[I. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:13]
          I LIKE TO CALL THIS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26 PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ORDER MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL ON YOUR MIND JACKSON. JACKSON HERE. MR. KATHLEEN DON'T GET HERE, MR. RICH. DON'T GO HERE. COMMISSIONER JIM FLYNN HERE. 
          [III. NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT]
COMMISSIONER LYDIA APPLE HERE VICE CHAIRMAN CHARLIE WHAT MORE MR. JASON STEWART NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR ANY NEW ITEMS AFTER 9:30 P.M. UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAD 
          [IV. NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS*]
NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 930 MAYBE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR SPECIAL MEETING AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS NOTICE REGARDING A PUBLIC COMMENT EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN AND IN SPEAKING AVOID 
          [V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA]
DISRESPECTING THE COMMISSION STAFF OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE MEETING STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SPEAKING FOR THE RECORD COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES MA'AM AN ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MOVED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN 
          [VI. CIVILITY PLEDGE]
FAVOR. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A CIVILITY PLEDGE THAT IS NEW SO WE PLEDGE TO BUILD A AND MORE PROSPEROUS COMMUNITY BY ADVOCATING FOR CIVIL 
          [VII. ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
ENGAGEMENT, RESPECTING OTHERS AND THEIR VIEWPOINTS AND FINDING SOLUTIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON. MAY I HAVE AN ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH THE 22ND SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON FAVOR I WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS 
          [VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA*]
          [X.1. 1268 May River Road (Development Plan)]
DO YOU HAVE ANY ORDERS. OKAY WE WILL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS 1268 YOU MAY READ OUR WORLD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN REQUEST ON NATHAN SIRI OF SIRI ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER MAY REFER PROJECT LLC FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1268 MAY RIVER ROAD IT'S A REQUEST BY NATHAN DECREE OF SIRI ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY ON OUR MAIN RIVER PROJECT LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION PROJECT PROPOSES SITE IMPROVEMENT IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE CONVERSION OF THE USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. IT'S A 0.66 ACRE PROPERTY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IT'S LOCATED CALLED 68 MAIN RIVER ROAD. THE SITE CURRENTLY HOUSES A HISTORIC STRUCTURE NATHANIEL BROWN'S COTTAGE BUILT IN 1950 BUT THE PARCEL BUILDING AND A WOODEN SHED AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY JUST EAST THE BLUFFTON POLICE SUBSTATION ON THE RIVER ROAD IN AN AREA OF THE SAME PROPERTY THE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPER PLAN LOCATED THE KENDALL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS SUBJECT THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE APRON GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE, RAIN GARDEN GRAVEL PARKING AND A CONCRETE SPAN ASSESSABLE 88 SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION THE SITE USE FROM TO COMMERCIAL THERE WERE STAFF COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WERE REVIEWED ON MARCH SECOND AND 2023. THE APPLICANT A RESPONSE ON MARCH 28TH 2023 AND ALSO HAS THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL HISTORIC DISTRICT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WILL BE REQUIRED HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT TAKES A LITTLE BIT CLOSER THIS MAY RIVER ROAD OUT HERE AND THIS WOULD BE NEW CONCRETE APRONS 2024 FEET WIDE COMING IN AT 24 FEET 24 FEET IS THE REQUIRED WIDTH FROM THE 30 ARMS AND ALL BELIEVE COMES IN COMES TO BACK PROVIDING A HANDICAPPED SPACE HERE TWO ADDITIONAL SPACES HERE THERE ARE ACTUALLY FOUR ON STREET PARKING SPACES HERE MEETING THE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT THIS IS THE NATHANIEL BROWN'S COTTAGE THIS IS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BOTH THEM ARE BEING BEEN PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE GOING FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL PLANNING COMMISSION SO CONSIDER THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 310 THREE A VIDEO IN ASSESSING THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN THESE ARE THE 
          [00:05:01]
CRITERIA THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING THEY COULD APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS TABLE THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE TOWN KIND OF STAFF FINDS OUT THE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 3003 A OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IS MEANT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED UP FOR QUESTION AND NECESSARY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAN AT THE MOMENT THE APPLICANT WANT TO SPEAK PLEASE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE IN YOUR NAME AND THE AREA MR. ENGINEERING IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROJECT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONVERT THE USE FROM RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL WE GONE THROUGH MET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND THROUGH THE DRC AND FOR THAT MATTER. QUESTION DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS WILL BE USED FOR? IT'LL BE AN OFFICE SPACE FOR LIKE I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BUT IT IS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS GOING TO COME IN THERE AND USE A LOT AND IT WILL BE USED FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OF SOME SORT THAT WILL ALSO BE A COMMERCIAL OFFICE THAT WOULD BE RENTED OUT SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER. I'M NOT SURE THE BACK THERE WE YOU JUST WE'RE JUST WE'RE TRYING TO FILL RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOME INTEREST IN THE FIRST FRONT BUILDING BUT WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR THE SMALLER STRUCTURE IN THE BACK AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THE PLANS WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE COMMERCIAL SPACES RIGHT NOW THE WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRETTY PRETTY WELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT WOULD LOVE TO TAKE OVER THAT SPACE AND THEN AS OF RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T WANT THAT SECONDARY SPACE. 
          BUT THEY SAID AFTER WE GET IT FIXED OUT THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY WANT TO TAKE LIKE A DESIGN CENTER OR SOMETHING TO SORT THIS OUT BUT WE'RE THINKING LIKE A SMALL ART STUDIO OR YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COME UP FOR COMMERCIAL. 
          THANK YOU. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN THE PLAN? UM, I HAVE A BIG CONCERN ABOUT THE 70 INCH LIKE OAK ON THE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE. 
          YEAH. CAN YOU SEE WHERE THAT 70 AND FIVE OAK IS SO FACT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME LIKE THE SIDEWALK IS CONCRETE IMPERVIOUS PROBABLY 3 TO 4 FEET FROM THE TRUNK OF THAT TREE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY WHICH MEANS THE ROOF LAYER COMES OUT BEYOND THAT AND YOU'RE YOU'RE COMING UP REALLY CLOSE THAT I HAVE THE COMPACTED DRIVE THAT IS ADJACENT TO THAT PROBABLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS THAT TRUNK OR YOU KNOW THAT WHERE THE TREE IS LOCATED AGAIN THOSE ROOTS BEING DUG OUT THAT'S GOING TO DAMAGE A LOT OF THE ROOTS BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING THE TOP EIGHT INCHES TO PUT IN THIS GRAVEL DRIVE WHICH IS THAT'S WHERE ALL THE ROOTS FOR THIS LARGE SPECIMEN TREE ARE LOCATED. A TREE IS CLEARLY SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT IMPACTS EVEN THE FEELING THE STREETSCAPE SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF I CAN YOU TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF REDUCING THE WIDTH OF THAT GRAVEL TO PULL IT AWAY FROM THAT 17 INCH LIVE OAK AND THEN EITHER RELOCATE THE SERVICE OR TO RELOCATE THE ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY WALL OR THE DRIVE BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY CAN'T CHANGE IT AND THEN TO WALK AWAY RELOCATE THE WALKWAYS TO SERVICE YARD OR RELOCATE THE SERVICE YARD AND ACCESS IT SO THAT YOU'RE LIKE SO YOU'RE MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF IMPACT TO THAT TREE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO THE FRONT DOOR CAME OFF AND THE ONLY THING I COULD SHOW IN THE MOVE WITH THE SERVICE YARD IN THE BACK OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE AND IF YOU COULD MAKE IT PERVIOUS AMERICAN CAN'T I MEAN THE FRONT DOORS WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS I CAN'T MAKE YOU CHANGE THE CONDITION OF THAT BUILDING BUT CHANGE CHANGING HOW YOU ACCESS YEAH THAT SO MAYBE NOT CHANGING THE ACCESS OF THE DOOR BUT THE CHANGE IN THE SERVICE AREA SO YOU DON'T GO ALL THE WAY BACK YEAH AREA AND THEN WHAT YOU DO ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOOR PERVIOUS YEAH. THE OTHER AND REDUCES THE WIDTH 
          [00:10:09]
OF THAT GRAVEL. I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BECAUSE SINCE YOU'RE NOT PARKING OFF OF IT IT DOESN'T TO BE 24 HOUR REQUIREMENT THEN WE WENT DOWN TO THE MINIMUM BY THE BUILDING AT 22 FEET THE STATE IS REQUIRING 30 FOOT WIDE OFF OF THE ROAD. 
          SO WE'RE REALLY IN A TOUGH I MEAN THESE ARE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 50 YEARS. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE SITE WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND WITH THE REQUEST BY NCDOT IT'S NOT MUCH OF A REALLY AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WE CAN GO WITH. 
          YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE 24 FEET OF THAT GRAVEL DRIVE WHEN IT COMES AFTER IT COMES OFF OF THAT 30 FOOT. SO IF I GET TO GO DOWN TO 20 TO PLEASE YOU KNOW I, THINK THE GUIDELINES WILL OFFER TO YOU BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CONFIRM THAT CAN YOU LOOK THE STADIUM IS JUST GIVEN THAT WITH THE APRON OR YEAH THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE 30 SO THEY SAID YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE A 30 ABOUT 30 PULL OFF AND THEN WE CAN GO SO SO YOU CAN TAPER OFF OF THAT 30 GO TO WORK ARE YOU GOING TO GO BELOW WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? I TRIED TO ADDRESS THIS 23 BECAUSE THERE'S NO PARKING THERE. YEAH, RIGHT. 
          AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT 20 SEE THAT ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE PART WHERE YOU DO GET TO THE PARKING AREA THEN IT HAS TO GO TO 22 WHERE YOU HAVE IT. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BUDGET THAT WAY YOU CAN PULL IT OFF THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT TOO AROUND PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS EASY TO DEAL WITH IS BUT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS ADA ACCESS TO THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BUILDING OR THE SECONDARY BUILDING TO OKAY I GUESS WE'RE SHRINKING DOWN WE CONSIDER YOU'VE GOT TO GET ACROSS THAT GRAVEL DRIVE IN AN 88 COMPLIANT PATH BUT CURRENTLY YOU'RE GOING TO SHUT I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR MORE THAN FOUR FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH THAT PORTION OR DOES THAT COME OUT FINAL IN LANDSCAPE THEN FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS FAR AS ACCESSIBILITY, WHAT ABOUT GOVERNMENT POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACCESS IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND THEN THE B THE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED A THE LANDSCAPE PLAN UNTIL FINAL I WAS JUST VERIFYING THAT FOR OUR PURPOSES WE CAN'T MAKE A CONDITION ABOUT AN 88 ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT WILL ENSURE 85 DURING THE FINAL YES YEAH. SO IF IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AUDIO VIDEO FOR SECTION FIVE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE 88 COMPLIANCE IN THAT SECTION SO IT WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT WITH THIS. I'M SAYING THEY'LL DO THAT AT THIS POINT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I'M SAYING ON RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIKE SHOW EVERY LITTLE DETAIL BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAN. RIGHT. 
          THE CHARGE HAD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECTION FIVE OF THE VIDEO. 
          THIS IS NOT THAT'S WHAT SAYING IT CAN'T BE MADE AS A CONDITION. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE PRESENTLY AND THAT IT CAN BE WORKED THROUGH BUT IT SHOULD BE A CONDITION AS WELL. I ARGUING THE MOTION THAN ANYTHING THAT'S BECAUSE AND WE SO WE'RE TALKING PHYSICALLY FROM THE HANDICAPPED SPOT TO THE THEATER HERE THEN ALSO THE SIDEWALK HERE BEING KIND OF SO THE WHICH IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH SMALL PROBLEM CREDIT IS IT ACCESSIBLE DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO HAVE CONCRETE PATH ALL THE WAY OVER TO THIS PART OR CAN THEY JUST PUT AN ADA SPOT BY THAT BUILDING FOR THE ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THE ENGINEERING SECTION BUT MAYBE WE CAN PUT IT RIGHT NEXT WHERE WE'RE I TURN IT OFF MAYBE WE CAN JUST HAVE COMPULSORY AND THEN FIGURE OUT EVEN THERE'S A BACK THERE'S ACTUALLY AT THE ENTRANCE EITHER WAY I MAY NEED RUN A SIDEWALK OVER THAT EITHER 
          [00:15:08]
88 RAMP OR ON A SIDEWALK FROM THE PARKING TO THAT BUILDING SO WE'LL PLAY AROUND WITH IT. 
          I THINK THERE'S SOME DEFINITE OPTIONS ON IT. WE SEE WHAT GOING FOR SO SO THE SERVICE YARD IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION IF WE WERE JUST TO MAKE THAT PERVIOUS PATH FROM THE SERVICE OR TO THE FRONT OR TIE IN THAT WOULD BE OKAY WITH YOU IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. 
          I WOULD PREFER IT NOT BE THERE BUT IT'S IT'S CLOSE TO THAT TREE I WOULD COULD IT BE ACCESS FROM THE OTHER SIDE. IT COULD IF YOU COULD MAYBE JUST MIRROR IT SURE ENOUGH ANYTHING ELSE CAN I A MOTION FUNDING LANGUAGE I MAKE A MOTION OH I DO THAT I'M SORRY I'VE HAD MORE NOTES AND THIS IS SUGGESTION I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT A FIRE ESCAPE PLAN BUT YOU GOT LIVE OAKS SHOWING ON THAT TREE CANOPY PLAN AND THE BULBS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING ARE JUST A FEW FEET FROM THE BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT AND I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU THAT THOSE GET BIG AND YOU DON'T WANT MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE IN THE FUTURE TRYING TO KEEP THOSE CURRENT OFF OF THE BUILDING SO I WOULD SUGGEST GIVING YOURSELF A LITTLE MORE SPACE BETWEEN THE LIVE OAKS AND YOUR EXISTING BUILDINGS PUT THAT RECOMMENDATION AND HOW FAR I MEAN THAT USED TO BE I DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTORY TREES PERSONALLY AND INCLUDE 15 FEET FROM A BUILDING BUT AND THAT'S STILL A LITTLE ESPECIALLY IF I LOOK THAT BEING SO CLOSER I UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE SEEN LIVE ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE BUILDING SHOULD NO WORDS ARE NECESSARY BUT THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT, NOW I CAN MAKE A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE OUR MOTION PAGE TO FIND DIFFERENT? YEAH. 
          UM, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION TO PROVIDE AN 88 COMPLIANT PASS TO THE BUILDING ONE BE ON THE SECOND SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PAPER I 
          [X.2. 120 Persimmon Street (Development Plan)]
IF YOU'RE GOING ON TO NUMBER TWO ONE 20% IN THE STREET IT'S A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST BY SAN CONNER ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER JAMES GROUP APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION I LIKE OKAY THANK YOU. 
          PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR 124 SEVEN STREET IT'S A REQUEST BY TIM CONNER ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER JAMES JEFFCO FOR APPROVAL. THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS, THE PROJECT 6600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING THOUSAND 880 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND THOUSAND 800 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE. THE .68 ACRE PROPERTY IS ON TRY TO PROPERTY AND IS LOCATED AT 124 SIMMONS STREET WITH THIS PROPERTY FOR THE PARK MASTER PLAN IS THE LOCATION OF TWO SOUTH OF BLUFFTON PARKWAY ON PERSIMMON AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SAME LOCATION THE APPLICANT THE APPLICATION PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED WITHIN THE SHULTS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE SCHULTZ TRACT PAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM CONCEPT PLAN AND THE BLUFFTON PART TRACTS B C AND THE MASTER PLAN THE PROJECT PROPOSES SIX 6600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING THOUSAND 880 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND 4800 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE THAT MEETS THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF 12 STANDARD PARKING SPACES AND TWO ACCESSIBLE HANDICAPPED SPACES. STAFF COMMENTS WERE REVIEWED AT THE MARCH 15, 2023 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON MARCH 29 A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE PARK COMMERCIAL APPEAL A FOR SITE LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURE WILL BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW OF THIS PERSON 
          [00:20:06]
PERSIMMON STREET AND RAIN HENRY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOT PROVIDING THE APPROPRIATE PARKING SPACES WHERE THEY THROUGH DUMPSTER LOCATION BACK HERE WE HAVE COMPLETE PARKING IT'S ALSO REQUIRED PARKING IN THE VERY BACK. THIS IS 30 FEET WIDE AS YOU INTO THE PARKING AREA OF THE BACK SIDE IT'S A LITTLE WIDER THAN USUAL TO PROVIDE FOR LOADING AS WELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE CRITERIA FOR THE SECTION 310 THREE OF THE YOUDO AND IT'S IN THE APPLICATION THIS IS THE SAME REVIEW CRITERIA I JUST SHOWED YOU AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED AN APPROVED APPLICATION WITH TABLE THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND TOWN STAFF FINDS REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 310 THREE EIGHT OF THE UNIO AS MENTIONED RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE CONCERNS HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR HIM AND YOU MAY WANT TO START WITH DAN OR SAM. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF SOME OF THEM? I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXTRA TO ADD IT'S JUST GOING TO BE CONTRACTOR LOSSES OFFICE IN THE FRONT AND WAREHOUSE IN THE BACK. THEY'LL BE THE DOORS IN THE BACK SIDE WHERE THE FLEET VEHICLE PARKING IS FOR. ARE YOU PLANNING TO FENCE AN 83 VEHICLE PARKING AREA OR ARE THEY PLANNING ON NO, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE FOR THE INCLUSION FOR THE DUMPSTER PAD. 
          DO THEY HAVE OR HAVE THEY PAID FOR WHAT THEY'RE. DOING FOR THE FENCING FOR THAT. 
          YEP JUST TIMBER. TIMBER IT'LL BE WITHIN YEAH. UM A COUPLE OF CONCERNS I HAVE JUST FROM A AND I BELIEVE THE SUPPORT THIS AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PILOT REVIEW AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT VERY VERY RV WHICH DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT UM THERE THERE SHOULD BE A FOUNDATION REQUIRED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT AND SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED SPATIALLY BECAUSE THAT'S REFLECTED HERE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW LIKE SAID I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS BUT THAT MAY COME UP OKAY YEAH I CAN I'LL DOUBLE CHECK WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE ON THAT. 
          I THINK IT'S THE FOUNDATION PLANNING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED WHEN THE PARKING FRONTS THE MAIN ROAD SO IT'S PARKING HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WITH THE BUILDING BEHIND ME SO THAT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S NOT HOW I READ IT BUT THEY INTERPRET THAT DIFFERENTLY. BUT UM THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS WITH THAT DUMPSTER BEING LOCATED SO CLOSE TO THAT WETLAND BUFFER IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT KINDS OF THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DUMPED IN THIS DUMPSTER WOULD HATE FOR ANYTHING TO RUN OFF FROM THE DUMPSTER INTO OUR WETLAND BUFFER SO I JUST WOULD WANT IT SLOPED EITHER AWAY OR SOME KIND OF CURVING TO KEEP IT FROM DIRECT FLOW FROM THE DUMPSTER TO YEAH WE CAN WE CAN AGREE THAT TO HAVE IT NOT DISCHARGED WITH A LITTLE MORE BUFFER AND A COURT AND STORMWATER ANYWAY BUT OKAY YEAH THE SITE ON THAT BACK CORNER IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THERE ANYWAY A DRAINS TOWARD THE ROAD SO THAT WON'T BE THAT WON'T BE DIFFICULT TO DO AT ALL AND THE PARKING CALCULATIONS AS YOU SHOWED THEM DON'T INCLUDE FOR THE WAREHOUSE YOU ONLY INCLUDED FOR THE OFFICE ON THIS. I JUST TO SEE THAT FINISHED OUT I KNOW THE PARKING THERE I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TABLE COMPLETED WITH THAT INFORMATION . 
          OKAY UM THE OTHER QUESTION I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MAY BE ABLE TO MEET THIS I DON'T KNOW BUT WITHOUT THE TREE COVERAGE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND I JUST DON'T SEE I JUST DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE I DON'T KNOW I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW ME WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO MEET IT AND I'M MILDLY CONCERNED BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT SO OKAY. YEAH DOWN TO THAT AND REALLY IN 
          [00:25:04]
THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS ARE AWARE OF THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND I DON'T THINK BE HARD TO MEET THE THEY HAVE A THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT IS TO PLANT LIVE OAKS UP FRONT ALREADY ANYWAY YEAH SO WE'LL JUST INCORPORATE OTHER PLANTINGS. 
          YEAH AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THOSE I THINK IT'S EVERY 30 FEET TEN FEET FROM THAT TWO AND A HALF INCH CALIPER FURTHER. YEAH NICE. 
          YEAH AND SAM YOU'VE WORKED ON OTHER LOTS LIKE THIS IN AREA CORRECT? YEAH. THIS IS MY FOURTH ONE IN THAT SAME AREA. 
          OKAY. VERY FAMILIAR WITH WORKING IN THERE. 
          GOTCHA. OH OKAY. YOU LIKE ALL THE BUFFERS? OKAY, I KNOW IT'S JUST AN IT PICKY THING BUT IT'S EASIER TO READ THE PLAN WHEN YOU GOT THE INFORMATION BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE MONEY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND RECOMMENDED BY TOWN STAFF THAT'S SUBMITTED AND TRY TO SECOND THAT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PAPER I THANK YOU 
          [X.3. Washington Square Lot 4 - Starbucks (Development Plan)]
HEY I REMEMBER THE THREE WASHINGTON SQUARE LAW FOR STARTERS A REQUEST BY G-3 ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THE CLARA BARTON PARTNERS LLP FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. OKAY, THANK BELIEVE IT'S A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR WASHINGTON SQUARE LOT FOR FUTURE A STARBUCKS COFFEE HOUSE IT'S A REQUEST MARY KRAMER OF C3 ENGINEERING SURVEY LLC ON BEHALF THE PROPERTY OWNERS BUT CAROLE BASKIN PARTNERS L.P. FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION THE PROJECT PROPOSES A 2500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO SERVE AS A STARBUCKS COFFEE HOUSE. THE 1.03 ACRE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY COLTER PD AND LOCATED WITHIN THE BERKELEY PLACE PARCEL C MASTER PLAN AND THE WASHINGTON SQUARE ALONE. THE PLAN IS THE LOCATION. THE PROPERTY IS ON THE WEST OF WALTON PARKWAY. THE THIRD ROUTE IS SUPERIMPOSED OVER AN AERIAL. 
          THE APPLICATION IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING LOCATED WITH THE WALTER PLACE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BAR QUARTER CONCEPT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE BERKELEY PLACE PARCEL C FOR MASTER PLAN AND THE WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN WASHINGTON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION ON OCTOBER ONE, 2018 WITH THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCT IN ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL. THE PROJECT PROPOSES A 2500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO SERVE AS A STARBUCKS WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE BUCKWALTER COMMONS PLANNING AN AREA OF THE PROPERTY STAFF COMMENTS WERE REVIEWED THE MARCH 22ND 2023 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON APRIL 12 AND A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE WASHINGTON AREA WILL BE REQUIRED OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS MET HERE AS THE SITE PLAN LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITE PLAN THIS IS BLEECKER STREET IN BACK IS THE STARBUCKS WILL BE ACCESSED HERE BUT IF YOU'RE THROUGH THE DRIVE THRU YOU COME IN THE BACK ACCESS POINT AND ACCUSE UP HERE THIS IS SHOWING 12 QUEUING SPACES LOOKS LIKE MAYBE ABOUT 20 QUEUING SPACES BEFORE WE GET OFF OF PROPERTY DURING BUSY TIMES IF THEY EVER GET AS BUSY AS THAT THE THERE'S ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS THAT PARK AND WALK INTO THE BUILDING TO THE STANDARD PARKING AREAS IT'S PROVIDED HERE THE FRONT PARKING AREA. THERE'S TWO WAYS TO GET INTO THE THIS IS OUTSIDE A PATIO AREA THE TENSION IN THE LOWER CORNER DOWN HERE JUST NORTH OF THIS IS A LITTLE COUNTRY REFRESH IF FAMILIAR WITH THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOPPING CENTER CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION THREE TWO AND THREE A OF THE UDL AND ASSESSING AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA ARE THE SAME AS THE TWO PREVIOUS PROJECTS. 
          [00:30:04]
PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION THAT IS APPROVED THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IF APPROVED THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR DENIED APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION THREE TWO AND THREE OF THE UDL IS MET AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME LET ME KNOW MS. KRAMER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SHE IS THE APPLICANT ON THIS FLIGHT TO SPEAK WITH MS. KRAMER . WE CANNOT I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE BUT I KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH WASHINGTON SQUARE. 
          I CAN TELL YOU THAT AND IT'S OVER COLOR SURVEILLANCE AT THIS POINT BETTER THAN ANYTHING OUTSTANDING. WHEN I WAS FIRST. YEAH. 
          SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET FROM THE PARK? I DON'T SEE LAID OUT COMPLETELY BUT FROM THE PARKING AREA HERE TO THE COFFEE I CAN'T SEE WHERE YOUR PARKING WHERE YOUR POINT. 
          OH NO NO NO I'M IN YOU KNOW WHERE THAT LINE IS COMING WE SHOW HIM HOW TO GET HIM PARK TO BE AWARE YEAH OF OF BUILDING WITH THE FUND YEAH. FUND TO ADDRESS ALL THE SPOTS. 
          ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT THAT'S THE DOUBLE ENTRANCE. THEIR FRONT DOOR IS RIGHT HERE AND THERE'S NOT A DOOR HERE. OKAY, SO IT'S THE WALKWAY. YES, SIR. 
          YOU WILL. THIS IS BIG. DO NOT ENTER. 
          CANNOT GO THIS WAY. TURN AROUND. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME THIS WAY OR GO THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH THIS WAY. SORRY. 
          THE SCENE IS BY ORDER OF THE TRACK, SIR. YES SIR. 
          DOES THAT ANSWER IT OR NO? OKAY. CONFUSED JIM THE WHAT ZIPPER I THINK ABOUT THIS AND WHAT YOU'RE USED TO IS THAT WE'RE IN A DEVELOPMENT IN WASHINGTON SO THE STRAIGHT FACE IT'S REALLY WITH BLEECKER STREET GOING THIS WAY BECAUSE RIGHT HERE YEAH SO THAT WAS REALLY THE FRONT OKAY SO YOU COULD GO AHEAD KATHLEEN I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT. MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS FROM A HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE STANDPOINT THAT CROSSWALK THAT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU FIRST COME OUT OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THAT THAT THE DELIVERY OF THE TRASH SO YOU REFERRED TO THIS I WANT TO LOOK AT THE DRIVER AND THE REASON WHY HE DOES CIRCLING WITH HIS CURSOR. RIGHT. 
          OKAY SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT FOLKS THAT CHOOSE TO PARK HERE WOULD HAVE TO OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO THE BUILDING PROCESS OUT OF HERE OR ACROSS THE SIDEWALK HERE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. 
          AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE THE ONE ON THE UPPER END THERE'S PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR CONFLICT THERE. PEOPLE GET DONE WITH THEIR ORDER, THEY GRAB THEIR DRINK AND NOW THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR DRINK IN THEIR CUPHOLDER HERE AND THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. AND SO I'VE GOT MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS OR THAT SPOT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A THAT'S A THAT'S REAL PROBLEM FOR ME AND THEN YOU COMPEL ANOTHER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S REALLY FOR DUMPSTER ACCESS BUT IT'S ALSO SERVING PARKING LOT AS WELL. SO THEY ARE IT SO IT'S LIKE IT'S TWOFOLD IT IS JUST A LOT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING OUT FOR WHEN YOU FIRST COME OUT OF THE DRAG WHEN YOU'RE YOU'RE ALREADY YOUR MIND'S GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE AND SO I DON'T I DON'T LIKE THAT I DON'T LIKE THE DEAD END FOR THE PARKING ON THAT ON THE PORTION BASICALLY PARALLELS THE ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT I LIKE THE WAY THAT ADDRESSES BLEECKER STREET BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE YEAH WHERE THAT DEBT IS RIGHT INTO THIS MAY DRIVE I THINK IS AWKWARD AND I'VE GOT A ISSUE WITH THE DUMPSTER BASICALLY BEING AT THE FRONT OF THAT I THINK THERE'S TO PLACE THAT DUMPSTER SOMEWHERE ELSE WE HAD WE HAD IT THERE THANK YOU. YES WE MOVED IT HERE BUT WITH THAT CONFIGURATION IT ACTUALLY 
          [00:35:03]
FACES BOTH WALTER AND THAT WAS NOT LEFT SO WE MOVED IT BACK HERE. 
          I THINK IT'S EASIER TO BUFFER A SCREEN WHEN IN THE LOCATION THAT YOU WERE JUST POINTING TO AND THAT TO DO TO A LOT OF MEETINGS THAT YOU'LL HAVE WITH THEM STAFF AND STAFF AND THE OWNER YOU'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE DUMPSTER LOCATION CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. AND THEN AS A RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAD PROVIDED A SECOND SITE PLAN THAT WENT TO THE SHOWING LOCATION. I THINK THERE IS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN YOU AND OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WHOLE DESERT CLEAN UP THERE YOU DEVELOPMENT HAVE YOU THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CORRECT THEY NEVER WE HAD IT HERE I BROUGHT YOU TO PLAN B THE STARBUCKS WANTS IT HERE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MY DAY RIGHT. BUT IT FACES OPEN THE PLACE RIGHT IN PARKWAY AND THEY SAID NO, WE'RE OKAY WITH HAVING HEAVY LANDSCAPING AND IT LOCATED FOR SO NOW I JUST I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN HEAVILY LANDSCAPE THE SITE COUNCIL HOLIDAYS THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE THIN NARROW AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB OF IT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE SPINDLY LOOKING PLANTS SHOVED UP AGAINST A WOOD FENCE AND I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO AND I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT REALLY WELL FROM THE ROAD AND FROM THE PARKING LOT. AND AS YOU'RE ENTERING AND EXIT THE PROPERTY AND I JUST THINK IT'S A POOR PLACEMENT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE I'M IN CONFLICT WITH THE TOWN STAFF AT THIS POINT AND I JUST THINK YOU CAN PLACE IT THERE WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AND FIND A WAY TO SCREEN IT. I MEAN THERE'S THERE'S A LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT'S BASICALLY RUNNING ALONG THIS EASTERN THAT CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PLANTING TO PROVIDE SCREENING FROM THE LOCATION AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WHICH I WOULD MUCH PREFER TWO PLACES MORE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE CONCEALED AND I THINK EVEN WITH THAT ANGLE THE WAY IT WAS FACING THE ROADWAY THAT BUFFER IS THERE TO SCREEN IT. SO I JUST I WOULD ASK THAT THE STAFF RECONSIDER IF POSSIBLE HOW THE BETTER SCREEN THAT AND THAT AND AN ALTERNATE LOCATION WITH SOME OF IT AT LEAST FROM THE OTHER. SO WHEN THE DUMP TRUCK WHAT THE GARBAGE THAT WILL COME IN THE OTHER LOCATION SO THEY JUST HOW DO THEY COME IN AND OUT. 
          YEAH I'LL LOOK IT WE HAVE THIS HERE WIDENED IT WAS WIDER SO THAT THOSE COULD GET IN TO IT SAYING I'M A NARROW OKAY IT WAS WIDER SO RIGHT AND DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR PARKING SPACES? I MEAN I WON'T BE IN THE PARKING ANYWAY BUT YOU KNOW OKAY. 
          IT DID NOT IT WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT TOWN STAFF CAN WORK WITH THEM ON AGAIN AND REVISIT THE ISSUE WE'LL LOOK AT WHEN THE WHEN THIS MATURE LANDSCAPE AS PART OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY OF APPLICATION STAFF WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT JUST THINGS ARE PROPOSED TO SCREEN THAT THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT IN TROUBLE WITH ANY OTHER ANY OTHER APPROVALS IF THEY DO ME BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK BACK AND FORTH WITH IT SO RIGHT AND THEN IN THAT PREVIOUS DID YOU HAVE THAT PARKING LOT THAT WAS WITH THE DEAD END PORTION IN THAT PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE OTHER ENTRANCE PROVIDE ANOTHER ENTRANCE RIGHT. 
          YEAH SO WE DO KNOW BUT YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD A PARKING LOT THAT SECTION EXCUSE ME YOU'VE ALWAYS SAID PARKING IN THAT AREA HERE . YEAH. 
          YES I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANOTHER TO CONFIGURE THIS WHERE IT DOESN'T RESULT IN THE DEAD END WHERE YOU CAN PUSH THIS FORWARD AND INSTEAD OF HAVING BASICALLY THIS PERPENDICULAR YOU'RE LOSE YOU'RE LOSING A LOT OF POTENTIAL SPACE IN THIS CONFIGURATION. I THINK THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY PICK UP SOME PARKING, REMOVE THE DEAD END SECTION AND HAVE THE BUILDING IN THAT COURTYARD BASICALLY FACE BLEECKER STREET RATHER THAN HAVING THIS PARKING LOT HAVE AN ADJACENCY TO BLEECKER STREET AND SHIFT ALL OF THAT PARKING ZONE IS BASICALLY A CONTINUATION OF THOSE SEPARATE SPACES THAT ARE RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE STACK THROUGH AND THAT IS THAT MAKING SENSE NOW IN YOUR CASE, RIGHT? YEAH. BUT IF SOMETHING WERE TO BE 
          [00:40:04]
DRAWN ON THERE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT COMES FROM CORPORATE. 
          SO I HAVE YOU HAVE TO WORK CORPORATE ON DEFINITELY THE PART THREE ENGINEERING UP TAKE IT TO CORPORATE YEAH. AND THEN THEY WERE THE ONES THAT INTERESTED IN THE PARKING DESIGN ISN'T AN ISSUE AS FAR AS THEY KNOW IT'S NOT A THIS ISN'T A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU CAN GET A PARKING THE VEHICLES IN THE PARKING SPACES ADD THAT IN THAT THE LOCATION PROPOSED ON THOSE SPACES WHERE THE PARKING RIGHT CORRECT IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU CAN GET THEM IN THERE THIS IS A MY ISSUE IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PARKING TO BLEECKER STREET IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO BLEECKER STREET LIKE I WOULD MUCH RATHER THE ACCESS INTERSTATE WHATSOEVER. I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED EITHER OUT SO THAT WE CAN SEE THAT THE FRESH MARKET AS WELL AS THE OTHER LIKE THE AREA BUT I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT IT'S AN AREA ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR LIKE UP TO THAT STREET RIGHT THAT IS UNDER PLANNING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT RIGHT. 
          AND THIS IS A RESEARCHER RIGHT ON GOOGLE EARTH ON HERE BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A PICTURE GOOGLE. 
          YEAH. AND YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE BUILDING TOWNHOMES CURRENTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND OF COURSE THE SIDEWALK WE WILL BE PUTTING IN FRONT ALONG BLEECKER STREET NOW GOOGLE EARTH BUT THERE'S JUST A LOT OF PLACES IN BETWEEN THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WAYS TO SCREEN THAT AND A DEAD END ROAD WHICH IS REALLY SUPER AWKWARD AND I'M SURE THAT'S NOT YOUR I UNDERSTAND THAT IN CORPORATE THEY KNOW AG3 THAT DOESN'T MATTER SO ISSUES SO IT IT IS THE SAME PHOTO BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING THEY PUT IN THIS IS THE SAME ACCESS THAT WOULD BE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SITS ON A LITTLE COUNTER THING THAT PROPER OF A MAJORITY OF IT AND FOUR ACCESS POINTS LINE UP WITH THE RIGHT WITH THIS ACCESS POINT AND THE REAR ACCESS POINT BUT WATER WATER I'M SORRY WATER IS ALSO A HIGHER ROAD AS YOU DRIVE IT IT'S ELEVATED SO MUCH I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN MY SCREENS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE WE WILL NOT SEE THE I WAS JUST GOING TO LOOK NOW SORRY. YEAH THEY'RE GOING BACK TO THE DUMPSTER. WELL I MEAN WE'VE GOT TRUCKS THAT CAN GET BIG ENOUGH TO IT MAY NOT BE ON DAY ONE. WOULD IT HELP IF SHE TOOK OUT THE LAST SPOT AND THEN JUST SHIFTED EVERYTHING SO IT HAS MORE GRAINS LIKE I DON'T LIKE IT I JUST DON'T LIKE I DON'T THINK ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT MONUMENT THREAT TO THAT FRONT ENTRANCE MANIA WHERE YOU WERE AND WHERE DID YOU SEE THE RECTANGULAR ITEMS TO THE THE THE DUMPSTER THAT'S JUST TO THE TOP OF IT. SO THAT'S FINE. YEAH. 
          I DON'T LIKE ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT. I DON'T I MEAN I THAT'S FINE EVEN I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT JUST VISIBILITY OF IT YOU KNOW YOU THE WAY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THEY SHOWED A PROPOSED LOCATION FOR IT. YEAH AND WOULD YOU HAVE TO COME IN FROM THAT LOCATION AT A TIME. WELL IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHERE IT'S ON HERE YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE NOT IN NOR WILL IT BE THAT'S AT THAT SIZE. 
          EXCUSE ME. SO I. I DON'T LIKE ITS ADJACENCY TO THAT PARKING TO YOUR FRONT ENTRANCE YOU'RE COMING INTO THE PARKING LOT BUT I THINK IT'S AWKWARD AND THE ACCESS A LITTLE BIT YOU KNOW OF THE DUMP TRUCK BUT THEY I'M SURE THEY CAN MAKE THAT WORK OR MOVE CLOSER TO THE OR THE TRASH TRUCK IS COMING IN HERE. 
          YEAH AND YOU'VE KIND OF HERE GET IT DOWN AND IT'S THERE CORRECT. 
          YEAH OR EVEN IF IT'S HERE SO IT'S COME AROUND THIS WAY. YES YES WE BOUNCED AROUND A LOT I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE PARKING AND WELL WE WERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING SHE CAME BACK AFTER THAT SHE CAME BACK TO THE DUMPSTER WE WERE WHEN WE STARTED TALKING TO ARIEL AND SHE SAID THAT'S WHEN WE SAW ONE ON US. 
          IT WAS ASKING YOU IF YOU GOT RID OF THAT SPOT OR IT'S LIKE SINCE THREE OR WHATEVER THE OH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER THERE BY BLEECKER STREET. YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT SO THAT'S FROM TIME YOU WERE TALKING I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE THE SPOT YEAH RIGHT RIGHT THERE MR. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT 
          [00:45:01]
IS SHE DIDN'T LIKE THAT BEING CLOSED WAS WE WE WENT BACK TO THE BOATS ANYWAY SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT I CAN YOU JUST GET RID OF THAT RIGHT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH SPOTS BUT IF YOU GOT RID OF THAT STRAIGHT AND HAVE THAT AS THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THEN IT'S THE SAME THING AS A CONTROVERSY. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. 
          YEAH WELL, IF I HEARD SOMETHING HERE I GOT MORE PARKING AND I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE THE TOWN WAS OKAY WITH THAT. YES. WE JUST THAT TO MAKE SURE THE TOWN IS JUST MADE UP OF THEM AND WASHINGTON SQUARE PEOPLE THE STARBUCKS PEOPLE LIKE BUS OR THE OTHER LOCATION CLOSE YEAH EASY TO PUT THE TRASH SO THEY WERE ALL ABOUT THAT. 
          AND YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT HAPPENS IN THOSE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE GAINED? WHAT TO THE OTHER ONES THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT ON THE ON BLEECKER I COULD DO THAT THE DEAD END AREA WOULD THAT JUST BE HANDICAP OR WOULD THAT BE BECAUSE NOW YOU GAINED AS A BUSINESS OWNER FOR THE JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRADING AND MAKING SURE LADY COMPLIANCE THAT WAS WHERE I WANTED TO GO I CAN TAKE AWAY A SPACE AND SO I HAVE MORE TO YEAH AND THE PLANS SO BLEECKER STREET IS LOOKING AT HER THAT THAT RESOLVES TWO THINGS ONE ISSUE AND IT'S OKAY SO STARTED BECAUSE THE DUMPSTER GET RID OF ONE SPACE AND SHE'LL MAKE IT A MOTION OF ANY OTHER QUESTION I'M STILL I STILL DON'T LIKE THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING RIGHT AS YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THERE YOU'RE YOU KNOW YOU CAN MAKE IT MAYBE UP TO LEFT FOR IT OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE COPY IN YOUR HAND AND THAT'S THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO ONCE YOU TAKE IT IS DRIVE OVER A HOLE BUT SOMETHING TO SLOW THE TRAIL AND I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T LOOK REALLY TIMES SO I MEAN I WOULD TELL YOU TO PUT A SIGN OUT THERE AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT I WOULD MUCH PREFER IT WAS ACTUALLY CROSSING 90 DEGREES LIKE IT WAS GOING STRAIGHT ACROSS SO THAT AS YOU'RE STANDING BY AS YOU'RE SITTING IN THAT SPOT YOU SEE THE PEDESTRIAN CROSS BEFORE YOU TAKE OFF. OH OKAY. 
          BUT YOU GOT TO I MEAN HOW YOU WORK THAT OUT IS GOING TO BE A SIZABLE DOWN TO PARKING. 
          SO THAT'S GOING AROUND A CERTAIN RESTRAINT ON THE ELBOW . 
          YEAH, LET ME PLAY WITH IT. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY DINING RIGHT THERE AT THE WINDOW. YES. UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          IT MAY NOT BE EASIER BECAUSE THINK YOU'RE ELIMINATING THE INTERSECTION IF WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND THAT MOMENT BUT YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE THEM BEFORE YOU TAKE OFF FOR YOU YOU CAN MOVE THEM OVER AND YES YOU DO NEED TO MAKE WELL SHE'S GOING ON THE CROSS HERE YEAH MAYBE BUMP THAT ISLAND WELL LET ME LOOK AT THE REASONING RADIUS AND AT THE END OF THE A LOT OF MANEUVERING COMING OUT OF WHICH IS TOUGH BUT I LIKE WELL WE'VE GOT 13 CARS HERE DO WE HAVE THAT 13 OR IS IT 12 OR LIKE THAT YOU HAD A NUMBER IT IS THIS IS 12 YOU SAID 12 OF ANOTHER SIX. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE THAT NUMBER THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AIM FOR STARBUCKS REQUIRE SOMETHING IS IT GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY CORPORATE? BUT MY SUGGESTION THEN WOULD BE TAKE THE BILLION AND THEN MAKE THAT UP RIGHT THERE 90. YEAH. WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM OVER THE BUILDING THERE. PARDON ME THAT DOESN'T COUNT THAT'S EASIER ULTIMATELY YOU'LL LOSE YOU'LL LOSE SOME OF THE Q YES HERE BUT I MEAN YOU'VE GOT THE MOMENT YEAH. 
          AT 12 USUALLY IT'S TEN FOR MOST OTHER PLACES IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE DAN WAS SAYING THERE'S ROOM FOR 20 BEFORE THEY ARE NOT ON THEIR PROPERTY WHICH IS HELPFUL AND IF YOU MOVE DOWN YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME FOUNDATION PLANTING THE BUILDING FOR IT. 
          I KNOW STARBUCKS IS GOING TO MAKE IT LESS. I MEAN HONESTLY THEY'VE GOT THE MONEY TO SPEND ON LANDSCAPING SO RIGHT NOW YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LANDSCAPE WHEN IT'S NICE. 
          YEAH. SO YEAH THAT'S A BIT ALL RIGHT . 
          BUT YOU KNOW NEXT STEP AFTER THIS IS GETTING A SOMEWHAT PERMANENT SO SO YOU HAVE TWO 
          [00:50:03]
LARGE MODIFICATIONS THE SITE VERSUS THAT SO I'LL DEFINITELY BE ON THE PHONE WITH PAM PARKER FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. I DON'T CALL HER MOM AND WE'LL DISCUSS MOVING THAT DOWN. 
          I JUST THINK IT WILL WORK BETTER AND I'M GOING TO EXPRESS THAT IT'S BEEN AND WE'LL MOVE THE DUMPSTER BACK WHERE IT WAS AND UP AND BUFFER BETWEEN THE WATER AND OURSELVES SO THAT WHEN IT IS GROWN AND YEAH I THOUGHT YOU GOT THE MAGNOLIA LEAVES I THOUGHT YOU HAD THE MAGNOLIAS ON THAT THE PLAN BUT THEN THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE TO FURTHER ENHANCE THAT WHICH I THINK THEY WOULD LOOK FOR SOME SHOWS THAT GROW RELATIVELY QUICK AND THAT WOULD BE JUST FINE. YES. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THAT ONE YOU ON A ROLL? SHE'S ON A ROLL. SHE IS SOMEBODY ELSE SHE REALLY WANT TO SURE YOU GOT ALL RIGHT TO YOU. OH, OKAY. YEAH I CAN DO IT. 
          I I DON'T THINK I CAN LIVE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THOUGH I THINK THOUGHT THERE WAS ONLY AS IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDED BY TOWN STAFF BUT WORK WITH TOWN STAFF ON ITS ONLY RECOMMENDATION TO WORK LIKE I CAN'T THERE'S NOTHING I CAN'T CONDITION IT I DON'T THINK THE DUMPSTER LIKE LIKE I CAN CONDITION THE DUMPSTER I DON'T THINK I CAN CONDITION THAT CROSS BLOCK AND I DON'T THINK I CAN CONDITION BECAUSE I CAN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ASK FOR AND I THINK ARGUABLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY CONCERNS CONCERNS THAT IT'S A CONDITION THAT OBVIOUSLY APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED OBVIOUSLY. 
          YES. SO IT'S REALLY YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION AND EVEN SOME STUFF THAT THEY HAVE TO COME NEXT TO CONDITIONS ISN'T THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE SERVICE THAT OR EVEN LIKE DENTAL STAFF ON ADDRESSING THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT YOU CONCERN THAT THE IS ACKNOWLEDGED WILLINGNESS TO YEAH ALL RIGHT I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE CONDITION OF THE APPLICANT WORK WAS DONE ON THE REDESIGN OF THE CROSSWALK FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE BUILDING TO ALLOW FOR A SAFER PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND WORK ON IMPROVING THE SCREENING BETWEEN BLEECKER STREET AND THE DELI AND PARKING AND LOOK AT RELOCATING THE DUMPSTER DO I HAVE A SECOND SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WILLING TO REVIEW THIS OKAY 
          [X.4. Unified Development Ordinance Amendments (Public Hearing)]
NUMBER FOR THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SO HAVE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING NOW. YES, MA'AM. SO YOU HAVE SPOKEN SO YOU NEED TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YEAH, CALLING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ONCE PUBLIC COMMENT OF LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY CLOSE CHARLIE THANK YOU EVERYBODY I NEED A PRESENTATION. LET ME BRING THAT UP BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE ARE CONTINUING MAKING UPDATES TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WE MADE SOME LAST MONTH AND WILL CONTINUE TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU NEXT MONTH AS WELL BUT I'D LIKE TO TRY TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE SENT MY INTENTION TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE TEXT BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT I CAN BRING THAT UP. 
          SO THE AMENDMENTS TONIGHT WE'RE MAKING A PROPOSAL CHANGES TO SECTION 314 CERTIFICATE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE AND THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO STRENGTHEN THE REQUIREMENT OBTAIN A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE. NOW WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE 
          [00:55:05]
ORDINANCE THAT TALKS ABOUT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY WHICH IS A BIT VAGUE. 
          SO WE'VE INCLUDED THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE 75% THE SITE OR THE PHASE WOULD HAVE TO BE 75 OR SINGER COMPLETE BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT COULD BE OBTAINED AND THEN WE'VE ADDED A CONDITION AS WELL AND THAT THE REVIEW CRITERIA HAS TO INCLUDE ADMINISTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICATION OF MANUAL AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH STANDARD FOR OTHER REVIEWS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE IT THIS PARTICULAR ONE FOR SOME REASON WITH THE OUTDOOR SALES OR IMPROVING CONDITIONS RELATED TO DISPLAY LOCATION, TIME AND AREA AND WE'RE ALSO EXTENDING THE TYPE OF MERCHANDISE THAT CAN BE SOLD. WE'RE NOT LIMITING IT TO OR SUGGESTING THAT IT BE LIMITED TO ONLY AGRICULTURAL SEAFOOD AND SEASONAL PRODUCTS WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING WE ARE MAKING A CHANGE TO COMPACT PARKING. 
          THE SUGGESTION IS THAT WHEN THERE ARE 25 OR MORE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED ONLY THEN CAN COMPACT PARKING BE PROVIDED AND WE'RE PROPOSING THAT IT BE REDUCED FROM 25% OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT TO 10% WITH REGARD TO SHARING USING PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES TO USE FOR THE PARKING TO COMPLY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WE SUGGEST ELIMINATING THAT THAT'S DIFFICULT PROVISION FOR US TO CONTROL AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ELIMINATED. 
          WE ARE REDUCING PARKING MAXIMUMS, PARKING MINIMUMS ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO DETERMINE MUCH PARKING THEY NEED AND THEN WE'RE ALSO ELIMINATING RECOMMENDING THAT WE ELIMINATE GOLF CART SPACES FROM BEING ALLOWED BE COUNTED TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING WITH REGARD TO THE NON CONFORMITY SECTION WE'RE CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE UTILITIES ADMINISTER TRADER WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REGARDING ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING NEEDS THAT MAY MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR TO ABATE IT SO THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT IT BE REMOVED AND THEN WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THERE BE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY THEN THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE UDL WITH REGARD TO FAMILY AND SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNITS, THE FAMILY DEFINITION IS PROPOSED TO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE SITUATIONS LIKE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS SOME FOSTER CHILDREN AS WELL AS SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNITS. 
          THE INDIVIDUALS IN THAT HOUSEHOLD MAY NOT BE RELATED OR BY BLOOD AND SO WE SUGGEST EXPANDING THAT PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF AND BASICALLY THE PEOPLE WITHIN FUNCTION AS A FAMILY EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY THERE'S NOT A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP AND THEN FINALLY MAKING A SUGGESTION THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE UPDATED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO WHAT ELEMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED SUCH AS A KITCHEN, BATHROOM, A LIVING AREA AND ALLOW FOR ATTACHED HANDICAPPED CAN USE AND THEN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING RIGHT NOW THEY CAN ONLY OCCUR ON LOTS A RECORD. 
          WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY BE ALLOWED ON THE SAME LOT FOR CONDO SITUATIONS AND THAT UNIT HAVE GROUND FLOOR ACCESS SO THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS AND IT DOES MEET THE REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE CRITERIA ACTUALLY APPLY THE ONE CRITERION COMPLIANCE THE APPLICATION MANUALS THE AMENDMENTS YOU COMPLY WITH THAT AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE AN ACTION TONIGHT YOU CAN APPROVE IT AS SUBMITTED AND MAKE A SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENTS OR DENY IT IF YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD TO A JUNE 1ST READING WITH COUNCIL AND THEN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN JULY. THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO MANY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS OF WORK FOR THE PARKING THIS MAY BE IN THERE IFCATE ME A LITS THERE A MINIMUM FOR ANYTHING WHERE WE'RE TALKING LIKE IF THERE'S FOUR SPACES PER THOUSAND IS THERE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAFEGUARDS OR IS IT ALWAYS PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE IS NO LIGHT SO IF YOU'RE LIKE A FRACTIONAL SO I HAD HEARD YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED THAT SO I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE HERE IF YOU TO ADD THAT WE CAN INCLUDE THAT 
          [01:00:07]
I'LL NEED TO WHERE BEST TO PLACE IT IN THE ORDINANCE BUT I DO AGREE THAT ACTUALLY IT CAME ACROSS MY MIND AND I DIDN'T MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS BUT I DO AGREE THAT I THINK IT SHOULD BELONG IN THE ORDINANCE LAY IT CLEAR. I THINK IT JUST CLEAR MY OWN CONFUSION HERE ABOUT THE RIGHT THING AND THEN I WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS ANY LANGUAGE ABOUT NOW THAT THESE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PARKING DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANY LANGUAGE DISCUSSING A MAXIMUM LIKE SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO GO TO LIKE 120% BEFORE WE GET TO HAVE DISCRETION OR ARE WE JUST SAYING THEY CAN HAVE AS MANY PARKING SPACES AS THEY AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN OPINION. IT'S JUST A QUESTION I THOUGHT WE COULD DISCUSS WHEN STAFF TALKED ABOUT IT THAT DIDN'T COME UP. 
          AND I THINK I THINK MORE AND MORE I THINK DEVELOPERS BEING MORE CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND GIVEN THE EXPENSE OF THAT THEY'RE NOT CREATING TOO MUCH PARKING AND THERE'S PROBABLY NO LIKELIHOOD THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG BOX WHERE YOU USUALLY SEE THAT KIND OF THING BUT IT MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO INCLUDE THAT AND AGAIN I'D HAVE TO WORK ON LANGUAGE BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PREPARED FOR THAT. DIDN'T USED TO SAY THAT FOR THE MINIMUMS BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT LIKE YOU CAN ONLY GO UP TO 20% MORE THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT SO YEAH FIVE 1130 SEE IF AN APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 20% OR INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM THE TABLE DEFINITION FOR A LARGER PARKING STUDY FOR THEIR USE SO THAT THAT'S ALSO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE REDUCTION PARKING WE FEEL IS MORE AND THAT'S BEST LEFT TO THE VARIOUS RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE THAT AND THEN THE 20% WE REMOVE THAT SINCE THERE'S NO MAXIMUM BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO PUT SOMETHING BACK IN SIMILAR TO THAT THAT'S PART OF THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT IT OR NOT. 
          I'M IT WAS JUST A QUESTION SINCE WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM A MINIMUM TO MAXIMUM I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE IF THERE'S ANY REASON TO BE CONCERNED WE WOULD HAVE LIKE WAY TOO MUCH PARKING ON A LOT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM BUT IT'S PRIMARILY DOWNTOWN BLUFFTON, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          THE 80% OF THE THE LAND THAT'S NOT WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BUT I THINK THERE'S OTHER PERCENTAGES THEY HAVE TO LIKE TREAT THE PERCENTAGES AND OPEN DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WILL HELP COVER THAT. SO IT'S LIKE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MAX OUT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY TO JUST KNOCK THAT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT KIND OF OVERLAP. I'M NOT SURE THAT I, I, I COULD SEE STILL POTENTIAL ABUSE OF OF IT AND I AND I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE SOMETHING THAT GIVES US SOME MODEST SOME MECHANISM FOR CONTROL OF AND AT THE BACK END HAVING TO TURN WHAT YOU MIGHT SO WHAT ELSE SO I DON'T KNOW DOES IS IT GOT AS LIKE 15 OR 20% OVER THE MINIMUM AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO EXCEED THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION STATING YOU KNOW, PROVING THAT YOU NEED THAT PARKING ONE FOR THE IN THEIR CURRENT POINT THERE YES THERE IS SIMILAR LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW IN THE ORDINANCE BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S COMING OUT IT'S COMING OUT RIGHT AND THAT'S RECOMMENDED I WOULD MOVE IT YOU'RE SAYING LEAVE IT. YEAH BECAUSE I STILL YOU KNOW PROPERTIES CAN GET REDEVELOPED AROUND HERE AND IT COULD THEN OPEN A PROPERTY TOO AND I'VE SEEN THAT WE'VE GOT STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS THAT ALSO MIGHT HELP CONTROL IT BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A GUARANTEE OF CONTROL SO THIS GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH CASE WE NEED THEM AND I'M LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE NOW THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED I THINK VERY EASILY COULD READ RIGHT OUT TO THE 20% ANYTHING OVER TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THE 20% AND IT SAYS AND THAT A PARKING STUDY FOR THE AREA ADMINISTRATORS REVIEW WOULD REQUIRED SO IT WOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE ROAD ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDED IDENTIFIED BY SECTION WHILE WE'RE LOOKING FOR PARKING SO YOU GO AHEAD AND GET SOMETHING FOR A PARKING. DID THIS DEFINE ANY LIMITS TO THE GOLF CAR PARKING PARKING IF WE EVER HAD LIMITS TO GOLF CART PARKING I'M JUST GUESSING SO GOLF CART PARKING AS PROPOSED 
          [01:05:01]
THAT CAN'T BE COUNTED TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING BUT GOLF CART PARKING CAN BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRED PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING AND THEN WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SPACE THEY'RE GOING TO BE INCLUDED FOR GOLF CARTS BUT THERE'S NO MAXIMUM NUMBER LIKE WE DON'T GET A MAXIMUM AMOUNT. I JUST AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARY OR NOT I'M AND I THINK IT'LL PROBABLY GET INTO THE ISSUES OF BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPE BEING AND THERE'S OTHER BALANCE OF HOW YOU WANT TO USE YOUR PROPERTY. 
          IT DOESN'T COUNT SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO CERTAIN CALCULATIONS THERE'S NOT A LOT OF INCENTIVE TO BE TO BE ONLY TOWN AND GIVEN SPEED LIMITS ON THE OTHER ROADS PROBABLY LIKELY NOT THE SAME GOLF CARTS. YEAH WHICH ARE NOT WHAT IT WOULD ADDRESS YOUR ISSUE ABOUT BECAUSE A GOLF CART SPACES SHALL NOT NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM NUMBER. 
          POINT SPACES IS NOW IN THE MAXIMUM SO ADDRESS WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE JUST TRYING TO THINK WAY TO KIND OF CLEAN THAT UP WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT IN ALL YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T COUNT YOU'RE YOU'RE ADDING THE WORD MINIMUM TO THAT PHRASE. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH. WHAT IS IT DOES IT JUST RUN OUT WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED IS GOLF CAR PARKING SPACES, OTHER PARKING SPACES. 
          SO IF YOU HAD SHOWN A COUNT TOWARD THE MINIMAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES SO YOU COULD KNOW IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT IT WOULD COUNT TOWARD MAXIMUM. YES, YES OF THE LANGUAGE THERE. 
          YES I LIKE THAT YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT COMPACT FOR PARKING SPACES NOT BEING BEING ALLOWED. I THINK THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT WORDING YOU USED BUT NOT BEING BASICALLY ALLOCATED UNTIL YOU HIT 25 SPACES AND MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU HAD A PROPERTY WHERE YOU ONLY HAD LIKE 12 SPACES THAT WERE NEEDED BUT YOU HAD THIS BEAUTIFUL TREE YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY BUT IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WAY AND YOU COULD PUT EMPTY SPACE THERE. SO TO BASICALLY MEET YOUR PARKING CALCULATIONS IT'S GOING TO BE ONE COMPACT SPACE. THERE COULD BE AN OCCASION WHERE YOU'RE LIKE FOR TREE SAVING MEASURES MAYBE AN EXCEPTION BE RULE TO THE RULE COULD BE MADE THAT HOW WOULD THAT BE? THAT'S RIGHT WHEN A COMPACT CAR IS ACTUALLY PARKED THERE BUT TYPICALLY I DON'T KNOW TYPICALLY IS THE RIGHT WORD BUT OFTEN PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE COMPACT CARS WILL PARK IN COMPACT SPACES AND THERE COULD ACTUALLY BE MORE DAMAGE DONE TO THE TREE IF YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE'S TRYING TO GET THEIR LARGE TRUNK IN THERE, WELL YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE TREE THEN I MEAN YOU'RE GUARANTEED TO LOSE THE TREE OTHERWISE. 
          THIS IS AN OPTION TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY KEEP THE TREE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW IT BY ALLOWING THE COMPACT SPACE SHE'S SAYING SHE I KNOW SHE'S DAMAGED. I MEAN I STILL SEE THEM. 
          WHAT WHAT DO YOU PUT THE BURDEN BACK ON DEVELOPER TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT SOLUTION FOR PARKING OTHER THAN DAMAGING THE TREE ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT TO BE YOU WANT TO TRY AND IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE WE REALLY WANT TO SAVE THAT TREE MAYBE THE VARIANCE PROCESS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED PARKING WOULD BE THE BETTER METHOD POSSIBLY THEY CAN ALWAYS REDUCE BUILDING FOOTPRINT THEY DON'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING AND THEY WOULD HAVE ROOM FOR MORE PARKING. I MEAN I'VE I'VE I'VE WORKED ENOUGH I'VE WORKED ENOUGH IN DOING SITE DEVELOPMENT THAT THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE I'M LIKE I'D REALLY LOVE SAVE THAT TREE BUT BECAUSE I CAN'T USE A COMPACT PARKING SPACE NOW I'M JUST LIKE THERE IS NO PLACE FOR ME TO GO ELSEWHERE TO PUT THIS PARKING SPACE LIKE I NEED I NEED ANYWHERE. 
          SO THEN THEY NEED TO MAKE CONCESSIONS. IT'S YOU KNOW, I JUST I THINK THE 25 I THINK 25 PARKING SPACES IS AN ARBITRARY NUMBER. I THINK THAT THERE CAN BE ALLOW IT AN ALLOWANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE TO SAY A TREE. 
          I DON'T SEE THAT AS SO WHAT WOULD THAT IF THAT'S AN ARBITRARY NUMBER WHAT IS THE TAKE THE NUMBERS OUT OF IT WHAT WOULD IT WHAT WOULD YOU SAY I'M STILL STRUGGLING THERE'S OTHER WORDS SAVE THE TREE. THERE'S WAYS TO SAVE THE TREE JUST AS YOU SAID SAY. 
          JUST TAKE THAT PART OF THE VERBIAGE BECAUSE SAYING THAT 20,000 ARBITRARY NUMBER SO WHAT WOULD IT SAY 29 OUT OF AN ARBITRARY NUMBER WHAT WOULD IT SAY? 
          [01:10:02]
IT REALLY I MEAN I DON'T SEE THAT I COULD SEE IT JUST FOR A NON RESIDENTIAL USE UP TO 10% OF THE PARKING SPACES MAYBE DESIGNATED FOR COMPACT CAR PARKING. 
          THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME GENERALLY SPEAKING. YEAH I DON'T SEE THAT YOU HAVE TO IT HAS TO BE BASED OFF OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CARS. I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT IS NECESSARY. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF SOME PLACES AT LEAST ONE CAN BE. 
          YEAH. SO WAS THERE SOME THINKING BEHIND WHY 25 TRYING TO RECALL AND DISCUSSION AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE INTENT WAS TO GET AT THE LARGER BUILDINGS THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS AND HONESTLY I REALLY DON'T RECALL WHERE THAT 25 NUMBER CAME FROM ISN'T IT ISN'T THAT I'M LOOKING TO THAT CLARITY OR IF THE 25 IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THEN JUST HAVE THE LANGUAGE IT'S JUST 10% AND I DIDN'T WANT TO READ FOUR STANDARDS AND A ONE SEE THAT MORE REMOVING ANGLE PARKING MAYBE REVERSE PARKING AS WELL AS BEING REMOVED IS THAT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWING REVERSE ANGLE PARKING CORRECT. 
          WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT? IT'S REVERSING PARKING CAN BE CONFUSING AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SIGNAGE AND I WOULD EXPERIENCE THIS AS I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS SOME REASON IN WASHINGTON STATE THIS IS PRETTY COMMON THERE BUT TYPICALLY EVERY SINGLE PARKING SPACE IS SIGNED AND THEN YOU HAVE BUNCH OF SIGNS IN THE ROAD AND ANOTHER ROAD EXCUSE ME MARKING EACH SPACE AND THAT CAN BE FAIRLY UNATTRACTIVE AND WE PROBABLY IF WE KEEP THIS WE PROBABLY NEED MORE LANGUAGE THAT THESE ANGLED SPACES WOULDN'T NEED TO BE GROUPED AND THAT THEY CAN'T BE IN A SITUATION YOU'VE GOT PARKING ONE WAY AND THEN PARKING ANOTHER WAY AND JUST THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE'LL USE THIS HERE AND SEEMED VERY SMALL SO THE DISCUSSION WAS TO REMOVE IT FROM THE ORDINANCE SO SOMEBODY WITHIN REVERSE ANGLED PARKING SO INSTEAD OF DIAGONAL ANGLED PARKING WHERE YOU'RE COMING IN AND GOING FORWARD YOU ACTUALLY PULL IN FRONT OF YOUR PARKING SPACE AND THEN BACK INTO IT AT AN ANGLE OR SO THE BET AND THE BENEFIT AND AND I TOTALLY HEAR YOU SAYING I AGREE YOU CANNOT BE HAVING AN ISOLATED INCIDENCE OF REVERSE CYCLE PARKING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE PROBLEM. 
          I DON'T MEAN LIKE BACK IN THE ROAD. WELL I ACTUALLY SO IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY NICE BECAUSE ONE WHEN YOU'RE BACKING IT IN A SPACE OF BACKING INTO A DRIVEWAY OR SOMEBODY IS ZIPPING ON PATHS NOT GOING TO I'M SITTING THERE A LITTLE TINY SNIPPET OR YOU KNOW CIVIC OR MIKE BY GLOSTER AND I GOT MY BOSS'S BIG GIGANTIC TRUCK NEXT TO ME AND I CAN'T SEE AROUND HIS BIG GIGANTIC TRUNK ALL MY BEHINDS OUT THERE IN FRONT BUT REALLY GET HIT BY SOMEBODY WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT I CAN PULL FORWARD WHERE I HAD GREATER VISIBILITY SO IT'S REALLY BENEFICIAL FOR ME LIKE WHEN I'M BACKING IN AND I'M FULLY VISIBLE I CAN SEE IN FRONT OF ME AND I CAN SEE BEHIND ME SO I JUST STOP TRAFFIC SO THAT THEY'RE NOT LIKELY TO HIT ME. SO THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY NICE ABOUT IT. ADDITIONALLY IF YOU'RE LIKE GETTING KIDS OUT OF YOUR CAR SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE REVERSE ANGLED IN YOUR TO COME OUT SO THAT THEY'RE BASICALLY YOUR BLOCKADE BETWEEN, YOUR KIDS COMING OUT AND YOUR DRIVEWAY WHICH IS ALSO A GREAT LITTLE BENEFIT SO IT DOES HAVE ITS BENEFITS WHICH IS WHY I DON'T WANT UNNECESSARY AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS SITUATIONALLY IF YOU DID HAVE IT GROUPED YOU DID HAVE IT PROPERLY SIGNED WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE WELL AND TO ADD THAT TO AND USUALLY THIS WILL BE ON PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND SINCE WE DON'T OWN MOST OF THE RIDE AWAY IN TOWN I MEAN THE LIKELIHOOD THAT STATE APPROVE THIS IS PROBABLY SMALL I WOULD THINK AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT SITUATIONS WE WOULD HAVE WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE REVERSE ANGLE PARKING IN TOWN WE HAD IT NOW WE DON'T. SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS THIS VERBIAGE ISN'T INTENDED FOR 
          [01:15:07]
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IT'S ONLY IN PUBLIC IT COULD BE BUT I MEAN I'VE NOT I DON'T KNOW WHY SOMEONE WOULD NECESSARILY DO THIS IN AN INTERNAL PARKING LOT NOT TO SAY THAT THEY WOULDN'T BUT THE ONLY PLACES WHERE I'VE SEEN IT AND IN MY RESEARCH IT'S ALWAYS ON PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IT BECOMES TRAFFIC. I MEAN IN A PARKING LOT YOU'RE GOING TO BACK OUT VERY SLOWLY. 
          THERE'S NO SPEEDING SOMETIMES BUT YOU KNOW THERE AREN'T SPEEDING CARS AND IT'S EASIER, YOU KNOW, TO BACK OUT OF A PARKING SPACE BUT IN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE TOO. YOU BACK IN REVERSE ANGLE AND YOU CAN SEE CARS COMING AND BUT THAT SENSE SITUATION I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EXPERIENCE HERE AND TECHNICALLY THE REMOVAL OF THIS PHRASE DOESN'T PROHIBIT YOUR ABILITY DO IT ALL IT DOES IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW IT CORRECT. AND IF WE KEEP IT THAT WAY DO YOU BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE A BIT MORE LANGUAGE REGARDING YOU KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR EXAMPLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GROUPED TOGETHER . 
          SO EVEN IF WE REMOVE REMOVE THAT PHRASE YOU COULD STILL PROPOSE REVERSE ANGLE PARKING ON THE PROJECT BUT THERE'S STILL NO PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          SO THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS POTENTIALLY. POTENTIALLY. 
          I MEAN I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, I YEAH I BELIEVE A DOES IS WHEN THERE IS SPECIFICITY AS TO WHAT PARKING IS PERMITTED AND I'M TRYING TO I'M TO EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT GOING DIRECTLY TO REASON IN REAL LIFE ISSUES SO WE'RE NOT BREAKING IT AS WELL WHEN YOU HAVE WHEN YOU SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PERMITTED THAT IS LIMITED SCOPE OF COURT REVIEWING THAT YOU SAY BY PERMITTING A LIMITED SUBSET YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITING THE REMAINDER OF THAT OF THAT USE SO YOU SAY YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS ANGLO PARKING IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S REVERSE ANGLE PARKING IN THE FINE TERMS AS I UNDERSTAND IT STRAIGHTFORWARD OR I COULD PARK IT AND THAT YOU'RE PERMITTING YOU KNOW STRAIGHTFORWARD ENFORCEMENT. SO I THINK THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT QUESTIONABLE BE HONEST WITH YOU AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER IN I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS BE REMOVED BECAUSE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE AN EXPLICIT ALIGNMENTS OF IT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF REGULATION OR ANY SORT OF LIMITATION YOU'RE PUTTING YOURSELF I MEAN YOU'RE YOU'RE CREATING A POTENTIAL ISSUE THERE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY CLEANER TO PROHIBIT A SINGLE PARKING IT DOES IT DOES THE ACTUAL BILL I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT TO I I THINK THAT IT COULD REMOVE I'M NOT I'M NOT GOING TO I WOULDN'T STAND ON THE HILL OF TAKING THAT OUT AND IT DOES MAKE IT CLEAR FROM A IN KIND OF APPLICATION STANDPOINT BUT I THINK, I THINK THAT'S REALLY FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE THE PARKING WITHOUT ANYTHING IN THE KNOW EXPLICIT ALLOWED OF IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN YOU KNOW BEING SILENT AS TO IT WITH A RECORD OF HAVING KNOW REMOVED IT FROM THE YOU WITH THE INTENT TO NOT ALLOW SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S THEIR ARGUMENTS WOULD BE MADE THAT COULD BE MADE AND I THINK ARE UNLIKELY TO EVER COME TO FRUITION SO I DON'T SEE I'LL SEE THERE BEING A DEMAND FOR THE REVERSE. 
          I COULD BE SO GREAT THAT SOMEBODY I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE I THINK THERE CERTAINLY SITUATIONALLY WHERE THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS I JUST SAY THAT IF THE STANDARDS YOU DON'T WANT IT THEN YOU NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT AND IF YOU WANT IT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT HOW IT'S DONE AND WE SOME POINT NEED TO COME BACK TO THAT AND ADDRESS IT BUT I'M I AM DIANNE HILL I'M NOT TAKING THAT YOU KNOW WE CAN TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT. I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BETTER ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE AND I MIGHT BE IN THE MINORITY SINCE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT PUT THIS UP HERE. 
          [01:20:03]
MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I SUBMIT TO YOU. I THINK IT'S A USEFUL TOOL IN PLACES AND I THINK TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT BUT YOU KNOW IT'S USEFUL TOOL YOU SAID ABOUT CAN ONLY BE USED IN A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY THAT'S WHERE I HAD SEEN IT USED I I WAS TRYING TO PICTURE SITUATION MAYBE PRIVATE ROAD RIGHT AWAY I MEAN POSSIBLY MAYBE THAT'S MAYBE THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR PUTTING IT IN HERE I DON'T KNOW AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST SOMETHING WHERE IT KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED BACK IN WITH SOME REGULATION OR IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF NEEDS TO WEAR HEAVILY ETC. IN PARTICULAR WITH TOWNS EFFORTS ALL THE GHOST ROADS ACQUISITION GHOST ROADS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN AND MANAGE PUBLIC ROAD RAILWAYS SO IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU INVESTIGATE IN THE FUTURE THAT'S ALL HAVE A PART GAME. 
          I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I WASN'T SURE I THOUGHT YOU'D JUST EDUCATE ME A LITTLE BIT ON THE FAMILY AND SINGLE HOUSEHOLD AND MOSTLY THAT IT LOOKS LIKE FAMILY IS LIMITED TO FIVE PEOPLE WITHOUT KIND OF PROVING THAT THERE'S MORE THAN FIVE OF YOU. 
          AND I WAS CURIOUS AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR NOT LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF SINGLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IN THE SAME WAY WHERE IT COULD BE INCREASED WITH EVIDENCE THEN I TOWARDS FOOD SERVICE AND I BELIEVE THAT SINGLE HOUSEHOLD IS WOULD FALL UNDER THE FAMILY DEFINITION AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE IS IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO FIVE BUT I COULD BE WRONG AND IF YOU WOULD JUST ALSO TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND ON WHY THAT'S WHY THAT'S BEEN DONE THAT'S BACK IN I THINK IT WAS 20 1617 THERE WERE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THERE WERE SOME REGULATORY GUIDANCE FOR THE FAIR HOUSING ACT ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE CONSIDERED LIMITING DEFINITIONS OF FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY. AND SO AT THAT TIME THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID WE NEED TO EXPAND THAT DEFINITION TO BE MORE MORE INCLUSIVE. 
          YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT COUNTRY AND YOU KNOW, FROM A FROM A STANDPOINT THAT CERTAINLY WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY SORT OF WITHOUT GETTING INTO I GUESS THE MORE POLITICALLY CHARGED ISSUES FROM A HOUSING STANDPOINT, YOU DO HAVE A NUMBER OF TYPES OF HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED KNOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND SO THE IDEA WAS TO USE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SUGGESTED THROUGH THE LEGAL WAS HUD GUIDANCE AND THEN USED SOME MORE GUIDANCE THAT THROUGH IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS AS TO HOW TO DEFINE THAT AND FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT IT'S TO LIMIT LIABILITY BECAUSE IF YOU START DENYING THESE SINGLE RESIDENCES BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU KNOW HOW HOUSEHOLD IS CONFIGURED, WHO IS QUALIFYING AS A OR QUALIFIES AS A FAMILY, THERE ARE POTENTIALS FAIR HOUSING ACT CLAIMS AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING A TERM THAT HAS BEEN THAT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU SEE NATIONALLY AS FAR AS SPECIFICALLY WHY WE ARE REMOVING OR WHY WE HAVE THAT LIMITATION OF FIVE PERSONS, IT'S BECAUSE COURTS HAVE SAID WELL THAT'S REASONABLE. YOU KNOW, JUST YOU'RE NOT CREATING THIS BASED ON THIS SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU CAN KEEP SOMETHING SO BROAD THAT IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COMBINED TOGETHER. 
          WE WANTED LEAVE THAT DISCRETION WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATOR TO SAY OKAY WELL IF YOU ARE A TRUE FAMILY BRING US THE INFORMATION WE THE DETERMINATION OR IF YOU FIT THE QUALIFICATIONS YOU CAN BRING US THAT INFORMATION AND REALITY. WE SEE THIS HAPPENING VERY OFTEN BUT IT IS TO GIVE THAT SORT OF LEEWAY SO THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF WHAT FAMILY IS UNDER OUR YOU AND THEN IF SOME FAMILY DOESN'T MEET THAT PRESUMPTION THEY CAN GO TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND SAY LOOK, WE ARE BEEN TOGETHER TEN YEARS. 
          [01:25:02]
HERE'S OUR TAX, HERE'S OUR UTILITY BILLS, HERE'S THE QUESTION CHECKS WE ARE I GOT KIDS IT'S SO YOU GOT YOU'VE GOT WAYS OF DOING IT DELICATE ISSUE BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE THINK IS ESSENTIAL TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE WE'VE GOT AN IDEA THAT'S ENFORCEABLE YEAH SO IS THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE SUBSECTION OF FAMILY I BELIEVE SO I THINK THAT IS YEAH I THINK THAT'S THE REASON THAT IT WAS DONE THAT WAY YOU KNOW THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT IS A IS A TERM THAT HAS BEEN USED BEFORE AND SOME OF THOSE FEDERAL REGULATIONS SO THOSE OPINIONS SO WE WANTED TO CREATE A TARGET CORPORATION ALL OF THIS INFORMATION THE DEFINITION YEAH I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE THOUGHT FIVE PEOPLE WAS REASONABLE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT THIS ISN'T LEAVING IT UP TO BEING LIKE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IF AREN'T CONSIDERED A FAMILY I THINK THAT WAS THAT'S THE INTENT I MEAN THE INTENT IS THERE'S A PRESUMPTION ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS PRESUMPTION OR EXCUSE ME BUT PEOPLE UNRELATED BUT GLOBAL ADOPTION MARRIAGE PARTNERSHIP DRAFT OR JUDICIAL ORDER ARE NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED PRESUMPTIONS THAT IF IT'S FOREIGN PARTNERSHIP NONE OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS IT'S PROBABLY NOT A FAMILY YOU CAN COME IN AND YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR I GUESS IN THE BACKWARDS VERSION BEEN A VERY LONG TIME SINCE I LOOKED AT SO THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT IS MERELY THERE TO DESCRIBE WHAT FAMILY FUNCTIONS ARE THAT WOULD HELP YOU JUSTIFY THAT YOUR UNIT ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO THE FORMATTING THEN IS WHAT I THINK IS CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S FORMATTED IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS RATHER THAN A DESCRIPTOR OF THE FIRST THING THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE DID IT BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE DEFINITION SECTION IS IS WRITTEN WE'RE GOING TO ALPHABETIZE BECAUSE WE HAVE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT AND WE WANT TO HAVE THAT AS A TERM AND YOU HAVE FAMILY AS A SEPARATELY DEFINED TERM. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN SEPARATED IN THE HOUSE AND JUST CONTINUE TO KEEP IT AS A ALPHABETICAL LIST OF DEFINITIONS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE IS OKAY. YEAH I SEE WHAT SAYING. 
          ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS AND MAYBE IT GOES BACK TO THE REALLY THAT RELATIONSHIP OF HOW IT'S FORMATTED IN THE CONDITIONS IT SEEMS SUPERFLUOUS TO ACTUALLY HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS BECAUSE REALLY THE FAMILY IS DEFINED BY THE FUNCTIONS. 
          SO DO YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE FAMILY AND SINGLE UNIT FOR A POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY THE SAME THING BUT IF YOU AND YOUR FAMILY RELATED BY BLOOD YOU'RE STILL DOING THINGS. IF YOU'RE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT OF PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER DOING THESE THINGS YOU'RE IT'S BY DEFINITION THAT'S HOW IT'S REALLY DEFINED I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT'S WHY WE NEED BOTH IN MAY AND AGAIN THAT'S BEEN ONE FAMILY IS SO PREVALENT IN OUR LANGUAGE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT I THINK THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S BECAUSE FAMILY USED REPEATEDLY RATHER THAN TRYING TO INTERPRET THE ENTIRETY OH YES IT JUST MADE A LITTLE BIT CLEANER IT JUST PUT IN A NEW DEFINITION FOR FAMILY AND ADDED A REFERENCE THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT DOES THIS DEFINITION THE FAMILY REFERENCE TO SINGLE ALSO ARGUE THAT IT DOES SO THAT'S SORT PRESUMPTION HERE PROVIDED OKAY ALL RIGHT AND I HAVE IT ACTUALLY ME A QUESTION FOR RICHARDSON SO THE BEGINNING THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT DEFINITION SHOULD WE SAY STARTED OFF WITH INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN ONE PERSON OR TWO OR MORE. DOES THAT IMPLY IT COULD BE MORE THAN FIVE? SO THAT'S THE PART THAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE TWO THINGS RELATED BUT ONLY COULD YOU ASK THAT QUESTION. SO FOR ANY ONE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT IT SAYS TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS. DOES THAT IMPLY POTENTIALLY THAT IT COULD BE MORE THAN FIVE PEOPLE OR IS IT STILL LOW SINGLE UNITS STILL LIMITED TO FIVE BASED ON A FAMILY DEFINITION? NO SO IF THERE IS A REBUTTABLE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE YEAH SO WE HAVE A WE HAVE A DEFINITION IS LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE HAVE DEFINED FAMILY TRADITIONALLY WHAT WE ALSO HAVE ADDED IS A PRESUMPTION THAT YOU 
          [01:30:04]
DON'T ESSENTIALLY IF YOU DON'T MEET THAT THAT TRADITIONAL DEFINITION IS REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT YOU DON'T QUALIFY AS A FAMILY UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU'RE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT. SO I MEAN BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OCCASION WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT FAMILIES IN OTHER WORDS TO ME THAT WOULD MEET THAT FAMILY DEFINITION EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SIX PEOPLE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE INTENT WAS PUT A COUNT SINGLE FAMILY BUT RATHER SAY THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. 
          THIS IS IF YOU DON'T MEET THAT DEFINITION THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU'RE A FAMILY. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS SHOW THAT YOU'RE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT AND YOU PROVE THAT YOU'RE SAYING WHEN I WANT YOU TO QUALIFY AS A FAMILY YOU HAVE WHETHER YOU ARE 1 TO 2 OR THAT THAT PERSON'S RELATED BY BLOOD MARRIAGE SO ON AND SO FORTH AGAIN IS LARGELY WRITTEN WITH HELP FROM FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND IN LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE TRYING TO APPLY THAT LANGUAGE AGAIN. SO IF YOU'VE GOT IF YOU'VE GOT CONCERNS WITH THE NUMBERS, DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE NUMBERS ARE SEXUAL AS MUCH AS THEY ARE ABOUT GIVING SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW WE'VE MADE THESE DETERMINATIONS. IT IS THE POINT OF CURIOSITY FOR ME I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY I'M SORRY THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT ENDS UP GETTING YOU TO APPLY THE FAMILY DEFINITION TO YOURSELF SO THAT CLEARS IT UP FOR ME. 
          THANK YOU. YOU WANT TO ADD ONE PERSON OR TWO OR MORE SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE AND YOU COULD JUST DROP IT TWO INDIVIDUALS LIVING TOGETHER, LIVING TOGETHER, SHARING AND TIRED DWELLING UNIT. I THINK THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS I THOUGHT THE SAME THING I THINK THE IDEA WAS THAT IF YOU HAVE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT WHERE IT'S JUST MY FAVORITE JUST PERSON A PERSON BE MORE MORE THAN A FAMILY WELL I THINK FOR A SINGLE VACANT HOUSE TO LIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE UNIT YOU CAN HAVE A MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU HAVE A FAMILY OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH JUST A SINGLE PERSON LIVING THERE RIGHT WHICH CASE THE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT WOULDN'T REQUIRED FOR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO EXPLICITLY FIND ONE IN A SINGLE FAMILY OR SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT BECAUSE IT'S INHERENTLY AVAILABLE TO THE FAMILY AND NOT EXCLUSIONARY IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE IT IT'S JUST A SINGLE PERSON. YOU'RE ALWAYS TO HAVE THAT DEFINITION SO YOU'LL NEVER HAVE TO GO TO THE SINGLE HOUSE. WHAT UNIT IS AGAIN IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG TIME SINCE I'VE LOOKED AT THIS. I THINK THIS IS BACK IN 2020 AND 2019. 
          BEFORE THAT I WAS IN HERE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED. I'M SAYING IT IS NOW I I THINK I'VE SEEN IT INTERESTING BECAUSE IN THE TIME WHEN YOU SAY THIS IS NOT BE FRATERNITY SORORITY ETC. BUT IF YOU READ THE SINGLE UNIT THAT DEFINES WHAT A FRATERNITY DOES SO THERE'S I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE HAVE UP TOP BUT YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN IN A FRATERNITY MY KIDS BUILD FRATERNITY. THAT'S WHAT A FRATERNITY DOES A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD THAT'S HOW THEY LIVE. SO THEY WOULD QUALIFY AS A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT THEN THEY WOULD BE OKAY OR A BOARDING HOUSE AND THAT'S WHY WE SO THE TERM FAMILY SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED SO THE IDEA WAS WE WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THESE WERE NOT THIS MUCH THESE FIVE WERE NOT GIRLS OF THE ETERNITIES OR A CLUB AND THAT MAY BE PERTINENT INCLUDING LANGUAGE AND THE AREA WHERE FAMILY COMES UP TO STOP THEM. ALL RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE BASICALLY THEY CAN SAY COOL, WE'RE NOT A FAMILY BUT WE'RE GOING TO SIT IN OUR SCHOOL UNIT AND SO WE'RE ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING A FAMILY IS ENTITLED TO THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE THE PHRASE LEADER. BUT AND AGAIN THIS YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF TESTING OUT LEGAL ISSUES HERE WITH THIS ONE THERE. 
          I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE ABOUT THIS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GETTING SO MUCH GUIDANCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON IT. 
          BUT THE IDEA HERE IS THIS IS WE HAVE VERY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE ON WHAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FAMILY. THAT BEING SAID, IF YOU DON'T FALL INTO WHAT IS NOT A FAMILY OR WHAT IS A FAMILY YOU FALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THERE'S THIS REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AND IT'S ABOUT PROVING YOU'RE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD BUT DOES THAT MEAN THE IF YOU'RE A FRATERNITY THAT 
          [01:35:04]
WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT, YOU DON'T GET TO CLAIM THAT YOU ARE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT BECAUSE PROHIBITED YOU CAN CLAIM YOU WERE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT BUT YOU'RE NOT A FAMILY. BUT IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING? SO I THINK THERE'S A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THERE'S NO FAMILY EXISTS UNLESS YOU CONFIRM THE JUROR. BUT IT'S BUT YOU COULD START PLANNING FOR BEING A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT BECAUSE THERE ARE ETERNITY A FRATERNITY OUT THERE SO IF YOU HAVE A RESTRICTION YOU SAY IT'S A PRESERVED DISTRICT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR RIVERFRONT AS LET'S SAY WE DON'T ALLOW MULTIFAMILY THE SCHEME CALLS ARE GIVEN AT LEAST WE ONLY ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS A FRATERNITY COULD HAVE AND THERE CANNOT BE A FRATERNITY HOUSE AND THEY ARE UNDER THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED FAMILY AND THAT IS TRIGGERS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED THAT'S MANDATORY SO FRATERNITY SORORITY CLUB MONETARY COMMENT OR INSTITUTIONAL GROUP THAT IS THAT'S THAT'S THE INTENT AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S THAT SORT PULAR ARGUMENT. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDE THAT EXPLICIT LANGUAGE TO AVOID WELL YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE WE MEET ALL THESE RULES BUT NO, YOU CAN'T BE A FAMILY IF YOU'RE ONE OF THESE FIVE THIS IS A GRAY AREA FOR ME AND MY THREE GIRLFRIENDS GOING AND GETTING THE HOUSE IN THE PAPER THEY WERE A SORORITY BUT WE'RE NOT BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT A FAMILY BUT FUNCTION LIKE A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT. I MEAN I MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE YOU KNOW, ANY SORT OF ISSUES REGARDING FAMILY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SORT OF LANGUAGE IS IS GOING TO BE IS GOING TO BE VERY IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FROM ALL SIDES BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DEFINITION THAT'S NOT REALLY STICKS AND YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION THAT IN LARGE WAY AND MARCH OR DEPENDS ON PROTECTED CLASSIFICATIONS OF PEOPLE UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. SO IN TRYING TO DEFINE THIS A ZONING PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE WANTING TO CREATE SOME FLEXIBILITY WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM HOW YOU WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE YOUR ZONING DRAFTED IN WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS BEING ABLE TO CREATE THE PRESUMPTION IS THE CASE THAT WE'RE CREATING A FIXED DEFINITION BUT YOU OVERCOME THAT IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH THIS . BUT ALSO WE WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THESE ARE NOT FAMILIES SO THAT YOU CAN'T USE THIS REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION TRY TO GET AROUND THE PURPOSE OF THE USE UNIT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. 
          THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. TESTIMONY TODAY. 
          THANK YOU JANE FOR YOUR HELP. I'M VERY SORRY. YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT MADE SENSE AFTER THE ACCIDENT BUT I DON'T KNOW IT'S A DEFINITION. 
          YEAH, NO, I HEAR THAT TOO. I UNDERSTAND IT AND I DO THAT THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME AND I KNOW I DO APPRECIATE A DECENT COURT BECAUSE IT IS IT'S NOT EASY. 
          THIS IS A SMALL THE ARTICLE SAID AND UNDER THE 7.900 ON THE WAY DOWN THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE STREAMLINED FROM THE BOTTOM AND MAKING SUCH A DETERMINATION THAT YOU DO IT YOU YOU ADMINISTRATOR SHALL CONSIDER ALL OF THE FACTS OKAY HAVE GOT THE ALL OF THE THANK YOU I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY A TYPO ON MY PART YES IT'S PROBABLY NOT IN THE AREA BUT I SHOULD GET AND I I'M ACTUALLY A LITTLE I'M KIND OF NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE SECTION HERE'S HOW WHAT I'M THINKING I'M HERE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING SO YOU CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO MY UNDERSTANDING VERSUS WHAT'S REALLY WRITTEN THE WAY THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THIS KIND OF A RESPONSE TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE GO THROUGH SO THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRING THE TOWN TO HAVE TO DO OR NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WHEN THEY ACQUIRE THAT IS IF I CAN'T THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY MORE AS THIS WAS MORE IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE SIDEWALK PROJECTS THAT BEEN GOING IN THROUGHOUT THE TOWN LIKE I'M GETTING ROAD ACCOUNTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD OR STREETSCAPE PROJECT ONE OF THE ONE WAS ONE OF THE MAIN 
          [01:40:03]
PROJECTS THAT BROUGHT THIS ISSUE TO THE ATTENTION OF HOUSE STAFF. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY TOWN STAFF IS APPROACHING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING EASEMENTS OR ROADWAY DEDICATIONS FROM YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THE FIRST QUESTION IS WILL HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE BUILDING? BUT ALSO I THINK ROADS IS I MEAN IS THAILAND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE SAME REASONS BUT THIS ONE WAS BROUGHT UP BECAUSE WE WANTED TO YOU YOU KNOW, HAVE IT NOT BE SO LIMITING AND WHICH PARTS OF THE U.S.A. WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED, THE DEDICATION OF THE FRONT YARDS AND THAT PARKING LOTS AT THAT GREENBELT WE WANTED MORE FLEXIBILITY OBVIOUSLY STAFF WANTED MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THAT SO THAT WHEN THOSE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AND ASKED YOU COULD GET MORE DEFINITIVE ANSWERS ON A FUTURE PROJECT. SO I'M TRYING TO THINK YOU KNOW IF IF IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING WHERE YOU'RE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP BASED OFF OF YOUR YOU KNOW, A GRID IF YOU HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO ELIMINATE YOUR MAXIMUM DENSITY BASED OFF OF ACREAGE AND CREATE THAT SORT OF CONSTRAINT NOT ONLY THAT DISINCENTIVIZE THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM WORKING WITH THE TOWN AND THESE SORTS OF ACQUISITIONS BUT IT ALSO ADDS ADDITIONAL TAKING OF YOU KNOW WHAT SORT OF COST YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S IT REALLY IS DESIGNED TO FURTHER FACILITATE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND OF BY THE EASEMENTS OR WITH THE ROADWAYS IN THE PROPERTY. JUST THE WHOLE IDEA IS NOT TO DISINCENTIVIZE SO IT'S IT'S REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF THAT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY WHERE IF IT HADN'T THOSE REQUIREMENTS WEREN'T BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED THE RIGHT OF WAY NOW THAT THEY REQUIRE THE RIGHT OF WAY NOW THE CODE WOULD EXIST NORMALLY BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S ALLOWING THEM THE FLEXIBILITY NOT TO APPLY IT IS ESSENTIALLY LEAVING THEM THERE SAYING WHEN IT ACTS AS IF THAT PROVIDED BY THEIR. OKAY THANK YOU FOR WALKING THROUGH THAT BECAUSE I WAS NOT GETTING THAT. ONE QUESTION I HAVE ON 7.2.2 WHICH EVERY HUMAN CONFORMITY IS IT'S TOWARDS THE END ILLEGAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND NOT REGIME DEMANDS EXPANDED EXTENDED UNLESS SUCH ACTION IS IN FULL CONFORMANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. NOW FOR WHEN WE WANT THAT TO READ AND TO GO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED YOU'RE REDEVELOPING A PROPERTY IS THAT SOMETIMES IT'S PROHIBITIVE TO BRING IN PROPERTY INTO FULL CONFORMANCE. YOU CAN BRING IT INTO GREATER CONFORMANCE BUT YOU CAN'T AND SO IMPROVEMENTS DON'T HAPPEN PERIOD AND YOU SEE THINGS KIND OF INTO DECLINE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INTO FULL CONFORMANCE . 
          SO I'M WONDERING IF WE DON'T LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE AND GREATER CONFORMANCE THE CONFORMANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE NOW MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE DEVELOPED DIFFERENTLY BUT WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY IS CHANGING YOU KNOW, CHANGING A PROPERTY IF IT'S GETTING INTO BETTER GREATER CONFORMANCE UNLESS THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IT INTO FULL CONFORMANCE BUT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT HAS RIGHT. SO I'M NOT YOU'RE NOT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. 
          I'M JUST ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THAT CHANGE POTENTIALLY THAT'S YOU DON'T WANT TO BE FEEL LIKE THAT'S MORE OF A LEGAL DISCUSSION AS YOU KNOW SO WHAT YOU JUST TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE THE CONCERN IS THAT YOU KNOW THE EXPANSION CHANGED ALREADY EXTENDING THESE ILLEGAL NON LEGAL EMPLOYEES BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE UNLESS YOU BRING IT INTO FULL CONFORMANCE WHICH FOR ME WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE ARE ILLEGAL LIKE WHAT IT IS NOT LEGAL. 
          SO WHAT WE TYPICALLY WOULD BE DEALING WITH OR AN ATTEMPT TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY WHICH ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES THOSE STRUCTURES ARE USES OR SIGNS ARE NO LONGER CONFORMING 
          [01:45:06]
OF THE DUTY OPEN AT THE TIME THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED WERE SO MAYBE A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CHANGE SOMETHING FROM LIKE TO RESIDENTIAL GENERAL AND THERE'S A LIGHT USE STILL ON THE PROPERTY WHICH YOU DON'T TO DO AND WITH THIS EXCUSE ME WHAT THIS IS TENDING DO IS TO NOT ALLOW CHANGES ENLARGEMENTS EXPANSIONS EXTENSIONS OF THESE STRUCTURES USES SIGNS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN IN CONFORMITY. SO JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO IF I MAY JUST MAKE A CLARIFICATION BUT 7.9 AS I WAS SPEEDING DOWN I THINK THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THIS THINKING BACK ON IT WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED BUT ALSO FROM INTENSITY STANDPOINT. 
          SO YOU HAVE YOU KNOW, FOUR ACRES BUT YOU LOSE POINT WATER POINT TWO AS PART OF THE DEDICATION AND SAY IT'S A YOU KNOW, A COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL DENSITY IF THERE IS A YOU KNOW ,A STORM THAT TEARS DOWN THAT BUILDING, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT THAT STRUCTURE BACK TO THE EXACT SAME EXTENT IF DIDN'T HAVE THIS LANGUAGE. 
          I THINK THIS IS LARGELY DESIGNED TO NOT NOT CREATE NONCONFORMING CONFORMITY BUT NOTHING ABOVE THE RIGHT RUNWAYS AND ON THE OUTDOOR PORTION OF THIS THE 4.4.3.841 AND IN THE NEW VERSION OF IT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HEAR AND SEE IT EXPLICITLY ALLOWS FOR THE PROPANE CYLINDERS WHICH GOT ME THINKING ABOUT WHAT ARE ALL THE THINGS YOU SEE OUTSIDE OF THE GAS STATION LIKE MACHINES OR MAYBE THEY'RE SELLING WOOD OUT OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY OUTSIDE OF A GAS STATION BUT ARE A PROBLEM. SO WHY AND MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE EXPLICITLY ALLOWING THIS? BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT ALSO LAST QUALIFY BUT ARE NOT LISTED AND SHOULD WE BE HOW COMPREHENSIVE SHOULD THIS? YEAH I TRY. YES. SO UNFORTUNATELY FOR CHARLOTTE A LOT OF THIS AGAIN WAS OR DON'T BACK 2018 2019 AND I THINK PLANNING TO BRING THESE PLANNING TO BRING THESE AQUIFER PLANNING COMMISSION HBC AND TOWN COUNCIL AND THEN GOVERNMENT HAS THE MAJORITY OF THE FOCUS ON THE ELEMENTS CHANGED AND IN OTHER PRIORITIES TOOK PLACE SO FEW OF THESE WERE PUT ON THE BACK BURNER WHEN WE INITIALLY MET WITH PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2019 2018 SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE ON THESE ISSUES AND I BELIEVE IT WAS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT PROPANE SALES AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS THERE WAS LANGUAGE EXPLICITLY ABOUT THE PROPANE SALES, SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE WE HAVE WITH THIS IS THESE ARE LIMITED TO RETAIL BUSINESSES. 
          YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WHAT IS DEFINED AS A RETAIL BUSINESS VERSUS WHAT IS WHAT IS IT CONVENIENCE CONVENIENCE STORE OR GAS STATION YOU'LL YOUR CONVENIENCE SO THERE WERE THERE WERE OTHER THINGS I BELIEVE THE RETAIL BUSINESS TREND WELL WHICH WHAT WERE SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MAIN ON THE SUPPLY DOWN AND AS A AS PERMANENT OUTSIDE OF OTHER THE OTHERS I THINK THE IDEA WAS AND THAT THIS IS A FRESH SOLUTION SO DON'T THINK THE INTENT WAS TO WIN DRAFTING IT WAS TO CREATE IDENTIFY EVERYTHING THAT THIS WAS ONE THEY WANTED TO HAVE BUT MOST STORES HAVE THOSE PROPANE TANKS OUTSIDE. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ALLOWED TO STORM INSIDE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED. 
          SO I KNOW AS A THAT THEY WILL HAVE IT OUTSIDE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH COMMISSIONER WAS THAT BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE AND IT MAY HAVE HBC THAT HAD EXPRESSED THAT CONCERN THAT YOU NOT THIS ISN'T ONE WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO SELL THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE IN STORE THAT'S OUTSIDE I THINK 
          [01:50:02]
IT'S ALSO WE'RE REMOVING WHERE THE FIVE FOOT CLEAR PATH PREVIOUSLY CLEAR A WALKWAY FOR BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IN THE NEW LANGUAGE AND THAT DELINEATES IT BUT I BELIEVE IT CINDY I DON'T THINK IT SPECIFIED IS FIVE FEET. NO I DIDN'T SHOPPING DISPLAYED IN A MANNER THAT CAUSES A SAFETY HAZARD OBSTRUCTS ANY INGRESS, EGRESS TO NEW BUILDINGS, INTERFERES OR IMPEDES WITH THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THAT WE DON'T IDENTIFY A DIMENSION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT WOULD IT BE PRUDENT TO REINSTATE THE FIVE FEET? WOULD IT BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAD DECIDED ON THEIR OWN, YOU KNOW, 30 INCHES IS SUFFICIENT FOR CLEAR PEDESTRIAN SPACE BUT . 
          A CODE ENFORCEMENT OR SOMEBODY ELSE IS TO YOU OR ZONING HAS DECIDED THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY I IF THERE'S FIVE FOOT LANGUAGE A CLEAR PASSAGE SOMEWHERE ELSE MAKES THAT ENFORCEABLE AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE HERE I I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE THAT IT HAS TO BE HERE. 
          I THINK I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. 
          I THINK THE IDEA THAT ONE AND ONE TRYING TO REMEMBER OF THIS CAME FROM PLANNING COMMISSION WORK THAT CAME FROM HBC OR MECHANICAL STAFF IS THE IDEA FLEXIBILITY TO THINK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF AVAILABLE FOR SALE OUTDOOR SALES AND OR SALE DISPLAYS AND SO THEY WANT THAT FLEXIBILITY RATHER THAN A FIXED THE CONCERNS MAYBE THAT IT MAY NOT ENOUGH FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS ABOUT FIVE FOOT WIDE I THINK I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THAT COULD BE A TWO BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE OR THE YES OR NOT SO FOR ONE. SO AGAIN I THINK IT WAS JUST ABOUT CREATING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO PRETTY REASONABLE ENOUGH STANDARDS THAT LET'S NOT CREATE A SAFETY HAZARDS OR OBSTRUCTIONS. SO I, I AGREE WITH THAT LEAVES IT UP IN THE AIR IT A THEY DO US SO AND SOMEBODY MIGHT SERVE 24 INCHES IS ENOUGH AND THEN YOU'RE ARGUING A CASE OVER THAT AND I JUST DON'T I DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE THAT'S ALLOWED BECOMES A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE THOUGH YOU PLAY YOUR EGRESS FROM A BUILDING AS DESCRIBED IN THE BUILDING CODE AND SO IF A CODE OFFICIAL CAME BY AND SAID IT WAS TOO SMALL BUT YOU HAVE YOU THOUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT THE EXIT OR PATHWAYS AND IT DOESN'T EXTEND LIKE IT EXTENDS AS YOU'RE EXITING THE BUILDING. IT'S NOT JUST LIKE WHAT'S UNDER ROOF BUT SOMEBODY PUT STUFF ON THE SIDEWALK AND FORCED YOU TO WALK OUT IN THE IF THAT'S TEN FEET FROM THE BUILDING. SO IF A SIDEWALK IS TEN FEET FROM THE BUILDING BUT THAT WOULD I WOULD ARGUE IF IT'S ON A SIDEWALK THAT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT IS OBSTRUCTING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. THE OTHER THING I'M AFRAID OF OUT OF BEING TEN FEET OF THE BUILDING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE FOUNDATION PLANTING. 
          YOU'RE YOU'RE NOW FORCING THEM TO PUT THIS ALL ON THE FOUNDATION PLANTING AND THEREBY DAMAGING DESTROYING OR ENCOURAGING THE REMOVAL OF FOUNDATION PLANTINGS. 
          WELL AND I THE BECAUSE THEY BUT I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS AND AUTOMATIONS WHERE THERE WAS YOU KNOW SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT THAT LANGUAGE AND THE TENANCY FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING IT'S NOT IT'S NOT MANDATORY THAT PEOPLE HAVE SALES BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LIMITATIONS THAT ARE BEING IMPOSED SO I THINK THAT WAS THE WAY THAT IT WAS ADDRESSED. CHRISTINE, YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY WITH AN EIGHT FOOT EIGHT FOOT MANDATORY PLANTING AREA. IT'S CALLED FOUNDATION PLANNING STANDARDS THEREBY LIMITING YOU TO WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE BUILDING YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CREATING YOU'RE INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE WITH OUTDOOR SALES IN THE FOUNDATION PLANNING AREA. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WAS IT SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT DISTURB THE REQUIRED BUFFERS YEAH I BELIEVE SHE COVERS YOUR CONCERN OKAY AND SHE I JUST THINK YOU'RE GOING HAVE A HARD TIME IF YOU'RE KEEPING THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK AND THE BUFFER THERE WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IT IF YOU GO? WELL, I MEAN I CAN BE ON YOUR PORCH. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT MEAN OR THEY HAD A RIGHT IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF AREA. 
          SURE BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EVERY SINGLE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY HAS THE 
          [01:55:04]
ABILITY TO DO IT HERSELF. I THINK THE STANDARD IS PRETTY LIMITING BEING WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE BUILDING AND THERE'S THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT MAKES SENSE IN ALL CASES I'M THERE COULD BE THERE COULD BE THERE COULD BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO POCKETED OVER HERE AND IT'S NOTHING YOU KNOW IT'S A IT'S NOT MORE THAN 25% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR BUILDING IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE NECESSARILY YOU MIGHT NOT BE BLOCKING ANY VISIBILITY TO ANY ROADWAYS, ANY SIDEWALKS, ANY FOUNDATION PLANNING. 
          BUT THERE JUST MIGHT NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE BUILDING AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT SPECIFIC SITES SO IT'S HARD TO APPLY THAT. BUT THERE COULD BE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WITHIN TEN FEET BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. WELL THAT'S FROM OF HER OFFICE ITEM SO IT CAN IN THE SIDE BUFFER LIKE WE'RE NOT THE BUFFER BUT IF YOU HAD A WIDER LOT THAN YOUR BUILDING IT JUST CAN'T BE PROUD OF YOUR FRONT ELEVATION BY TEN FEET BUT IT CAN BE NEXT TO YOUR BUILDING. 
          I THINK THE CONCERN OF TIME IS YOU KNOW THIS MORE BUT THE OUTDOOR SALES ARE MIGRATING AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AND JUST CLUTTERING THINGS AND THERE WAS ALSO THE SUBSECTION I WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO HAVE THE YOU KNOW IT WAS SPECIAL PERMIT SO THAT YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES CAN GET THE PERMITS IF THERE IS A SIDEWALK SALE OR SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO GET THAT MAY NOT FIT WITHIN THE TEMPLATE TEN FOOT AREA WITH THE SITE. 
          SO IT GIVES SOME ABILITY TO DEVIATE THESE RULES WITH PERMISSIONS AND BUT ALSO TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM LITTERING LITTERING THE YARD OF DIFFERENT OUTDOOR SALE AREAS. 
          RIGHT RIGHT BEEN TAKING NOTES TO SUMMARIZE THIS I'M GOING TO GET TO TWO CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED A CHANGE IN FIVE THREE THAT IS THE ABOUT THE TOWN HALL SO TO INCORPORATE AS WITH THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS TO NOT WORRY THAT SECTION SAYING REVISE WHERE IT SAYS MAXIMUM MINIMAL OOPS SORRY SAY THAT AGAIN THEY HAVE GOOD SPIRIT HERE ELIMINATING THE FOUR FIVE SECTION 5A3 PARKING SPACE CALCULATIONS THAT IS PAGE 88 OF THE PACKET WHERE IF AN APPLICANT WOULD LIKE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BEYOND 20% OR INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPACES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM AND THE TABLE BELOW THEY CAN JOKE ABOUT SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TO MY WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELEASED SOMETHING RESPONDING COMMISSIONER EXPRESSED AN IN KEEPING THAT LANGUAGE BUT HAVING EMPHASIZED THAT WE NOW HAVE MINIMUM STANDARDS RATHER THAN MAXIMUM STANDARDS AND THEN THE PROVISION IS ALSO THE PARKING SECTION ON PAGE 90 SO ALL WORKS FOR A TWO THE GOLF CAR PARKING SPACES SHALL NOW NOT COUNT TOWARDS REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SO INCLUDING MINIMUM LANGUAGE AND THEN THERE WAS THE THIRD ONE REGARDING THE FRACTIONAL PARKING AND THERE IS THERE'S A SECTION OF THE AREA WHERE THERE ARE OTHER DEALS WITH FRACTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS . OKAY WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND IT'S JUST OVERLOOKED THAT THAT THE DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT. 9.3 C CALCULATION FRACTIONS OF THEY TO ACRES IN ANY FRACTIONAL IS ALSO A CONSECUTIVE WHOLE NUMBER. 
          NOT SURE IF THAT WORKS FOR PARKING OR IF THAT WAS OKAY CALCULATIONS BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE ALSO OF 25 PARKING SPACES AND JUST SIMPLY SAY IT'S 10% CONTACT OF ALL GOODS BUT THAT'S IN REFERENCE IN NATIONAL STANDARDS RATHER THAN THE WHOLE NETWORK FOR PARKING SO I THINK 
          [02:00:10]
THAT'S THE IT'S 9.9.3 IT STARTS WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND THESE REGULATIONS BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING RULES AND GUIDANCE AND THEN MAYBE WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT CALCULATIONS RESULT IN FRACTIONS THE RESULTS SHOW THAT TWO SIGNIFICANT FIGURES AND ANY FRACTION OF ORIGINAL DETAIL BE ROUNDED UP THE NEXT SECOND IN WHOLE NUMBER IT DOESN'T APPLY. WELL I DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE ONLY APPLIES TWO DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND I DON'T KNOW IF PARKING COUNTS AS A DIMENSIONAL STANDARD. 
          THAT'S MY VEHICLE AND I TEND TO AGREE THAT IT THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS I DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTY IS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE THEN WE NEED TO CLEAR THAT DEFINITION, USE THAT OR ADD DEFINITION SPECIFIC TO PARKING . OKAY SO I WOULD LIKE THAT SECTION WE JUST TALKED ABOUT NINE I THINK IT WOULD BE A NUMBER OF YEAH WE'RE ADDING IT TO THE PARKING SECTION. 
          OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE 25 PARKING SPACES DO WE WANT AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AS IF I'M IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE STAFF TO LOOK FURTHER AND MAYBE BRING BACK IF WE NEED TO REMOVE THAT OR IS IT THAT IS OF CONCERN ENOUGH THAT IT NEEDS BE STRICKEN AND THEN MAYBE ADD A MARK A STACK AND PRODUCE A VALID REASON FOR THAT. 
          SO THE TOWN COUNCIL I THINK MAYBE 70 TO LOOK INTO IT AND SEE WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM THERE I A LOT OF YOUR STUFF COMES FROM OTHER LEGAL CONFORMITY. 
          IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED WE SHOULD TAKE IT OUT PUT IF IT'S REQUIRED SOME REASON WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS YEAH WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS SO IT WOULD MAKE SENSE MAKE IT SIMPLE THAT SHOULDN'T. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE REVERSE SINGLE PARKING? I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE IT BECAUSE BUT I THINK THERE HAS TO COME OUT OF STAFF TO LOOK AT TAKING A DEFINITIVE POSITION ON IT OR, KEEP IT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IF THEY KEEP IT THEY HAVE TO DO MORE AND AGAIN THIS IS MY RECOMMENDATION KNOW MAKING A RECOMMENDATION SO OH I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THAT RESIDENTIAL USE AT TABLE 5.11 .3.3 IT'S GOT TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT AND THEN COMMA ONE SPACE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS THAT TO IMPLY IF THERE WAS AN ACCESSORY UNIT PREVIOUSLY WITH THE DWELLING UNIT PREVIOUSLY THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REQUIREMENT AND SO NOW WE'RE ADDING A SPACE OR ARE WE SAYING THAT IF THERE WAS A DWELLING UNIT BOTH THE PRIMARY BUILDING AND THE ACCESSORY BUILDING BOTH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES. BUT WE'RE NOW REQUIRING THE ACCESSORY TO ONLY HAVE ONE SECTION FIVE AND FIVE WHEN WHAT FREQUENCY THAT SO WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE PARKING FOR ALL TOWN AND SO THIS WOULD MATCH THAT PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT ALL IN THERE OR NOT IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF WHEN THERE WAS A THERE'S THERE'S A PRIMARY DWELLING IN RECOVERY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S TWO WELL YOU'RE REQUIRING TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO ME THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT BOTH THE ACCESSORY UNIT AND THE PRIMARY WOULD BOTH HAVE HAD TO HAVE TWO SPACES PER UNIT BUT NOW WE'RE ONLY REQUIRING ONE FOR THAT ACCESSORY UNIT, IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT SO I'M NOT SURE A AND WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SOMEONE WHO MAY BE LIVING WITHIN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL EITHER BE A SINGLE PERSON IN THEIR CIVIC WERE ADUS OR ALSO RENTED OUT AS VACATION RENTALS IN LIKELY ONLY TO HAVE ONE CAR THERE AT A TIME BUT ALSO GOING FROM MAXIMUM TO MINIMAL WHICH MIGHT BE WHY IT'S REDUCED CORRECT YOU KNOW WAS INITIALLY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SPACE MAY MAKE IT MORE 
          [02:05:05]
DIFFICULT OR MAY MAKE THAT ADU A BIT SMALLER MORE CONSTRAINED AND THEN WE'RE SEEKING TO HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING AND THIS MAY BE AT SOME DISTANCE VERY SMALL BUT WHO KNOWS IT COULD BE HELPFUL. YES, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. 
          I'M NOT THAT I JUST I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S THERE IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU TEND TO BUILD THERE GOING TO BE A HUSBAND AND WIFE THAT LIVE IN THAT AND THEY COULD HAVE TWO CARS AND THEN YOU'RE BURDENING YOU KNOW THEN YOU GOT TWO CARS PARKED EITHER IN THE GRASS LAWN OR THEY'RE TAKING UP THE ON STREET PARKING OR YOU KNOW, THEY COULD BE CLOGGING UP SOMETHING ELSE AND SO YOU COULD HAVE VACATION RENTALS. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE YOU KNOW, TWO GIRLFRIENDS MEET. THEY'RE BOTH IN A CAR LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT THAT IT'S LESS BUT THE REVERSE WOULD BE WHAT I OWN THE PROPERTY AND I HAD THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY LIVING IN IT OR DOING YOU NOW REQUIRE ME FOR SPOTS I MEAN YOU'RE RENTING OUT THAT SPACE. WHAT IF I'M NOT DIGITAL AND THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE ONE OF AND MINIMUM SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING A REGULAR AND THERE'S MORE THAN NECESSARY GENERATE THE NEED TO PLAN THAT I WOULD LIKE YEAH WELL THAT'S THAT'S EXERCISE LIKE THAT I JUST WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME BECAUSE I HAD TO STRUCTURE IT ON MY LAPTOP OR SPOTS YOU FEEL IT ALREADY ANYWAY I DON'T HAVE A PARTY SO I MEAN I JUST LIVE A REALLY SMALL COMMUNITY AND I KNOW I APARTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY BUT AND SO THERE'S OFTEN NOT ENOUGH PARKING SO I JUST I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA BUT THE WHOLE OTHER HAND WHERE THE LIKE LETTER COUNTS DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT OH YEAH THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT YEAH YEAH AND I COULD BE IN THAT DWELLING UNIT TWO BEDROOMS AND IT IS YOU CAN'T DO A GARDEN YOU CAN'T DO THE PARKING CAN'T BUY A BEDROOM NO NO I'M SAYING THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR. THAT WOULD NEVER WORK ANYWHERE . PEOPLE WOULDN'T TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THE RECOMMENDATION. SO WHAT I WANT FOR THIS EVENING I'D BE A MOTION TO PROVE WITH THE PERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VIDEO MINUTES PRESENTED BY TOWN STAFF WITH FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN SECTION FIVE POINT 11.3 NOT BEING REMOVED FROM CODE BUT RATHER THEY REMAIN WITH REVISIONS REFLECTING IMPORTANT STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM RATHER THAN MAXIMUMS. SECTION FIVE 1142 WITH THE REVISION THAT GOES PARKING SPACES SHOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACES AND THE RATIONAL MENTIONED STANDARDS SHOULD STAND FOR PARKING CALCULATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE FAIR START DATE PROGRAM MAKE THAT MOTION YOU ALSO MENTIONED THE REMOVAL OF THE 25 I DON'T KNOW ONE I THOUGHT THE STAFF WAS GOING TO SAY STAFF LOOK THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF LOOK INTO THAT IS AND THAT'S STAFF REVIEW LOOK INTO WHETHER THE SECTION REGARDING THE 25 SPACES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USE WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION YEAH OKAY. 
          I MEAN I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR WHETHER THAT SHOULD JUST BE A REFERENCE STAFF PROVIDE THAT TO TOWN COUNCIL WENT DOWNTOWN TO REVIEW IT I MEAN JUST THAT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE THE DECISIONS I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP SEPARATE I'D LIKE IT TO BE IN THE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY I THINK I THINK IN THE APPROVAL OF IT I THINK THAT I JUST WANT IT TO BE A WRITTEN NOTE NOT DEPENDENT ON GOING AND 
          [02:10:01]
FILTERING THROUGH AN HOURS COUPLE OF HOURS OF THE CONVERSATION. 
          WE'RE ALREADY MAKING A CHANGE IF I LOOK FOR A TO NOT TAKE IT MANAGER GILMAN WHAT I'LL IS I'LL PROPOSE THE MOTION SO AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR WISHES BEFORE SOMEONE CAPTURES THIS NOTION THAT THEY AGREE WOULD BE GREAT MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND LET'S GET TOWARDS CHAPTER 23 THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS THAT SECTION 511 WOULD BE BE REVISED SO THAT IT REMAINS AS WRITTEN AND SUBJECT TO REVISION REFLECTS THE NEW PARKING STANDARDS BEING MINIMUM RATHER THAN ACTUAL HAS A SECTION 511 FOR A TWO THAT A STAFF RESEARCH THE STAFF PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHY A MATTER OF 25 PARKING SPACES WAS INCLUDED IN THAT COMPACT CLEAR DESIGNATION PERCENTAGE THAT ALSO THAT FINAL 11 FOR A TO BE REVISED TO SAY THAT GOLF CAR PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT COUNT FIVE MINIMAL PARKING SPACES AND FINALLY THAT STAFF ADD INSTRUCTIONAL OBLIGATIONS THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PARKING CALCULATIONS TO THE DUTY AS A STAFF IN THE AREAS STANDINGS PROGRAM SO MOVED BY THE 32ND AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PAPER IS 30 OTHER FOR THAT DISCUSSION 
          [XI. DISCUSSION]
AND ONE AND THEN CHARLOTTE AND
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.