than want [Music] I can't hear you I'm sorry are you sorry I think my hearing's going okay you want to wait for him to GNA come later okay so I'm wait for David he's almost here what's that quazi not not obviously not I I met she yeah he doesn't go to Council meetings anymore she does all that you know who the the replacement is yes ye yes but don't call her that she's her own person I just she she acknowledges who her father is but she doesn't like being constantly reminded yeah no she I didn't know she told talk no so so she got married after she started with the city so the last name changed after she started with the city so it was obvious previously now it's not obvious you know so let's just say she and I had a uh conversation about the debate at the last meeting and you'll hear that we're supposedly getting a presentation about this at our next meeting supposedly we shall see he just told me that today knowing I would ask today going uh what going on with this I wanted one of my kids to be adoped in mhm I almost got that what's that I had my I had I wanted one to be a lawyer I succeeded so I there you go I didn't get well they can get a PhD or something else someday right still be a doctor for for for do we want to go through the general stuff first so that way when we get started we'll be here and then we'll good afternoon I'd like to call um the Land Development code committee meeting to order at 239 um for a roll call it seems we have everybody here we have everybody here um please remember to silence your cell phones um um next is approval of the minutes for Tuesday March 26th are there any do I see a motion for approval I make a motion to approve the minutes second I'd like to weigh in on that so the minutes do not reflect that we had a lengthy discussion about dual rational Nexus and that that was supposed to be resolved at a later date I I'd like the minutes to reflect that if they could be changed that's that's up to the motion or and the seconder but I think that needs to be added yes we subject to I agree myquest all right so do you want to amend your motion I amend the motion subject to the request as made do you second yes okay all in favor I any oppose no all right thank you um next up is public comment seeing no public comments we'll close public comment and next item our public meetings meeting items which is the review of article five other uses and structures article 7 non-conforming situations and article 8 architectural design and with that I will hand it off to staff thank you madam chair um so this today we're going to have a discussion on article five seven and a um but before we begin that I know Mr Hall isn't here um he should be on his way pretty shortly at our next meeting um as Mr Axel mentioned um the Dual rational Nexus discussion so at our next meeting we will be having um a discussion on whether or not the new regulations that um our consultant as well as the staff um are proposing if it results in a regulatory taking or development exaction so we have asked um Mr Hall he's he's making it now he is right behind us we have asked both of our assistant City attorneys um Julie Ross as well as David Hall to have that discussion with this board um and we'll probably take up the first half of our meeting um discussing it and this is at our next meeting on May 29th so just so that you all know that we're going to go over some of the court cases um as well as how it relates to what we are proposing in our code how it relates to that so I just wanted to start off by saying that David Hall is here um but we're going to have that discussion at our next meeting can you repeat that it was regulatory taking or development exaction okay okay so let's move into Article Five and you can stop me if you have any questions um as we go through the slides and happy Mother's Mother's Day to the mothers so Article Five one of the things that they changed was they changed the title the title was changed from um supplementary use regulations to other specific uses and structures um and in this article they combined accessory uses that was in article 4 um they also combined the new um accessory dwelling unit regulations because we didn't have one before our comp plan allows for it and the now we're providing standards for um adus and it also combined article 8 which was the architectural design order um it had different accessory uses for the different typologies the town homes the um um commercial um multif family all of that they from article eight accessory structures they combined into one article which is now Article Five um which is title others specific uses and structures Deborah if you don't mind me asking and maybe it's in another section uh they it looks like they kind of struck the definition part at the beginning is there a definition of what's accessory and what's ancillary somewhere we do have accessory um they're going to have to update okay the accessory um structures to include all of the different accessory structures that they are now including in here so Adu is also included in into this section um so they'll have to update the definition but we do have the definition in article 18 okay so on page four we're it's and as you mentioned some one of the things that was not clear for staff is whether or not it applied to both residential and non-residential because non-residential also can have accessory uses they like to have sheds things of that nature uh for storage so it wasn't clear on whether or not it applied to non-residential but it was clear that it applied to residential so we want them to clarify that they also deleted standards in article 8 for accessory structures that they did not include into Article 5 um so we want them to put those standards here um they deleted food trucks if you go down they deleted yeah food trucks they deleted it but they relocated it to a different section in um section B do you know oh it's in this it's just in B of this B uhhuh and then if you look below it says accessory structure shall not exceed the primary so we included that language because we don't want any accessory structure to be larger than the house itself or the non-residential if it does apply to Res non-residential so we added the staff added that language in there is the board okay with that so where so you added three that section we added two two okay three was already there we moved three down well we moved two down to three and if it was the opposite it'd be the primary structure right so it's it's almost almost obvious okay so on page 4 under three accessory [Music] structure um it says same building um site now you Tara you're talking about your hearing let me tell you my eyes can you make that a little bigger okay put your glasses on I have my contact glasses [Laughter] okay so same building site um it says we shuck through accept as otherwise specifically permitted by this section says accessory uses and structures shall be located on the same building site as the associated principle which means you can't do a lot split have an accessory structure um Bea its own primary because you have to have if you can't have an accessory without a primary and then relationship to the set Street setback except as otherwise specifically permitted by this section no accessory use of structure shall be located in the required Front Street side yard setbacks and some of the comments that we have is we'd like to discuss this section A little um more um because we'd like to consider allowing a detached garage to be placed in front of a house as long as it meets the front set back and I don't know if you've seen um these accessory dwelling units located in the front it's like attached somehow it's some of them are attached with via a Breezeway and then others they're not it's just um an accessory dwelling in front of the primary so I don't know as long as it meets the front setback was the so doesn't it kind of already say that so they're not saying you have to be behind the building they're saying you have to be it say it says it has to be behind the building it has to be the code today the rear the front facade yeah yes it has to be behind but but I also would add that I think it needs to meet also the character right so because the issue with sometimes with you know accessory structures that you change and you bring you know a different character or different material so if it meets if it's an extension of the looks like an extension of the house it meets the front satb that is fine but we should add something to so I I don't know how the board feels about that that is just something that came up as um staff we were discussing it um typically accessory for the city all accessory buildings have to be behind the house so you can't see it so it should be the primary building that you see first but if we open this up it would allow for accessory dwelling units only to be located in the front what about but it has to garages so that's the thing today the code requires has been the rear behind it's not only meeting front sat back at the same line of the house detached it has to be behind the to the rear of the property so you can do now is they want to change it so that detached garages can be in the front as long as they current setbacks and then so let's clarify it's not the front of the house right it's in the at the same alignment of the house in the front set back ex if it meets the front set if the front set if the house is set back pretty further further away then it can be in the front I think you just have to be careful and you probably know this you need enough room for a car in front of the the garage building if it's a front entry garage usually the front set back would would require that right but it might not so let's say you have a 10 foot front setback you need 20 for a car so I I mean I I I know about everyone else I don't care if the garage is in the front but I don't want people sticking their car in the road or on the sidewalk and how do you feel about accessory dwelling units being in the front I don't care or sheds oh not a shed sheds no you're just testing us well that is the thing if you have a if you have so we have to Define you have to specify yeah we would have to specify because today accessory structures is anything that is accessory sads included all right we'll come back to that definition if we're going to allow that I think David's right first of all but secondly I think we need to Define it a little bit more clearly I don't have a problem with for example an enclosed garage because I've seen very classy town home developments where you pull into the garage then you've got a small courtyard before you go into the building what I don't want to see out there is sheds carports and kind of more garbagey looking stuff to use the vernacular so I think we need to Define it a little bit more clearly if we're going to do itre so I I have a question that kind of will dictate some of my response to other things and this has happened over the years is an air conditioning unit or a pool heater or something of that nature Andor accessory and it is but it's non structure right it's not a structure so what I would suggest is to avoid problems I don't think you want to force people to set residences or other buildings back further because they have utility structures so I think we need to find a way if there's like exception somewhere to accept those things so you know basically some of this stuff and you didn't get to do you have comments you guys have comments on the setback stuff okay I'll just wait so we're going to go to the definition of accessory structure just so that you all can see you all may be able to see this can you make it a little bigger okay so it says a structure on the same lot with and of a nature incidental and subordinate to the principal structure such as the following detached structure that does not exceed 12 feet in height and 120 sare feet of floor space cach accessory structures an excess of 120 um Square F feet must meet the setback requirements of the section and that's going to change um and then it talks about um swimming pools Screen Enclosures okay air conditioners um boat docks private boat ramps so if you want a different standard for um your adus and the detach detach garage we would have to call that out in this SE not in the definition section but in Article 5 where they can meet um they can be placed in the front as long as they adhere to the front setback of the principal structure all right you you've answered my question well I we we're talking about allowing on the front is this an all or nothing or how can we because like you said sheds I'm not going to say I I think it I don't have a problem with some of the things done set like possibly if it's done right again I I don't want to make it so it's so well you can't have a something that's already in many houses um carports are in houses some houses already I don't have a problem with carports I a problem with some of this stuff but it's now how do we get to the nitty Gertie and say well I don't want that to be the very forward thing first of all that the first thing you see is a shed or a carport or something like that can we limit how far forward from the house it becomes again I I I don't really I'm more of the nature of saying I having it match the house I don't really care about that I I if you want to be creative and put something else that's that you consider nice we you know I I we' we've had discussion before of you know with other things of what what looks nice well buildings inov on the park some people like One some of them some apartments and some people don't like the others and say well I I want to see this I want to see that that's more a taste issue to me than a Land Development code and structure issue so saying it has to match the tone structure building materials of the house I my first is why so I just say one of the things that we hear is that sometimes or many times the accessory structure is a cheaper you know type of construction so it's a metal construction or it's so it and then it it it right well we can reg I mean in metal we allow metal buildings in other PL you know we can some things like that or how I again I don't know how we take care of that but my taste and your taste may not be the exact same and say what looks cheap what looks bad what looks it could be there's some great looking metal buildings out there that hide the fact that I I totally agree the only thing is that and I'm not voicing my opinion but I'm just voicing what I hear from residents my tolerance may be higher than other folks you know here for diversity but of of of of um looking buildings but we do not have standards for single family we do not have a cal standard for single family so let's say a safe way if the board wants to kind of be safer in the in the uniformity saying it has to me the same right character of the house right if the house is already there if you're adding in its in the front then it would be a safe way to say the same materials of the house but it's up to the board I mean so I think we have to be careful here so regulating use makes sense regulating what a use looks like in a residential area I think puts you in a dangerous legal situation with the state saying you can no longer apply standards to those types of areas so how do we apply it to an accessory structure and and what what's taste I mean it's this fuzzy thing you can't determine so I think if we say enclosed garages that's a thing right if we say adus that's a thing if we say no sheds you know we don't allow them then we're not applying architectural standards or taste we're just saying what uses are or aren't allowed so if you say no sheds if someone wants to put up a shed and turn it into an Adu that's where you're going to get into some stickiness because there the use is Cloud but that particular construction may not be well is the sh and we have that now we have where someone wants to turn their shed into an Adu we have that going on right is the shed the size how do we talk because I thought that was what that kind of said anything less than 120 does that determine what a shed versus what determines a shed our our we have another section for adus so adus is completely different right but like you said but they want to use that that construction I think the case is is is a a a shed into a detached garage he has two bedrooms and a kitchen I don't know if it's the same case and he actually has two units on the property is this the one from the preamp tomorrow no this is the one I don't know if they're going to preap tomorrow but they are coming in for a preap he purchased the property recently no I'm talking about another one that is is transforming the the oh that's a different one that's the one we have that's a different one and and it's a so it's a detached it's a shed being transformed into a detached garage and the house is set you know far back so it is more it's prominent right so that yeah that's a that's a completely different one I'm not a fan of this so this is just a conversational way around this let's say maybe a way to deal with this is adus and detached garages are allowed in front of the residents as a special exception I mean can you do that so that there's a way for people to do it without opening the door to everybody in the world when you have no control I mean that's just just a thought no that's what I was thinking too is and that's I was looking at is how do we control either how far forward how percentage wise hard numbers or can it be something like that where it's it's a special exemption they have to go through they got to bring it through the process a little more than just permitting it's just going to add a layer of regulatory yeah if we don't if we do not have standard because I think the front sat back as if you say it has to meet the front set back right and um and we the board can say sheds are still allow it in the rear not in the front just lay it down in here not call it as a special exception if we all are okay with garages and adus being in front and then I had a question for legal so yeah I know we can't regulate what residential looks like but you know I've seen it everywhere of yeah if you're going to do an accessory dwelling unit M's broken sorry so um if you I've seen it other places where if you have an accessory dwelling unit it has to be in the same car character or I don't want to say look like but complement the the main unit so would that be an issue yeah you have to be careful when you get into regulating I mean character how you define character that's one thing we got to we've got to address we can't just as the beauty is in the behold Eye of the Beholder thing so we got to be careful about that yeah it's and yeah we can't tell somebody what kind of house they can build we can set we can set the building standards and Architectural so if we do that but we have to be very careful about going down the line saying oh it's got to be exactly it's got to be what we think is good enough so does that is that why you're Teresa you're thinking more along the lines of the same building material yeah if it's meeting whatever is there right so at least doesn't stand out I think that's not so said like Building Material finishes same type material finishes you're probably okay at that point but but we don't have architecture standards for do we no no no in the building permit when they apply they would just show the same materials so so just for the sake of the discussion think about an accessory that might be in the front which is a gazebo or something on your walkway which won't match the materials which might be okay so so I think we're getting in a sticky Zone here well remember we just said that if we're going to allow something in the front we would Define what it is but then I do see some of those other then how would you address a gazebo in the front if you have a bigger piece of property so so most of this discussion circles around residential but keep in mind a commercial use I can tell you that has a structure in the front the towntown restaurant it doesn't match at all it doesn't look bad it's just there up by the street but then we have architectural standards right that will be reviewed for commercial so we would be able to review those so then if you were say you had a bigger lot and you wanted to put some sort of Gazo or sitting area in the front yard perula whatever according to what we have that if we only rest to garages and accessory dwelling they would is that correct I'm sorry since they are according to your definition an accessory structure what was your question again so if you had a gazebo or Perot or something in the front of the house because you had enough property to enjoy your front yard if we were to say it was only garages accessory dwelling units that could be in the front of the house right those would therefore not be allowed because they are by your definition no you just make it 119 Square ft and you're okay right so what we would do is we would specifically spell out in this section except for except that whatever um like adus um not sheds right so it's adus enclosed garages enclosed well enclosed garages as long as it's attached can be there detached garage that's what I'm saying okay so detached garage um can be located in the front and anything else you think you want to be located in the front so we would put that those accept that those uses can go within the front yard as long as it meets the front yard setb yeah so I think that language is not because it says in the required front set we would not allow something to be placed in the required front setback right it's like the front yard respecting the setback the MH so whatever uses you would want to be located in the front yard we would spell it out I'm fine with and in the definition we would enclosed detached garages not as was said open ones I know attached to your house you can't tell them what to do they can't have a carport on their house they can't right they can but detached I think would be goofy and just correct a lot of detached um discussions because of um solar you're able to put solar on top of those um detached um carports we've had some discussion from a citizen and apparently it's something that is I'm taking off in other places I'm just like quite sure if we're ready for it here so can you tell me if I was correct if you're under 120 square fet by the definition then somebody can do the gazebo thing in front of of their house no no so why not cuz all of oh oh oh oh okay I was I was thinking to the definition just affects set requirements can you go back to the definition real quick uh where it talks about size oh okay it's it wasn't defining it as accessories just saying whether it meet setback okay so should that really shouldn't be in the definition should it it's just it repeats the language should not so I I'm not sure I'm not going to worry about the few people that want to have a gazebo in their front but you know if the idea is to enhance walkability you want these kind of things so I don't I don't know how to deal with that I think it would be wise to just make some flexibility and say any deviations can be reviewed on Case by case basis we're not going to have so many or deviating like having a gazebo in front maybe a the code already allows for that because any quantifiable measure of the code can be deviated probably it will go to LPA right if it's residential because then it would exceed the 20% you know and would go to LPA but we already have any quantifiable measure of the code can be deviated if Justified and and you know and taken through the approval process we're trying to do just it's already there any thoughts so are we leaning towards don't call anything out just keep the current quantifiable deviation well so here's the problem I think if something's prohibited that's not a number it doesn't have a number if it doesn't have a number you can't vary from it and you're stuck you go to C Cent it's located to the rear can't you can't quantify that so people cannot deviate from the current so so I just suggest we allow enclosed detached garages and adus in front of the primary structure boom done finished and also some Lots might be nrow and you have plenty of room in front so it would be wise to allow them to have Adu in front so I don't I don't see why we should restrict it okay is there a consensus to allow detached garages en en enclosed detached garage and then adus respecting the front setback right so I would add that you need to have at least 20 foot for the garage from the rideway if it's a garage then yeah a minimum of 20 feet from well a front entry garage yeah MH yeah because if it's sideways or who cares then okay is that a consensus say detach and close that's it's not a way it's not in not of the principal structure it's respecting Street you have to say it's in front of the primary structure yeah we have to say that we already carp are allowed already this is just to for because it says it's prohibited so except except for those who can be placed at at from satb back of theary structure as as it meets the set requirement for the principal structure we can reward that yeah we're just putting the general stuff now we're also adding that it must meet the character of the primary the materials think that's dangerous the materials of the primary structure uh I'm not in favor at see the pros and cons are you all are you is it the consensus to have those buildings that's located in the front to meet the same materials as the house I think the ones that are located in front should at least match the principal residence the ones in the back might be different story because you don't see them right I agree too and I would just lean on legal to make sure the wording is correct whether or not it's material I think if you use words similar to or something like that we're we're okay similar compatible similar compatible it's good word Dave rather than saying uh you know materials and so but it say long in similar similar in style or whatever I think would be okay we use word similar um then we then we don't get into specify all the other stuff that that we' worry about get us tied up yeah because we can't tell what do architecturally but it has to be similar matching or what some something long we can work on language but as long we use similar you appearance or something like that a question we'd be okay I think that's what I was going to ask um is can we just be specific about the facad or the appearance because you might order something manufactured that is not the same but you can add to it or to give the same appearance similar that makes sense or similar and compatible could mean a lot of things okay so so I think about really a lot for let's say you have a tucko house and you want to do a brick accessory structure or one with siding it's not necessarily a bad thing I I think we're just stepping into sticky stuff here well I think you have you have to set a standard and you can't cover you can't cover every or every p possible um alternative but I think if you similar uh in style and appearance and then for your instance if they wanted stuck a they Cho primary and brick facade it could be a special exception they come for the LPA and the LPA says okay so all right well you guys figure it out so if you I like the term similar so I'm good with that because that's legally just one of those abduced things that you could mess around with all day long so I I don't like it but if it's got the word similar Let It Go similar is is flexible if you say the same material it's not as flexible but it gives us something to say okay it needs you can't put a metal building out here it has to match the house the same materials as the house um but similar is is a little bit more flexible as I could see you could have stucco but you could have brick because it's complimentary and maybe it's similar and or complimentary whatever that those legal words could be because you have stuck up with brick and on buildings all the time so well so yeah the code I think the I think the worry is not when you upgrade material right so if you have stuck in the house and you bring break you're in know way of grading the material is when you downgrade right right usually it's an issue right yeah um I saw a head shaking and nodding when you asked the question about the similar in appearance so do we need to take a vote on that or is there be okay similar in appearance good good okay okay all right so now we're going to the table see the table for us was confusing um the setbacks need to be labeled side and rear um because there apparently you cannot the way we have it in here the way that Consultants have it you can't have it in the front so it needs to be labeled side and rear on the table and we also need to speci specify which accessory structures this table applies to that was also confusing and then again back the language so the accessory structures located in front of the primary should be similar so it's all of those who meet the front setback right all all go back not only the ones that are in front of the primary structure the last sentence it's just the ones that's located in the front now if I'm aligned with the if I'm using the front setback and it's visible also has to match right right right so the ones that are allowed in the front but this is in the front of the primary structure oh okay take most of the situations is not going to be in front it's going to be aligned right with the front set back located in the front in the front uh should be similar in appearance okay similar in appearance to what to the primary I think if you have a separate sentence you better say that okay any other thoughts on that language before we move on are you all good okay so let's go to the table so the table uh we need to specify we're going to have Kim Horn specify which um accessory uses these um standards apply to and also we have Corner Lots as well so they need to specify how Corner lots are handled Corner Lots it means that there's two streets it front on two streets and when it front on two streets you have um primary setback so if the front setback is 25 ft typically you're going to have a 25t um side setback as well um so we need to figure out how we're going to handle the corner Lots in this table did you all have any comments on this table uh I think the table is confusing and geared toward residential only so you know in a in let's say downtown core what if if you have like a bike rack it's going to be in front of your building it it's might be at a zero setback I mean you look at this and five and and 10 and 15 seem reasonable in Suburban or residential type zonings but not in downtown areas it's kind of excessive I agree I think we have to to separate residential from commercial or or do target areas different or something can you highlight that table and and don't forget uh Anonymous otherwise known as Gloria comment there stay out of my EAS my drainage easement right yeah so that's another thing that whenever there's a conflict between the setbacks and the drainage easement or easements easements will prevail so we have to add that language so so people now come to you if they want relief right so I want to do X and in the drainage eement and you can let them by changing the easement but it's engineering standards manual right they like building sheds in your drainage ditches right it includes and then people want to move into them according to Deborah yes they do is there a consensus to have two different tables one for residential and one for non-residential okay so that'll come back later we're not going to delete today were there any other comments on this table okay let's move on to um page five they created new standards um for breezeways Teresa they created new standards for breezeways so this is um when you have a detached um single family and it's attached with an accessory structure by a Breezeway so today we have this and when we have it today it becomes a part of the primary structure which means that um you it's going to meet the primary structure setbacks but we don't have a size limitation um so it's considered as part of the house as long as it meets the setbacks so they have memorialized this in Our Land Development code what we already practice today um and it allows for um a detached garage which is technically attached to the house to be located in the front um but it's attached via a breezeway so this is for um accessory structures such as garages any questions on this one so let me let me just ask based on what we just did can people now circumvent what we just did by sticking a Breezeway there and making it part of the primary structure they can what seems to defeat the purpose of what we just did they can do that for some accessory structures um if it's detached they cannot do that but the Breezeway makes it attached the Breezeway makes it attached so now there's a lot of people who like to put detached accessory structures in the front but can't but this would allow them to do that but what you all just did was allow them to be able to put it in the front without attaching it yeah but we limited for example the garage to being enclosed and this would open the door to someone to put in a Breezeway to to a a carport technically an open carport I haven't seen that but I guess it could be possible well I I wouldn't want to upset Don and he doesn't like those so no I think you're right I think it does so it says an accessory structure that meets the accessory structure setbacks may be connected to the principal structure by a Breezeway when all of the conditions are met the Breezeway is open air with no screened in or closed space and the Breezeway is located on the ground floor and not not an upper floor and the Breezeway is a maximum of 12 ft high and 6 ft wide and then it says two an accessory structure must meet the principal building setback if any of the following conditions apply the Breezeway is screened in and closed or air conditioned the Breezeway is located on an upper floor or the Breezeway is taller than 12 feet or wider than 6 feet so it has standards for an open air as well as a closed so this really has nothing to do with whether it's in front of or behind a principal structure no it's just saying that some some people um build you you know like another room or detach garage and meets the um um accessory structure but they want to have a protected way to reach the house if you're attaching it to the house you can't violate the house setb back is basically what this says you you I understand yeah if you're attaching with the Breezeway you can disrespect right if it's enclosed then it's an a real addition it it almost like is a way to cancel out the setback frankly right the primary versus accessory structure set back right so I want to have this extra bedroom I'm going to attach it with this kind of Breezeway and now I can put it closer to the rear property line yeah but it has to be open the Bree will be open so you can have it's it works for a studio it doesn't work for a bedroom it works for this was Brian's design many years ago I'm got be perfectly honest with you I remember I'm I'm going to drop this I know where I know where it first started and it was a Brian answer to a problem I have I have no comment I I I mean it does say must fig that so you have to comply with everything first and then put the breeze well it's going to be it's going to comply with the accessory structures have back which are which are lesser lesser so they are closer so so people have a way to to some degree circumvent what's normal which is abnormal to me but I'm leaving it alone since no one else is saying anything yeah well it it's good if the board if everybody's understanding what we are saying so if we have a small right addition but if you just have a Breezeway not really a a corridor that is enclosed then you can meet the minimum you know standards of an accessory otherwise you have to meet the standards of a principal structure if you're really adding you know a room and you want to have the privacy of going back to the house without you know being in an open Breezeway yeah we probably need to add some language so that it's not considered an um accessory meeting just the accessory structure setbacks now we're allowing something in the front so we'll need to I would put um let's take a look to see how this affects the proposed language LDC proposed language because we now have the adus do we not need this no because these were not for adus these were this was for like if you build a little studio in the you know or a garage a small garage so that's why I'm saying was it a workaround for an ad that that was not the original intent okay no it was to an accessory structure to be located somewhere that you would have had trouble otherwise if it was detached because by attaching it with a breeze not really an accessory structure the house just has gotten bigger basically that's in a weird way okay so okay let's go to page five we're on five under where it's number three we go down number three we deleted um variances because they're called deviations now so you they are allowing deviations to the Breezeway standards oh they are not allowing deviations to the Breezeway standards in the subsection are not per permitted so they are prohibiting any deviations to this okay so page five so there's um materials so it says detach accessory structure shall be consistent with the architectural elements materials and colors of the principal structure so that's already there in terms of the materials then it says in case of a corner lot the detach structure shall be set back from the street side property line no less than a minimum setback of the principal structure so we need to include that that language at second and B into the table the table talks about the different setbacks but they have to put that second part into the table so I I don't like a I mean so let's say someone's got a shed in their backyard which is perfectly legitimate they want to go buy a shed from Lowe's or Home Depot or whatever they're not going to be able to most of the time if they have to have this consistency I think that's a little overblown there a well so let's make it um the language just just for the ones that are in the front right but we we already did that yeah so so I'm saying we can strike a because we covered it for what's in the front telling someone what to do in the back I don't think makes a lot of sense okay okay under B if you go down types of accessory structures that section um it talks about the different types of accessory structures so it says ACC accessory structures shall meet the setback requirements provided by table 51 A3 accept as otherwise permitted and then it says common accessory structures include that it gives you a list of what's what's there um we believe that this section should start in the beginning where it talks about the types of accessory structures just so that we know what that se the section is actually covering so it gives a list I think we should separate equipment and mechanical equipment from accessory structures because they are not structures and would fences and walls or do you mean on the property and not along the perimeter there's a whole section about fences and walls later so why would it be considered an accessory well it is an accessory but there's a whole section later about the maybe it doesn't need to be included in this part no that's just their list of what there is so this is the list of what they're talking about in Article Five so this is a whole list of um things that they they've broken it out in different sections in Article 5 under accessory but we believe that this section needs to go in the beginning whatever they're calling accessory uh whatever is a part of this supplementary um whatever the name of the title is should be in the beginning so we all know what it's covering I guess my concern is you talk about setbacks absolutely defenses aren't going to comply to it exactly it it does later there SE no but we she's right we cannot call Accessory structure and and have standards for accessory structure without ex I we're going to say type one type two type three and we classify and and that the ones that we were talking about was accessory you know pool screening closures whatever you know we have to because we cannot call everything one thing give the standards for the whole thing and then fences will not apply with they won't have S sidebags so that that's the thing but we'll go to the fence section if you can go down let's about fences and walls on the property that are not the perimeter fence no no they're just defining what is an accessory structure saying an accessory structure you have your property everybody has their perimeter fences right but say you wanted to fence in a little doggy area or something else then I could see that that could be an accessory structure because it's not that outside fence fence has to be if you're going to regulate it an accessory structure or otherwise how are you going to regulate it we consider it an accessory structure um I believe the building code also um considered as it an accessory structure it is an accessory structure but the code today doesn't separate them so we have to separate those standards that we've called in the beginning has to be yeah so there's a SE so that section that we were just talking about where it has a b c d and it lists the different types of accessories they've broken it out and this is how they've broken it out so fence is considered um what number was fence in the so it was D in the beginning not in the beginning but in that one section so fence was um D fences and walls so so if you go to D you'll go down to fences so the way they have this is a little confusing this is where they should have been at the problem is the threes with the slashes and the D's and yeah it's it's eventually going to line up yes but right now it looks like three and this and it looks like all of this applies to everything on on here each section yes each section should have its own right that was my right yeah so this section should be moved to the very front I I agree I would just say you know and it references the later section that applies and I think that takes care of of your concern right you just don't want setbacks to appear to cover everything correct right I I think they've got it so you all agree that this should be to the very beginning okay okay so food trucks types of accessory structures there so we want to allow for food trucks in the city um we remove the restrictive requirement that food trucks can be permitted as incidental to micro breweries um micro Wineries and distilleries uh so we remove that I don't know how you all feel about food trucks being in the city but we want to um allow it more right now it has to be um either approved as a an accessory structure to the um primary use which is done through a site plan or it's a special event permit um special event permit is more administrative um but it only allows for um 14 days for um a special event um we have where people want to do these food trucks maybe once a month maybe twice a month um it just depends I don't know how you all feel about Fu trucks so so I I would say for everyone else to be aware the state regulates the truck itself the city cannot but but I presume the city can say if you're going to have a food truck you have to have a trash receptacle you have to have somewhere to use a you know all these other things so we going to allow with a side plan right yes has to be so are we going to to say that here so no we didn't do that here so if we want to allow with a site plan or if we want to is a site plan um as you I don't know how many of you have gone through any site plans but the site plan is I think it's about $8,000 for a site plan well if it's a new site plan if it's an amendment an example and I've said no every single time I'm asked because of this issue you're talking about so for example some hot dog vendor goes to the Ace Hardware and says I want to be out here when they say well it's fine with me go call the landlord and it gets directed to me well I don't want to allow a hot dog stand there if I have to do a site plan and go through an approval process not interested that that's not that dissimilar from a food truck so I look at it as just sticking a food truck in a parking lot's also no good because where are they going to throw their trash where are they going to park where are they going to you know all these other things you kind of need but a full-blown site plan process every time someone wants to park a truck seems well so so what are we trying because now we putting that as a as a also used right so if you're planning for instance your the area you're redeveloping if you're planning to have a s plan and we we are just there is food food factor is going through yeah you have to plan for that because what we don't want is the informality of impacting you know um um parking spaces of the other things that the food truck has to be inspected by fire every time they come to the site so we have to have some kind of control and this is so so Orlando has like a whole and Orange County have whole ways of doing this stuff but it's very complicated so maybe we have us a different type of Permitting process for the food trucks that it's temporary but allows longer than the 14 well it if it's well if it's temporary then we have the special event Avenue the problem is that if it's they w't permanent and and food factory is going through the process now of amending their side plan to bring a food food truck to the site um and and that is the process if you're mending it is going to be half of the fee and if you're you know doing like the the business in Orlando that we had you know someone interest to bring the all card then you have to bring a side plan so I think this is the process you know it we should we should control the site but but I I think I'm more I love food trucks so I have no problem with food trucks whatsoever almost anywhere but my first thought was oh food checks may be from here I'm like o so somebody approaches I'm going to say not Dave but the owner of you know whatever property it is and the guy goes yeah you can oh yeah go take the corner over there and put it up there what's the process of a bank or whatever you know that's not redeveloping they're here uh pick any anybody that's here already and they just go oh yeah food truck wants to go sit on that corner because that's a Hot Corner sitting where the old c CVS is closed but that CVS it's a great Corner everybody will be right next to you know the ice cream place it'll be great I can set up a food truck there so what would he need to do a side plan a side plan amendment to be able to just park a suit to if it's shortterm you could do a special event speci event for how long but that's only for 14 days days yes and if you want it but somebody wants to just like I want to allow him there for a month then he's going to have to do a whole side plan usually if it's for a month they would ask the Landers administrator for an extension of the special event permit cuz if it's if I see you know like I said I can go look at many corners and start going huh that'd be a great Corner the gas station I mean you can see you know it's not here but at other places at a gas station that's really a place that it happens they're at a corner they're at a very busy corner so you know Mitchell hammock and 434 they want to sit there and go across some Chick-fil-A they're like hey I got a truck that wants to be here so they're going to either have to do an $8,000 site plan to have somebody sit there permanently so again if it's temporary right if it's a one of it's we have the Avenue of the special event if it's something that is permanent they want every week every day to have that food truck yeah it's impact in the site is bringing more impact more traffic uh we have to analyze got to make sure that they have have to pay yes if it's permanent then you have and if it's a a already developed site is a Redevelopment you know again remind me because I I forget so you got a special event permit how many you get a how many times can you get renewed and how often can you do it so especially vent permit is it's temporary in nature so you can only get one once per calendar year for 14 days and then it can be extended by the land use administrator um so you you do have that right to get it extended but then you have to request that right um so if you're thinking of something maybe in between that no I just was trying to remember how long you know what I I thought it was I don't know if it was quarterly or annually once per year and that's per location a site per location per event in put event right so all right Don and then s I'm just thinking I'm sorry go ahead yeah um put this in a context I can understand the guy the barbecue guy who's on Geneva Road just off the roundabout had a food truck parked behind his little shed for lack of a better thing that's really about all it is that he was storing paper goods plastic Goods things like that he was not using it as a food truck selling food out of it it was back there permanently being used essentially is a storage shed City made him take that out would that be allowed under the language there in number six so the this process would still be the same the process is because he had um he was code enforced for that and had to remove it um so either he would have gotten a special event permit and it would have been temporary or he could have done a site plan U site plan to make it permanent um a lot of the stuff that he had on his proper wasn't on his property so it was on someone else's property cuz that property is so tiny so it had to be on his property and then he could have done a site plan um for it he's located somewhere else now in the city and he's going through on the site plan process today the trailer was on his property as I understand it it was some of the picnic tables and stuff that went out over onto like neighboring property he could have done a site plan for the trailer he chose not to so let me hold on a second sorry I'm just thinking that food trucks is more or less commercial and especially if it's longterm we're dealing with residential areas and this says used to any nonresidential therefore I see the whole sentence that six doesn't even belong here if somebody wants to have a truck use in non-residential it has its own regulations and it doesn't belong here this is all residential areas no this is not it's not just all residential this should cover both residential and non-residential but we are proposing to split right yeah we are proposing a little confusing it's a little confusing right now so we are proposing to have a section for accessory structur for residential use and for commercial use or non-res itial then we should amend that sentence there to any to some residential because it says nonresidential that's the intent so right now what they're saying is so when they adopted the special provision for micro breweries and artisanal foods and all that food trucks were added as allowable there I think all they're saying is in any non-residential place you can have them that doesn't mean you don't get a s plan that doesn't mean you don't meet the requirements right so I have no problem with this I think your point is they covered they're going to move the list of things to the beginning and separate the things out by where they apply and the the structure of this draft as written is confusing which is why everyone's confused all right you had something else no that oh that was what your comment was yes so everyone is okay with the process as well for permitting you're not suggesting changing it now um this now would be the time to change it if you were to change it right now staff is proposing it's going to be a site plan and um special event which is what it is today um we looked we went through the special event um application and not application but the process so that is the the um applicant has to submit an application 60 days prior to whatever event it is and it's good for once it's approved it's good for 14 days we could consider um doing another type of permit perhaps for food trucks so that it's a little longer than 14 days but not a permanent one a permanent one because of the impacts you need to go through the site plan process because it generates traffic just like any other Commercial Business the water and sewer as well anyone want to discuss L of time well maybe I put water good yeah I don't think there's any discussion to change it okay so I'll doens sorry I just have one question if it seems like we are um making it difficult for the food trucks but is is there a way if we made it easier for them to do business where the city could actually generate some income from that so we are not making it difficult because actually we are allowing it more than before um we what we before it was incidental just to some kind of uses now we saying any commercial can bring the only thing is that we need to control the impact right so um they need to provide if it's a permanent use right um um in the or structure in the on the site then they have to provide uh an area for that you know if it's only for trucks then they have to provide you know bathrooms for people who are going there that so we control you know the S the um but we would like to allow food trucks food trucks are good things right but we need to just control if it's permanent it's through a side plan or an amendment to a side plan or a new side plan and if it's temporary then it's the special event Avenue so you don't um you don't think the city has lost out with the way it's currently set up um have you guys experienced that or I think food trucks is more of a more recent right event in general um and we have allowed them through special events and you know and now we are mending a side plan to allow one I guess to just further in South Florida they're more every I guess I see them more um so it was just a thought whether or not that is something that could actually generate income for the city um through a special through licensing or something like that you can't you can't no the state licenses them and you can't oh okay it all it all goes to the state okay well but but we are not against it right because it's it's a good use it provides food it provides vibrancy we just need to say is it impacting you know is it safe is it impacting um parking areas is there an impact to the site that now I'm attracting you know informally a lot of people to the site that was not planned for that kind of thing so we just need to control the impact okay and that's that something you could charge for parking the city can't do that no we charge for the side plan review or a special event a special event is a cheap application is $160 because it's supposed to be temporary right a side plan that is um permanent structure then then it if it's an amendment to the site it's half of the Reginal s plan um application fee and it's probably in the 4,000 I think it's 6,000 you know s plan um with no deviations or deviations up to 20% so it's going to be around 3,000 something you know an amendment so like I was saying if you think of like BP you know it's a great Corner 434 whatever I'm sure somebody might has approached or whatever the owners and said hey how about I park a in a food truck here what will that generate in terms of track traffic and other stuff that's what we want to watch out for versus just allowing them to go oh yeah any corner anywhere you want to put it let them let them pop one I just saw it differently because a lot of times people are driving through Ovito just through and if there was a oh that's a good food truck then we're stopping them you know they they for the other side of it for the $4,000 the BP is going to charge them rent right so if it's worthwhile to them to have but the other side is you know they'll be taking some maybe you know Soda whatever they're buy you know but if they you know saw the opportunity believe me I'm sure they'd be like huh it's $4,000 to for us to make you know we can make that back in a couple of months and then we're making you know 500 a month from this guy allowing him there then it's worthwhile to him so terara if I may I guess I'm not sure why we would require a food truck to provide bathrooms and parking I mean if any of you guys have spent time in New York or Washington DC along the mall or in Tallahassee or in most other large cities there's food trucks all over the place that aren't required to provide that kind of stuff they're walk up I grant you they should probably put a garbage can out there but why do we want to impair them from coming by requiring all that other stuff so let me clarify some food trucks that we see in other cities is are on the right away this is not what we're talking about we're not talking about food trucks in the right way and usually here in noo is only through a special event because the city doesn't allow so other cities right if you go to Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue New York you see more it's it's a it's a different city different standards different tolerance right from the residence to noise to a lot of stuff what we talking about is food trucks on side plant on sites on private sites so let's imagine that I only have I have a a vacant lot and I want to put some food trucks there but there is no structure there well we need to provide bathrooms we need to provide parking this is what this is the formal process of developing so we're not talking about those situations that you're probably mentioning in other cities that they are they are in in you know along the streets and then just can that's that's not the food truck or the type of development that we are envisioning we're envisioning on site on private sites so for instance the mall you know can have food trucks in special events and they already have bathrooms right because they so what the things that we need to check is that do we have the facilities so if you have if you're adding to a structure that already exists and there is some distance requirements from the building code cannot be 2 kilometers away the bathroom you know but if it's close by and it's 300 meters whatever you you can get it you don't need to provide bathrooms but if you have the one in alart for instance in Orlando which was a it's a small building with a um it's not a brewery but it's selling beer tabs yeah and then they have two bathrooms and they they have a courtyard only for food trucks so the business is really the food trucks that is fine but they they they have a proper s plan they have parking lots they have the bathrooms they have the trash cans they have the seating area that's what we're talking about just not enough parking not enough parking because they're very successful right the other thing to think of is you know if you think of O Boulevard and then um uh 426 419 you know there's empty spaces hey why don't let let them there the other thing is they have other restaurants that have to go through a big process to build a building rent a building have have all this stuff they're already here they they've paid all this money to be in a site you're kind of also then killing that you know it's it's a there is that other side of it that goes hey there's hardcore there's restaurants that are small restaurants that are that's where they're going to be fighting is that food truck and you're allowing a food truck just to pull up on the side of you know in a an empty lot and pay couple hundred dollars in rent and just or not and you know do that doesn't bother me it's not my responsibility to make that other business over there work no well it's not about making it work it's about being fair and saying I you can have you can run a restaurant a business and here's the rules for you but if you want to run restaurant and business if you just pull up into this empty parking lot that's regulated you can just do that you know without having any without having to fill the requirements that does come into play too again I like I like food trick so I'm not against them but yeah but anyway you're saying we're talking about two completely different kinds of things here and this doesn't pertain to food trucks sitting along a curb or on a sidewalk or whatever in an urban area okay right sure any other discussion on this all right okay so let's go to C accessory pool patio screen enclosure structure requirements um there's a question here um so it says accessory structures such as pools patio decks and outdoor screen enclosure structures are permissible in residential districts in accordance with the following requirements and it says locational requirements allowable locations of swimming pools patios and Screen Enclosures accessory pool patio and Screen Enclosures must be located to the rear of the principal structure on residential lots and then B no point of an accessory screen enclosure May exceed the height of the principal structure in a residential lot so the question is do we want to allow um do we want to open up this to the side of lots or even to the front with screening so do we want to allow pools in the front do we want to allow um patios do we want to allow these type of uses in the front and so there's an example of one that is at 1,000 East Livingston Street um that we're going to go to this is in Orlando so Orange County property appraiser has a has an aerial angle shot if you went to that address on that site you can look right down on it there it is there it is the the house fronts living it's a corner lot obviously but the house here technically is address fronts the Livingston it's quite a develop lot as you can see I used to live pretty close this is a giant Adu basically a lot of houses in this area this historic area have the adus but yeah they have it's extremely well landscaped walking by I used to walk by all the time you can barely tell there's a pool there without hearing the water yeah you can see it's right there on the side may I yes I think this situation explains itself first there's no room to have it in the back and one in the front therefore it is okay it looks very nice to me to have it on the side so we should allow these can you go back to the language that you would proposed for this so I agree with the um the side and then what are you calling a screening closure because is that therefore if you have a what do you call it a porch a front porch and you want to screen that in to use to use it is that therefore not allowed or are you talking that it's like a pool screen enclosure so patios would be considered um something without a pool it could be screened in um so it would be a swimming pool pools patios and um Screen Enclosures [Music] screen it's a that would be attached to the house though right it's not an accessory right you got sorry so got it I have no problem with what you showed but can you go back to that picture so this is really a comment about fences and walls so right now fences and walls have a limited height of three feet in the front yard setback and I think your code makes a corner lot have two front setbacks and I think to meet pool safety requirements you have to have a 4 foot fencer wall which means that you're making it possible and in the next section making it impossible well we we we we certainly can revise that but we have a a rule that is half of the setback right half of the the corner if so the the side for a corner lot the side side you know front setback has we don't apply the front setback right but but still when you read that section you have the the maximum height of three I'm just saying be careful we allow six no we allow so you need to meet obviously building code safety requirements for the pool if you're going to allow it and you can't make it impossible with a fence regulation that says you can agree so I'm not trying to solve that today just saying if if the board allows this the side pool so to speak adjust everything else to then adjust everything else to make it allowed so but but I have a question so do we want to allow in case you cannot put on on the rear so or we just allow let people choose but but I don't like them in the front of a single Frontage house frankly I think that's kind of ridiculous you haven't seen the pools in the front yard I haven't seen any no this this one's technically in a front that can be looked at as a side right but I think it's nuts to allow in the front yard yeah I totally agree I I'm fine with putting him on the side on the back uh if you're going to screen I mean if you're going to put them on the side you probably ought to screen them but I wouldn't put it in the front at all but but that is by definition what he showed a front because they're a corner lot so they just have to be careful how how we do this because that situation made a lot of sense I thought so the question is that you posed is by allowance or just if it is not feasible in the backyard let someone decide themselves I would think okay I think everybody is thinking what about okay so what if it's to the rear of the front facade but on the side so is that what you're talking about that it's just still to the back of it but it could be um flesh with it on the side well it's behind if there's a single front setback it should be behind if there's two front setbacks having it on the the secondary one how do you determine what that is which which front is the front which front is the front side it's going to be whichever way the house faces it's considered the it's the primary front Okay if you guys know how to define it I'm fine with what you showed okay so go ahead yeah this there there's going to be more to it than just saying it's allowed there'll be some other so that's I I just look go it's like like there's other stuff that just keeps coming up and the more you think about like you said before we can keep going down the rabbit hole of okay there's these are really two fronts not a side of this that of this you know it's it's an exception somehow or there's there's a way to get it done but I don't think it should just be yes you can put one in the front yard so so we're that we're all okay with allowing it on the side and the rear as long as it hit as long as all the other requirements one are met and to you guys go in or the consultant goes in to make sure it can actually happen with the other regulations that are so considering that this is rare and considering that a pool costs tens of thousands of dollars uh this is just a question for Stephen if you're concerned about this being opened up and it's going to be rare make it special exception and it's not that big an imposition somebody has to get a building permit someone has to do a site plan anyway what difference does it make so you have these criteria maybe it should be a special exception I mean what do you think Deborah special exception is for the use um not it's not it's so if the use is allowed um unless we add some additional criteria to it that it has to I say we just spell out and here what we want to see so if we want it to meet cuz right now the side setbacks are like 10 ft um so if we introduce something to the side we have to realize that it could be closer now than um what it would be if it was in the rear of the house so we'll have to keep that in mind so if we want the setback side setback to remain at 10 ft um then that's what it's going to be if it's an accessory accessory um setbacks are a lot less than the primary structure setbacks so we'll have to think about that as well so let us um do some more research into allowing it on the side because we have to see how it will affect all the other regulations and I think Sam was kind of pointing out you know um both samly Sam to Sam when Sam here was saying well it should be allowed you know it looks nice or whatever yeah what was built first the accessory dwelling unit on the back that it couldn't fit on the back well it it could have maybe I don't know when when the pool was built versus the Adu on the back the large Adu that took up the whole rear yard was built or the pool was built first on that unit so I'm not sure which one came first and that may come into play is again we're allowing now adus so if somebody puts an Adu in the back do we now allow the pool on the side because they want to have a pool in addition to their Adu and that hel becomes very that yard becomes that's pretty crowded but it's a very large yard and it can handle it obviously and they it's done beautifully it's done with the trees that it's beautiful looking that doesn't mean everybody's going to do all they did to make it look like that they may put an Adu in the backyard that now can't have a pool in the backyard so I want to have a a lap pool a small pool or whatever on the sidey yard so those are the things that kind of also they said that Sam was kind of pointing out which came first there on that one the pool of the 8 you want the back so should they just work on it bring get back yes I just give chair did you pretty much the same all right so staff will work on it bring it back please so we we have some pictures of um Gloria found some pictures of um Evan square with the pools on the side so we just wanted to show sorry but the pools are on the side on a corner lock on the corner Lots which ones are you but they meet the requirement of the code right which is placed on the rear of the principal structure MH I have to tell you working on that developers agreement I never thought of that never never thought of it okay an example close to home I found another one it this one so this one seems to also be a corner lot it is technically behind the home but from this side is those are I think we're all comfortable with it just making sure it okay is allowable through your various regulations doable okay P so the next language is talking about the setbacks from um property lines but it also mentions the normal high water line um and from retained Wetlands so um our comp plan requires um 50 feet from the normal high water line of a natural surface water body and then Our Land Development code is what requires a 10 foot um buffer at least 10 fet away you have to stay away from um a wetland and then our comp plan regulates the setbacks for the econ for any Wetlands um within the econ Basin so um we want them to refer to um the comp plan the language that's there the next one is there no okay okay so the next one is on page seven so we under I accessory structure where it talks about enclosures and not permitted to encroach on any eement unless otherwise otherwise we removed enclosures um and just left accessory structures because it's any accessory structure not just enclosures is there consensus for that y okay okay and then page [Music] seven under d and walls um a we added fences and walls shall have a maximum height of six feet unless otherwise specified Below in the section they remove the six foot U maximum height so we replaced it and then staff increased the height of the front fence to 4 feet instead of 3 feet so now the height of the front fence can only be 3T in height so we increased it to four fix the swimming pool thing without me knowing it yeah yeah so um the re under C where it says rear and side yard fences and walls should have a maximum of six feet um and the minimum setback should be zero we just removed um the height because we placed that height in a so we made a couple of changes to this um to this section is there any questions on that section the yeah so one of the things and not recently but it's come into play a number of times on projects I'm doing is you don't have a level site and yet most people install fence and walls Plum and staggered which means that if you have a six foot height it's going to be more than six foot somewhere and I'm not exactly sure how to deal with that one way would be where you have maximum height maximum average height but I also don't want to open the can of worms to people doing weird things so um I'm not sure how to deal with that but I think there should be a way to deal with slopes so that you don't build fences that are not and walls that are not Plumb because they look goofy so I I don't know how to deal with that exactly but I'm just saying I think somehow you can I can try to say that unless the Topography of the site right requires you know adjustment given that the intent is mat right so so if you can add an F talking about sloped SES I think that solves my issue I just don't want people forced to have much lower fences just because of a steep slope that's all and the height is measured at grade so wherever the grade is I I I understand but but so what I'm saying is the the property slopes you don't want to build the wall at the slope it it looks silly so if you build it where it's plum it's going to stagger in height and you're going to have a portion above there going to be either higher or lower right yeah so it it's I'm just saying it's I count it looks really silly to to off-kilter a fence uh it looks even dumber for a wall so let's ask the question how do we deal with sloping property input KH or can we deal with with the SLO FS right so that the fence so that the height of the fence but do you want it to be no no so that the height of the fence May exceed the standard so you want it to be if the if the property slope and your fence was on the highest point at six then you want to extend it well to to your next poster column which is going to make it higher than six at that you see what I'm saying so you do sections that are stepped maybe but if you have a 6ot fence it's going to end up higher than at some it'll be or 7 and2 ft or again most most probably in the past we dealt with that with deviations in those sections and it would explain you know this exceeds because of the slope so it would be justified right if I I just didn't know how you've dealt with it because I haven't done this with a fence recently but it's deviations deviations we would de I mean obviously we figured it out in in in chelonian that was completely different circumstance and it was but but it had a developers agreement right so all right I'm just throwing it out there so if if you know how to deal with it you know how to deal with it well today is the deviation so I don't know if you want to I don't know if they will be able to create language that okay so so you're saying it's numeric so they just say and 20% the staff can do we have processing one right now okay all right thank you that's that's all I don't need any changes okay so we're not going to ask the consultant or you no I don't think so unless everyone else thinks so they say I think the question is you don't want them to install it down you want them to be stag because those are two different things because many people just install it like that they don't care and they just install it going down a side Lot line on a house is a different circumstance but usually a a fence can be kiltered but a wall you don't really do that I mean that looks abs I I think well in that case they need to if they want to keep the six fo they need to do the St I'm not making the judgment on can they tilt their fence or not tilt their fence okay I I wouldn't but that's someone else's Choice okay so we remove that language okay so let's go to G on page eight okay so it says the fence shall be located outside the visibility triangle per F do requirements and all easements um so this is new language um about the visibility triangle um and then um subdivisions below it subdivision wall faing right away so this is something you guys just added so it's not in this is the triangle so I I kind of have an issue with that and I'll explain so one of the problems with f do side triangles is there sensitive to Urban form if you're talking about fences maybe that's different but you know if you're talking lower speed Urban form you're going to have things closer to the corners and F do requirements haven't caught up so I think a way and Gloria is here so she can answer to this you guys are rewriting the esm right now Gloria is that right you're working on okay so right now you probably have site triangles in your engineering standards right okay so we follow do with a minimum of 250 ft but you can change that yes the esm you the the city engineer Public Works director can vary from right we could yes so my only suggestion here which I think is just a little word smithing as per esm requirements so that we're not stuck with the if in flexible what we what we normally do now is you have to present it by do requirement based on speed right but we the city has a minimum of 250 ft the problem with with fences in the triangle and we have it all the time is that people call us all the time that they cannot that the triangle is blocked so it happens with trees a fence will be a bigger issue I'm just saying put it in the city's control as opposed to Dot's control that's all I'm saying so if you change that to ASM requirements it doesn't technically change it now but it allows some monom of flexibility at the discretion of public works that's all how the board feels I thought you were asking her if it was still okay uh I'm well we're deciding so is there any more conversation on is everyone okay with what I'm suggesting as long as you're okay with it okay okay all right and then in um three under material cons consistencies talks about fences and walls shall be constructed with materials that are consistent or complimentary to the architecture of the development and we exempt single family um detached Lots because we don't have standards for um materials for fences and walls for um that it has to be consistent with the architecture for single family we don't have that and then in number five can can I go back I'm sorry subdivision wall facing right away a a suggestion right now shall provide a tracked I I think it needs to be tracked or easement yes and that was one of the comments um that we need to discuss with kimy horn um which way to address the ownership or maintenance and setbacks from the right of way through an easement or tract and you're suggesting that it's so I think either or and and you know there's a lot of times you have you know from a dimensional perspective if someone is a fence or a wall on their private single family lot then it should certainly be allowed by easement for an association that that's all without forcing the creation of a track the problem is that it faces right away then the front setback kicks in it fronts people willingly create tracks because they don't want that front setback to be 25 ft on the side that is a way to not have so this it's it's a very tricky situation actually because sometimes when you have a tract then it's hard sometimes for the property owners to connect to the fence to the wall and I I'm just saying there should be a way to do this in an easement without falling prey to this setback thing you're talking about it just becomes problematic sometimes and I've been involved in these subdivision approvals where it's really hard creating this track it creates a whole flurry of other problems it it's just you know you now have this common area and yes an easement may be a common area by definition but creating this separate track kind of apparently seems to people to take something away from their yard their place where an easement is not quite as much of an imposition it's it's just a thought that should be I'm saying should be considered I've just run into that problem since no one else is talking about I guess that's the end of that well there is a question right we have a question how to how to deal with that okay so is there a consensus to talk with Kim Horn about which which is the best way to deal with that to be to be frank I trust you more that's saying a lot I think this has come up in Gloria may remember we had a situation where where a subdivision was a wall we need to expand the we need to expand the walkway but s the the HOA owned land out and they wanted wanted us to buy it they wanted us to do something to the wall they wanted us to change the intersection all so we ended up having to abandon the the the intersection changed and go someplace else because subdivision owned it and they weren't willing to sell unless we did all this other stuff and we said that's not the budget that you know we can't change the intersection for you so we went away so that that became a problem so I this this way this would would solve that because basically say and there's a 5ot tract outside the wall uh and we didn't have that there so that was a problem because well the city I mean the subdivision was a common track common area that the city could use so that became an issue we had to ban the project we had to I don't remember the name of the woods no it wasn't Al Woods was it oh uh behind the not behind the not wind Dixie yeah so that mean they came and said okay we we'll do it do an appraisal so we did an appraisal they said well we don't want that what we want you to do is fix this intersection and do this and we said we're a budget for that so that this would have solved that okay and number five and not number five the permissible prohibited fence it's a strike through um we are allowing chain link fence for single family residential there we're exempting it because it's prohibited in other areas um but we are exempting it what about just a thought so kind of bare metal chain link is one thing like black coated or chain link is another thing I mean what about I don't know how everyone feels about that so you can get chain link vinyl coated in black that doesn't look as hideous in my opinion I I'll lean back on the I don't think we should dictate the type of chain link fence that they should get could get it's not very popular anyway but that's my op does anyone else have any I agree with you never mind but I don't want to tell anybody else what to do all right we're good with the language okay on page eight e mechanical we added gas and plumbing equipment because that is a part of mechanical we added that language we put it in um one where it says mechanical we added gas and plumbing um we also exempt single family from um this art from this section of the article and then in B it says sorry you Exempted single family yeah we exempt single family so just a question I I mean it's not ideal but it's pretty normal to have some sort of for example around here Duke Energy type of ground mounted equipment that's going to be along a street in front of a building this would seem to prohibit it and it's not necessarily under the control of an applicant so that that that's in the ground mounted screening requirements thing the the new language of B is that further on I guess it's further on little uh underground mounted you're oh got it just says it can't be visible oh okay so you so we didn't actually the email we were sent with your comments we didn't couldn't see your comments oh okay so I I I didn't see that yeah it's it just says it can't be visible from the public right away well so should not be located in the rear facad should be located in the so you understand what I'm talking about right I I mean right now you're saying we can't do that and people may have no choice you can't do what have this equipment in public RightWay where almost invariably a lot of times so this one is not for um so if it's a utility company doing it that's something different so how how's that covered this one is for um private property this is private property it can't be it can't be visible from the public right away so it's not if Duke put something in in the public right away is that what you're talking about well sometimes it won't fit in the public right away but they have to do it to serve a building and they're going to do it near where their facilities are which might be in front on private property I I can't tell you exact situations but I just anticipate this happening and to put a fine point on what you said earlier if it's not numeric you can't deviate so what's someone to do well they're going to have to screen it just can't be visible from the public right away I I've made my point we'll see what happens yeah so as long as it's screened so look let's go back to ground because I think there is location too so maybe we have to give some kind of because the B says ground mounted equipment should I said should it's not shell it's not it's not shell yeah so it's just an intense right be looking in the rear or second facades the only shall is that it cannot be visible from the public RightWay so it so is secondary secondary is a second front is that what that is yes secondary facade is a secondary yeah second entrance so this is if you have a NAC unit and you have two frontages it can be on the secondary just not in the front and you're not talking about utility company equipment again to clarify right I mean where does it say that ground Mountain so should we say private ground mount mountain equipment and not the public ones right the although Duke is private but it's has a public use right the if there is a a huge but we do not control well but this would so so if if I go try to do something with Duke and you want ground maned equipment they may have to do a ground man Transformer switch gear you almost have no control over where they want to put those things and they're going to want them close to their facilities yeah I think we have to Define what that is yeah I don't see a defined in here okay so let's put um and then how do I we're we're not finished and then we have to put for m and then your question is how do we account for utility ility companies right which is still like you said private but not developer and so so I would say I have no issue with you discouraging those things yeah that's so the I think you want to discourage them but but you know dealing with these monopolies is no fun okay is that a consensus of the board for us to look into that to look into that would you like to have a five minute breaking to get to the end of a section are we at end of a section C or let's go all right we're going to take a 10-minute break Command Decision in case you're going to be cold soon it's a blanket you're going to be C which I don't think will happen for I don't know at least n or 10 minutes what's that sure wasn't I don't see that is um her specialness is disability to see yeah I got to say you know she cares about about she's very very about and I respect that respect but it's not bilateral sometimes disagree so so not lately U I'm like a target of her even when I'm not there like the uh the reone that I didn't do it but I sold the property so that's that's all over you know I don't watch Facebook other people I actually so have you guys sure was dinner yeah really now we get enough sugar in us we can all start falling asleep oh man oh wow how's the weather no storm's coming home my kids went through that line of storms yeah they were flying from they were flying from Pensacola back to home to Denver and they got caught in that line they ended up getting delted yeah my kid my kid flies so much he gets upgraded to First Class about every flight and he said all fly yeah I was just looking at County get I'll look some more but just quick look was like they they yeah our neighborhood backs up onto the Ecom it's like a thousand yard behind my house and when Ian came through the last time our neighborhood is one long street that kind of winds around but it gets lower down and those homes had water right up to the foundation we were high in drop yeah it was close that's no big deal yeah ours is around for a while right least Ain snow I remember where we used to live we lived in a subdivision out in the country and the road was lower than the farm Fields so when it gets to snow and it's blowing and that was R now that I had a jack fourwh Drive pick up I could get through yeah I'm taking friends to store most people you do I live out there you do my oldest kid is still there he's got he's got and then he's got two all Drive get I don't miss those days get so tired of getting up at 5:00 in the morning out the driveway come in take a shower get in the car to go to work and the snow plows come PL me again like you people I mean really that happened all the time ridiculous I mean it's funny I've got pictures where you could not see my house from the street it it's crazy I got to find out who with the city if anybody see our neighborhood is but it's a problem sh and their problems not getting by us they're breeding we've got mama and 10 piglets running in addition to the daddies you know no in fact I'm ask she happens to know who it is at the PL they're chitchatting I'll give them one more minute okay all right um go ahead and get started restarted our next item is rooftop equipment so now we're talking about rooftop equipment screening requirements and the only thing that is new that was added um was language and B where it talks about the parapet screen height shall be 1ot higher than the mechanical equipment being screen that's existing language then it says in exceptional cases if the applicant cannot meet this requirement the applicant May propose a different screening height if and then we deleted that language and put in the applicant shall provide an elevation plan that demonstrates the equipment is not visible from The Pedestrian view um line of sight at 100 ft from the building additional screening shall be provided if the equipment is visible so I have a question which is a little obviously when the whatever they're called now Ellington what are they called now um Ellington okay when those apartments went in you could see everything on the roof and I and that's a peculiar situation because you got the spray fields and then you got a lower elevation on Mitchell hammock but you guys ended up with some sort of solution even though they're sort of still visible so what happened there is that what this kind of language is meant to resolve so that one what happened is that they did they did not provide the proper um line of site so and it did not show in the architectural plans because it's already it it's required to be screened so after the fact when they when they you know put the screens with the AC's it was pretty visible when we called it up said well you need to and and they were also so so if this was a requirement which I've had it routinely asked for show us it meets it's not visible so you're just trying to to elucidate the requirement so you avoid that situation right so I think what is this what we are resolving here is how to provide the line of sight right because if of course you provide the line site very close to the building you're not going to see anything right so we have to have the standards where is the distance that you need to provide and show that it doesn't show now the city is going to start you know to grow and and be more vertical so I one point if you're high point you're going to see the the AC's right we're trying to avoid seeing from the right away from a pedestrian view from the right away and then we are giving the the distance here I just remember the first time I saw it calling Harris and before I can say anything he says I know yeah and they knew when I we called them and said because they were receiving complaints from everybody right from their own folk saying no this is not okay so yeah all right just curious okay is the board okay with that language yes ma'am okay the next one is going to be um ground mounted equipment screening requirements on page eight U so we deleted we add it the language that's in B and we deleted um must not be located between the building and the street so B says ground mounted equipment should be located in the rear facades or secondary facades ground mounted equipment shall be located to the rear or side guards of single family residential detach duplex Multiplex and town H home do you do you mean setac not facade it's not in the facade um it should be to the rear to the rear for to the rear well she'll be located behind the rear there should be behind behind the rear facade facade okay is the board okay with this language this is for ground mounted equipment com on the language that we've added that says ground mounted equipment must not be located between the building and the street if we're going to go ahead and allow pools in the sidey yard should we also permit pool equipment in the sidey yard and I'm thinking about pumps and heaters um if it's screened properly just for consistency sake I don't know how you put the equipment in the backyard in the pool in the side yard so I think earlier we told them if we're changing the pool go through every section you're just pointing one out I would it would appear so so you're going to research all that right uh so this is It's deleted must be located must not be located between the building and the street no think show the strike or does it well I'm just thinking of that picture you showed with the pool in the sidey where would you put the pool equipment in that place in that instance if not by the pool so the rear facade can be the it's the behind the front of the house not necessarily the rear of the house it's the front facade so the front facade is is not it could be on the side saying I think I don't know if your version has it struck through or not struck through this language here oh this I'm sorry this does not it's it's underlined okay and it says shall be located to the rear or side yard so I think takes care of if there's a pool there well except for the fact that a corner lot has two fronts so they've got a still Wordsmith this based on our prior request for pools because by definition a corner lot has two fronts whatever langage would need to be adjust I would just put a note figure it out for side pools on Corners LC make sure it's consist okay so then on page nine there's a table and in that table we have um different comments U we added the language that's shown in green there were no standards there for um single family detaches and this is ground mounted equipment setback requirements so we added one for um single family detach duplex and Multiplex the front setbacks we um prohibited um ground mounted equipment from being located there and then we added setbacks five um 5T on the side five in the rear Town Homes um we added setback a front setback so we showed where it's prohibited and then the ones where it follows the applicable front building setback so basically for um residential it's prohibited for non-residential it's going to follow the applicable setback okay now we're going to get into article seven non-conforming unless anyone else had any um comments for Article 5 anything else on article does that does ground equipment include AC units yes okay and so when you have um residents that don't have fencing the neighbor sees they can see into the whole yard um but this is requiring a screen in front of the AC unit I believe we exempt single family yeah I think so too okay that was my question all right Sam I noticed that we are allowing adus in almost all the residential zing except I don't see R1 at all sorry you don't see sorry I cannot hear you you do not see we we are allowing adus to be located in almost all the residential zoning but I don't see R1 at all what if somebody wants to have accessory structure unit in a lot that is in A1 or A2 is probably addressed because they can have two two units but R1 is not mentioned at all is that uh how do we treat that it's R1 or A1 I'm not I didn't catch the question it's R1 or A1 R1 R1 it should be allowed in R1 but it's not mentioned at all it says a uh are c e and where are you in article four are you well this is a general question and I notic at the very beginning it say it say shall be allowed in all these zoning districts but it doesn't mention R1 in in what section are you go down uh if you go to the very beginning so this would be the table of permissible uses some from article four that we would have here it doesn't S it doesn't site all the zoning districts we can go back there yes it does at the very beginning there it is oh see accessory dwelling units are allowed and I see it crossed out now was crossed out in one another section I read it doesn't it does not cross that out I think we having issues with the versions cuz I think you're not getting everything that well we were told we got with staff comments but we did not so the email we got did not have this stuff so it's on the screen but not on what was sent us yeah the we received all three last week all three that we received didn't have staff comments right no you just had the strike through an underlying version only what they did not what you guys changed well just look at that one there just uh standards accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the following stand requirements one accessor willing units are allowed in the A r- C etc etc there's no R1 at all but they that's a mistake that is a mistake because it should be in R1 as well because the the stricken it yeah it was through it but the table of permissible uses would would um have adus it does and it allows it in R1 allows in all all them thank you it's allowed in all the residential zoning District where single family residential is is allow how about our2 we can go to the permissible uses table and we can take a look at it we can do that can you go to the yeah it's a Latin R2 it is yeah it's allowed in R2 but I don't think it's planed to allow when you have duplexes in R2 not on one single lot one single one single family in R2 could have an Ado okay all of theal districts except for R3 isse that's it did you all have any other um comments on the Adu that's in Article Five the Adu standards we can stay there CU it was basically as what we discussed the next okay so then we're going to go to article seven which is the non-conforming section um so non-conforming we changed it to instead of continue 7.1 instead of continuation of um non-conforming we changed it to existing non-conforming we just changed the words because it's really talking about existing non-conforming uses so we changed the title of that uh 7.2 we cleaned up the language there um we had questions about um so C We just cleaned up the language we took we deleted where it says applicable to undeveloped Lots only the section applies I to undevelop non-conforming lots of a record a lot of record with no substantial structures so kimley horn we were asking them in the comments can you click on that comment where it says the lot aggregation so this section in D is talking about combination of non-conforming lots and it says we struck through the first sentence you have to go to to the top okay subject to the following sentence if on the date this subsection becomes effective so we deleted this this portion and it says now if an undeveloped non-conforming lot the joins and has continuous Frontage with one or more um other undeveloped Lots under the same ownership we deleted then neither the owner of the non-conforming lot nor his successor and interest may take advantage of the provisions of the section so we deleted that oh that sentence doesn't read right so the section that says this subsection shall not apply to non-conforming lot if the a majority of the developed Lots located on either side of the street where such lot is located and within 500 ft of such lot are also non-conforming the intent of this subsection is to require non-conforming lots to be combined with each other to create conforming Lots but not to requires such combination when that would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood so the comment we want them to simplify this section because it's saying a lot and we think they can say it in less words um but a newly aggregated and um or reconfigured lot of parcel must conform to the minimum lot size with we provided some language that you see there and under anonymous so um we want them to simplify it and then e we deleted e non-conforming lots of Milton Square we deleted that because we want them to come up with the zoning district for the Milton Square and we discussed that already so that's where they put um the information about Milton Square being non-conforming we don't want them to address it this way we want a a zoning district for mil Milton Square as well as um setbacks things of that nature for the parcel sizes that's in that area mil Milton Square in Washington Park so Deborah I'm sorry to do this but you asked the question about adus so I had to go back and read it because I hadn't okay and yes I do have something which we did discuss before okay so let's go back to Adu so it's I'm trying to see if what you have is different I was looking at number nine on my paper so yes it's still there so I'll make the point again and and if this I hate to make people have to get a deviation but there's large Lots in Ovito and a thousand's not very big sometimes for most typical Lots it's a lot so if everyone's view is people can get a deviation and it's okay I'll let it go but I just think a th is kind of a low limit so it was the LDC consens is to have that language put in there so it's it's this is but but it's still someone could still get a deviation from that correct because it's numeric I don't think so but do you have the maximum is oh the Lesser off a thousand go down to the next one does it say so that's my question if is if it's a numeric standard and all numeric standards can be varied from According to the code okay which is 20% staff and so on and so forth if there's nothing in the code saying otherwise yeah it would be then I'll I'll let it go that was my question that's it sorry no it's okay I I um there there are sections in here that says no that you cannot apply for a Devi seol County actually H has a you can't deviate from this which I find absurd for their adus and it actually out my way on a 3 acre lot forced someone who bought the the lot to tear down a historic structure because they couldn't keep it as an Adu because it exceeded th000 Square ft so it sometimes have unintended consequences but if you guys didn't close the door to deviations I have no concern well it's not in this language okay don't add okay I'm having difficulty moving on on because I I think it should be included in here but I'm not going where are we back where we were accessory dwelling units I think there should be a maximum and no deviation but I'm not going to go there that's what I'm having problems moving on from okay so um we discussed the Milton Square so now we're going to go to um page four and this is 7.3 we deleted F before we go there just for Deborah's you know um Peace of Mind deviations are not automatically granted right you have to justify and if there is a standard in the code we have to say why we deviating from the standard in the code and we deviating because adus deviate are exempt from density to so if it's a very large unit then is it really an accessory structure this is just but if it's 1,200 you know would you like see the plans for the actual one that makes me raise these issues then I'll I'll I'll get them for you okay thank you you'll understand okay so we deleted f um we added e under e we added the last sentence and this is talking about single family residential nonconformities um where you can replace it of the larger sizes as long as we do not increase um increase existing non-conformity so you can't um need a greater setback or as long as you're able to stay to stay within um the footprint but even if you're not as long as you're not increasing any new nonconformities or creating new non-conformities you can rebuild um so it says additions may include access dwelling units according to section five accessory structures and uses so we added that um and then F we delete it um because it's already covered in the non-conforming section this is f was new language um to uh was for Gateway districts and the targeted areas so it's already included under the existing language so we deleted it where where is it now so if you look at the language it says no new single family detach you're saying it's in it's in a the section we looked at previously article four or something no it's here it's an e it covers all structures all single family oh okay e covers all single family it does not restrict it to certain districts it's over it it covers it Citywide got it so f is just additional language that's not it's duplicate duplicate duplicative where where's Hank I know he would be so proud of us let take a second he get so proud of this okay did anyone have any other comments on non-conforming the non-conforming section I have a question so we've got these target areas that have new standards coming is a non-conformity a use a lot size or and everything that so it's all so we can go to the the beginning of a non-conforming section it can be used it can be structured can be so you can have nonconforming situations you can have non-conforming lots you can have uses and structur all right so so save me from reading everything and let's say somebody's in the downtown core and they've got an existing building and there's parking in front of the existing building what's their limit before they can't do things is is that the 20% is that you see what I'm saying is that a non-conformity that's going to cause them a problem doing something with that property if they have parking in front of the building yeah that they cannot use or can use well they have their existing use they fun M at what level is this no good anymore and they have to start over from scratch and meet all these Urban standards so to speak is that covered here or is that not so you cannot increase the the legally non-conformity that's one thing so you can do you know repairs or you know additions to the site without might be conforming but the location of parking might not be so I'm just trying to understand so he cannot create more parking okay that is not conforming that's that would be one implication for him because that is increasing the legally non-conformity but he does things to the building that you know at one point most probably he will um the business will or the site will redevelop right but to be protected by the legally nonconforming U section he cannot increase the legally nonconforming nonconformity do a deviation on the site plan for parking okay we don't know if we would grant that I'm not saying I have this situation I'm just asking what this means this is to allow folks in the situation that the code changes to remain right and not be penalized um but we do not want to increase or extend that that situation for forever food for thought and I don't know that it's covered here but I just want everyone to understand there's a certain threshold of expense you know you've got an existing use you're trying to encourage incremental Redevelopment and if your expansion of non-conformity is too limited you kind of prevent everything until it makes sense to knock everything down which is a pretty high bar so I'm just saying let's be cognizant as we move forward you don't want to like throw out the good and I think you guys on like architecture recognize that you know I think the Public's well it's better than it was or or like where Sprouts went it's better than it it was so we're going to be a little more flexible so I don't know if you've got in this section that judgment capability or or not I think we we we continue with that judgment right we apply that that every day if it's if it's decreasing the non-conformity so if there's things that are percentages again Deborah's favorite question of mine if there's a percentage and you want to do something different from the percentage it's numeric and you can deviate and yeah that's what I would focus on the deviation as opposed to trying to consider it a non-conforming use okay I'm not trying to change it I'm the parking is not necessarily it it would be the building if the building was unconforming if the use was non-conforming or if the use of land is nonconforming well for example but you could not extend we're going to get architectural right and so you've got some single story buildings that don't meet those standards right now and they go to change it and they're more than 25% of this value number and they can't unless they meet all these standards which is just too expensive so they leave sit there and I'm just saying is there a way out of that and if you think deviations give the staff the way out of that and and the board's the way out of that then that's all I'm asking if if that exists then it's probably okay I just don't want people discouraged from doing something better because they have to wholesale tear the whole darn thing down right that's it let me ask you my ask question can the staff allow a deviation that would exceed the make it another the non-conforming I'm not sure the staff can do can the staff do what now exceed the non-conforming so that's what I'm saying we have some limitations that's the case the uh the nonconformity says you you're okay to remain like that right but you're not okay to extend you know um to increase the nonconformity to increase the nonconformity yeah so it's it's not we'll have to make the judge so you can change the the building but if you're providing more parking spaces you could not do more parking spaces with uh you know that is legally notc conforming can't anyway yeah but as far as the nonconformity I don't think you can I don't think staff has has the authority to allow you to increase that still be still be grandfathered in as a non-conforming use no he wouldn't be non-conforming if he did a deviation then he would be conforming no if you've got an existing use existing non-conforming use staff could not g Grant deviation to exceed that right yeah that's what what I'm saying and I think that's what you were asking well I'm asking if the amount of allowable change to this building is this percent of value varying from that percent of value is a deviation yeah I don't I don't think I don't think it's it's a number we'll just see what happens in the future have to really take a look at that and see in my Miss reaction is no you you the staff would not allow if you got a th scrip of building and it's a Max of 800 square fet is all it's allowed now and they w't go to 12 and say well that's 10% deviation I don't think staff has that kind Authority and I think that's what he's asking it's a rhetorical question we can't solve it now I'm just it is difficult to yeah even to consider you know without seeing the what is being requested right absolutely I'm done okay it's a what if okay so sorry okay so next next we are going to so we're finished with article seven so let's go to article eight we're moving right along okay so article eight is the architectural design section um so in this this there's another confusing article as well although it's short it's still confusing uh we wanted to see the strike through an underlying version of this um they removed uh the measurable standards and provided more consist conceptual goals um we added clarification to the applicability section and um if you go down go down some more we added it says um and we also included Multiplex into this because Multiplex is one of the uses that they are introducing so all um sections within this article shelf apply to new development Redevelopment change of use renovation of the facade by more than 50% you tell me what that means 50 what what is that mean you're altering more than that percentage of the facade yes so if you're changing more than 50% of the facade or additions regardless of the zoning District except for i1 or I2 zoning districts because we don't have architectural standards for those two zoning districts all all 83 ACR of that it oh yes 83 Acres couldn't resist of the following uses so um town homes are existing multi multif family developments are existing that's an existing use Multiplex is new and then um we also added in G institutional use involving buildings with a footprint of large larger than 30,000 square feet in any zoning District that language is existing but we add it for this use the city will only apply the massing standards designed for commercial and office uses so we will go through this article article8 um wouldn't it be articulation or is massing separate massing separate okay and this is actually existing language I think they they did not include and we includeed back okay okay so we also are proposing definitions for um facades well actually let [Music] me you guys hold on let me I know are you guys cold okay thank you so these are the um do you feel better now he's got a blanket I know but it's his blanket yes you guys do have blankets oh there's lots of blankets there look look at that sheing didn't you get one I didn't bring it with me tonight oh okay okay so facade the existing definition is in article six it defines as the front of a building or any of its sides that face a public RightWay the facade includes all elements of the elevation of the building below the roof line the new definition is the face of a building that includes elements of the building below the roof line is similar but we don't call out the um public right of way so I think that's almost completely true but a parapet is part of the facade and it's above the roof line so the facade is everything not just below the roof line yeah the face of a building including all the elements I think yeah so that's the new definition well right but you say below the roof line I would strike that okay yeah the only thing is that um for calculations of fenestration and that that's part of your calculation we did not count the we say facade area and we do not count parapets just to give a break on the but later in your articulations where it allows parapets it's a facade articulation and if you say it's not part it articul so I think in your calculations you should just say what you're calculating but the facade includes everything I agree oh what am I okay I can't make changes in here I'll put this so you all agree with that so what would it say the face of a building that includes elements of a building period period okay and then primary is that is there a consensus for that yes okay primary the existing is the side of a building that faces a public right away or has the primary entrance the new definition is a side of a building that faces a right away but has a primary so it entrance it so we remove public and left it at right away secondary the side of a building that is not a primary facade this is existing and either is visible from a public right away or has a secondary or tertiary entrance new definition side of a building that is either visible from the right right away or has a second secondary or tertiary entrance so we remove public and then we also remove that it's not a primary facade is there a consensus on that so just a point of Interest here and we're not done with it because we're revisiting article four right which had requirements in core areas for these additional rideways every X number of feet which is basically going to make the way you wrote this all buildings have four primary facades do you understand what I'm saying I don't know that we intend to do that if that's what we intend to do so be it if everyone understands so you want to put in the new defition the non primary side of the building well but no they'll all be primary by definition all all of them anywhere you put a RightWay whether it's public or private in article four which we have to go back and revisit had these block siiz things that made you put rideways everywhere and you're basically going to have almost all all sides of all buildings in some of these target areas be primary I'm not saying that's bad I'm just pointing it out I I don't know if it's true they because they Define a block by different not only RightWay they have walkways they have but a walkway is a private RightWay unless the definition of RightWay somehow excludes it because you're taking public out well walkway if if it's not a track right right away public or private is ATT track right in not necessarily can we jump ahead to 18 where the definitions are if there's the definition ride away only Sam gets to keep definitions he can get to it faster I have it too so right away land dedicated de it used or to be used for Street alley walkway Boulevard access or other purpose by the public certain designated parties for governing body um right away shall exclude easements that are not not a separate tract of land so if an easan is a separate tract it ends up being a rideway and you end up having wherever they are and I'm not saying it's bad a primary facade which is going to have stricter requirements I I think some buildings that are very visible from four streets should have four primary facad I'm not making that value but I think walkway we have to we have then to redefine this because a walkway is not necessarily right away you can have walkways to buildings we have walkways the STA yeah we have to Define brings that back to us yeah for us um it has to be a land that is is attract private or public to build right away an LA you know Boulevard because driveways are not drivve are not not I'm referring to something that's unresolved which was back there where you're going to have to have these perpetually open which I disagree with of course perpetually open pedestrian Pathways which are probably going to end up being on separate tracks which by this definition will become a primary Rage or primary facade I'm just saying so we want to remove walkway uh I'm not I'm not sure what to do I'm not saying what we should do I'm just telling everyone right some of these buildings in it to Teresa's point if you could see it from everywhere maybe it meets the standards for the front so be it and then going back to what Teresa said I would agree with removing walkway from a RightWay I don't is that the direction that staff is uh I think there's a more appropriate way to do this you're like fiddling with a settled legal definition of what a RightWay is I would just go back to that previous section rights of way except walkways in in the section itself if if you understand what I'm saying if we can jump back to where you were so to to me where you say ride away you're wishing to exclude walkways I would just say other than walkways yeah walkway is not a right away right is just it is not what that I think right for the purposes of this it probably should be so I would just exclude walkways here instead of trying to make a definition that flies in the face of the definition that's all I'm saying and anytime you grant an easement to someone to travel I think you're creating a RightWay by legal definition so fighting fighting the definition will lead to confusion so I'm just saying here yeah but but then we have to see the because easements you know not what we talking about so the traveling public doesn't know if they're on a track they an easement they don't care the visibility of the building doesn't know what it is it can be a landscape easement can be other types of e but what I'm saying is here if you say if you're not intending to apply this to pedestrian pathways say or walkway say that does anyone have any thoughts on putting in the I think put not sidewalks walkways yeah I'm G put it in here I can't type on there I do not nobody has a problem with putting that exception in there so would go under um primary so it would be the side of a building that faces a RightWay or has a primary entrance excluding walkways no I think it's secondary where it matters secondary so the side of a building that is either visible from a right away or has a secondary or tertiary entrance excluding walkway the excluding goes after R of yes yeah okay put that that as a proposal let let us just see what are the implications right but you obviously you got to be careful because at the front of a building there's a sidewalk which is a walkway but there's also a rideway right the sidewalk is part of the rideway yes just a walkway that's what it it does not in my in my mind defines a street right it's just a walkway walkways can be between buildings right can beide just a point I I was just suggesting what this causes okay but if you're building this architecture of these buildings for people then you shouldn't write rules that make them more attractive to cars and less attractive to people just saying so you're saying exclude a walkway I'm not suggesting that's what you do I'm saying if that's what you want to do do it here I think you're building buildings for the benefit of people absolutely but the more visible the more you know important is the facade right so if I have a walkway because we are also trying to um increase connectivity you know and and defining blocks with small Pathways whatever so these can be side side um facades from from businesses right that do not not have the vibrancy they do not have the you know all the Furnishing zones that we want you know in the in the primary so we have to be careful because that will require more stuff from the facades and and and so we don't want to write standards that will necessarily mean more deviations just because they are hard to to to meet so we have to see the implications of that so I have a question so if you had multif family or whatever and it was on Major roadway but then the parking was inside right but it was like a square see what I'm saying like so the parking was inside and you had the buildings all around the outside so that would that have two primaries then one facing the roadway and the one facing the other buildings because of maybe the entrance way and the way it's designed if it's so we would um um give the front to the primary entrance but in many multif family buildings um because they face the also the the parking lot that is considered primary too and sometimes they do a square and they put a pond right the dwell is like that they have an internal pond so that they also kind of enhance that internal area okay so we will um we'll discuss that more at um removing the walkway or not more under secondary so the rear um there is no definition in our um article 18 so we're creating a definition which is the side of a building that is not a primary or secondary facade and it's predominantly used for servicing the building the side of the building may contain parking facilities loading docks service entries trash removal facilities Etc and to the previous point this is more also prominent in commercial right because multif family usually does not have a rear may not have a rear facade right but businesses need to have where the trash compactor will be where the servicing area will be the you know the loading and loading so any thoughts on okay okay page three 8.3 A B A and B okay so we deleted a um B has same wording so we um combined and go down that's the deleted portion so B is a mitigation where and a is also deviations and mitigations so we combined um A and B because they're basically saying the same thing so we were able to combine them so what happened to articulation and design did we reorder things or do we just skip it hav we haven't arrived there yet right no we're still in the beginning okay I guess in my version that we got it's in the beginning so maybe it changed so is 8.2 gone yes you've stricken it actually we did not strike it but it's in the version that was given to us is let me see they did not they removed a lot of stuff without striking okay so I'm saying the version that we got October of 2023 is there a new one here's 82 form it it's gone and what does it say does it say we removed it so so that's gone so all the middle base top a lot of this we did not delete it was the consultant who deleted it so if you go to if you click on it is there anything that what it say because they wrote new language that's what's confusing to me and what we were there's articulation and design there okay is that is that gone or is that somewhere it's still here this is still here 8.2 we probably someone probably changed the section number so we're not there yet I think because we put 8.3 it kind of got out of the order yeah right so we haven't reached that yet okay thank you cuz I'm looking at my print what happened we all right so we're into 8.3 which is the incentives to policies encouraged by the comprehensive plan and that's what we combined we combined A and B they're the mitigation techniques 83 so we also added some new um language in that so can we possibly get that document because it's not what we got yes so I'm going to stop looking at my paper now and look at the screen okay so I'm not quite sure what happened we downloaded it from this section so I'm not quite sure we downloaded it from the Google so I don't know what happeneds to so you guys didn't get the comments no we'll send it out to you well it looks very different than this is all I'm saying yeah okay so we added number 11 and we may have to take it out because we have to prove an um dual rational Nexus so one of them that you will see that we are we have to do something with is the public art as mitigation number 11 and we are just looking into it as part of a mitigation um it's where the development will donate public or private or provide semi-public art including but not limited to sculptures or murals consistent with City policy on public art the development may also donate a monetary contribution to the public art fund as follows we don't have the as follows yet this is still preliminary but we um had this as a discussion with staff so we also have to discuss with the public art board as well as with the attorney and it's a mitigation that it's not the way that it's written here it's not mandatory but you can use it as one of your mitigation strategies so so just my opinion which might not be what you expect this is now just architecture the site stuff's been moved right architecture in essence for lack of a better term is an art right if you've if you deviate from the standards and have something you provide to mitigate I don't think that flies in the face my own personal opinion not being an attorney of dual rational Nexus you're mitigating for having a look that doesn't meet a standard with something that provides a look so to speak art um where it might run into trouble and I'll leave that to the lawyers is public versus private I don't know but my position has always been without having some standard of what the amount is somehow it's really challenging I think for you guys because it varies but I have no problem with you're deviating from an artistic standard by providing art at all so there are usually two ways to resolve that you know some cities and I'm just going to throw out there do not kill me have percentages I have no issue of the development um and and and so that that would be a mandatory thing and most cities that have really money on public art um collect that as a mandatory contribution if you're developing and a percentage of the value of the I would imagine the building because that's already the building permit you have to provide that goes to public heart and then um and it's usually 1% it varies but some cities put a cap you know up to whatever you know would be the contribution and this is how usually cities have you know millions in public art to fund public art the other way would be to have this is not as mitigation this is this would be a contrib right so it would not be a mitigation and the other way is that if you're going to mitigate we can we can because right now um in the code we do not have a standard of how much so we cannot negotiate with the with the developer um and um it's it's a donation and we have in the public art um fund contributions that varied from $500 to $25,000 and this this was the generosity of the developer giving to us now the other way that we discussed is say well for us to consider a deviation it has if it's one deviation it amounts to $5,000 two would be 10 you know or I think there was even some discount if you give more in the sense of if you're providing three deviations you you have less you know um uh I don't remember how much the the amount that we agreed upon but it was a proposal internally that we were discussing so these are the two ways that we are proposing but public art you know is expensive it also has a lot of um um benefits but these are how cities have been doing and and we have a list of cities in Florida because of course United States is very diverse on how States you know regulate that have the mandatory contribution so so so just to give people an idea of scale of numbers she's talking about there's been $500 to 25,000 okay so in a lot of cities that require a public art contribution it might be 1% of your construction budget if you figure the typical apartment complex now is somewhere like 50 to million that's half a million to 700,000 it's a tremendous difference so frankly when you look at what they're proposing I've always opposed this because it has no number so it becomes ad hoc which I think is wrong so I I don't really have a problem Teresa knows I I support public art having some sort of Standards I think is acceptable if it's definable and I think they should Define it even though I made that dual rational Nexus comment the other day I think there's a way to address this without throwing art away in in the public we we always assume public and semi-public because if you have someone the Allington has in their property those three sculptures along the the little you know alinear Park here there are really public consumption it's on private property so this we consider semi-public but if you have a very expensive scope inside the you know the lobby of a building that nobody has access to right because it's private then it's for your own consumption but it's not doesn't meet the public art you know definition so just one comment if you hit private development for percentage put it in in public uh requirements too if the city builds a new building there should be the same it's already there it's there is it mm it's there good yeah so how does the board feel about having public Arts as a mitigation the amount that we were talking about was 5,000 per um mitigation we have one thumbs up over here any any more thumbs up well are we discussing whether or not to make it a mandatory percentage so right now it's we're going to talk about both okay so right now it's just as a mitigation so it's a choice in what they can mitigate with and public art is one of them and we would put a monetary donation of about $5,000 per um deviation oh so I agree if if for the mitigation part that we should set some standards um some real numbers to go like you mentioned 5,000 from 5,000 to 35,000 so did I hear that no but hold on one second Dr K just told me it was 10,000 so I I don't remember the amount so I I have to go back to see um Harris has the yeah the amount the amount that we were talking but anyway it's going to be amount yeah each deviation as long as it's not really expensive like they've mentioned 1% of 7 million you talk about half a million dollar so so this one is not the percentage yet we'll have that discussion right after this this is a mandatory contribution if that is that's different so we are talking about now as mitigation which is a choice of which mitigation you use so um a monetary amount between 5 and 10,000 I I think that's reasonable so so quite frankly and I get involved in this a lot a lot of times your your deviations from architectural standards are because it's a a budget conscious choice on a building and almost invariably you're not even going to spend the time discussing it for five grand on a scale of these projects you'd rather just pay the five grand and be done with it so I don't see that as as a huge imposition can you look at the other mitigations can we go back to the um okay so start right so no no no um we we're good just so I don't know that anyone knows but presumably you put a dual charging station in by the time you install it you might be a five brand okay so I would just say don't make the num so high that people always pick the other stuff on the list so so be sensitive to that keep the number low enough that they're compar that that they'll actually do it so you might want to get more money but trying to get too much money gets you no money that is the thing it we discuss exactly that because we we don't want people to say oh that is I'm not going there but it has to be better than you know what were savings right compared to what they would um uh so the bigger the project the less impact five grand has obviously absolutely yeah all right so I think we yes we want that as a mitigation option and then are we good with the 5 to 10,000 per mitigation yeah theyve got to bring this back'll put how are they doing that right we'll put the amount okay and and let you guys see it I think I told you I was warn I was coming between peration okay and then um let's discuss the which we we haven't um had a lot of discussion on it but this is the one that's mandatory um I don't know how the board feels about mandatory um public art donation um based on a percentage as Dr Korea talked about there are other municipalities in the state that's looking into it and have adopted it we're now just looking into it um but we would like to propose something like that as long as um we can show that there's a dual rational Nexus to it I don't I don't know that you have to is what I'm saying don't know we do depending on how you do it uh so semi-public is visible from the public you said so that's an improvement to their private property so when you have architectural standards it costs money on their private property but there's no dual rational Nexus requirement you understand what I'm saying it's their private property you're telling them to build a certain way adding art to their private property is you're telling them to build it a certain way the trick is when you start making it public thing and and I don't know and so the reason I was prepared for this question is Julianne already threw it at me what do I think about X and I I was like well that's an unfair question because I like public art so I don't I don't know that dual rational Nexus applies the same way if it's not a if it's not an exaction for a public fund for a public right David what do you think about that how much you said the city I forget the number the city has it that for their projects they have to do to right we do I think it's 1% right 1% 1% right up to $5,000 up to what $50,000 we put a cap yeah so just so you understand 1% doesn't sound like a lot but development margins that by the time you're done with the soft costs are turning on a four or five% margin it could kill a lot of things it's a big big number so we just have to be kind of careful here well that's why the cap makes sense right to but a much lower interesting discussion it's available as a mitigation it's an interesting discussion again I'm forar to I help set up the art board I'm all but I sit there running numbers sitting on the calculator running numbers going okay half a percentage what's one percentage what of of both the high and low numbers because you talk what was the number you threw out uh a typical 50 to 70 million 50 to% is 500,000 but I also want to look at the you know 300,000 uh you know 5 million guy and what they're you know what they' be in for and things like that it's a discussion I don't not against it totally but it's an interesting discussion that probably has to have some even more levels than just a strict 1% up to a maximum it may be different sizes you know it's not a one siiz fit all to me well you could also do a slighty scale like like investment companies do that's what I'm saying SL scale L less but I think it's a bigger discussion but I I think it's a discussion to have or or exempt you know the bottom right whatever but you can even do that so that you hit more um you know middle middle you know it's a wor it's worth the conversation I think it's a discussion I don't think it's any I don't know that a we can get anywhere besides more than that in my mind is it's a discussion but I don't think saying yeah it should definitely be in there or not or even figuring out what a number is I I don't know if that it's yeah definitely should be in there so what I would um propose to the rest of the board is have the um the staff go back and you said you were looking at it so what are what are other cities I would say comparable to a veto doing if they're requiring it and then maybe bring back some some thoughts for further the discussion absolutely and we have we have a list of of cities and I think some some cloud is now discussing so it's going through the boards now um Palm Beach there are many cities um in Florida that they have it and it's really a question of um how how much the community value the benefits of public art because the benefits are huge but it has to be something that you know are we ready for that good that okay so page seven articulation and Design the the magic missing 8.2 okay so for this section there comments that we need to have um the building forms articulations um roof modulation fitration materials colors Heights as well as building sightings which includes orientation lot size lot width setbacks and on-site parking for um properties outside of the targeted areas um because it doesn't cover the properties outside of the targeted areas for the building sighting orientation um things of that nature so we're telling them to include those standards for those same exact uses outside of the targeted areas and then in a we changed where it s says um proposed buildings it was must and now says shall be designed to incorporate the following ratios in all elements such as Windows gain Windows um entrances that provide proportion that have proven to be harmonious throughout the ages so we just changed must show are you ready for comments this is the most absurd thing I've ever seen that's simply not true that's not the ratios of nature it's just not so I went and looked at sorry standard double hung and single hung window sizes and there's kind of I've got one two three four five typical ones only two of them meet these numbers so this is almost every building in OVO that exists today that you've recently approved would not meet this and the only ratio in nature is the the golden number which is 1.61803399 which is the Fibonacci sequence which is none of these so I know hopefully the staff was just reacting to the the consultant but this is the most absurd thing I've ever seen we we did not like it either okay good so my suggestion would be strike it it's stupid click on the part comments because we have comments for this just so you know how I feel it's on record all right so one is Strike Andress or just take it out so later on there's something about verticality which is important Harmon I just when I see Harmony I are you kidding me Define to me harm remember that we discussed that so I'll tell you what Winter Springs has your architecture has to be different but harmonious with what's next to it and it means nothing and they arbitrarily decide every single project every single detail at the city commission level it's the craziest thing you've ever seen so it's weird what does it mean like Stephen said it means nothing so put yourself in trying to have to make it literally put yourself in trying to have to make a decision and go okay this is somebody comes forward and you look at this and go Harmony your Harmony your Harmony your Harmony are all entirely different and I I the proportionality I agree with Dave but I'm also as you guys I mean from everything I say is I give them options I don't care if it's they want to build uh the Guggenheim let them build the Guggenheim if they want to build baloa let build baloa they want to build a square box that looks good that meets all the let them build it but your design structure and thoughts in terms of how it looks and that's what this really is is how it looks but you can't even buy those things well that's the other part it you know yes you can find some of these ratios but most people it's not what they build so don't have ratios have raos I'm saying strike the entire number one completely is is my makes no sense did you hear what he said strike it yeah we don't we Dr paa reminded us that we don't have those that standard today okay yeah so are we good with I'm okay so then number two under Harmony um the title and the purpose statement discuss a base Middle top but do not provide a standard for the middle in the section and then so the question is is that intentional so that's a question for kimley horn they put a lot of fuzzy language in here this is Buffy this is just get rid of it me whole thing SE anyone have any thoughts on Harmony so so I think they need to explain what this means yeah I mean Nicole had a good comments it's not measurable well you can measure a base middle and top but they didn't Define a middle and their definition is Loosey Goosey and it also says every building well think about a one-story building you know come on it's got a base and a top the the the middle the base is the base I mean there's no middle but they didn't Define what that even means fuzzy and it's not def is exactly what this is it needs to you can Define it you can if you want well so when when you finally read what I submitted last week you'll see it defined but that's for that District and the what that's different okay you need toine theas top and not here all good all right reced dele okay it's gone if they wrote it better it it could be there I mean we can discuss with consult but it for me what what I think um that it's much more prescriptive than what we have today right so some some language that I find here it's good for an architectural class we're discussing you know what is good design but for us it has to be enforceable and it has to be enforceable to you know so these are minimum standards our standards are really and and I don't think any city um any good architecture comes from standards from city codes Right comes from good projects the intention behind so these are it's just standards to avoid to say bring think about design right and these are the elements that we we are going to review but we do not want to design for the architect for instance the next section is about architectural style they want to define a style so each project that has to define a style and has to have the elements you know you know prescriptive to that style so we we don't want to go there right to um so the staff suggesting strike number three so Stephen Stephen is is that was that a thumbs up or or or a sound so let's talk about number three this whole like you get me just SE sitting there having to go up and and going it's it's defining everything should be nice everything should look the same everything should be consistent it's who said first of all a consistent architectural element and you name some of the cons architectural elements but there are more and one of them can be a radical you know it's it's a radical design okay what does that mean well it doesn't conform to any of those so each design style we're right there someone had to do it first and if someone did it first it didn't mean any of these things I do however think that on one plan one project should have a consistent architectural style I don't care what it is but not to have here's a mixed a multif family or whatever and each building has I know they wouldn't do it but I think it needs we need to say whatever Style is going to be consistent throughout the development not that you have medieval and but even the park has different styles right so I don't care the style just consistent on the project well but but say if we consider over the park one big development development has different styles within it the two apartment buildings are radically different but you're a part I guess what I'm trying to say is like but you're one a each developer each develop Pro and each building associated with thatment but if I if I have four different buildings apartment buildings I make them look different because I want them to be different then it just I understand what you're saying it it there should be a style it doesn't have to be the same there should be some style there should be some thought there is going to be most likely but compliment styles with well so so here's the problem with that so when you look at Urban form one of the complaints is blandness and sameness because cities used to be built a little piece at a time and people did what they wanted which created variety with some uniformity of heights and articulation something okay but now there's city codes that try to enforce lack of Conformity to make it look like the way cities used to look so in a project that that's a Suburban project you build it and every building looks the same in a in a city when when it all looks the same it's boring and Bland and you don't know where you are you might as well be 200 feet that way you don't know the difference I wouldn't ever think that down in you know like any of the districts would all be the same I'm just talking about like I you guys don't to done I'm making an apartment complex and there's three buildings I I personally think the three buildings should be similar in arit well they usually are they usually are right so we we usually do not have that issue um because even for you know I don't care savings they would have the same materials they would have the same they may vary colors whatever but it's not just again it's fluff this is just fluff I don't know if they created this to create stuff and we've created stuff I just but that's what it seems like to me this whole SE so far has been yes we're putting in stuff to say that we put stuff do you guys do you guys want to strike three change it strike it zap it strike we're bowling tonight so far we've got three strikes and actually that's a jerky there will not be anything in article 8 let me tell you cuz all of it is what's that there will be no language in article 8 because no there will be language a lot of it is fluff that's not true that's not true we're getting to sections that are okay deorah articulation elements are are are okay because they're not value judgments all right so let's go to page eight articulation and [Music] design um number four architectural elements elements so this section we deleted well we article four also Al has articulation Provisions for the targeted areas so we're trying to see if all of the articulation elements should be located in one article um or should the articulation elements from Article 4 should be moved over to article 8 so I they need to put everything into one location Artic try to do I thought right they were trying to do something of that nature but it didn't work out that way okay so we want them to put articulation elements in one section in one article so it it should go in article eight so that people don't have to jump around to find articulation um so that's our our recommendation and then um we replaced must with shall and you'll see that in in four and what can you click on rear facade the comment is article four okay so yeah we can have that one oh that's a definition okay so then the next how does the board feel about moving articulation to one section I agree okay you can put ldcc to move articulation element under so on page eight part two it's um eight right there we changed um under story tree to small and medium trees and this is what's the title of that one okay so types of articulation elements so one it's as if it allows for um understory tree so we wanted to identify what the understory tree meant so we titled it small and medium siiz tree is the board okay with that y okay and then we added um Corner articulation elements including any of the above or a vertical wall signage an Associated Plaza or common area public art and this was added from the previous article 8 it was already in there and we wanted to put this back um into this section they deleted it in in corner articulations wouldn't you include a like a corner Tower or a corner entrance so do you perceive that as included an Associated Plaza common area public art I think the existing code has language for that was it removed they removed a lot of that's in article eight but usually a tower you know anything that that U differentiates the corner is considered an articulation so this includes so there can be other things and I see you you give a little nod to Art again yeah it was already in the um code we just U moved it back over so you know alamont thinks art is a sign and makes you take it out if it's a cow in front of Sam seltzers if anyone remembers the cow uhhuh they called The Cow a sign and made them remove it oh is it still open no yeah I thought it closed down no after they lost the cow was all downhill from there oh it closed down after the cow left okay so page [Music] nine do we need to add language to that other section I don't think so okay okay so um what were you going to say I would I would add just the common stuff that we have so go back to Pages yeah just to add more examples in the in in nine right yeah or even we okay page nine um a finra so kimley horn removed the finra language um that was broken down by typology so we replace the language um in this section so you'll see it's existing language that we replaced so you can go down this is for um Windows Doors it's it's already language that's in the code is there any issues so they struck in the version we have the garage door thing with the 20% I think it needs to go back in if you didn't put it back in and that so the weird thing they did was made everything the same and that was a town home thing only I think right wasn't it the the garage doors with Windows could count entirely if they have 20% Windows yeah I think so I think we applied also to a multif family that had okay but they they in the version I have struck it and I think you should have it okay so I I don't know if you put it back in anywhere it's not that one um a garage it's a garage door I think it yeah I I think that should go back in just like but everyone else has to agree didn't isn't that new language okay so yeah we are we're already seeing keep that language and and haris and Flo had also a question saying that it they would require more deviation garage um down homes so just so everyone understands it's happened on a bunch of projects the town home with the garage door in the front isn't going to meet requirements for fenestration So you add four sections in the garage door you do the top section as as Windows and then it looks better and it qualifies kimley horn was removing that and it kind of takes the tool away what's that at that point every helps yeah okay so on page 10 there's an ldcc consensus to keep the language right okay I would put ldcc did they explain why they lumped it all into one thing well was to consolidate right but everything's different it's the typologies are different so the requirements should be different I think because there was a lot of um repetition so there's stuff that we can consolidate that that's what we did but then I think they I I think they were trying to stream streamline things without taking into account the different nuances of those different typologies so um we of course deal with it all the time so we know that there are different issues related to to the different typology so so when are you letting them go and doing this yourself when are we what letting them go and doing this yourself I don't know what you're saying I don't I'm not understanding it's moving on you know where I okay so page 10 part two it's the same thing um kimley horn removed some of the existing language it's 8.4 materials and colors so we highlighted some of the stuff that we want to keep um it provides for more measurable standards so three and five of that and then if you go down seven so I agree with removing AC the percentages um so I think it was a mistake to force people into brick or stone frankly you're you're saying put that back so under brick or stone if you go click on Bricker stone that would be I think we the idea was to expand the the time types of upgraded material but still have a percentage so so if you add to that things like cast stone and ceramic tile and yeah you know some other quality materials so this Steven knows this is called The Dominic clause and he's not the mayor anymore so we don't need the dominant claws he likes brick or stone and that's why we have brick or stone in a lot of places so let so the I think the thing was is that we wanted to make sure that it did not allow for 100% stucko right so but if you talk to Dr Korea she will tell you there's some beautiful buildings that can be built using stuckle nothing but stuckle so um but I don't know if the city is ready that's impossible in Florida it would appear yeah but so again this is all created by the community the thing is that I think the architecture that we have been attracting people seem to like it right so there is a percentage of an upgraded material and and U and um so I think that's the discussion what what kind of new materials we can add to you know the the list of upgraded material because I think in the work Session One council member said we are not going to allow 100% stuck off so I think the idea is still there that they do not want to have a building that does not you know so so I would agree with that to a degree but but everyone understand we're now talking about in some districts 8 to 12 stories and so what matters to the human eye is what matters to a certain height you don't really know what the material is above three or four stories you have no idea so when you look at a percentage if you have a one or two story building 10 10 or 20% is not that much if you're building a 12-story building you're driving up the expense with no benefit so I think applying the percentages to a certain height makes sense you understand what I'm saying and that is how it's it is today we have ground floor and and upper floors right so you're right I mean if you have a large building I mean you we still want good architecture right but um then it you have to maximize you know the more expensive stuff where you can see right so we we took out everything about the base but but the first let's say a lot of people use the rule of thumb your RightWay is 80 feet wide the first level of your building should should be like up to 80 feet tall beyond that and I've asked on the planners I'm using what does the human really see and there's all kinds of studies on it you'll see a certain distance ahead you'll see a certain distance up you're not going to Crane your neck all the way back and try to figure out what material is way up there so making someone build with it is a lot of expense where it doesn't matter you want all the expense on the on the ground floor or the first couple floors so if you guys can come up with a way to do that other materials and apply it to what's visible somehow I think that sounds like an appropriate I agree approach yeah but we we're not going to write it today I'm sorry we're not going to write it today no we we'll have to bring back and again add you know as many materials as you can add to that and even the thoughts you know OBO the Park's another example of the first set of Apartments we all love the the pictures and the thoughts of the materials and then when you looked at it you kind of went ah there's just it it's just it's not I don't know what it is but it's just not popping like the picture does and the materials and the thoughts so you never even know in the end you go oh this looks great in thought and theory and then the finished product still goes it's not as bang as you expected so Teresa I finally gave you what you asked for a long time ago what what would I write but it's different because it's for that District I did not open yet it's okay but I will I will open and and review I know it came last week okay so um page 11 um C it says maximum colors no this is the colors so they removed they they were the ones striking right okay yeah they removed it okay and so they added this this is is talking about the maximum number of colors says a maximum number of three colors may be used on the exterior walls of any building plus two additional colors for trim cornice work so that's existing then it says colors used on the exterior of any building shall be minimal colors may not Clash but should complement each other this excludes approved art works of art so we're wondering how do we regulate this as well as um what is Clash how is it defined I think you just delete what they added before is you count it I would deleting so you you had a long list of what's not good and I think that was a good list the glaring unattractive flues ultraviolet all that stuff I think that does the trick yeah so the board's consensus is to delete the new section so on the natural materials M I would refer back to the section we just add asked you to add other materials to I mean it says such as brick or stone so natural materials you know just I I would say if you're adding certain things to that other section about materials other than brick and stone I would just mirror it um my other comment is where it says this excludes approved works of art so you're would you allow artwork on the building itself that then we do like muros right so muros are um considered art but they can be colorful right so then I would if you're going to keep SE and deleting out the two sentences I would keep this exclusive Pro yeah okay so colors up to other leave that okay and then under D natural materials to Define is it the consensus to have a definition for whatever list you added to the yeah and maybe it's not natural the term right because it can be a tile it can be yeah it it looking like wood May it's not wood that's not natural It's Tricky is is porcelain a natural material not exactly is Brick well not exactly only stone is and the woods in wood and you don't really like to use wood in Central Florida it's not a good idea so we're almost finished um I have three more slides and then that's it so page 11 this is talking about roof modulation and they um deleted this section um five if you go down to five five six they're recommending deletion of it so our question is do we really want a roof line with no character if we require no roof modulation it would be difficult in requiring buildings to provide architectural elements um and then um we had two different versions of this where um another staff read it differently the consultant retained the design intent of the roof modulation section but removed the enforcement metrics are we no longer interested in regulating roof modulations um do we rather inform and hope for the best so I I think the the consultant what they did is as if we had an Architectural Review Board right that would that you have just the intention of the code and the Architectural Review Board will be the one like Orlando has is that how they have it but we don't have one so we don't have it so for us it has to be staff and not you know all the staff we do not have Architects right in staff to be able to review so the the only thing I would say is if you're looking to put most of this back in right so can you go a little further up there okay the only thing I would say be cognizant of a lot of this was oriented toward people that are going to have pitched roofs which you're not going to have on these taller buildings so I think you have to have a way to have these two elements with a parit or you know a flat roof there's got to be a way to do it that is pitched roof forms so as long as the list has enough options like a parit can be stepped a parit can have a supporting cornice we we have we have that it can uh but some of those things I think you state elsewhere a wall facade element can't count as a roof articulation you know what I'm saying so I'm just saying not necessarily tonight but make sure that list is robust enough so that there's ways to articulate a a flat roof element without a pitched roof because these very tall buildings you're not even going to really see a pitched roof way up there m okay so we're bringing that you're you're saying we should bring this back that's because these are the standards right to be forceable because other why is it's just a wishful thinking you know principle yeah so so I'm I'm saying it's been good yeah I I like what it's created I think just recognize flat roof buildings and give away for them to articulate and I agree with that think you might pull out flat roofs and talking about flat roofs on own and how that's Tak care POS okay allow for keep it and then allow for is there a consensus to allow for the flat Ro and allow them to um have a way come up with a list of articulations so A and B is already so one is saying we don't want the um to be just one line know so it has to have some kind of you know um interest there and then we have um the parapad so these are all you know elements in the but I I would say you're looking at these buildings and articulating the roof every 40 feet on a flat roof thing is kind of artificial it's the parapet right that it's going to be articulated so right the flat the the roof you know is going to be flash yeah you're not going to see the roof you're going see the roof so I'm just saying rework that let us see what you do for flat roofs there's ways to do it because calls out unless that's a flat roof but I don't know where else that would go in there well there's different things flat roofs do the you know like she said if you step the height if you step the parit if you create a feature over an entrance or something you know so they talked about corners of buildings if you do a special roof treatment at the corner you know just something in the list so that people don't feel forced to pitch GRS so so you're going to bring this back this section or are you going to we'll have to we're going to talk it over with the consultant as well so they can provide us with some okay again I stay leave them out of it okay so the next one is on page 12 8.6 parking garage standard so this one a um the consultant removed a lot of standards that were already in article 8 for garage um so they removed the enforcement metric that was already there in the current version of article8 to um so we're telling them to put that language back inside of article 8 the enforcement or at least the measure because we don't want the parking garage standards to be informative guidelines we want it to be measurable standards so um they did put some fuzzy language in here which is fine but we want the more measurable language as well so there's some things they added I'd like to see if you struck because I think they were bad okay so let's go through the ones that you uh in B you might have commented on them um so they they kind of had this only have a single entrance thing somewhere is that gone so they want the entrance on the side street okay so I think it's different from what it's B1 it says um parking garages shall be accessed from side streets or alleys unless no such access is available so there was one version and maybe it's gone that said they didn't want you to have more than one access point which I thought flew in the face of your normal thing so I guess that's gone still there access oh okay that's fine I might might have read it wrong okay so this section um we wanted to know if the other requirements are applicable to the garage such as massing articulation Etc I would think a garage that's not hid from view should meet the standards so one one of the things I've seen in other codes to be careful about so typically a fenestration requirement requires light to be able to go through where if you have people with headlights and parking garages you don't necessarily want lights shining at you from inside so I think just be careful about that okay you understand what I'm saying do you all believe that we should have those the massing and and other why shouldn't you why should a parking garage get special treatment is it the consensus of the board okay so let's put everybody's numb down yeah that they should under here it says yeah no just highlighted highlight that parking garage and and the title and then it's the ldcc consensus that ning articulation should apply to parking garage I'm just saying be careful with fin ation okay fenestration usually in uh in parking garages is an opening well right but what I'm saying is an opening near ground level where you're seeing and you have headlights coming at you not a good idea it's it's it's it's RAR like that right usually it's you have a parapad and then you have an opening some have you you'd rather people hid the garage M right yeah yeah okay so the last thing that we did was we with this um section number four uh it says requirements including slope and grade are determined by the engineering standards manual um engineering standards manual does not have guidelines for parking garages so it would not apply so we removed that language and that is it for this section so you all are finished for tonight we we'll be back in two more weeks we get the exciting presentation yeah it's been two weeks all right so thank you so the next item is uh discussion items discussion of meeting times for future meetings so the only things on the agenda Wednesday May 29th at 2:30 and Tuesday June 25th at 5:30 were you thinking about additional meetings so we will have a July 9th meeting at 2:30 at 2:30 uhhuh July 23rd as well at 2:30 July 23rd can you um I'll send you out the schedule I would say send out the schedule and then ask for availability since it is summer so that way if we need to get some off and re relook at dates I think that would be really good so since Sam is evidently expert at how to export from Google Docs so that we can get the actual documents we've actually reviewed in the interim if those could be sent and a request I made a few times and maybe you don't have it and maybe we don't care anymore there were changes that supposedly were made to Article 4 by kimley horn in our discussion at the meeting in March that we don't have right and we have not um so they're going to provide us with the document once all the changes have been made okay um I don't know if we they have screenshots or just just those sections that were shown on the um screen if it's not done I don't want they acted like oh well we're changing all that yeah but that was a long time ago all right any other comments or announcements from the board no all right we went over meeting dates and with that we will adjourn can I have a motion to adjourn so thank you Stephen hates motions but he just made them um can I have a second Sten second thank you Don you want to vote on a journey well somebody weird you don't have to do anything no okay all in favor to adjourn adjourn thank a motion to adjourn so if Bob poock sat next to you like he does to me the C he tell you everything you're doing at the meeting I hear all the time again never take motion it's just consensus I want to talk about logistics of how we're going to get all this done are we going to have are you going to have what's what's our we talking now I know you um how are we going to get everything to the counil because ldcc LDC is going to have recommendations LPA has some different recommendations and I may have some different recation when I go through I don't are we going to have I guess are are they going to have a work session or work session with Council and and get what they want to do before we put together the final ordinance so