►
From YouTube: City Council Committee Meeting
Description
City Council Committee Meeting - Captured Live on Ustream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/city-council-committee-meeting
A
A
A
B
D
E
C
E
D
C
A
resolution
authorizing
the
administrator
for
the
Department
of
Transportation
to
enter
into
a
partnership
agreement
project
number
T,
one:
eight,
zero,
zero
one;
eight
zero
one
with
M
B
SC,
Black,
Creek
LLC
for
Upper
River,
Gorge,
Black,
Creek
phrase
eight,
and
to
accept
the
cost
and
fees
associated
with
the
procurement
and
services
of
the
license.
Geotechnical
engineer
to
inspect
and
approve
designs
for
a
new
city
street.
E
C
Resolution
authorizing
the
administrator
for
the
Department
of
Transportation
to
enter
into
a
partnership
agreement,
project
number
T,
one:
eight,
zero,
zero
one,
eight
zero,
seven
with
t,
Jeanne
Edwards
incorporated
for
the
home
service
office
project
and
to
accept
a
contribution
in
the
amount
of
thirty
thousand
eight
hundred
and
six
dollars
towards
the
cost
of
sidewalk
and
curb
and
gutter
implementation.
Thank.
E
E
E
E
C
Resolution
authorizing
the
administrator
for
the
Department
of
Transportation
to
enter
into
a
partnership
agreement.
Project
number
T,
one:
eight:
zero,
zero
one;
eight
zero,
eight
with
wise
properties,
TN
LLC,
four
one:
nine
to
zero,
Chestnut
Street
Apartments,
located
at
1920
Chestnut
Street,
and
to
accept
a
contribution
towards
the
costs
of
six
pedestrian
light,
poles,
luminaries,
conduits
and
installation
in
the
amount
of
14,000
818
dollars
and
38
cents.
Councilman.
B
F
Is
a
renewal
of
our
contract
with
census
our
speed
enforcement
program,
and
this
is
a
limited
scope
of
services
from
what
they
originally
did.
You
may
remember
that
the
state
passed
a
law
almost
two
years
ago,
and
this
only
includes
the
locations
that
are
permitted
by
law,
one
speed
camera
and
the
s-curves,
and
then
two
red
light
cameras
and
two
mobile
speed
vans
uses.
This
is
just
a
renewal
of
the
contract.
F
F
E
I
Resolution
is
to
change
the
the
1100
block
of
Cleveland
Avenue.
The
1100
block
is
only
one
block
right.
There's
only
one
block
range
on
that
side
of
the
bus
yard
that
that
is
the
1100
block.
There
are
no
orders.
The
other
side
of
the
bus
yard
is
the
block,
I
believe
or
there's
another
block
range
on
the
other
side
of
the
butt
jar.
But
this
is
the
only
section
again
thank
Lincoln
Park.
That
would
be
that
and
then
you'd
ask
to
change
it
to
Lane
and
the.
I
C
Resolution
authorizing
year,
two
of
three
for
on-call
modeling
and
floodplain
analysis
services
from
Lda
engineering,
CDM,
Smith,
Stantec,
aƩcio,
M
a.m.
EC
Foster,
Wheeler,
BW,
SC,
Fulghum,
McIndoe
and
HDR
to
enter
into
eight
one
year.
Blanket
contracts
with
the
with
these
professional
firms,
subject
to
one
remaining
annual
renewal
option
for
professional
services,
estimated
at
six
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
total
and
annually
for
all
eight
professional
firms
for
use
by
all
departments.
So.
E
I
I
A
I
A
I
I
B
E
K
I
K
Councilwoman,
the
basic
differentiation
is
that
if
the
majority
of
the
contracts
they're
coming
for
you
through
resolution
or
typically
either
a
construction
bid
process
a
request
for
qualification
process,
if
it's
a
professional
service
or
it's
within
their
discretion
to
if
it's
over
twenty
five
thousand
to
bring
it
to
you
through
a
resolution
request.
So
they
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
E
It
generally
answers
the
question:
we've
been
the
council's,
been
looking
at
how
things
happen,
so
I'm
gonna,
defer
to
my
colleague
here
who
is
making
a
study
of
this,
because
the
council
is
trying
to
understand
why
some
things
why
things
come
in
certain
ways.
We
understand
requests
for
rfqs
and
RFPs.
We
understand
that.
However,
when
you're
doing
something
like
this,
that
are
continual
one-year
renewals.
E
Why
would
you
do
it
this
way
as
opposed
to
next
year
or
whenever
it's
ready
to
come
back
up
again,
ask
for
a
one-year
renewal?
How
do
we
keep
tabs
on
the
fact
that
that
they're
doing
what
we're
paying
them
to
do,
as
we
assume
that
it
assumes
here
that
this
will
be
continued
as
opposed
to
it
being
reviewed
and
then
continued.
I
I
We
had
them
on
contract,
didn't
necessarily
have
to
do
any
emergency
purchase
or
get
a
Pio,
but
we
had
them
available.
They
came
out
immediately
that
evening
and
we're
able
to
do
the
geotechnical
work
and
provide
some
feedback
to
this
very
quickly,
so
that
wasn't
necessarily
a
capital
project
where
we
asked
them
to
design
something
we
just
needed
their
support.
I
E
I
B
I
Notice,
all
these
are
engineering
consulting
services
and
we
really
do
try
to
look
for
first
of
all,
the
best
qualified
folks,
but
also
to
use
a
variety
of
companies
and
I
think
we
do
a
pretty
good
job
of
representing
many
different
consulting
firms
in
town
in
our
blanket
contracts
where
they
have
areas
of
expertise.
But
I
understand
your
question.
Yeah.
I
Important
that
we
have
the
best
qualified
individuals
on
contract
for
the
types
of
services
that
we
need,
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
in
our
best
interest
to
keep
every
consultant
firm
available,
which
may
you
know,
bring
us
to
your
question
about
how
do
we
rotate
those
types
of
consulting
firms
but
I
think
here's
a
good
example
where
we
have
two
types
of
contracts
and
we
have
represented
here.
You
know
several
different
engineering
firms.
L
E
C
B
C
Ordinance
closing
and
abandoning
a
20
foot
wide
sewer,
easement,
beginning
63
feet
west
of
manhole
s,
1
3,
8,
J,
seven,
six,
zero,
then
snow,
north
west,
some
51
feet
to
manhole
s:
1
3,
8,
J,
766
tax
map,
number
1,
3,
8,
J,
a
zero
zero
one.
Three
point:
zero:
two
as
detailed
on
the
attached
map,
subject
to
certain
conditions.
So.
E
E
C
Resolution
authorizing
the
approval
of
change
order,
number
one
for
Civic
engineering
and
information
technologies
incorporated
for
professional
services
relative
to
you,
contract
number
s;
zero,
nine,
zero,
zero,
eight,
four
zero
one
North
st.
Elmo,
stormwater
improvements,
project,
CEI
services
for
an
increased
amount
of
one
hundred
nine
thousand
seven
hundred
and
seventy
five
dollars
for
a
revised
contract
amount
not
to
exceed
nine
hundred
one
thousand
eight
hundred
and
eighty
seven
dollars
councilman.
E
H
E
C
C
Resolution
authorizing
the
second
payment
of
five
payments
to
Hamilton
County
GSI
relative
to
GSI,
addressing
addressing
for
fiscal
year
2019
with
future
compensation
to
be
negotiated
on
an
annual
basis.
As
noted
in
the
city
county
and
addressing
MOU
dated
May
19
2006
for
an
amount
not
to
exceed
68,000
$100
questions.
C
C
G
Minutes
ago
and
I
just
want
to
tell
you,
the
Public,
Works
crew
did
a
great
job
of
getting
out
there
and
working
through
the
night
and
taking
care
of
that
situation
before
it
developed
into
anything
a
whole
lot
more
serious
for
those
residents
downfield
downstream.
From
from
that
y'all
did
it.
Y'all
did
a
great
job.
G
N
N
Last
year
last
fall.
We
got
a
number
of
requests,
and
not
only
from
council
members,
but
also
from
citizens
who
actually
submitted
a
petition
saying
they
wanted
the
city
to
explore
a
review,
the
food
truck
or
the
mobile
food
unit
ordinance,
and
so
we
we
called
together
a
convened,
a
group
of
stakeholders
in
the
community
that
included
in
fact,
I
see
Jim
Williamson,
River
City.
N
One
of
the
reasons
that
people
came
to
us
was
that
the
code
as
it
currently
stands,
it's
pretty
restrictive.
You
can
only
use
it
on
private
property
within
certain
zones
now,
if
you
wanted
to
use
it
for
community-wide
events
or
special
events
or
things
that
nature.
Certainly
that
could
happen,
but
it
says
specifically,
you
can't
use
it
on
city
streets.
They
did
create
a
great
permit
process.
It
also
has
two
other
inspections
or
requirements
that
you
would
expect
from
a
mobile
food
unit,
so
the
Health
Department
has
to
sign
off
on
things
like
that.
N
But
again,
as
you
know,
since
2013
a
lot
of
change
in
the
food
truck
industry,
you
have
places
like
Austin.
You
have
places
like
Portland
that
are
doing
a
lot
of
great
work
in
this
truly
an
industry,
and
so
we
wanted
to
look
at
those
ordinances
and
come
back
with
a
couple
of
proposed
changes,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we
did
was
we
said
hey.
This
could
work
better
if
it's
allowed
on
city
streets
one.
We
also
made
some
up
some
changes.
That
includes
form
based
code.
N
N
What's
a
proper
place
or
the
most
appropriate
place
to
have
food
trucks
to
see
dot
and
what
I
mean
by
the
most
appropriate
place
is
we're
thinking
about
creating
food
zones.
So,
instead
of
just
saying
any
particular
public
street,
it
would
be
a
designated
area.
That's
vetted,
based
on
the
criteria
that
c-dot
working
with
other
city
partners
would
determine
as
an
example,
one
of
the
first
places
suggested
is
Miller
Park
what
the
infrastructure
that's
going
on
there.
N
It
makes
sense
that
that
would
be
a
place
where
food
trucks
be
placed,
but
councilman
Coonrod
who's,
the
sponsor
of
this
legislation.
She
also
suggested
glass
street.
So
while
downtown
could
be
an
area,
we
also
know
that
there
are
neighborhoods
in
areas
in
your
districts
that
you
might
want
to
consider
for
food
trucks
as
well.
So
as
we're
going
through
this
as
Jonathan
and
light
and
the
team
are
drafting
these
regulations,
we
welcome
your
suggestions
for
places
in
your
districts
that
you
want
to
see
take
place.
The
other
thing
we
did
was
to
accommodate.
N
That
is.
We
want
to
give
once
the
ordinance
has
adopted,
give
about
60
days
of
that
for
them
to
complete
those
regulations,
although
they're
really
close,
including
completing
the
application
again,
they're,
really
close
with
that
as
well
to
to
complete
this
process.
The
other
thing
you'll
see
in
this
ordinance
that's
different
from
the
current
code.
Is
it's
a
stepped-up
regulatory
exponent
when
it
comes
to
fire?
That
was
really
missing
a
little
bit
with
this
last
with
this
current
version,
and
so
the
fire
department
I'm,
so
sorry,
I
didn't
give
them
a
shout-out.
N
They
did
a
great
job
as
well
as
contributing
to
to
this
process.
Now
the
process
itself
wouldn't
really
change
except
you
know
you
would
still
go
to
the
treasurer's
office
to
submit
that
original
application.
But
when
it
comes
to
the
zone
itself,
you
would
work
with
CDOT
to
get
that
to
get
that
from
an
enforcement
standpoint.
Certainly
LDO
and
CPD
would
all
look
for
those
permits
that
the
food
the
mobile
food
unit
provider
would
have
in
their
unit
if
they
don't
have
it.
N
Of
course,
they'll
be
excited
just
like
any
other
person
that
business,
that
is
in
violation
of
the
ordinance,
so
some
of
outstanding
items
that
we
have
now
will
complete
the
regulations.
We
want
to
also
make
sure
we
have
a
communications
plan
that
allows
for
any
food
truck
vendors
and,
by
the
way,
I
know,
Jonathan
talked
with
a
number
of
operators
in
the
city.
We
want
to
complete
the
application,
we're
going
to
look
at
these
zones
and
any
potential
zones
that
you
all
might
have
in
your
districts.
N
We
also
wanted
to
a
lot
of
questions
came
up
about.
Well,
how
does
this
work
if
we
have
zone
where
a
number
of
people
operators?
What
are
you
saying
we
thought
about
using
a
reservation
system?
We
thought
about
those
things.
We
explore
that
because
that's
what
they
have
in
other
cities,
but
you
know
this
industry
is
growing.
N
This
is
a
market
that
we
think
will
have
to
just
monitor
a
little
bit
to
see
what
happens,
and
if
that
demand
comments,
will
we
stand
ready
to
look
at
exploring
an
application
or
a
system
that
could
do
those
reservations,
but
that's
what
we
wanted
to
update
with
update
you
all
on
today.
If
you
have
questions
about
where
we're
going,
if
the
regulations
that
we
want
to
in
a
sense
delegate
to
see
that
you
have
any
questions
about
that,
please
ask
those
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
council,
any
questions,
city
attorney.
At
this
time
we
have
councilman
Gilbert,
please
you
say
that
you're
looking
at
other
districts
that
this
can
fit
into
correct.
So
if
any
council
person
does
not
want
this
in
their
district
in
certain
areas,
they
say
one
way
or
the
other
correct,
and
if
a
person
is
in
that
area
that
we
said
we
could
not
be
an
error
and
we'll
be
in
force.
A
N
Yes,
so
that
I
would
look
at
it
like
this.
Yes,
if
there's
like
the
short
term
vacation
runabout
right,
so
if
there's
no
area
in
which
they
can
operate
and
it
doesn't
meet
these
other
standards
like
a
community
wide
fair,
some
other
community-based
event
that
the
cold
currently
allows,
then,
yes,
we
that's
something
that
I
think
see
that
what
they
consideration
and
not
not
Kuwait.
That's
all.
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
D
N
D
N
The
ordinance
in
going
back
to
that
whole
theme
of
simplicity,
the
ordinance
itself
is
not.
There
haven't
been
a
lot
of
changes,
so
you're
talking,
maybe
two
weeks.
That's
we
can
send
a
draft
around
that
that
the
regulations
I
think
we're
pretty
but
posts
getting
those
done.
I'd
say
within
the
next
30
days,
even
we've,
given
ourselves
a
little
buffer
here
for
60
but
I.
Think
probably
okay.
G
Ordinance
it
is
there
any
data
in
those
other
cities,
I.
Think
really.
For
me,
the
crux
of
the
matter
becomes
the
food
trucks
competing
against
our
brick-and-mortar
restaurants
and
I.
Think
that's
what
we
you
know.
We
sort
of
want
to
do
no
harm
to
to
those
industries
as
well.
Is
there
any
data
backing
up
or
showing
that
it's
had
no
effect
on
the
brick-and-mortar
stores?
Obviously,
a
lot
of
investment
has
gone
into
downtown
restaurants,
buildings
and
things
of
this
nature.
G
N
N
One
is
that,
for
instance,
as
I
know,
there's
a
unit,
that's
downtown
where
people
like
the
fact
restaurant
owners,
like
the
fact
that
that
person
is
out
prime
but
I,
think
that's
one
of
the
things
that
the
regulations
will
take
a
consideration
exactly
where
those
those
food
trucks
could
be
placed
and
I
think
that
would
probably
take
incineration
nuts
and
some
comments
and
concerns
from
those
stakeholders
in
a
community.
You
guys
want
to
chime
in
on
that
at
all.
B
F
One
of
the
things
that
we've
drafted
into
the
regulations
as
to
one
consider
spacing
to
nearby
restaurants,
but
also
get
some
sort
of
approval,
either
through
a
sanctioned
organization
that
represents
the
area
or
or
some
sort
of
petition
approval
of
neighboring
property
owners.
So
I
think
that
would
cover
us.
There
are
certain
cases
where
currently
their
food
truck
vendors
that
are
operating
next
to
restaurants
and
they
and
they
like
they
like
the
compatibility.
Certainly
there
are
cases
where
that
wouldn't
happen,
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody's
comfortable.
So.
G
F
G
N
F
A
J
A
J
I've
spoken
with
Wilkins
about
this.
He
he
knows
the
existing
food
trucks
that
are
already
here,
he's
already
inspected
them
he's
inspected
them
for
special
events
and
so
forth.
So
I
don't
think
it's
adding
too
much
to
their
capacity
to
do
this
and
I
think
that,
hopefully
this
you
know
initiates
at
capacity.
You
know
we
see
more
food
trucks
and
then
you
know
it
might
become
an
issue,
but
I
don't
think
that,
according
to
lo,
they
don't
have
really
any
issues
with
the
mobile
units.
J
N
A
J
Mean
we
didn't
specifically
ask
I,
didn't
ask
lo
Wilkins
from
the
health
department
if
he
had
an
issue
with
regulating
the
ones
that
were
there
they're
currently
here
and
if
he
would,
you
know,
foresee
an
issue
with
having
more
food
trucks.
I
mean
my
thinking
would
be
that
they
would
adjust
as
needed
and.
A
J
A
And
that's
a
one-time
deal
situation
I'm
talking
about
contamination
every
day,
every
five
days,
always
something
where
maybe
terrorize
ation
that
would
you're.
Speaking
of
it's
a
special
event.
Yes,
you
can
catch
check
them
all
at
one
time.
You
no
problem!
Well,
you
got
trusted
throughout
the
city
that
you've
got
additional
trucks.
That's
something
totally
different,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
know
this
is
not
just
a
festival.
A
A
N
Going
here
good
question,
so
what
we
want
to
do
next
is
to
send
out
a
red
line
version
for
the
council
to
review.
We
would
then
hope
that
you
all
are
ready
to
put
it
on
the
agenda
to
move
forward
for
adoption
again
the
what
is
contemplated
now
is
a
60-day
effective
period
six
days
before
it
becomes
effective,
and
we
will
in
that
time,
complete
the
regulations
as
well
as
applications
for
it.
Certainly
once
those
are
done.
N
E
N
E
E
N
N
E
Authorized
to
do
it,
you
said
two
things,
and,
and
so
that's
what
I'm
I'm
trying
to
answer
questions
from
constituents
so
I
I
have
a
food
truck
and
I'm
on
east
gates
parking
lot.
It's
assumed
that
I
have
a
business
license
from
the
city.
It's
assumed
that
I'm
Health
inspected.
The
only
thing
is
not
assumed
is
that
I
have
permission
from
the
property
owner
to
be
there.
It's.
N
E
F
J
A
N
C
Resolution
authorizing
the
administrator
for
the
department
of
economic
and
Community
Development
to
apply
for
and
if
awarded,
accept
the
10-minute,
walk,
planning,
grant
and
technological
teknon.
Sorry,
technical
assistance,
application
in
collaboration
with
the
Trust
for
Public
Land
in
the
amount
of
$40,000.
M
C
Ordinance
to
amend
chattanooga
city
code
part
two
chapter,
38,
zoning
ordinance
so
as
to
rezone
property
located
at
seven
one.
Three
Hamilton
Avenue
more
particularly
described
herein
from
erm
three
urban
edge
residential
multi-unit,
three
storeys
maximum
height
two
ECX,
three
urban
edge
commercial,
mixed
use,
three
storeys
maximum
height.
We.
O
M
O
O
B
O
Well,
I'm
off
just
a
few
brief
opening
remarks:
I'm
gonna
turn
over
to
Karen
hunt
and
Emily
Dixon
who'll
really
do
most
of
the
presentation,
but
before
I
do
that
I
want
to
acknowledge
some
folks
that
are
in
the
room.
First,
our
form
based
code
committee,
highly-paid
formed
based
code
committee,
who
spend
many
hours
and,
of
course,
I
say
that
tongue-in-cheek
working
when
we
do
have
appeals
or
variance
requests.
They
review
those
and
we
really
think
thankful
for
their
service.
John
Strassburger
who's,
the
chair
sitting
to
his
left
is
hottie.
O
Heifer,
lean
and
I
also
have
Jason
have
Ron
in
the
back,
who
served
on
the
form
based
code
committee
and
really
are
our
trusted
board
that
really
reviews
those
tough
cases
when
there's
a
need
for
a
something
beyond
the
code,
allows
for
they're
the
ones
that
deliberate
and
make
those
decisions
on
those
so
appreciate,
y'all
service
on
the
board.
As
you
know,
this
is
a
one-year
review.
O
O
So,
as
you
know,
we're
gonna
have
just
a
Gentile
number.
Give
you
this
briefing
tonight,
there's
gonna
be
a
public
hearing.
Next
week
there
are
about
thirty
six
changes.
I
know
it
sounds
like
a
lot,
but
actually,
if
you
think
about,
if
you,
if
you're
working
this
new
code
for
about
a
year,
you're
gonna
have
some
tweaks
and
changes
most
of
those
changes
are
what
I'll
call
housekeeping
clarifications.
O
O
That's
why
we're
here
and
you're
here
as
a
council
to
hear
the
different
perspectives
on
some
of
those
changes
so
Karen,
as
we
give
you
an
overview
of
that
so
again,
instead
of
going
through
every
36
I,
don't
think
you
would
make
it
through
all
36,
but
we
thought
be
more
helpful
for
you
to
hear
about
those
six
hot
topics
that
you'll
be
getting
calls
about.
So
I'm
gonna
turn
over
now
to
Karen
is
going
to
kick
it
off
from
here.
M
C
P
That
helps
thank
you.
Okay,
as
John
said,
we've
we
passed
the
one-year
mark
and
one
of
the
requirements
when
this
code
was
adopted
back
in
2016,
was
that
the
staff
would
conduct
a
survey
of
both
the
applicants
who
submitted
projects
in
the
forum
based
code
area,
as
well
as
the
the
affected
neighborhood
association.
So
we
have
done
that
and
I'll
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
that
and
we've
looked
at
a
lot
of
the
the
cases
so
we're
here
tonight
to
propose
some
potential
changes
to
you.
P
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
before
we
dive
into
that
just
to
remind
ourselves
of
why
we
thought
a
forum
based
code
was
going
to
be
a
good
idea
for
the
downtown.
First
of
all,
we
really
didn't
have
any
good
zones
that
worked
well
in
an
urban
area,
so
this
is
an
urban
code
intended
for
an
urban
area
to
promote
mixed-use
buildings,
multi-story
buildings,
a
walkable
downtown.
P
P
That's
one
of
the
things
we
heard
both
from
the
development
community
and
from
the
the
residents
in
the
neighborhoods
in
the
downtown
was
they
wanted
the
process
to
be
more
predictable.
So,
as
John
mentioned,
we
only
have
a
few.
There
are
we've
had
a
lot
of
building
permits
in
the
foreign
base
code
in
downtown
area.
P
In
the
the
last
year,
the
the
land
development
office
took
a
look
at
all
those
crunch,
some
numbers
on
that
only
38
of
them
had
to
go
before
the
forum
based
code
committee
for
a
variance
or
a
modification,
as
we
call
it
in
the
foreign
base
code.
So
that's
only
2%,
so
we
thought
that
was
pretty
good
and
of
those
38
9
of
them
dealt
only
with
sines,
so
we've
had
a
number
of
sine
variances
come
forward.
P
So
how
did
we
get
to
these
proposed
amendments?
We
went
through
a
pretty
lengthy
process.
First
of
all,
the
the
staff
reviewed
all
of
the
cases
that
came
through
for
permits.
We
had
a
lot
of
meetings
and
talked
about
issues
that
were
coming
up
repeatedly.
We
analyzed
and
when
I
say
we
I
mean
both
the
planning
staff
and
the
land
development
office
and
CDOT
was
involved
in
a
lot
of
those
as
well.
P
We
took
a
look
at
all
of
the
cases
that
went
before
the
forum
based
code
committee
to
see
if
there
were
any
repeating
patterns
there.
We
then,
as
I
mentioned
before,
sent
a
survey
to
all
to
the
applicants,
as
well
as
to
the
impacted
neighborhood
associations.
We
actually
had
some
stakeholder
meetings
with
those
same
two
groups
in
October.
The
land
development
office
reviewed
this
with
the
forum
based
code
committee,
got
their
input.
All
of
the
proposed
amendments
are
now
posted
online.
P
The
Planning
Commission
reviewed
it
for
the
first
time
in
December
and
then
took
action
in
February
and
we've
posted
their
proposed
version
online
as
well,
and
throughout
that
process
we've
been
sending
email
updates
out
to
people.
We
have
a
list
of
about
600
people
that
signed
up
to
be
informed
and
we've
been
doing
that
regularly.
P
Okay,
so
let's
jump
into
the
amendments.
I
know
most
of
you,
if
not
all,
have
seen
this
table
before,
but
just
in
case
you've
forgotten
to
remind
you,
as
John
said,
it's
divided
into
two
groups,
the
first
half
or
what
we
would
call
just
minor
housekeeping
items.
The
second
half
are
the
more
substantial
changes.
P
So
as
you
look
at
this,
the
far
left
corner
left
corner.
Excuse
me,
left
column
has
item
numbers.
So
if
you
have
a
question
about
any
of
these
and
you're
looking
at
that
sheet,
you
can
refer
to
that.
It
also
gives
you
the
the
page
number
in
the
code.
The
section
number
there's
a
column
that
just
kind
of
describes
in
general
terms.
What
the
issue
is
why
this
is
needed,
and
then
this
column
gives
you
the
exact
wording
of
what
is
being
proposed
and
then
the
far
right
column
shows
you
what
the
original
text
was.
P
So
you
can
compare
the
two
without
having
to
flip
back
and
forth
between
this
list
and
the
code
itself.
Okay,
so
these
are.
This
is
a
topical
list
of
all
of
the
proposed
amendments.
Again,
you
see
the
the
more
minor
housekeeping
issues
that
just
requires
some
clarification
or
cross-dressed
cross-references
on
the
left.
The
more
substantial
changes
are
on
the
right.
P
The
substantial
changes
really
involve
either
we're
proposing
to
change
something
to
a
standard
or
we're
proposing
a
change
in
a
process
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
those
in
detail.
If
you
have
questions
about
a
specific
one,
I
can
certainly
address
them,
as
John
said
that
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
touch
on
the
six
items
that
you
see
in
red,
because
those
are
the
only
items.
P
That
change
was
recommended
again
it
we
consider
it
a
minor
change.
We
already
were
allowing
short-term
vacation
rentals
in
the
code
and
then
the
council
passed
a
new
resolution
resolution.
Excuse
me
new
ordinance,
I
guess
last
year
that
allowed
short-term
vacation
rentals
in
other
parts
of
the
city
and
all
we
did
was.
We
went
back
into
the
form
based
code
and
just
tweet
that
language,
so
it
matches
the
short
term
vacation
rental
ordinance
exactly
it.
There
were
just
a
couple
minor
differences,
I
think
in
the
wording.
G
O
Because
there's
chapter
10,
where
this
is
actually
resides,
governs
that
so
all
we're
saying
is
you
just
can't
it's
not
permitted
by
right,
because
chapter
10
will
recreate
that
whole
special
section
on
short-term
vacation.
Rentals
is
actually
what
governs
what
you
can
and
can't
do
and
how
you
register.
So
all
we're
saying
is
you
need
to
go
it's
governed
by
that
part
of
the
city
code.
That's
why
you
see
the
L
there
so
anytime,
there's
something
it's
not
buy
right,
but
there's
some
caveats
to
it
is
an
L
that
makes
sense.
O
G
P
I'll,
take
you
through
each
of
these
in
a
little
more
detail
and
basically
I'm
going
to
cover
four
things:
what
what
the
for
each
one?
What
the
current?
What
the
code
currently
allows,
what
the
staff
is
recommending,
then
what
the
Planning
Commission
is
recommending
and
then
a
couple
of
them
I
have
a
little
additional
information
just
to
kind
of
help
with
understanding
what
the
issue
is
and
I
won't
take
these
exactly
in
order,
because
a
couple
of
them
are
related.
P
So
we
we
group
them
together,
but
I
will
cover
these
six
items
so
the
first
one,
everyone's
favorite
topic
parking
in
the
downtown.
Currently
the
forum
based
code
has
parking
minimums,
so
we
do
have
minimum
requirements
for
parking.
We
know
we
have
to
have
adequate
parking
in
the
downtown,
but
we
have
learned
that
you
have
to
be
a
little
more
creative
about
providing
parking
in
the
downtown.
P
However,
the
staff
is
starting
to
see
cases
where
applicants
are
providing
a
lot
more
parking
than
is
required
by
the
code
like
two
and
a
half
times
more
than
what
is
required,
and
that
is
not
shared
parking.
It's
not
public
parking,
it's
just
for
that
individual
business,
and
so
one
proposal
that
the
staff
is
making
here
is
that
we
at
we
maintain
the
parking
minimums.
First
of
all,
that
does
not
change,
but
that
for
new
parking
lots
we
add
a
maximum
or
a
cap.
That
says
you
cannot
have
more
than
20%
over
what
is
required.
P
After
hearing
some
feedback
from
some
of
the
stakeholders
about
this
proposal,
we
added
a
caveat
to
that
to
say
that
that
maximum
would
not
apply
to
shared
parking
or
to
structured
parking
or
to
public
parking.
The
Planning
Commission
had
a
different
take
on
this.
The
Planning
Commission
recommended
that
we
not
add
parking
maximums
to
this.
P
Their
reasoning
was,
first
of
all,
that
the
cost
of
building
parking
is
very
expensive
and
that
what
in
and
of
itself
would
probably
discourage
over
parking,
and
they
also
felt
that
the
market
just
was
not
going
to
build
additional
parking
unless
the
applicant
felt
they
really
needed
it
to
finance
their
project.
Also,
they
felt
you
know
they
said
parking
was
a
major
point
of
debate
when
we
were
working
on
the
form
based
code
and,
let's
not
just
dredge
this
up
again.
P
As
you
know,
it
is
always
a
hot
topic
of
debate,
so
we
want
to
spend
I
want
to
spend
if
it's,
okay,
just
a
couple
minutes
reviewing
some
information,
we've
pulled
up.
First
of
all,
if
you
go
back
to
the
goals
of
the
the
form
based
code,
again
we're
trying
to
animate
our
streets,
one
thing
that
makes
that
very
difficult
is:
when
you
have
long
expanses
of
parking
lots
along
the
street,
we
don't
really
want
our
streets
to
be
dominated
by
surface
parking
lots.
P
Currently
in
the
suburbs,
we
typically
require
four
spaces
for
every
1,000
square
feet
of
a
business,
and
you
can
see
on
the
top
right.
That's
what
that
looks
like
with
the
blue
being
a
three-story
building
and
the
the
reddish-brown
color
being
the
amount
of
space
a
surface
parking
lot
would
take
up
at
that
standard.
What
we
have
in
the
downtown
area,
in
the
form
based
code
for
commercial
businesses,
is
instead
one
space
for
every
thousand
square
feet
which
shrinks
down
the
surface
parking
area
a
little
bit.
P
Of
course,
it
still
takes
up
quite
a
bit
of
land.
I
mean
cars
are
just
big
I'm
going
to
give.
You
show
you
a
couple
of
examples
of
some
of
the
businesses
that
have
applied
and
have
provoked
and
have
proposed
to
provide
a
lot
more
parking
than
is
required.
This
one
is
on
Rossville
Avenue.
This
applicant
purchased
an
existing
building
renovated
it
for
some
offices.
They
had
a
very
large
site,
and
so
they
wanted
to
basically
use
the
entire
site
for
parking.
P
The
code
only
required
them
to
have
30
spaces,
but
they
were
going
to
provide
75,
which
was
two
and
a
half
times.
What
was
required
again,
it
wasn't
gonna
be
shared
parking.
It
was
just
for
their
business
just
another
example.
This
is
the
Moxie
hotel,
that's
currently
under
construction
on
King
Street.
P
The
code
only
requires
58
spaces,
they're
providing
125
so
again
over
two
times,
what's
being
required,
another
one,
a
new
hotel,
that's
proposed
on
Carter
Street,
I'm,
sorry
I
neglected
to
put
the
numbers
in
here,
but
you
can
see
the
parking
has
ends
up
being
bigger
than
the
the
building
itself
and
just
to
maybe
go
into
a
little
more
detail
about.
Why
we're
saying
that
over
parking
could
be
a
bad
thing,
because.
M
P
Probably
I'm
getting
looks
like
okay,
Karen
you're
crazy.
What
is
wrong
with
having
more
parking
and
then
downtown
in
an
urban
area
it's
different
than
out
in
the
suburbs.
Again,
you
just
have
more
room.
Your
your
Lots
are
a
lot
smaller
in
the
downtown
buildings
are
closer
together,
so
hopefully
people
can
walk
to
them.
You
have
you
know
mixed
uses
of
the
downtown.
We
also
have
a
lot
of
other
options
for
getting
around
the
downtown.
M
P
P
Another
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
this
is
not
anything
new
for
Chattanooga.
We
currently
have
parking
maximums
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
In
fact,
every
zone
and
the
zoning
ordinance
has
a
50%
maximum
right
now,
in
the
urban
general
commercial
zone,
the
UGC
zone,
we
shrunk
that
down
to
a
20%
maximum,
which
is
the
same
that
we're
proposing
for
the
foreign-based
code.
So
we
already
have
50
percent
maximum
throughout
the
downtown.
P
Also,
last
year,
when
we
were
right
before
we
adopted
the
code,
I
met
with
representatives
from
Carta
and
Republic
parking
and
asked
them
to
show
us
all
of
their
parking
facilities
in
the
downtown,
the
ones
that
they
manage
and
tell
us
how
many
spaces
they
had
and
how
well
they
were
being
used.
So
on
this
map,
you
see
it
that's
a
little
hard
to
see
the
colors,
but
little
red
dots
are
all
of
the
Carta
and
Republic
facilities.
P
Now
we're
not
looking
at
all
the
parking
in
downtown
just
their
facilities
and
of
those
we
divided
it
up
into
districts
on
the
North
Shore,
they
said
on
a
typical
average
day.
They
have
372
spaces
available
in
the
riverfront.
On
the
south
side,
it
was
284
in
the
core
of
the
downtown
kind
of
4th
Street
to
12th.
I,
guess
1746
know
that
you
think
wow,
that's
a
huge
number,
but
again,
we've
got
a
lot
of
multi-story
parking
garages
in
that
area
in
the
south
side,
442
spaces.
P
B
P
Basically,
I
won't
go
into
any
detail
of
that
other
than
to
say.
The
study
revealed
that,
while
there
are
a
couple
areas,
namely
around
the
university
in
Erlanger,
that
are
about
to
reach
their
maximum
capacity,
that
overall,
the
downtown
area
wide
does
not
have
a
parking
shortage
that
we
have
enough
parking.
P
Also
just
real
quickly.
We
looked
at
a
number
of
other
cities.
We
are
by
no
means
not
the
only
ones
that
are
looking
at
parking
maximums.
This
gives
you
just
a
list,
not
an
exhaustive
survey,
but
a
few
places
that
we
looked
at
that
have
the
same
thing
so
again
quickly
on
that.
Currently
we
have
some
minimums
with
some
discounts
allowed
staff
is
recommending
a
20%
maximum,
but
then
exempting
shared
parking
of
public
parking
from
that
Planning
Commission
said.
We
don't
think
we
should
have
many
parking
maximums
at
all.
P
B
B
D
Are
restaurants,
many
of
them
that
have
closed
down
and
a
one
block
stretch
of
Market
Street
due
to
no
parking?
They
can't
get
enough
business,
so
I'm
really
having
a
hard
time
with
the
thought
of
forcing
less
parking.
Just
for
that.
One
reason:
on
top
of
that,
then
I
don't
have
to
consider
well,
if
you're
only
allowed
to
do
20%,
what
do
they
have
to
do
with
the
rest
of
their
land?
They're
not
going
to
build
a
building
on
it?
Necessarily
they
may
not
want
to
build.
D
They
may
not
have
the
funds
to
build
a
building.
They've
got
all
this
open
land,
but
we're
gonna
tell
them.
They
can't
use
it
for
parking,
even
though
it
might
be
perfectly
suited
to
be
used
for
parking,
so
I'm
going
to
understand
the
basis
of
form-based
code,
but
in
the
in
the
context
of
parking,
and
then
you
also
mentioned
requirements.
A
parking
requirement
is
totally
different
than
a
parking
maximum,
so
I
mean
I
really
can't
even
relate
the
two.
D
So
if,
if
somebody
wants
the
owns
a
piece
of
property
and
they
build
a
building-
and
they
want
to
have
parking,
I'm,
I
guess
I'm,
with
Planning
Commission
I'm
struggling
to
see
where
we
have
the
right
to
tell
them
that
they
can't
have
that
additional
parking
to
make
it
easier
on
their
on
their
employees
on
their
their
customers.
Whoever
may
be
coming
to
see
them
so
I
mean
I
wanted
to
finish
in
case.
There
was
something
that
might
change
my
mind
here,
but
off
to
significant.
D
L
P
P
I'm
sorry
I
lost
my
train
of
thought.
There
yeah
I,
hear
what
you're
saying
and
we've
heard
the
same
comments
from
from
people
again
we're
not
we
don't
want
to
cut
back
on
the
we
don't
want
to
put
an
absolute.
You
can
only
have
this
many
spaces
there's
already
or
minimum
requirement.
So
this
would
just
say
you
can't
go
more
than
20
percent
over
that
I
will
say:
I,
don't
know
how
well
it's
enforced,
but
there
is
currently
a
maximum
like
that
throughout
the
city
it's
50
percent.
P
P
Again,
I
think
it's
based
partly
on
what
the
the
land
development
office
is
starting
to
see
with
people
provide
twice
as
much
parking
as
required.
I
haven't
gotten
to
this
issue
yet,
but
a
related
topic
is
that
some
of
those
same
folks
are
coming
in
and
asking
for
a
variance
from
the
landscaping
standards
around
those
parking,
lots
and
they're
saying
well.
Okay,
even
though
we're
providing
twice
as
much
parking
as
you're
requiring
us
to
have,
we
want
some
relief
from
the
landscape
requirements,
because
we're
gonna
lose
a
few
parking
spaces.
O
Sometimes
I
think
the
other
aspect
is
to
get
folks
thinking
beyond
just
their
immediate
site,
but
looking
at
because
if
it's
always
the
path
of
least
resistance
to
max
out
my
parking,
then
we
don't
use
our
garages
as
much.
Yes,
I
think
it's
a
balance,
I
think
to
the
on
the
one
action
I
think.
If
you
over
park
we've
seen
some
streets
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about
some
streets
where
restaurants
are
struggling
at
the
same
time,
those
streets
where
you've
got
nothing
but
parking
become,
are
not
fun
to
walk
along.
O
So
you,
the
animation
those
streets
becomes
the
problem
in
terms
of
getting
activity
development
when
all
you've
got
surface
parking
on
a
block
in
another
block,
so
I
think
what
we
were
suggesting
here
is
is
that
that's
why
we
have
the
exception
for
shared
parking
and
for
parking
garages?
We
know
that
there's
a
parking
needs,
but
if
you're
just
doing
is
my
private
surface
parking
lot
having
some
kind
of
a
cap,
basically
at
least
gives
you
the
option
to
explore
other
options.
O
D
L
If
you
haven't
reviewed
River
city's
parking
study,
which
they're
referencing,
it
is
really
helpful
and
enlightening
because
as
you're
highlighting
councilmen,
there
are
some
neighborhoods
that
are
more
parking
stress
than
others,
but
there
is
not
sort
of
a
blanket
need
for
large
additional
structures,
so
I
would
encourage
of
getting
it
out
of
the
abstract.
There
may
be
locations
where
additional
parking
infrastructure
is
needed
through
government
investment,
but
what
the
parking
study
found
actually
is
that
it's
not
sort
of
blanketly
all
of
downtown
and
celts,
minogue
Lupino.
D
Referencing
something
that
John
said
so
again:
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
I,
understand
maybe
in
the
larger
scheme
and
maybe
not
in
certain
areas.
Downtown
and
I
get
what
you're
saying
about
it
not
being
a
place.
Maybe
a
lot
of
people
want
to
walk
by
empty
lots.
I
get
that
there
are
places
with
empty
Lots
where
the
businesses
are
still
closing.
So
it's.
D
Saying
that
that's
the
answer
to
it,
but
when,
when
that
is
what
you
hear
so
significant,
and
if
we
had
the
population
to
supply
some
of
those
businesses
with
the
clientele
to
keep
them
in
business
without
people
driving
in
from
the
suburbs
like
I,
do
every
day
and
needing
to
be
able
to
park
somewhere.
I
can
see
that.
But
we
obviously
donor
the
businesses
wouldn't
be
closing
at
the
rate
that
they
are
a
lot
of
them.
So
that's
you're.
I
D
I
mean
my
perspective
is:
is
what
I'm
coming
out
as
well
as
my
entire
district
is
going
to
drive
downtown?
They
are
not
going
to
bike
bus
or
any
other
way
to
get
downtown
and
enjoy
what
we
have
to
offer.
So,
from
the
perspective
of
myself
in
my
district,
it's
it's
an
issue
to
start
talking
about,
actually
which.
O
O
M
G
B
G
I
get
I,
get
the
smaller
parking
lots
to
try
to
create
an
urban
feel
at
the
same
time.
You
know
I
hear
a
lot,
particularly
from
the
North
Shore,
about
not
enough
available
parking,
so
I
guess
my
biggest
question
in
determining
whether
I
would
want
to
put
a
cap
on
the
maximum
or
not.
Is
there
any
correlation?
Do
we
have
any
study
that
would
correlate
between
a
business,
providing
an
additional,
much
more
parking
than
required
and
the
relief
of
available
public
parking?
Other
words
is
there
any?
G
L
Thing
I
want
it
would
be
a
combination
of
public
and
private,
but
it
would
still
be
monetized.
It
would
still
have
a
fee,
so
those
business
owners
who
want
to
lease
out
the
remainder
of
their
spaces
could
do
so
at
a
fee
and
so
it'd
still
be
revenue
generating.
So
when
we're
asking
people
to
make
their
parking
facilities
available
to
the
public,
we're
not
asking
them
to
make
them
free
and
we're
not
mandating
how
they
do
it
or
the
rates
they
charge
or
some
of
those
things.
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
in
okay.
M
M
P
M
P
Okay
related
issue,
landscaping
around
parking,
lots
and
I
mentioned
earlier-
that
some
of
the
you
know
places
we're
providing
a
lot
of
parking
and
that
some
of
them
were
then
going
to
the
forum
based
code
committee
asking
for
relief
from
the
landscaping
requirements,
because
they
were
afraid
that
we're
gonna
lose
a
few
parking
spaces.
So
again,
if
I'm
gonna
skip
through
some
of
these
slides
you've
seen
some
of
these
they're
basically
repeat
same
one
here
on
Rossville
Avenue
I
use
the
same
example.
P
Ahead,
so
for
that
reason,
I
lost
my
place
here:
the
staff.
Currently
we
required
again
the
perimeter
parking
perimeter
landscaping
around
the
parking
lot
and
some
interior
islands.
The
staff
is
proposing
to
not
allow
any
variances
to
get
rid
of
landscaping.
If
you're
already
exceeding
the
parking
requirement,
Planning
Commission
said
they
disagreed
with
us
said.
No,
we
don't
think
we
need
to
change
it.
You
can
already
go
before
the
forum
based
code
committee
and
get
a
variance,
let's
just
let
them
deal
with
that
right.
So
those
are
the
difference.
Isn't
that
one.
B
Q
So
neighborhood
meetings
have
always
kind
of
been
a
hot
topic,
with
the
form
ace
code
right
now.
The
standard
is
that,
if
you're
doing
any
type
of
project
in
the
form
base
code
area,
that
is
4000
square
feet
of
commercial
space
or
if
you
are
doing
residential
five
plus
units,
you
are
required
to
have
a
neighborhood
meeting.
That
also
means
that
if
you
want
to
put
a
sign
on
a
4,000
square,
foot
commercial
space
right
now
are
larger.
You
are
required
to
have
a
neighborhood
meeting.
Q
You
know
some
of
those
smaller
things
are
having
to
go
before
the
neighborhoods.
The
staffs
recommendation
is
to
limit
neighborhood
meetings
to
form
base
code
committee
cases
only
so
that
would
be
if
somebody
is
deviating
from
the
code.
If
they're
not
following
the
code
to
a
tee,
then
they
would
have
to
have
a
neighborhood
meeting
our
meeting
requirements
by
the
code
and
not
deviating
at
all.
They
would
not.
Q
Planning
Commission's
recommendation,
for
that
is
to
eliminate
the
neighborhood
meetings
completely.
Their
reasoning
was
that
the
form
based
code
committee
itself
is
a
public
hearing
and
that,
because
proper
notice
is
given,
which
that
includes,
you
know
letters
to
residents
within
300
feet
of
the
project
being
posted.
You
know
online,
which
we
do
15
days
prior
to
the
meeting,
and
then
you
know
also
just
having
the
newspaper
ad
go
out
and
things
like
that
was
enough
notice
to
the
neighborhood.
Q
For
example,
the
business
has
been,
you
know,
working
and
you
know
functioning
for
over
a
year
and
they're
just
going
to
present
their
sign
and
the
neighborhood's
asking.
Where
are
the
people
gonna
park
and
they
go
we've
been
in
business
a
year.
You
know
why.
Why
are
we?
Why
are
you
wanting
to
talk
about
parking
at
this
point?
So
it's
in
some
cases,
I
think
it
has
caused
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
the
neighborhood's.
Q
Q
G
It's
also
taking
that
out.
I
do
have
a
mr.
Williams
still
sitting
over
there.
I've
got
a
question
for
her
because
in
the
comments
it
says,
the
contact
information
for
the
Neighborhood
Association
is
not
being
updated
regularly
and
applicants
have
not
always
been
able
to
reach
officers
to
schedule
a
meeting.
It
was
my
understanding
that
we've
gotten
better
at
requiring
that
a
Neighborhood
Association
update
their
information
every
year.
R
Yes,
sir,
that's
correct:
we
asked
that
the
neighborhood
associations
update
their
information
in
January
or
at
any
time
that
they
have
a
change
in
their
officers
or
a
change
of
email,
addresses
or
change
of
phone
numbers,
and
then
what
we
do
in
January
is
we
go
through
those
we
generally
have
an
intern
that
goes
through
them
to
see
if
they're,
updated
and
a
good
way
to
get
people
to
update
it
is
zoning.
It's
people
didn't
want
to
be
contacted
in
cases
of
zoning,
so
any
items
come
up,
but
we
yeah.
G
G
So
I
guess
I
mean
I
would
really
like
for
this
council
to
to
consider
this
one
to
leave
in
it
is
because
of
neighborhood
neighborhood
associations
wanting
to
be
involved
and
I.
Think
we
all
want
participation
from
our
neighborhoods
to
exclude
them.
I
think
sends
the
wrong
message.
My
question
would
be
out
of
all
of
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed.
G
G
G
Q
N
I
think
there
will
be
the
pleasure,
can
I
mean
what
we
have
done
in
the
ultimate
version
when
it's
been
something
that
the
council
I
think
it's
you've
made
some
recommendations,
I
think
we've
had
a
version
that
might
get
council
recommendation
version.
So
let
me
think
about
that.
You
know
when
this
is
proposed
to
be
on
the
agenda.
O
Them
right
for
that
very
reason:
we
numbered
it.
So
it's
easy.
If
there
are
things
you
know
like
things
that
are
easy
you
can
move
on
for
and
then
you
can
identify
by
number.
If
there's
a
particular
item
that
you
may
have
a
different
variation
on
again,
if
something's
not
taking
on
or
if
there's
not
a
change.
Basically,
let's
say
if
this
is
828
causing
you
some
concern.
You
just
don't
take
action
on
item
28,
so
it
stays
as
it
is
now.
So
you
know
it's,
you
don't
need
to
I.
O
O
There's
two
different
ways:
you
can
do
it.
You
know
like
like
anything,
you
can
take
action
all
the
items
except
for
items
like
things
say.
Let's
say,
hypothetically
you're
good,
which
I
know
the
downtown
parking
he's
gonna
get
it's
gonna
have
more
conversation.
Let's
say:
if
those
are
the
two
items
that
you
had
concern
about.
You'd
want
to
change
you
could
you
could
take
action
item?
You
could
act
on
everything
else,
excluding
those
two
items,
and
essentially
that
means
those
are
the
these.
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
Q
The
forum
based
code
committee,
when
I
did
present
this
to
members
of
the
committee.
This
was
one
that
they
did
feel
very
strongly
about.
They
did
not
want
to
completely
do
away
with
the
meeting.
They
did
think
that
this
was
an
integral
part
of
the
form
based
code
process
as
far
as
including
the
neighborhoods,
but
they
did
agree
that
the
need,
for
you
know
some
of
the
neighborhood
meetings
that
were
just
for
smaller
projects
that
were
not
deviating
from
the
code
were
probably
not
necessary
when
I
attended.
Q
Several,
we
have
five
neighborhoods
that
are
within
the
FBC
boundary
or
could
be
affected
by
it.
I
attended
some
of
those
meetings
and
did
explain
this
to
them,
and
the
majority
of
those
neighborhood
associations
said
that
you
know
yeah.
We
really
don't
want
to
lose
that
piece
where
we
get
to
hear
about
these
bigger
projects
that
do
need
major
modifications,
but
for
the
smaller
things
like
you
know,
signs
or
like
an
interior
build-out,
they
were
not
as
concerned
with
those
right.
B
A
That
away
from
our
constituents
and
that's
what
we're
about
up
here
at
this
council.
We
hear
that
kind
of
stuff
all
the
time.
So
a
lot
of
time.
We
don't
have
the
options
to
choose
what
we
hear
and
what
we
don't
hear,
but
that
was
that
was
the
most
disturbing
piece
of
all
I
couldn't
support
anything
that
takes
away
the
neighborhood's
ability
to
voice
their
concerns
because
ultimately
you're
going
to
make
the
decision
it's
best
for
the
project.
Q
Another
another
educational
piece
that
I
have
been
doing
with
the
neighborhood
associations
is
to
make
them
aware
of
how
they
can
get
additional
information
on
projects
that
might
not
even
require
a
neighborhood
meeting
right
now,
and
that
is
to
make
them
aware
of
the
process
to
get
logged
on
to
citizens
access
gateway
which,
in
citizens
access
gateway.
You
can
go
in
there.
You
can
type
in
an
address
right
now
and
see
any
permits
that
are
open
for
it.
M
P
Okay,
looking
at
the
clock,
I
will
try
and
move
through
these
next
couple
pieces
quickly
and
item
31
deals
with
perimeter
parking
lot
landscaping
its
parking
lots
landscaping.
A
neighborhood
meeting
seems
likes
everything
and
mm-hmm.
The
current
standard
for
this
is
that
you
are
required
to
put
landscaping
around
the
entire
perimeter
of
a
parking
lot.
So
all
sides
of
your
parking
lot.
P
The
staff
came
back
and
said:
well,
that's
a
little
ownerĆs,
because
that
means,
if
your
parking
lot
butts
up
to
your
building,
you've
even
got
to
put
landscaping
between
the
building
in
the
parking
lot
and
we
thought
that
was
a
little
overkill.
So
the
staff
is
recommending
to
remove
that
part
that
one
side,
if
it's
between
the
parking
lot
in
the
building,
Planning
Commission,
came
back
and
said:
let's
not
require
any
landscaping
around
the
perimeter
of
a
lot
and
less
at
fronts
of
public
street.
That
was
the
only
place
that
they
felt
it
was
necessary.
P
P
Just
to
illustrate
that
here
you
have
a
parking
lot
with
four
sides,
one
against
a
building,
one
along
the
street
and
two
on
adjacent
property
lines,
and
where
you
see
the
red
line,
that's
what
the
staff
is
proposing
to
eliminate
the
Planning
Commission
is
proposing
to
eliminate
everything,
except
what's
just
along
the
street
frontage.
They
felt
like
that.
The
street
frontage
was
the
most
important
part.
We
shouldn't
be
telling
people
you
have
to
landscape
around
the
the
back
of
your
property
line
again
to
illustrate
that
graphically.
P
What
could
happen
is
if
you've
got
a
couple
empty
Lots
here,
if
you
had
someone
put
a
building
here
on
this
corner.
Currently,
if
this
back
area
was
their
parking,
they
would
have
to
landscape
on
all
three
so
well.
Currently,
they
would
have
to
it
on
all
four
sides
staff
recommends.
You
would
only
have
to
do
it
on
these
three
sides.
P
This
is
one
worth
Planning.
Commission
submitted
a
request
to
remove
the
minimum
ground
floor
elevation
of
16
inches.
They
felt
that
the
code
on
the
building
code
already
requires
you
to
be
up
six
inches.
They
said
it
was
causing
some
problems
for
them
when
they're
trying
to
build
a
handicap
accessible
unit
and
also
if
they
were
on
a
slope
site,
especially
if
it
had
a
cross
slope
that
that
was
causing
some
issues
for
them.
So
their
recommendation
here
is
to
move
to
remove
that
16
inch.
Minimum
Karen.
P
P
D
P
Again,
it's
really
just
to
race,
a
residence
for
commercial
buildings
that
this
wouldn't
apply,
but
for
a
residents
again,
if
I'm,
building
a
townhome
and
I'm
right
at
grade.
My
windows
are
gonna,
be
down
low,
so
if
you're
walking
by
you
could
potentially
see
right
in
the
windows
by
elevating
it,
a
foot
and
a
half
or
so
it
kind
of
raises
that
up.
So
people
can't
see
right
in
your
in
your
windows.
D
G
P
P
Currently,
the
Lance
or
the
forum
based
code
requires
an
applicant
to
provide
a
landscape
buffer
when
you're
adjacent
to
a
protected
zone
and
those
protected
zones
are
basically
your
single-family
zone.
So
there's
a
list
of
them
there.
The
a
1
R,
1,
R,
T,
1,
RZ,
1,
r,
2,
r,
TZ
and
RD
are
all
basically
single-family
zones,
even
though
that
is
the
requirement
in
certain
things
are
exempted.
P
P
Currently
in
the
RA
zone,
they're
five
feet
less
then,
and
if
you
had
an
r1
a
lot
of
record
or
if
you
were
in
an
RD
residential,
detached
zone,
also
side
and
rear
setbacks
or
side,
setbacks
are
the
same
all
the
way
across
unless
you're
next
to
one
of
those
protected
zones.
And
then
you
have
an
additional
15
foot
setback
in
that
case
for
the
RA
zone.
P
Another
difference
to
note
is
that
the
form
based
code
zones
have
maximum
building
footprints,
whereas
an
r1
zone
does
not.
Also
the
number
of
units
allowed
us
a
little
bit
different
in
the
RA
Zone.
You
could
have
as
many
as
four
units
on
one
lot
in
the
RD
zone
in
the
form
based
code,
you
could
have
two
units,
one
of
those
would
be
the
primary
resident.
Some
one
would
be
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
the
r1.
You
would
only
be
allowed
one.
P
So
if
you
look
at
that
graphically
the
shows
three
lights
side-by-side
each
with
a
different
zone
designation,
which
you
can
see
at
the
top
there.
Each
Lots
50
feet
150
feet
150
feet
wide
by
150
feet
deep
served
by
an
alley
typical
kind
of
configuration,
especially
in
the
North
Shore
area.
The
maximum
building
footprints
are
shown
in
brown.
P
So,
based
on
your
setbacks
and
maximum
building
percentage
and
some
of
the
the
zones,
you
could
build
a
building
that
large
on
each
of
those
Lots
and
and
you'll
notice
that
the
RA
zone
excuse
me
has
a
little
bit
deeper
side
setback
than
the
others
which
reserved
results
in
a
smaller
maximum
footprint
size.
Now,
if
you
add
the
screening
buffer,
that's
currently
required
in
there,
you
see
that
the
middle
parcel,
in
addition
to
having
the
regular
side
setback,
would
also
have
to
provide
the
screen
and
buffer
and
those
are
six
to
ten
feet
wide.
P
P
Another
illustration
another
thing
to
consider
is:
if
someone
has
multiple
Lots
next
to
each
other,
multiple
adjacent
lots
and
build
multiple
or
build
a
building
for
unit
building
on
each
of
those
Lots
as
they
are
allowed
to
in
the
RA
zone.
What
you
end
up
getting
is
say,
12
units,
in
this
case
right
next
to
a
single-family
house,
to
the
side
or
to
the
rear.
Currently,
the
code
will
require
you
to
build
a
buffer
around
that
entire
development.
P
As
you
see
here
in
green
again,
what
the
Planning
Commission
was
recommending
was
to
take
that
buffer
away,
because
it's
it's
still
residential
next
to
residential
one
thing:
the
the
staff
noted
again.
This
was
not
a
recommendation
initially
from
the
staff.
It
came
from
the
Planning
Commission
after
we
started
looking
at
it.
P
So
the
one
consideration
that
the
staff
would
like
to
throw
out
is
that
maybe
say:
if
you
have
multiple
Lots
like
this,
where
you've
combined
them
into
one
development,
where
it
becomes
more
than
just
four
units
on
one
lot
that
then
maybe
the
the
buffer
would
remain.
So
those
would
be
the
two
differences
there.
The
Planning
Commission
says:
let's
just
get
rid
of
the
buffer
completely.
They
didn't
feel
it
was
necessary
to
have
that
for
residential
next
to
residential
okay.
Those
are
the
six.
P
Sorry
again,
I
just
had
a
quick
recap
on
the
the
goals
here.
I,
don't
think
we
really
need
to
go
through
those
again,
but
again,
as
John
said
earlier
after
having
this
over
a
year,
we've
had
have
36
proposed
amendments.
Those
six
really
are
the
only
ones
that
we
received
any
feedback
or
comments
or
concerns
about,
and
the
only
ones
where
the
Planning,
Commission
and
staff
had
different
recommendations.
P
M
G
B
G
P
G
O
Another
criteria
talk
so
it
has
to
be
is
including
the
dent
adopted
downtown
plans.
So
if
once
you're
outside
that
for
sure
it's
kind
of
too
far-
and
the
reason
for
that
is,
you
know
you
got
a
committee
that
governs
this.
It
also
has
a
basis
for
representation
in
certain
districts
right
in
point
and
if
the
bigger
it
gets
unless
I
don't
know.
If
the
committee
wants
to
take
on
more
projects,
larger
area
I,
don't
think
so.
O
We
don't
want
to
just
expand
this
infinitum
in
terms
of
the
way
it's
currently
set
up,
because
the
committee
structure
form
based
code
committee
is
set
up
really
for
a
specific
geography
right
based
on
certain
districts,
so
I
think
part
of
the
reason
we
need
to
have
some
controls
on
how
far
it's
expands
is
to
make
sure
it
it
stays
within
the
immediate
downtown
area.
In
terms
of
the
way,
this
particular.
G
G
P
G
P
O
O
G
O
I
add
a
thought:
maybe
a
tool
to
consider
my
staffs
working
on
urban
residential
in
feel
like
more
a
single-family
patterned
after
form,
based
codes
and
we're
similar
approach
in
terms
of
thinking
about
more
graphically
oriented
that
would
include
accessory
dwelling
units.
I
guess
my
recommendation
would
be
let
us
get
that
tool
in
place.
We
should
be
I
would
say,
she'd
be
complete
by
certainly
by
the
mid
summer,
we're
hoping
we're
in
the
process
of
getting
the
tool
worked
out
where
we
really
get
a
Planning
Commission.
O
Probably
sometime
in
May
I,
think
what
I
would
recommend
is
you
would
use
that
tool
for
other
urban
neighborhoods
around
the
downtown
area,
just
because
I
think
again,
because
this
has
a
a
special
committee
review
process
associated
with
it
I'm
a
little
worried
that
the
bigger
it
gets
in
terms
of
geography,
the
more
hard
it
becomes
for
that
committee
to
manage
all
the
cases
in
that
geography.
I.
O
Think
that
to
me,
the
better
approach
is
to
take
some
of
the
good
things
that
come
out
of
this
code,
apply
it
to
some
of
our
urban
residential
code
types
same
flexibility,
saying
you
know
basic
principles,
but
have
a
basically
that'll
work
within
our
standard
zoning
process.
If
that
makes
I'm
making
sense
in
other.
O
G
O
M
P
B
M
To
have
the
talent
that
we
have
has
been
working
on
this
I'm,
seeing
no
other
light.
So
if
I
would
like
another
business,
that
would
like
to
say
for
the
record
that
I've
asked
the
city
attorney
to
put
on
our
April
3rd
agenda,
a
resolution
to
the
RPA
to
study
development
policy
for
steep
slopes
in
the
floodplain,
so
we'll
be
seeing
that
very
soon
on
April
the
3rd
as
well.
Seeing
no
other
questions
from
anyone.
We
are
adjourned
till
6:00.