consensus is to add what now prohibited or discouraged okay because right now it's prohibited it's not allowed in the downtown core or downtown transition future land use designations dead ends are not outside of those areas um it's limited in certain conditions so in those outside areas is where we want to say it's prohibited as well okay unless those conditions are um applicable correct so add did you get that uh and then the other question was if it's one way in one way out so if it's a cold sack so you have that situation it's the city is not going to accept as a public road so I think that's a huge mistake do you want me to tell you why just so you [Applause] understand everyone worries about affordable housing and a lot of components go into can you afford your house and one of the big component is going to be the HOA fees un now Don are your streets private okay so Don's association fees have to cover the maintenance of those areas so you now have all these folks that already live in Ovito that have years of a 3% cap and a homestead exemption with publicly maintained roads and now you tell these folks in the infill projects where the housing is more expensive ensive where they won't have the benefit of all that to then have it piled on them that I'm sorry you built this to public standards but because it's a CAC although it wasn't your fault you now have this huge association fee I think it's it's it's saying we're going to punish the new people uh and I I think it's wrong it's just my my view of that well we don't want the cool the sacks to begin with that's I know but if they have no choice they have no choice and and and the other thing is that um most of the time those subdivisions we have um um narrower rows they will have the 4 if they choose the private route that's their choice that is another in is another so so to Teresa's point and I've heard these complaints the subdivision on Pine Avenue we had a pinch point and it's a very narrow road so Bobby Wyatt who who she works for said I'm going to allow this but I don't want this road public I don't want it so there was no choice the developer had to do it that way the association fees from the beginning were high now people are facing the music they're in there going oh my God look at what my total bill is right so there was no choice there and people knew but to impose it on them if they're meeting the physical standards of the road because they just couldn't do anything but a culde act I think it's but to highly damaging to affordability and and punishing these people with this infill versus existing residents who are getting their roads maintained by the public right now I we had a um study we had a group called Urban 3 who came out and most of you may remember Urban 3 they came out and they looked at um how much it cost for the city to maintain roadways especially roadways that don't connect to anything and it became very expensive we realized that it was very expensive to maintain roadways that are that don't connect to anything um and and that's a cold assac and so we at that point decided that a lot of us decided that what we're going to now do is if there is a culdesac road that leads to Nowhere it should be private it should be privately maintained because it's a private road it is a private road and for the city to maintain I wasn't actually for D Point going was kind like I understand it and I kind of but the real big one and I live there was live o reserve and go tell me how live Reserve shouldn't all be then everything from the gates in they shouldn't be paying those thousand homes shouldn't be taken care of every bit of roadway that exists in there and I remember at the I was one of the first homeowners in there and the whole thing is you can't gate it we want those homes we want that we will not gate it it's too many homes blah blah blah at the time was the argument from counseling people but you look at that and that and it's all CU aacs completely one C the saac after another and again by uh was they're the furthest away from City resources so they should pay the biggest culdesac tax of anybody on Earth and things like that so it's like so there's something to Dave's Point um that I go along with I live in a private I'm going to it's a non we don't have a gate up town home private roads you know there's no gate so it is open to the public whoever you know wants to park in there whatever so if there's overflow for some events we'll get people parking in there um but I you know I I don't know that it should be forced upon and especially because I'm thinking the same thing going well most developed is is infill so you're going to get you know two two roads in kind of thing or these five eight homes on a strip 78 10 homes and you're saying well it's going to have to be a private road that that little 78 home what's the ones off of a division up by the library those little Shady Oak Shady o those little like those two or three that are up there now are they private or are they Public Road Sho Clan is private those are private you know and I think they wanted to be but I again if they didn't want to be if they wanted to make it you know just go ahead you don't want to impose that on the people I think the argument for the affordability and I I I I like the argument but I think subsidies should be you know targeted to so we can have a way to say age that if if it's affordable then yeah we can have a a pass just to restate it and and kind of like Stephen said it so today oito is what it is okay yes Urban 3 came in yes the presentation made sense and yes people that live in large subdivisions are getting the public to reconstruct their roads on a regular basis and they're not paying sufficient taxes to pay for that and he likes ragna liveo because he doesn't live there anymore that is cra was built grappy we've all seen the infastructure and there's things that have broken there's pipes that have broken there's roads that are screwed up there's trees ripping up sidewalks it's it's a nightmare for for the public works department right everything's breaking in there so here's this big subdivision of what is it 900 homes or something and it doesn't connect the sanctuary is how many homes like 900 another 900 homes Rivers side is 500 or 700 homes so you have people that have their Road built by the developer and now the public replaces it on a regular basis hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of homes so it adds up to thousands these are the people who also have all the tax exemptions and we're now saying we figured out that was a mistake but you can't go back and tell those people they got to pay so you take this new guy in this little project where we really can't fix very much because there's not much left and you're saying yeah we don't want you no veto unless you pay your own way and we we get a free ride and it just sticks in my craw as inequitable to to the few new residents we're going to get in well let's try to find a way to to get the old folks to contribute you can't there's no way impose on them this cost we can do other stuff but I think it's it's you cannot continue you cannot continue to make the same mistake right no thousand lot subdivision coming any well we don't know we still have pool Pawn area to to develop we still we can have um it's not going to be detached single family we're going to point either prevails or does not I've made it so the question on the table and I'm not sure if you want to do this as a vote or consensus um is whether or not new Dead End Street subdivisions made up of dead end Street say one way in one way out which one is it that end that end or called the sack streets right only one entr I think you said one entrance right one one entrance so subdivisions or development with one entrance be private you're saying the request homes to it correct that would be if you're saying subdivisions that would mean it would have a minimum number of HS well the the code requires for larger subdivisions to have two access points right more than for single family as well I don't I think it's multif family Town hom right Town Home multi family family yeah it's not there we have we need to put there is Town Home multi I mean reality Town Home multi family really so this is does not affect multif family they don't have roads they have parking lots well so why I mean well multif family apartment right but if it's condo facing the road whatever it may be have but it's not it's not a street streets how about staff develop what what you're asking for and then bring it back just a little section I think we can decide now right still a little unclear on the ask what exactly the ask is if if the street doesn't connect to anything if it's a dead end street that street automatically becomes private that is that has been the the push we can answer them right okay is there any discussion or questions on that all right right so um is there a consensus to make that private not from me no no no all right no consensus so so not private correct okay so you don't have to that's okay go to the LPA they'll disagree with us right it may happen or Council right council is the approving Authority so Council they were they they were actually now the funny feedback from them was wow you guys were pretty active in that meeting and I kind of went active we were like calm in that meeting that was like the most calm meeting we've ever had they were like oh my go no you guys were very active in that the joint meeting The Joint meeting in that meeting there were only two there were only two or [Applause] three our meetings are never like that I'm like that was this the Cal meeting sorry I'm out okay so the next we're going to go to parking unless anyone else had comments on streets and sidewalks CU we have the consultant has to do a lot of explaining in in um streets and sidewalks I thought Lucy who is who explains isn't it Lucy that explains things I don't know who Lucy is she know that he knows what I'm talking about brown brown from Luc arz and Desi that's sorry sorry it's not from her time no she's too young for that kind of I had to watch that with my parents so yeah not for my time either okay so let's go to parking Article 13 okay so we're going to look at some of the comments here in Article 13 um we had a discussion on parking and it was a while ago and um we did not want the board did not want to eliminate parking minimums so we're going to talk about some of that um the first comment that we have is Dave Axel's comment the old one that nobody else bought into so you don't have to go over it again don't go into it I said I want to get rid of them and everyone said no so we don't have to discuss it again okay they'll all say the same thing yep sa time okay LPA also had a chance to review um parking so their comments are also in here um so let's go to the next one this one is the number of spaces on page four so we've made some deletions to it it says number of spaces all developments in um in all zoning districts shall provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate so we did some deletions in in this article then if you go to the table we added in Multiplex because that's a new use so it was not accounted for in from the consultant we also added the live work unit into the table the consultant will have to add add in um the standards for it we also um under accessory dwelling unit the consultant put one space where it says proposed vehicle parking only which is the last column says one space per unit and and then they added outside the downtown mixed zoning districts we struck out outside the downtown mixus zoning districts because it we felt as staff that it should have one space um per unit um regardless of where it's located and then there's comments on the side um did we I can't see some of those comments okay so we did decide against parking maximums did we decide against parking maximum that was a question for the um target areas or at least the downtown core so these numbers here are those parking minimums or are those parking maximums minimums these are parking minimums so the question is do we want minimums or maximums do we want maximums which would that change this table or would these be the parking maximums or is that a discussion we we we we can do both we can add another column and say this these are the maximums um and these are the minimums or we can just so you'll see the current vehicle parking column the second column is the current the third is the proposed and what's in that colum yeah we we haven't gotten there but I I'm sorry I can't the table was very that's bicycle it's not added to the table we added it to the table because they didn't have the bicycle no it's not filled yet it's the bicycle parking so we wanted them to include bicycle parking into the table but you'll see the difference and that's a good question Nicole the current vehicle parking you'll see for single family is um three spaces per dwelling unit plus one space per room rented out the proposed it's reduced it's to two spaces per dwelling unit then you'll see mobile home the current is three spaces per dwelling unit plus one room rented out the proposed is one space per dwelling unit then you have two family which is the duplex today is three spaces um plus one space per room rent out build a single family place how do you know what they they're not putting it in the proposed okay yeah like but it's not a propos no you don't know yeah and then you'll see multif family is at 1.65 today plus 0.25 um spaces per unit or for guas and then the proposed is 1.5 spaces per unit plus point we add who added the 025 we added it in2 so let let me ask about that so so two projects recently and I don't know the exactness of which number was in each but Ellington and Alfa Trail both were somewhere around 1.4 1.5 is what the the consultant suggested which I thought was high 1.75 is a pretty big number when the direction the industry is taking is the opposite and it also says somewhere later in this section that the downtown core is one which is very different so I I just don't know what we're trying to do here why why when the consultant said5 another 0.25 is quite a bit so why well well point five is to um take care of the Gest right yeah but but they suggested 1.5 total so we were 1.9 combined they they suggested 1.5 combined 1.75 is quite a big jump is that for town homes or for that's multi family so Harris can you check what was the elington and the and the they they were now I think one of those projects had a kind of larger number of one bedrooms or something so that might have been part of it but we have no distinction here on on bedroom count so I'm just saying 175 is an awful lot bigger than 14 which both of those projects were kind of allowed because I think the dwell was 1.65 that was and at that time it was a reduction to what we had in the code right but both of those were very recent and around 14 I think I don't live in the Ellington but from my understanding of a person who does who lives I mean who works for staff the parking lot is crowded it is packed and it's hard to find a parking space there and especially when school is in session it's really hard to find a parking space so um if it's less than what we currently have today if the Ellington is less we'll take a look at it to see but we want to make sure we plan for um the people who live there and a lot of times it's rented out those units are rent the rooms are rented out so do you know and and possibly some of this is the UCF influence let's call it if you have students with multiple cars that's in and of itself a problem and it's kind of like everyone's carrying the burden of more free parking because of that situation so sometimes and and this is just conjecture sometimes if you allow lower these students are going to learn that's not a good place to live I mean I don't know how else to put it we can't tell them they can or can't live there because they're students I mean but we're talking about 1 point5 1.65 1.75 and then we're talking about an additional student so all I'll say is those seem like small numbers but they're very very very big costs and I I haven't gotten to the question yet because somewhere else the consultant drafted in the downtown again no distinction on number of bedrooms it was one and that's further down in this I don't know if you changed it or made notes on it but it's not in the chart it's in a separate section which was kind of strange another thing that we look at is whether or not we have mass transit in the city that can accommodate people who um prefer not to drive if there's another alternative way for them to get around we don't have that here yet um hopefully one day we will get there um when you're looking at reducing the number of parking spaces the minimum number of parking spaces you look to see if there's an alternative mode of transportation and today we don't have it I was telling about you know we're looking at all this but realistically five years from now wayo Tesla will have you're going to just have driverless cars all over the place and just you you'll be recording bring me a car here pick it up go and they're going to be less hopefully but people we need to have less cars first of all I know there's a bunch of Tesla people already to buy the cars with every as aspiration of they're going to put it back into the program um someone here is very close to Tesla lives in in OVO and put it right back into the program and they're already in that stage of it's coming within five years there will be just they're going to have cars going everywhere and and you'll have that the the mass transportation will be lots of driverless cars all over rather than a big bus that drives around cars as a service right not as an ownership you know instead of you needing two cars per family so to speak I'm waiting for that I like I said very shortly it's that if you look online China has a little kids are going up and punching in numbers on the door and being taken to school all over the place so this is where you out less as good probably in the future and we'll probably have when we don't need as much parking space then we'll have at least a somewhat Transit help here out no rather than trying to rely on a real nass Transit solution um I'm I don't know if anyone else wants to talk but I'm comfortable with the 165 or the5 um with the um the 0.25 for guest because if it's already if it's currently an issue with the 1.65 I definitely don't want to go down further than the um the 1.5 but they're at 14 is what I'm saying there's no guess that's the total they're at 14 total yeah so the developments that you're talking about the Ellington and Alfia Trail are mixed use developments for residential and the mixed use component is rather small the mixed use component by itself uh when they did the calculations in there is 1.4 but that's in a in an arrangement where you have commercial parking provided as well and so there's a share parking analysis that goes into that and so the idea when you're doing share parking between residential and commercial for those that are uninitiated obviously some of the developers do know is that commercial they operate at different times and the parking demand is at a different peak time where than the residential so typically you have your parking that happens overnight for residential and then your commercial parking is reliable during the day which sometimes a problem when you have an ice cream shop or a restaurant and it makes you they do have a little crossover so it depends on what your tenant is Absol 14 wasn't the total the 14 was the residential rate the commercial rate was different so when I looked at it so just so everyone understands why I harp on this stuff quite a bit parking that is presumably free is not free it's very very very expensive deconstructing it once you construct it takes many many years from when you might first build because you you want to get your return on investment on what's brand new so I I would think to Steven's Point waiting for mass transit there are other things coming you can do Transportation demand management you can decouple parking and charge for it there's a gazillion things you can do to reduce demand and we're driving up the cost of things by forcing there to be fields of parking that also do something else that's presumably bad which is create a lot of impervious area that creates a lot of storm water so I'm just saying and I know I argued get rid of the minimums completely and it it failed so I'd like to push these numbers down and I think the benefit of pushing them down outweighs the inconvenience factor that that may occur because to to Steven's Point if you don't have to own a very expensive vehicle and maintain it because you can pick up a phone with an app and get a vehicle that shows up in in a few minutes you're going to do it and that I know but we still have a huge flee I don't know when that happen happens I I'll be welcoming that change right um the only thing is that and then we'll have to adjust the code when that becomes a reality but until then how do we do the bridge this Gap right we do not have it right now we do not have the transit um there is a safety concern on not having enough parking because people get you know so so that is that's where we are how how do we deal with this Gap right so we are okay reducing how much that is the so going back to multif family again there's this distinction of the downtown but but I think the downtown and correct me if I'm wrong Deborah in those mixed use districts you're doing a developers agreement because you have to anyway right is is that a fact in in the so in the m in the mixed use districts the mechanism of approval is a developers agreement if it's a true future land use designation mixed use District yes okay so the downtown the the downtown core is a mixed use they don't have to do a da it's not required it's only required for future land use designations um there's one that's called mixed use District so not the downtowne downtown for and maybe it's changing for chelonian because it was in the mixed use sharing infrastructure because you're sharing infrastructure and because you did mix juice well any any development that shares infrastructure does a DA has to do with da so so my only Point commercial there is a way like I'm doing now for the water tower district if somebody's doing true mixed use and sharing infrastructure they're going to come negotiate this anyway mhm okay so that's kind of a a way to reduce which I'm in the middle of with these guys right now I just don't want to leave everyone else with this big hammer over their head for Endless fields of parking that I think are if parking is free always people will want it and use it if you start making it more difficult to kind of CounterPoint what Deborah is saying mass transit without subsidies makes no sense because it doesn't financially work cuz it's too easy to park you won't get people interested in using alternative modes until you make it inconvenient to park gee I'm going to find another way to get there because it's inconvenient so I'm done with making that point either I try to reduce these and it works or it doesn't but that's kind of why I'm I'm looking toward this future because what gets built now may be there for 25 or 30 or 40 years and so we got to be careful that we don't force fields of pavement for no reason that's it is there more discussion on this table do you want to scroll down and keep going well I need to know if you all want to put a maximum parking space so changing proposed to a maximum that those are maximums well well no she's saying in addition add additional column cuz we have the minimum this is minimum right I don't think we should touch that okay no just they want to do more they can do more in the past we had that you know for the Suburban have more than required a little bit more not fundamentally like a whole large going if there was enough space to put another building they wouldn't have more there'd be another building Chuck down so I kind of go like I I don't think anybody would really go they'd want to drop another building or I'm going to say like the out Parcels that are out there at Alfa and we're uh that have all asked for hey we have all this parking can we convert it to more boom it'll convert later on the idea was to provide penalties if they were to provide more parking space than needed does anyone have any other thoughts providing maximums okay what did the LPA decide on that the LPA also had consensus to not have parking maximum okay okay good so we're not done with the table right well we're not doing parking maximums yes you only got down to multif family in the table well yeah should be another LPA consens okay what is it well I'm just saying make it a total and we've not really gotten into that I I made my point they said Ellington has an issue so the Ellington has 1.4 so with no with no visiting parking that was how they had the commercial also that could you be used for but the um standard for the multif family was 1.4 so Dave is correct what was the other one um Trail which has a DA also which now you're calling something different right let me check here okay and so you have oh go ahead so uh one more consensus the LPA came to um they only wanted the proposed parking standards to apply to the target areas they had consensus to keep the current um parking requirements for the standard traditional zoning districts so how do we do we we want to keep with the proposed all across I I so we haven't discussed what the proposed are but I don't think that makes sense because single family mobile home and two family is almost invariably impossible to do in the target target areas so I I don't see that makes any sense so why don't you finish going over the and then we'll um come to consensus of what we want to follow okay so um we put in the point 25 for guest parking spaces for multif family Adult Family Care home um that's a reduction it went from three spaces for every five beds to 0. five spaces per bed almost res are we going to go over these one at a time so we talk about numbers or what what do you what do you what's the chair trying to do here I'm trying to get to the end of the table but I guess we should go as I'm ready to move on unless someone else has questions about the table no we don't we we so everybody can can read the table is there so I'll open it up to are there concerns or discussion on any of the numbers in the table so I've said I think multif family should be a a total now one of the issues with guest parking and I've seen this done different ways do you just provide more or do you just provide more that's separate from where the units are now multif family it's pretty they're all the same town homes not so much and I've dealt with it both ways so not everybody has a guest at the same time so having guest parking in their driveway doesn't always make sense right and I don't know if you guys make make the distinction so should guest parking if there isn't a separate amount for Town Homes be not at the unit but is that up to the developer because I've seen well that's what that's what I'm saying is if you have this project that has let's say 100 town homes and you have 25 guest parking spots that that would be the math right the 0.25 so if you put them all if everyone has a a two-car garage with with two parking spots then it meet the criteria but if somebody has an event what are you going to do go park on these other people's private spaces where's the town home CU there's a difference I think between the town home town home single family it's it's under multilex town home single family so all I'm saying is if there's guest for Town Homes it should be considered by this group if they should be physically separate or it doesn't really work right right cuz I mean in my mind would be thinking you know seen one where the guest parking is actually outside the Gate of one of them well that's a weird situation that is a weird but you know you have on street parking that could you would that count if you so so in chonan and this was a developer choice you were right the attempt was made to do as much guest parking not at the units as possible cu the thought process was yes one unit may have one guest but Ty what happens is a couple people have a few people over and you can't go park in your neighbor's driveway you know it's private property so the guest parking if it's on each unit doesn't really fulfill the objective is what I'm saying neighor which is more but not all come over they Park in the streets out like mine can't the streets there's street they're not most of them now are most of now are building thin thinner streets no parking on the streets what yeah so I'm just saying in town home projects some amount of the guest parking maybe not all of it some amount of the guest parking would make sense to be separate from the units yeah from from an actual operational perspective that's the way it works maybe not all of it maybe half of it multi family David if I may we we've been requiring it at least for my tenure we've been requiring the guest parking to be in a communal area and so whether North Lake Town Homes it was in it's in a communal area in chalone it's on Street um what but they're real parking spots right but the real parking spaces that are accessible so we don't count the you know Extra Spaces that are in the driveway don't count if that's what you're doing say it because right now someone may think or they I have for Town Homes what's the number so I have three so therefore I'm good and there's no on street parking I'm just saying that would be a mistake and if if you don't say it someone can come in and argue your Co doesn't say that multif family it's a field of parking I'm saying just have a number don't have two separate numbers and so for the um development here at Central next to Bone fire that hasn't been built yet but it's the da says 1.4 plus 0.25 for um Vis ala that's ala so it's 1.65 so it's 165 toal so we're here 175 I think we okay reducing right um it's already reduced for MTI family are you talking about M no no no they they proposed the consultant 15 so maybe this is 1.4 plus points it's I think it's too much at 175 is what I'm saying it's reduced from the current already yeah that's just my opinion I think it's too much still so the one we have so we have two recent ones 1.4 for Ellington that apparently creates issues yeah that's what we hear and 1.65 with with the visiting that is the one for so it's not built yet I'm saying my opinion everyone else has to decide if they agree I think 175 is a little too much just me personally so what are you proposing 1.65 1.5 especially if there is on street parking because that provides a lot of parking right there so there is no street so we counting that there is no on street parking multif family for multif family if there is no street parking then this is this is needed yeah typically we give credit for on street park and when it's adjacent to the use so for instance Allington cannot have on street parking um already counted everything they could and um and the Ala for instance also at Central you cannot have 25 is what you're saying yeah yes mhm so street parking we need this definitely M I agree yeah you can use on Spring Street Parking to mitigate it basically say as long as it as long as it even for us in the town homes that's we've got boardwalk and Lindsay Lane it you know people park there it's a huge medication for us that helps out so we could go as low as 1.65 5 cuz we already so it would 1.4 plus 025 but they're saying don't go lower do 1.5 that keep the way that it's listed yeah keeping it the way it is that's written there okay okay there's consensus for that may it's a reduction okay so um there's consensus sorry even with you're not there's consensus that's all right keep it the way it is the 1.52 out that's why I left so I wouldn't obset me so it's happened it's done are there any other um concerns over the proposed have consens uh we haven't gotten into the non-residential so I don't know what it says so all good with the residential are there any more comments on the residential yes so it says one per unit it's highlighted there you go are you happy with that it may and it may be that like it's you've got a driver that has the ability to have four you know you have two two in the garage two outside two more then that one of those spes is now have enough space to take care of yeah if you demonstrate that you have space in the lot to accommodate that's why you to build another does not need to be garage just a parking [Music] space again in the city it's hard to imagine that you know we may have seniors that live that are family members that would not have a car but if you have if you're young if you have a couple whatever it out renting out we have to assume that you have a car and if we want to want to stimulate adus um we do not have we don't have the want to have the roads you know over parked right with this Adu cars okay so page nine well let's talk about the non-residential I was going to skip over that one but let's talk about the non-residential um you'll see the current and then the proposed um Dave did you have questions about the non-residential I thought you said you had questions about it uh no I just didn't know what it said and since since no one in to agree with my further reductions I won't recommend any and since Tera stepped out uh you know the question if there is any can be called by Sam and we can be done I'm not going to belabor this what a guy what ay are you sure going once going twice if I have no impact it's time to be quiet pick okay so right what was the comment that we had on that last you mean the original LPA yes LPA have right they have this one back up here about the traditional zoning districts versus the uh uh hang on here it is it's okay let's go down we're going to go to page nine now okay shared parking for mixed use development go go back to restaurant it's my only they increased the square footage by 100 for the ratio half number yeah half the number of spots okay so just so everyone understands and this may not apply except in mixed use districts where you want to try to have flexibility of uses if somebody's got a retail space at a certain amount of parking and someone comes along and wants to put in a restaurant they're not going to be able to is that really what we want to do you know so so I'm just saying where's the retail so the retail is one for 250 and this is one for 200 and I'm just making the point I'm not suggesting anything retail is also one for 200 I thought it was one for 250 no I was going to saying sometimes that's like one person going to do shopping so it's multiple okay so if retail and restaurant is the same yeah I still but 5 per thousand so what so they didn't change at all retail retail stays the same all right whatever I'll solve my problem that because I thought a lot of discussion was like you know P all these big parking lots with acres and Acres of parking spaces why don't we what's the kind of discussion of keeping at the same retail so I think and maybe it's not here so a lot of localities presume if you have a shopping center and it's a certain size that there's a mix of those internal uses so you shouldn't like make these distinctions and cause potential problems let them rent to whoever to do whatever but I don't know that we have a category for shopping center over a certain size yeah and is that retail are those Standalone or it doesn't matter is it m well we don't make so so a shopping center can include restaurants and all that can so so my point is a shopping center if we make it over a certain size we could probably lower that to 1 for 250 and it will work fine so so maybe that size you know you wouldn't call where wild Forks going a shopping center what is that n or 10,000 is that 18,000 sare ft what is that where the right outside on out cross M Banker what that's two buildings right side by side that are do yall know what's we know what size that is don't about 14,000 which we talking so so maybe the threshold is 25,000 50,000 the brand new building I'm okay it's stone wood St Stonewood Stonewood yeah Stone whatever it's 20 it's 20,000 fet okay so maybe we a shopping center of greater than 50,000 sare ft can be 1 for 250 no matter what the internal uses are because that's fun Al makes sense you know is someone going to fill it up with 100% restaurants probably not so in if ret restaurant now are the same right but I think what I'm saying is if you have a shopping center you have a natural mix of uses and a lot of localities reduce two things the external trip generation because you got the internal mix let's go to the grocery store and go here let's go to these two or three places I'm just suggesting a shopping center are over a certain size whatever these guys say maybe it's 50,000 Square ft or something can have a lower number which is one for 250 that's all I'm suggested because a love a bigger mix and a different just it's a bigger mix it's more space you're you're talking like Al Square uh the Sprout shopping center right right basically some of these revelop so as these things come in and maybe further redevelop I think it makes sense because you with these shopping centers you see a sea of parking and it's not always used so I'm saying so I'm just throwing a number out there because most new little retail plazas are not going to hit 50,000 Square ft so this will facilitate maybe shopping center Redevelopment so one I'm saying shopping center another category shopping center over 50,000 one for 250 that's that's my suggestion and I would submit that like my wife does she shops uh most what do you call remote or whatever ship Shoppers like those trips and those folks taking up parking spots or it's not happening as much as it used to I would argue so you're going to have that underutilization of that parking area like we've seen in in a veto a lot more of that like a river we just say like right here at elephant you know it's still not you never look at there and and again we all remember when those two out Parcels when they you know put those two new buildings in there they weren't there it was just War parking that was just sitting there then they came back in and said can we like swap the you know Bri's like yeah you can you know work this out and they added two new you know another probably 20,000 between those two buildings of you know retail space and it's not like you look in there and go damn that place is just jam-packed all the time the thing is jam-packed is Planet Fitness you know you go there Planet Fitness is probably taking up the most barking out of everything in there um and and Froggers at times but that's where you get the you know but you look at all the other little outling areas there's a lot of parking that's really underutilized around the fringes so so does everyone so I'm saying some number of whatever you can figure out add a column shopping center over 50,000 is one per 250 that's all I'm suggesting it should it be square just a question because I don't know the answer should it be square footage or the number of out parles no square footage square footage everything else is square footage I think this makes a lot since the large shopping centers should have less parking you can take a look at many of them I go by often there's a lot of empty spaces they're not used and this is a modest reduction frankly the keys just the other shopping center cuz cuz when I try SM ldcc yeah I'm going and then you'll have to put less than 50,000 on the but if it's interesting because if you get that trade that Joe's in Winter Park right it was a shopping center there and then you have a grocery but I think there twists the you know skew the right but you understand what I'm saying so so Winter Springs one a little too far the Town Center has a a ratio of three and they kind of apply everywhere and there's an office Park which is three people keep selling they buy the building they can't park they sell the building it's like this endless cycle it's not so you know yeah three per thousand kind of kills you okay y we put ltcc consensus on that okay anything else on the table uh one last little thing and we ran into this in seminal County when they updated their code so they considered self storage to be the same as warehousing and it creates this absurd amount of parking I don't know that you have a category personal storage for personal storage the top right it okay what okay I'm sorry one per employee with two and so you know there's some number of you know a a a spot for every hundred storage units or something so I would say you're actually kind of low actually very low you're you're I think you're low so and I would have to go look at what the metric was that we ended up with so I had a negotiated one and the one I did and they kind of used it on a bunch of others and I could get it to you guys but this is not enough I think we did like 100,000 sare ft and we have 11 or 12 this would say we've got three right I think the one we approved in that I Mansion I think had seven yeah this is not enough so would that be it's a question in terms of the mini is that where all the parking is on the outside or in front because I've had storage where you have the office and you have like three or four parking spots right but then when you go in I mean you don't need a parking cuz you're literally driving up to the door loading on well those buildings are are kind of internal right so you have the loading and loading area but they are the one that she's talking about the outside I I would say this is not sufficient the one we had do from what I experienced and there was a bunch of studies and analyses that I saw that seal County used and and I can come back and tell them what it was but I I think what do you say seven what's what size was that thing like 80 or 90,000 Square ft um let me get I I mean I have no problem going up one or you know a couple more parking spaces or whatever but I guess my question is for the loading and unloading areas those don't count as parking right no you're pulling up to your door and filling up your car no right so it's really just going and signing your paperwork paying and leaving getting some boxes whatever you're going to do yeah but I would just tell you a place with with several hundred storage units that's 100,000 square ft three parking spots won't cut it m I don't know what the right number is but it's not enough back and that's very strange for me to say can you highlight person I feel like three is just for employees and the manager LCC so uh yeah you've got the manager the kid running around do all [Music] SP somebody I a couple more yeah so um direction to staff to just go back and take a look at that again so if you I'll email you tomorrow what we ended up with in those agreements which they kind of do now for all the other ones okay that'll be perfect all right any other ones is there anything you wanted us particular um can you go back up to schools sure going to see that do you regulate that or is that priv school district or are those private schools the Trey vocational schools no this one here that one which one they can't regulate public schools so is that private schools like montauri or something like that Charter or Charter they are they are private schools like Charter Schools yes the school board don't ask we we can they we do courtesy reviews on the which they ignore right they can ignore like their new parking lot at Lawton where they did weird stuff right yeah so those are for charter schools and private schools okay are there any more comments on the table if there's a use that you see or interested in but it looks like that's the end of the table okay so now we're going to move on to 13.2 which is going to be the shared parking for mixed use development uh we have some comments on it this is for um an alternative shared parking calculation for mix fuse developments um so we have comments um please provide for kimley horn please provide the maximum distance standards add exception to maximum distance standards with extra Provisions such as valet parking um we we also have a comment from Dave Axel to eliminate the calculation by providing a fixed reduction as noted above so in mixed use developments may also be proposed when it is asserted that the different uses may not require the necessity of exclusive use of their parking space and may share their parking spaces distributed over different hours of the day when any land or building is used for two or more categories of uses the minimum total number number of required parking spaces shall be determined by the following procedures and then it has how to um determine it you categorize the uses according to nine categories um and then you you um add together minimum Park required parking for each individual use category using ratios it's a lot of stuff here and then you subtract and then you create so whenever you're ready for my comment make it all right go ahead da are you ready yes so go down to the table keep going all right so all of this is arbitrary guesswork every last little bit of it okay not every office use is going to have the same time of day percentages not every restaurant is going to be open for lunch and not dinner and if we're trying to have mixed use areas the single most important thing is to make them economically viable to allow uses to change just like the shopping center so my point was get rid of the math get rid of the table and figure out what qualifies his mixed use and the city just had its first public hearing for the mobility fee and for target areas uh decided by right there was a 25% reduction of what did Jonathan Paul call it because of community capture yes even though it's called internal capture in the report he said let's really call it Community capture if it's done on a on a district so this if someone does this math and changes any one single use they're recalculating the whole thing all over again it's kind of psychotic so if you have some qualification of what does it mean to be a mixed use area I'd say do the same exact thing that was done for trip generation reduction uh because a community capture you're going to go to several places and not need separate distinct parking so some qualification get rid of the table and do 25% by right and be done just be done what that criteria is I don't exactly know three distinct uses four distinct uses I don't I don't know but this is what I would say Antiquated nonsense that may have been used in AO in the park but anywhere else it was it was used Ino the park but you understand what I'm saying someone wants to change the use of a unit they got to redo the math all over again and it's all pretend math based on averages or things you know that might not be true that's just my suggestion this and Deborah sounded like she enjoys doing this math so much too right no so I'd say scrap it don't make people use it you're in a mixed use district and you're doing a mixed use project and like I said have a mix of at least three uses plus whatever and you get 25% by right and you're done end of story thoughts discussion come on people okay so the city is adopting 2045 Mobility plan and there was an analysis done of several mixed use areas in various places and it was suggested that a valid by right reduction that the city council can choose to adopt with criteria or a geographic area would be 25% so some mixed use projects had a 40% reduction some had a whatever reduction so his study suggested that you can reasonably apply as the city council by policy that you can choose an area where it's 25% reduction of trip Generation by right which means Mobility fees are that much lower which would seem to suggest if there's fewer trips and fewer cars there's fewer need for parking so they to two weeks ago was it the council meeting yeah okay at the council meeting two weeks ago it was there was one person absent four to one four to zero all four of them said we're going to do by right in the downtown core and the downtown transition 25% reduction trip generation based on what Jonathan Paul described as Community capture you have this area that's mixed use you have this reduction by right okay period if that's the policy then this is kind of crazy math you should do the same thing I'm saying now the qualification I'm suggesting is that you're doing an actual project that's actually mixed use their I guess choice at the council level was the downtown core will be mixed use and kind of is because that's Ovito on the park and the new water tower district mostly downtown transition I think there was some discussion from Jonathan Paul and the staff it's not quite exactly really mixed use yet but that was the council policy decision I'm saying if you do a real mixed use project you get the same 25% that's in that presumably going to be adopted September 16th policy so you're suggesting we analyze if you have three uses we analyze the three uses we add separately no and applying allow me to finish I'm sorry I'm sorry you add the three you know categories and then you apply 25% discount on the on the on the requirement for parking if you have three that's my thought if you have three distinct uses your mixed use and you get a 25% reduction from the previous table so get if I have a restaurant an office and residential I will this is what I would require for each one I give 25% to match the the mobility the reduction right and I'm I'm just to whatever is in the table another guard rail of it's not by right so so the distinction between trip generation in an area and and parking is the road serves everybody if somebody so what we can do is that for the downtown we give 25% discount right right but but I'm just saying maybe in the transition area I get that it's it's going to be more challenging for people to create actual mixed use self-parked projects and you can't go steal your neighbor parking so I'm saying I didn't say anything about the city council adding downtown transition I don't know that it'll work as well so I'm suggesting downtown core maybe what you said downtown core is 25% by right downtown transition you got to have a mix of uses because a lot of people won't and we're still talking about parking right park so we it's just to translate the 25% discount for Mobility into parking because they are related right so if you have less trips right you should has less so so personally I would feel more comfortable if this was accompanied by a park analysis because there's a possibility that you got three uses and those three uses don't really actually the point Harris I get it is if this is the parking analysis it's complete utter nonsense well yeah I I I agree with you that in my humble opinion I think that instead of this table parking analysis will be more appropriate because there's specifics about a particular project that aren't going to be reflected so you're saying and let me phrase this away we can adopt it so somebody can submit a parking analysis using generally accepted standards in the industry that the city can approve I'm trying to I I get that I'm trying to say if the city C Council Direction was at least the downtown Corp gets 25% trip reduction for Community capture by right it stands to reason the same thing applies in that actual mixed use District we know will be mixed use which is the core so let's forget about transition right now for the core I think it should be by right if the council decided it works for trip generation it should work for parking yeah I think I think where I differ in that conversation is you talking about trip generation that's generating a fee and that trip generation is going to fluctuate over time and and and there's no real tie other than trying to connect a rational Nexus between trip generation and the fee what we're talking about is a little bit different in the sense that we're talking about specific projects with specific Dynamics which generate parking and and so that's it's just a little bit more of a macro micro conversation as opposed to at least in my viewpoint so haris are you saying that your recommendation from staff would be removing the table and just replacing it with a parking analysis based upon the potential uses that are within going to be within that mixed use table that for the downtown right this table is not just for the downtown right so this is for any mix use development so it does not have to be within a certain District it could be um anywhere in the city so for cases where it's um in the downtown core or downtown transition that can be different but and I hear Harris is saying as well to all other areas of the city this table applies throughout the city today um and I think right now it's just for the Mixed use developments um the numbers have changed and we don't understand why the numbers change we have no idea why it changed from what it was before that's already existing in the table but it is different the numb find out why so we need to find out why the numbers changed what's the reason for it because it needs to make sense to us do we want to apply um what you're proposing throughout to all the mixed use so I wasn't really suggesting that because I was just suggesting really I felt that the reduction of Fe personally made sense in the core and not necessarily the transition area he the transition area most of the time it with a few exceptions has single uses with their own parking on site a downtown district where you're going to be walkable you're going to park and walk potentially was was the thought process so if there's less trips there's less parking I think to Harris's Point outside and and maybe I was looking at this a little narrowly outside the downtown core I think if you have the table you have the table but give people another mechanism because my concern is making someone with shifting uses in a mixed use project redo the analysis every single time is very expensive very time consuming time consuming for you guys and when you're doing math based on guesses precision and guess work is silly and this is like this precise analysis based on make belief they arbitrarily changed you I know let so let us figure out why they changed it before before we decide to remove it and I think there's always and I hear what you're saying but I do think there's always a chance for people to provide a study and I understand you don't want people to have to do studies every time but let us figure out why the the table changed um first let me ask a question this might be a dumb question so I have a mixed use project I have businesses coming in and out they change from retail to Com restaurant or vice versa but the parking's already there so what is the purpose of redoing a study because you can't necessarily add parking space the use is the change is allowed or not allowed and you're constraining it because you know you can't add parking you don't need more parking you do need more parking so I'm just saying that that kind of constrains one of the benefits of mixed use is flexibility and my concern is that excessive analysis of things that are guesswork artificially constraining I think what Harris is saying and I don't want to put words in his mouth is I need some sort of guardrail so we don't get in trouble right that that's your view precisely and to be quite honest with you I think the parking analysis provides a little bit more flexibility within the conversation too that they're able to profer that methodology and then we're able to validate that that methodology is sound so I don't know what their math is Kim Le horn themselves has the magic math which what you call it Park Plus or whatever they call it they advertise it we have the same consultant I'm like can't you go talk to those other people in that other office that do this other stuff because I don't know where it's like they they make pretend it's magic math so you can pay them I I don't know so what is this magic man so if there's no other discussions I guess where we are right now is you guys want to go back but this table to figure out why certain things changed and then bring it back okay yes and so we don't need to discuss this any further no great okay so we're going to go to 13.3 which is parking space dimensions that section was deleted um and then we're going to go to parking space size at the on the next one page 11 so this is where the fun begins standard parking space size subject to subsection C below each parking space shall contain a rectangular area at least 18 was 18.5 ft long and 9 ft wide continuous curving and or wheel stops must be used at the end of the parking space um and then vehicle overhang and then demarcation compact spaces today um can be there or deleted deleted it's deleted okay yes sorry um standard parking space used to be 10x 20 no it was 10 yeah it used to be 10 x 20 it's gone down to um 9 by 18 um so I know we want to have this I see smiles and laughing going on so I know we want to discuss that first we need we need um the the clay Archie Memorial larger space project right right truck big truck spaces let's do a minimum number of big truck spaces for poor guys oversized and and you know Bob Pollock is leaving Council and he was the one that always argued and lost at Council for the bigger Parking Spot and The Wider Lane and and he's given up and he's resigning and not running again he's he's done he's done cuz they would never give him his parking spaces so now to today we have compact spaces which is um 9 by8 and only 25% of your parking spaces can be um compact today well the propos is to have compact spaces at 8 by 16 feet long and with the minimum with a maximum of 25% that can be compact SPAC never allowed in the future ofo right he's got that little Vault you can you can get a ride the clay would your car not feed a 9 by8 uh I do not not very well I actually usually would like try to if there's like a sidewalk out here I would try to back into the spot and that I'm hanging out into the sidewalk quite a bit to be able to tuck it in yeah do you park in in park pardon in park do you manage to park I I go I go to Marlo Tavern and and places and it's it's tight I'm looking I look for spots that will work wait what of vehicle do you have just F250 F250 it's not even a or anything like that it's not a d it's not a d it's not a long bed it's standard 250 which I can look up the dimensions the trailer hch yes so so to be fair to these folks I don't know the magic number but maybe you know for every 50 spaces there should be at least one that's 10 by 20 or something I I I don't know the old style so it's complicated the widths you can change easily right the length is where kind of masses with the well not necessarily so they've got um so there's some space is um unless you have a configuration that is at um Lockwood against the building they added there's parking spots of different depths right there it's not that hard to do so you might affect your buffer a little bit here and there it's not that hard Don had a had a comment yeah I'm the one that triggered this last I beat the horse to death and I don't want to try and kill him again um problem that plays I don't know how you realistically consults realistically think that you can fit a pickup truck that size or a large SUV like mine into what's now a parking place for a Conta so I'm trying to help you by saying there will be some people who have larger vehicles and we shouldn't call them second class citizens what's the right amount so if for every 50 spots you have one I don't know if that's the right amount I don't know if there's some like but but but it's more than zero do you understand so and then enforce it because of the fact that comp cars it's easy to make people do it it's it's but it's but it's more than so today what's being proposed is someone could build a project without without accommodating you so I'm saying at least give them these guys with lger vehicles a chance give them a chance no but but it's going to change so most projects that have developers agreements already are 9 by8 oeno in the Park's been 9 by1 18 since the agreement in 2004 I think so that's been kind of the direction everyone's going for forever and I'm hearing you guys and and you should have seen Bob crying at city council every time and no one cared I'm looking at the dimensions of for at 250 and that's what B uh well he's got a Dodge but he's got a basically right right so so don what I'm saying is I think this is a and I'm hearing you guys and saying so the bottom tier is just over 19 ft and I actually and you had another little bit well just as a comparison because I drive my wife's Toyota Sienna around which is a fairly large van but the that one's 17 ft at at its length so it yeah these these larger trucks they they're not able to fit into the 9 by8 so can you instead of the number and I know about putting a number on there so compact you put a percentage 25 so could we do like 10% or you know oversiz or 25% oversiz and then 50% standard it's to be like problem we have today with I was going to say that for the for this people ramps [Music] so that's what I'm going say so it's going to be an enforce so if you have a percentage I bet that you arrive there you're going to have chinka chanto you know the fat comfortably in the oversized space back and nobody park in the back by no and then I have an answer to that and it may not work so right now if you have a compact space you have to mark it as Compact and you write compact only so if we're going to say we have oversized you might not call them oversized but let's call it oversized vehicle space so just Market oversized only truck large Vehicles only you want me to try to help you or not or open and use so the LPA they were okay with the standard parking size of 9 by8 but they um wanted to get rid of the compact spaces they didn't want anything that small um so they removed the compact spaces for them 25% well that's up to they can do up to 25 spaces I would lower that number but that's really tight in a parking lot 8 by 16 so I kind of agree with the LPA and that's so rare that that unless were they meaning that for like um mo motorcycle and golf cart no or they just meaning those are for those small little compact spaces are for smaller cars like you're to Toyota Matrix Fiats there's there's a variety of car out there and plentiful variety of car that's out there that 25% a high number make it like 10% make it like 10% and I think it's okay and then make 10% over dek so we can create size well that's another problem is they do 20ft Drive vs and you can't pull your car in or out which is why he has to back up and I have an F-150 well it's dead in my garage now but when it worked I I backed up all the time and it's not as large as your and that's the number one selling vehicle in america50 20 years and you and you can't pull straight in where there's 20 foot Drive aisles in a parking lot that's got 9 by to your point Mr shank I think it's going to take more than five years for the Teslas to come in just saying oh no they'll have you're going to have another car but so do young people don't I know people's behavior may be flawed but we have in front of us something where we can change say at least X number or x% of the spots should be for oversized vehicles and be 10 x 20 is that good or bad in theory it's good if I had any faith would be enfor well but but to me doing it gives you a better doing it gives you a better chance of actually finding say to 10% require and then uh get get it down to like 10% maximum of of the compact yeah so so do you want do you want me to make my suggestion now so um go go where where it says 9 by8 oversized Dimensions we're talking um 10 x 20 10 by 20 at least at least 10% is I think what I'm hearing right yeah so we cut compact down to no more than 10% oversiz is is optional up to [Music] right number one sell car in the country fast said 40 years really F150 is number selling car we can debate the number there's a lot of lot of rural parts of America you're talking about but minimum 10% here lulot inary so so I'm all for smaller spots but but I I think I hear these guys and with an F-150 I have trouble and you know you're you're kind of telling people well with my my uh Weiss van it's you know a little something to the manage but you know you just got to be a little more careful and if also other people who don't park properly it causes you problems so that's part of the issue people make motion it can be debated so my motion is a minimum of 10% of the parking spaces shall be 10x 20 and marked as oversized vehicle spaces no no more than 10% can be Compact and should be marked as compact spaces and then the rest of them are are non by now do we have later on Parallel you've got different map right yeah I think this meets his requirements we reduce the compact spaces and every one should be had so you all are okay with the 9 by8 as compact no uh yes I mean as standard I'm sorry 9 by 18 is standard the compact which we we didn't change the size we changed the percentage percentage just 10% ma 10% instead of 25 for Compact and then 10% to oversize the old the old stand 10% oversiz requir 10% compact maximum okay go down to the language uhuh so there's over Siz spaces it says a minimum of 10% of the required um parking shall be oversized spaces with a minimum I was a minimum so I think both of those part of what I was saying they should be marked as such so a compact space should say Compact and oversiz space should say oversiz and shall be marked so so Alexis is smiling I know why as such painting I guess as well it it's fine but it's on private property right that would be private property parking for the most part yeah they don't have to maintain it they won't have to that's if provided so the compact spaces are not always provided so it's not required but we are requiring the oversized spaces and these are a suggestion I mean you it was for you you don't like it parking in the wrong spot so these are suggestions so no the required the oversiz is going to be required they're going to have to have right but I can park my little car we're not going to enforce or motorcycle or skate a skateboard I can put it well so I was trying to do something to remedy that which seems to have generalized support that's all so we have two different Trends here right because Mr shank said well in the in five in a small period of time that's going to be a service it's going to be but then but then you need Uber parking so if it cut you know you cut down on the it's drop off and pick up right it's more than parking parking and waiting so I don't think look thek l and it's like all the the delivery services have their own parking spots that's why I I don't think that that's going to be you know a huge problem but um so don is suggesting so we're going to lower compact space suggest lowering compact spases but you want to go up to like 20 for oversiz but again do you have problem in no the park to park it's that is already 9 by8 trth only well but it's 9 by 18 over there I think we were done with my motion so we'll keep it at 10 oh was it motion or de consensus motion consensus no just consensus it's fine then you're fine you're good all right next okay so then parallel and angle Park criteria we wanted we want kimley horn to add some criteria to that because we know it's going to happen so there isn't anything 13.4 um there's a under a what was a backing onto public streets um discouraged so they prohibited we took it back to being discouraged and so the question is is should we um with this preclude preclude angled on street parking along public roadways such as oito in the park and then also should we discourage or prohibit perpendicular parking so I think in in Urban Design that prohibition made no sense now there was a Prohibition I thought this is kind of funny because for a period of time and I don't know if it still exists it was disturbing to some previous council members that people would back into spaces in oo in the park and it was prohibited well if you can't back out and you can't back in you can't do anything right right so that makes no earthly sense so so do we really want to even have that section at all how does that you're going to encourage on street parking not all of it will be backend parking how do you discourage using it it doesn't I don't understand well you want to discourage new uh parking that's uh backing into the travel Lane because it's a safety issue partic particularly The Proposal about perpendicular parking is there's a visibility issue when you're trying to back out it well as long as you have cars Boulevard is filled with angled parking that straight pull in and they back out right so yeah I don't understand well well you know be illegal it's just discouraged from happening in the future so new development if it were to propose it would be discouraged not prohibited but perpendicular we're proposing that be prohibited um the ideal circumstances on is is parallel parking on the street uh for the most case so so this I think has to do with speed also so a lower speed Road it's not that big a deal what's the speed limit on OVO Boulevard it's pretty low people drive pretty slow 30 30 I I don't know that there's some problem with the on Street angled parking where they're backing into the street on oo bullet I I park there almost every day I have no problem yeah I agree I thought I thought angled parking was supposed to be one of the safest on street parking so I'm not sure why we would want to say you can't have that cuz you're backing out so it's easier than parallel parking that's for sure so so one of the other issues is if we're trying to increase the amount of on street parking forcing it to be parallel decreases the amount of possible on street parking that's what I'm just going to say and it holds up traffic all these cars you have no idea what to do and I think it it traffic probably slows down less with parking coming in and out then parallel parking so so I would make a makeing recommendation like you said take out the whole backing onto public streets I I just don't see that that for what about perpendicular parking though which one is that that's this not angled parking this about backing into parking no this is backing onto streets so if you're parking you're going to back out onto the street so the only thing to do backing into the angle parking like oh I is backing outour illegal well it shouldn't be because the Connector Road design has back in angle par no no I know that one but like on in the park you can't you're not like turn around back well that's why I'm saying is is how does that make sense so so someone like like clay who's who's disappeared on us he says he he backs in all the time right because it's easier to get out mhm so you know telling people I I agree with you I would strike that besides this is traffic control which is different issue and this is Land Development I think that section doesn't belong here I agree you asked a question about perpendicular parking right would you have that on a street we've had would you want to have that on a street we we don't want to have that on a street we've had we have it in another scenario and we're we're creating parallel parking in that situation yeah and it's there's serious visibility issues when you have that occur I would say priority would be angled parking second would be parallel and that's it me in my recommendation so is that properly a public works engineering standards manual issue or or Land Development code issue are you just trying to tell people you're putting in this new road we don't want you to have perpendicular parking was in the Land Development Hood to begin with okay yeah yeah this is not new so so Harris is suggesting we prohibit straight in perpendicular parking on public roads right is that what you're suggesting I'm good with that I'm fine to that comment is that what you're going to do is change alter that recommend that's our recommendation is change back backing it onto public streets and change that whole paragraph to to prohibit prohibit perpendicular parking and and remove the backing onto public streets section you're got to replace it with the perpendicular so so C we should change to say except for cl vehicle which can stick out into the the other areas right since he's not here with a on back from perpendicular parking spots okay so next is 13.5 this is parking in Target area areas and then in a it says parking in all target areas and it gives the districts no parking shall be permitted between the principal building and the street or within the required front yard or Street side yard setbacks except that West Mitchell hammock Corridor may be allowed to have one row of parking in the front of the building and we added that language because we felt that West Mitchell hammock um Corridor is a different style development than the rest of the um targeted areas so we wanted to allow one row of parking in the front of the building two rows of parking yes but said one you me you said one you wrote it to so LDC uh LPA was okay with allowing two rows oh okay in the front our initial comment was to allow one so we changed it with the LPA so that two rows of parking would be kind of what's there already one in front of the building and then maybe one on other side of the yeah because you have the drive aisle in the middle you'd have one row and facing the road and then the drive AIS and then another row of parking in between the building and the row uh like like thisp area you you have you have one row here and one row here so we wanted to see the two rows okay we're good okay and then um we stract through accessory dwelling units do not require parking because in the other table um we required it at least one parking space per accessory dwelling unit um we also wanted to make sure that these the the numbers that they have in this section is placed in the table um and then Dave Axel had a comment this section um to provide for rewarding and or encouraging at least for downtown MDU District shared parking unbundling and off-site parking not associated with any uses so that's my October of last year comment okay and we don't we kind of covered it in the last section it was just a question there's a table up above and it says a certain thing and you get to hear and it says a different thing and I didn't know if that was purposeful or why it wouldn't be in the table or how how that wants to be structured so I don't know if you guys had comments to this number five but it struck me as a huge variation from everything else and I just want to make sure you guys did that on purpose so in number five we told them to delete it um and make sure it's consistent with the table above okay I like the lower number but I I noticed that there was something flawed here so I just so I'll I'll debate that another time another way okay okay and that is it for that one page 13 so did they meant one parking space for residential for multif family too what is is residential unit single family presid if you go to the table above go to the table this table or oh wait way up at the beginning 111 not 1131 so it was different than the single family here so we wanted them to do the same thing for single family single family because says it's residential use so is it multif family you're right it could be multif family I think that's what they meant because you really don't have single family in a Target area anyway but you have in other areas right notg down so um so yeah that that need we tell them to delete it okay I'll just strike through it so you're going to come back for our further discussion on the parking reductions and the table and all that stuff anyway right the the shared stuff okay so we're going to have to come back at our next meeting which is going to be September 10th because we're trying to wrap this up we're trying to give them all of these articles so they can go ahead and get started with um and they have they started rewriting the code okay so next is going to be on page [Music] 15 and this is going to be the distance to parking B so one of the things that we um talk about in here is the satellite parking and satellite parking is is um doesn't necessarily have to be adjacent to the building um so they put in some distances here and you'll see that City Y which is outside of the targeted areas um the satellite parking they originally put we originally had in our existing code 400 ft they took it to 1,320 Ft of a public entrance um of a principal building we decided 700 ft was was better um because when we looked at the distances we used the parking the city's parking lot and we measured um 700 ft we measure 1300 ft so if you'll can you go to the city's parking lot to any building using um the sidewalks cuz this is how far they would have to walk from um the parking lot to a building and and when you say 700 ft that's walking not bird no not as the crow flies or any of that and that's from the so so you're not going to do it along a roadway travel or it's distance right it's distance pedest correct it's not pedestrian rout well that gets a little convoluted well I mean just pick a radius I would say so go it gets a little silly otherwise for them it's not connected then you're walking this how people well in this case it's the road right it's the sidewalk along the road so it gives you 700 ft where you would you would you would reach the just past the community or the no the cult just past the cultural center so that's 700 people  about walking that far so yeah so then if you go to 1320 which is what they originally proposed so you're going from the entrance it should be from the edge of the lot it all comes down to how you measure sure does so you're measuring from a vehicular entrance but we're talking about well pedri usually do not usually would go to the entrance too right no unless there is a too many events there they're going to find a way to walk straight out oh either way it's just again you also could do that walking from there to the to the how how long is a block a typical block 600 right go to 13 typical Urban block 600 it depends on where you are yeah typical Urban and go 6 800 even New York City right you have the it's like that they the streets are design well it's that where do we acquire every break what's a break okay right there so that's 1320 from the parking lot to can you zoom and again not that you cannot this is Factory you get Tom Mar in your food factory yeah this is to be able to use to coun as satellite parking right not that you cannot park there and go anywhere but to count a satellite parking we are saying we are kind of putting a limited to the what is a reasonable distance so if it's in a targeted area we're okay because it should be walkable but if it's outside of the targeted area it's not always walkable right because we're not these areas are like stor for outside the target area so your so outside the targeted area our proposal is 700 ft inside no more than 700t inside it's what so inside of targeted area 1320 I'm good with that yeah good that's fine so that's a quarter mile that's pretty reasonable mhm got it okay so now I think people should walk further but like Sten says they won't if it's about walking Lally walk to if you go to Planet Fitness you have to park right in front B that they had to go park over there and walk the event but but Sam walks pretty far every day so Sam is a monster I've seen him walk he he's walking is it half a mile I should say though you walk in front of my house every night so when I go to walk I am prepared to walk but when you're going to a meeting or a conference you don't want to walk that distance especially if it's hot you get sweat and hot and just not good Sam you walk you walk at 6 o00 at night when it'ss you put consensus on both of those but he goes home and takes a shower after okay so the next one is 13.9 which is the loading and unloading areas um we wanted um loading and unloading areas required we wanted Kim Horn to separate loading areas by um um dimensions and by uses um because some uses require certain sizes and some you don't need to have um designated loading areas but we wanted to have the flexibility so we wanted it by uses and by um Dimensions size and then um under B must meet need um we wanted to know if this section of looting docks and zones contrast with um the section below so that is and I think this came from Dave Axel right yep there's a comment here it says I believe you intended to State 22999 gross leasable area or more not or less that being said the downtown mix use should be exempt in the same manner as the present LDC provided in the new downtown district Village core area the 55 foot depth is Extreme not all uses need more than the typical panel trucks which fit in standard spaces and staff agrees with that okay so is ldcc okay with that okay just can't dump out did you Starbucks instances like it's currently you get the trucks loading yeah but the garbage truck is in the truck and both them in there the same time and they back up on the micro bur and make a mess right okay and then we have on on the next page which is the loading docks and zones we have some suggestions from staff about other codes um about minimum requirements for loading docks and zones and they come from um M loading docks or loading spaces um loading docks and zones the sizes but a dock is a physically elevated thing is that what you're really trying to talk about which is typically a warehouse thing I think it's going to be both so commercial and office uses usually don't have loading docks I'm just saying your terminology might be wrong they loadings yeah but it says do and zones so I I think commercial and office uses typically maybe a shopping maybe a grocery store will have a loading dock but most other places will not Harris is picking up Mr microphone it's my option I guess the zone is covering the space yeah you think it hurts to have docks when you have both there not really I guess so that was our question one of our questions was should this be zones or is this just for dock like a grocery store or industrial zones so that was a question as well so we we're going to ask kimley horn that question and they'll probably ask us because it's already in our existing code they'll probably ask us our opinion on it so we'll give them our opinion you have those um GR grocery stores we do we have opinions as well we have grocery stores we have industrial zones and we have opinions I I'm in okay you have a I just check okay so the next one is going to be um the table there's a 13.3 [Music] table and these are the number of um stack the stacking for drive-thru um schools we added as needed restaurants with drive-thru we added seven um then we have a question should the restaurant with drive-thru or any other drive-thru be required to have a mandatory stacking study performed or should we leave the minimum amount of spaces to seven to be required by the city engineer under certain circumstances stud what' you say sta stud that's expensive for a lot of people so so pick pick on who's the best the worst person make Chick-fil-A have twice as many as everyone else Starbucks uh Chick-fil-A uh you know there's a couple that I could say ITC so do we want to have a mandatory stacking what current none right yeah I don't I don't think we have any any existing code do you know Harris what start check about would be I don't think these guys have it in their code at all is what I'm saying would proba be that stack from the so stacking stacking is from the window right stacking is me from the window before you get outside of the lane yeah one two three four it was that seven I think it's seven it's at least seven it's probably seven in Starbucks right now until it goes out on the road what's that yeah oh yeah the reality is yeah at least are you the eighth person or the 12th person problem is besides besides the five that are parked in the parking that are walking in yeah depends when you get there do we have a minimum number of St um so why don't you just walk through the we we have today six for restaurants it's six don't yeah one of the comments in there is that to look at having a study an or analysis that the E signs off on for stacking for restaurants in particular because restaurants they you know Starbucks Chick-fil-A they all have kind of a model about how many people that they're expecting and the stack the availability that they need to provide other units and I got it and and and P and putting that in the code is a little prescriptive for what they're doing and what their model is Chick-fil-A will know they will bring more dou but they need less stacking on Sunday because they're not open they're going to open they going to change that so we're good on this one we're good I think so all right there's consensus on it right what we agree with your opinion okay to leave it at s or require okay s so so we all I think okay we can't tell schools what to do so as needed with approval from city so we so actually this this is an increase to the current code the drive-through Lane should accommodate Don's vehicle so for restaurants today the the rec so for restaurants today the recomend amended is six with a minimum three spaces okay behind the order station mhm so this is now the minimum to be seven what are you talking about so you said it's six currently within three additional what spaces no it's recommended six per service Lane minimum three spaces behind order station which is could be included in seven included in the six yeah does this seven include all of that or are you saying the same thing seven plus a minimum of three behind behind the service Lane the service well all the St need to clarify service I I thought we had agreed on asking kimley horn about the e sign often analysis for the restaurants as opposed to having a prescriptive amount in the code yes which which is the comment that we had so so unless they already have something adopted you're saying by the company itself then does a default to what you have is that what I'm hearing no I what they're saying is they do a study they do yeah exactly so like Chick-fil-A will have 5,000 restaurants and they know what they need and they can prove it to you and they can give you a study right so they must meet the minimum today whatever the minimum is if they want to provide more they can so for a study for based on a study yes no they don't need a study to do more that's if they whatever however they want to do with right but they don't need a study to do more they need a study to do less yes so the question is should we remove the seven and allow um the company to do a study and provide whatever they think or should we just have a minimum and if they want to do more they can do more they want to do less they do a study I agree with that because I mean you might have some mom and pop just want do yeah it yep give them something that they can do without having to spend the money to do a study okay well my my personal and humble opinion is that they should have to do a study because each situation is different and there is a liability issue that happens with the stacking and so when the stacking spills out goes into a travel Lane it causes safety liability and in this in in these situations if you put the E on the line to sign off on what's what what they're approving then you're going to get a better product at the end of the day and prescribe tell what an e is engineer of record thank you I sorry I live in alphabet soup sometimes so that's that's the rationale behind that thought process and proposal so I I think what I'm hearing is although there's a lot of regional and National chains that can go do this study let's not create this burden for someone doing a oneoff drive-thru local person so having the minimum for the people not doing the study kind of gives small businesses a shot where a study can get expensive that was that was my thinking but then I get from your thinking is if Starbucks maybe had done a study they wouldn't be in the roadway so maybe it goes back to your um comment Deborah that if they want more or less than what's there they need to do a study well maybe not more maybe it isn't going back to that comment less if they want less less they want less seven sometimes not sufficient but again are you saying not sufficient but at least it's more than that it's more than it's now required and it gives the the the small companies a chance without paying 10 15 20 grand it goes back to is it more than cuz you said Teresa that it was 6 + three so that's nine so should this number be n it's just recommended so the the list here is recommended stacking uh for restaurants is six vehicles per service Lane minimum three spaces behind order station see the there could be stacking past the order station part of I I it's kind of I'm trying to so is it n or I'm going to say it's it's six it's six but with a minimum of three that's how I'm reading it so um but I the thing is that I think those the Chick Filet and and those are big chains they come with with the model that works for them right well I mean Starbucks clearly didn't and Chick-fil-A didn't and had to do their [Music] dble up and put their covers no they no the only thing that they did is to bring the the the cover they they already I worked in another environment where Chick-fil-A came with a model that didn't work but we're we're looking at a couple of restaurants we have a whole bunch of drive-through restaurants we have Wendy's Burger King C you have all us eats a Burger King here well you know you are on camera right well look at the parking lot there's no one ever there he has been kind of loose with the comments today hasn't he no one's ever there well but to that point Deborah and in today's Point earlier there's not really any mom Pops that are doing drive-thru uses that and so anyway that's kind of just give brisk a chance they'll start a drivethru I don't think I just don't think it's that big of an issue with the number of drive-throughs that we have it's not an issue we can we can ask um I think Seven's good and if they want less they would have to prove it it's and if they want more they can provide more okay so then unless Harris says otherwise let's write that in there no I would I would like to see them have it do it but I'm like all right next one okay so 13.10 electric vehicles this section is going to change based on the new statute um that came out that says we can't require EVS um it can be mitigation so a lot of this is going to change so I don't think the statute actually really says that I think it says you can't regulate them as a utility read it carefully I don't think it says you can't require them I think it says you can't charging session so so right but I I think the way I read it and I would go read it again because I read it a few times it appears to suggest that you can't tell them how to run it as as a utility so it's not a utility I don't think it tells you you can't require them to have them at all it says the state right but it's in the it's in the section on on utility regulation so I I I I think you can require them I would look at it again so so I I've read it a few times because I thought it would be silly for them to say you can't require them to have a station I think they were say I mean a charging station I think what they're really saying is you can't regulate it as a utility the state does that so it wasn't in the planning it wasn't in it was in the whole utility section of of the statute so I'm like I don't think it's so we'll leave this alone until you guys come back with another I usually Hammer you guys with the state stuff so I'm like saying the opposite now we'll confirm because we we let um Dave the hall confirmed for us if we can or not it's poorly it's poorly written like yeah okay so parking garage design um we felt that this section um should be moved to the architecture section so um that's the only comment we had on this wanted that it should be moved to the architecture section um sighting under [Music] d a lot of this was putting it in the appropriate location so they have landscape um in this section under D sighting we felt that it should be moved to the landscape section structure design should be moved to architectural um section and then under 13.12 bicycle parking so you're going to move that but are we ever going to talk about what it says absolutely you have comments on it we can talk about it no no no did we already do landscape or is it later we already did it so I think I mentioned it before but most structured parking is going to be in an urban area and the landscape requirement is complete nonsense in my opinion that so you want buildings up against the street you want them designed nicely but now you want them 10 ft back and remember in the tree section they were trying to put canopy trees next to parking garages I think this whole thing is is kind of silly if if you're going to control what it looks like Let It Be where it should be allowed to be so if we're going to debate that later so be it if not I'd say Strike It Strike the um the landscape setbacks instead of moving it why why are we doing it that's under deciding I know that one of the things at the beginning we were talking about making this um easier for developers to look at so if you are going to keep landscaping or my suggestion would be keep it here because I feel like the Landscaping section is much more for commercial like that kind of development versus parking garages are so different that if you have one statement as per the Landscaping I would just keep it here so they don't have to go somewhere else to find the the regulation but that would be my Rip but I'm saying I'm not the one looking at it right I'm saying the the landscape buffer requirement is contrary to Urban Design control what it looks like if you're concerned about what it looks like if it's running a road don't make them move it back it's still going to look the same and you just lost 10 ft of usable area for no apparent good reason and you've also you're trying in an urban form area to have a continuous wall along the street as best you can and now you're saying move it back 10 feet it's kind of like silly it I I think it doesn't make sense my opinion because it still has to follow all the other architectural Etc anyway right it does well for the architecture we removed you know the requirement of landscape because they had the requirement of landscape next to buildings um so our position was and and that was I think what um the consensus was is that they can always provide if they want to have landscape but we are not going to require cuz then would that apply to so that may be the same situation here here and 10 ft is a lot the only things that usually um parking garages are not very appealing structures right they don't have vibrancy so landscape is a good way to disguise what is behind right and more blank walls or openings I think we look back you got back the architectural standards yeah the architectural standards don't what we want right I agree you know if you want to have a nice facade that looks from whether it's late alike or you know uh down by the school you know in Winter Park that whatever so that does structure look like a cement parking garage and we have to look at that versus hoping well they'll put enough stuff in front of it and and even 10 ft probably wouldn't provide enough except for the first floor and if it's not kept up it's going to look like crap anyway be like I'm going to say AR you go downtown there's a bunch of parking garages and some of them you kind of go like oh yeah they have some stuff around it but it's not very well maintained yeah so we we can this can be one of the elements right that they can use not because if it's a requirement if it's not there it's a deviation it's because it's a requirement should be taken out I agree I agree I agree everybody that I would put that here I would somehow put it in this where it says structural design maybe put it in put it in there versus an architectural section of the code keep it all together would be my recomendation same thing like in architect you know we look for all the architectural sections parking GES can we have a five minute break so that staff can minutes can yes how much more do we have we [Music] have if you're okay not having the break I can show whatever I did for the first discussion take a take a break no because I don't need a break but whoever needs a break here oh my God hours I need coffee are these are these people crazy they're all talking about who's sitting at what table do I get spy on when I get that of justify that makes no sense traff all to I 500 Alex we know [Music] almost having to be I'm moving now my car shows you got the heads up so that I have to you know even break at so easy to get more than comfortable you don't see people crossing right oh yeah it's not me that likes to go fast it's my car I know I know it's so easy my kid and he was spring cops Busters look at you Inver my kids none of them have cars got a car but the only time they drive it is on weekends and they go I've got a good friend this is almost 30 years ago lives in Washington DC you know that area got a cond there I a my phone char it's Subway no you're doing a good Jil and that's something you smile more than the rest of you get my humor better yeah probably my just [Music] can't they not so you all my friends you know and in the beginning they did not believe it would be something that they a lot of my friends of got you know their driv can spend for six months whatever again because they Friday night Saturday they know where to stop so sometimes I'm like I don't know the it was so funny nothing Rel to the right from so restaurants now not you get I'm not to that I think so I read a bunch of times I mean my conclusion was when they complain they the more we can the better it's my goodness I'm feeling off where is all right we'll go ahead and get going so we can finish did she stop did she stop um and I think right we just checking if might ASA stopped the video taping or the the recording or not yeah she just walk that way you know why she's going to get in the drive-through Lane at the Starbucks let's go Mar did you did you stop the recording did you stop the recording now so we can move okay so we're good to go all right okay so 132 by good 13.12 bicycle parking there it was some a lot of confusion going on with this one they have two types of parking one short-term bicycle parking and then long-term bicycle parking um what staff wants is one type of bicycle parking shortterm um is for people who uses the facilities for um less than 2 hours and then the long term it's for like overnight and you're getting rid of that the difference is yes we're want one standard okay put LC it's called walk yeah how we time and who's going to enforce that and exactly the same as the parking size people and then table 13.5 you'll see that there's two different standards um for the number of bicycle parking spaces based on longterm and short term so we want one standard did you get into with them the amount because the amounts are pretty extreme I know they're berserk we know okay yeah so we're not going to discuss that today you're going to ask them to explain maybe yes we want them even the short term if the the short term is um I mean that's a huge amount of bicycle parking is it much more than uh today it's a lot I mean multif family I I understand why you would want more in multif family than any other place but it's it's still a huge number yeah so I'm not sure if one number is going to be right but maybe residential is or multif family is one thing but then your other items can go into one piece [Music] mhm yeah so we want them to make one standard one and they can use our existing um bicycle parking ratios they can do that um but we just want one yeah so don't you have now it's like a percentage of required vehicle parking and it's that's it no I think it's a number too yeah we have numbers do you uhhuh and our parking it just seemed to be a huge huge increase and it seemed a little scary if we're fighting over bicycle parking we can always talk about it later problem yes okay so the whole thing with the biycle parking we're going to have them revised okay one number yes okay so now we're going to move on to signs are are we tired or you're trying to get done anyway oh do you have comments on that no I'm saying are we I mean it's approaching 7 o' I mean do we really want to keep doing this how much more time do you think we have we have signs utilities and Recreation and open space Recreation and open space is it's pretty utilities is 13 Pages not my slides he's talking Pages it's pretty short signs is a dooes 29 can we do parks and wreck and then save the other two I think we're kind of getting up here okay okay guys okay so your next meeting is on September 10th we're trying to do as much as we can tonight but I see we're starting to shut down which is fine we spend an hour on the first topic yes so so we can do we can on September go ahead what are you going to say no I'm just apologizing cuz we took an hour on the first item I know and I'm trying to cramp everything so let us do this since it's late um I will not go through signs because that's going to beish we just finished that one we just finished the parking yeah so now we're starting on a new article which is signs uh well it's going to come back next meeting on the 10th cuz signs we haven't touched yet we have not touched signs next I'm bad so let's go ahead and and finish the rest of this on September 10 okay so I'm just showing you over there what we just discussed um yes for private participation 0.1% um threshold none uh cap 50,000 only for public No Cap it's already in the ordinance um and the exclusion just Public Schools I make a motion to adopt thank you and and then there is just um explanation no vote do you mind if I do Recreation three slides promise okay wait wait all all in favor of the art contribution that's on here yes okay good we already adopted it anyway so but just for visual reference great okay for the audience at home so we're doing Recreation and open space uh have 17.1 if you can go to 17.1 General open space they is simple things they struck through under a intent less than 10% of the requirement um um and we're telling them to bring it back because the comp says up to 10% so open space shall refer to any portion of a parcel or area of land or water up to 10% of the requirement which is open and uninstructed from the ground to the sky and that's comp plan language so we're just saying bring it back because they struck through it and then on D open space um they added additional open space so uh for multif family they have 35% non-residential 30% plan unit development 30% with plan unit development was already 30% so we take it down multif family to 25% based on the comp plan non-residential 25% based on the comp plan Planned unit development we the LDC is the only place that requires puds to be 30% open space so since the comp plan does not require 30% they can actually go to 25% so we're taking puds to 25% and then any development in the downtown core and downtown transition we wanted them to include this link this section in the table at 0% which so is downtown transition supposed to be zero that's what the compant says does it really yeah okay I didn't realize that so this is all just to match the comp yes okay good okay last slide so um this is e under types of open space um um types of open space e so under three it says 50% of areas paved with permeable and our original code language said materials um they included pavers shall be considered open space and may account for up to 10% but we wanted them to remove pavers because it just limits that section to pavers and not any other material that could be permeable so we asked them to delete that and put it back so materials goes back in yes okay and that's it EXC materials materials we're going to keep materials materials goes in right thank okay consensus on that and all of that perfect okay perfect thank you thank you all let me just say something we received yesterday um three articles back and it's so this the I asked have been asking it they said it's not completely um reviewed for the cross-sections whatever but I I was getting anxious to I need to see start yeah to start the review it's long it's a long review we committed to take the council you know um uh with the the council that exists today and so the last possible meeting for us to adopt is no November 18th so we are kind of pushing back right and so we are in now so my questions I can send to you all I mean we are going include the section on the mitigation on um on article two and then I can send to you all the only thing we have to be careful now if there is anything that anybody sees as you know um an issue whatever we won't have be able to have rounds and rounds of meetings so let us know if there is you know mistakes or things that were not addressed or still things that are confusing whatever and we'll try to address in the joint SE session that we're going to have in two weeks right so have you you guys haven't had a chance to even read these yet I we haven't so that's so we don't even know if you think they're even done we really want them so how do you want to see wait like a week or so and let let you guys R Okay so yeah I'm just trying to be transparent cuz you know some people have asked me I haven't seen yet I said we haven't seen either well so it it arrived yesterday you know while I was in city council meeting so we haven't had a chance to open yet if you think it's well done enough to transfer over to us for our final review I think that would be appropriate but I don't want to at it until you you all I'll probably we'll have to do the review next week they going um they were um committed to send another three articles until the end of the week and we they are still waiting for these articles to go back so now it's going to be a rolling thing so but I just wanted to share no I'm I'm not busy there's only 28 hours in the I'm not canceling vacations 28 where did you get those days make just don't sleep extra um all right so any discussion items uh discussion of meeting times for future meetings so future meetings will be Tuesday September 10th and Tuesday sep September 24th um and then any comments or announcements from committee members Don no I won't be here on the 10th I won't be here on the 10th either is the 10th another problem are you guys buying compact cars on the no I have to actually present comp plan to another city Sam's got it in a workshop Sam with their board Sam you say so Sam Sam always says if if we don't speak instantly that we concur so we finish okay so um I guess you really need to see if there's going to be a quum for yeah we'll check it for that everybody else has to yes we already made it known Sor do any of us have like multiple personalities and we can be two members only after six after six in the 28 hour day yes okay ni any any discussion comments no no all good all right meeting adjourn thank you everybody thank you guys thank you all right welcome for