City of Englewood, Colorado UDC Steering Committee, 18 Oct 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: October 18, 2022 UDC Steering Committee Meeting

Description

Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/147900?handle=76555A55F54D402B899F713CBBB44E59
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/147899?handle=8EC3B329B1D94BD5A5818F73BD9607FD

1.

Three or more Planning and Zoning Commissioners may participate in the meeting. No legislative decisions or final actions of any board, commission or council will occur at this meeting.

2. Review of Unified Development Code

3. Adjourn

2. Recognition of Public Comment (Presentation limited to 3 minutes)

This is an opportunity for the public to address the Steering Committee. Committee members and staff will not engage in a dialogue or answer questions at this time. Speakers may email questions to com...

Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/147900?handle=76555A55F54D402B899F713CBBB44E59
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/147899?handle=8EC3B329B1D94BD5A5818F73BD9607FD

A

B

B

B

All right, I'm glad thank you for telling me that.

B

And Brian made it so.

B

He's here it's all right.

C

Just let me know when we want to get started or if we want to wait on a few other of the committee members.

D

Was anybody else haven't seen issue I was on the link, not being there I guess. Do we need to resend it out.

B

Yeah I've I'm resending it right now. I was trying to get people's videos on.

D

B

Okay, I just resent that to everyone.

B

B

What's your pleasure, do you want Chris to get started, or do you want to wait? A few more minutes, yeah.

E

A

E

Ahead and get started.

A

A

C

Right and I do um so Matt and I are probably going to tag team. um This meeting I have a bit of a conflict around eight ish our time. Seven is your time. So if I drop off, um Matt will be taking notes on the discussion to the extent it carries over so I'll try and get through um the presentation as quick as I can but as usual.

C

Please um stop me at any point if you have questions or want to get into anything a little bit further, because we're prepared to go as long as we need to this evening, but this is the the second major installment of the substantive changes and the most of these focus on sustainability or general Community design.

C

um This was coming from our our actually our most recent technical committee meeting, so it was just September 9th when we finished up discussions at the the staff and Technical level and, as you can see here, this touches on um many of the Articles, obviously or chapters I'm. Sorry, many of the chapters some we've already discussed and some were yet to discuss.

C

But tonight it's these main three that you've been given um really two six and eight and and ten is just um we will be rolling over the current standards and trying to reformat and integrate, as need be so tonight's, mainly about non-residential development design, um so the m mub and I zoning districts and then landscape design. That was the kind of the missing piece from last meeting that you know I kept referencing that some of this is in the landscape section.

C

So this kind of rounds out how all all the design articles are at least supposed to integrate and and where we're, making substantive changes so I'm going to walk through six and eight just to our our overview and general approach um so overview, key changes really on the development capacity. What what people can do as far as building volume, we we don't have too many substantive changes, we're keeping all of the current zoning District development standards so, in other words, height setback building coverage.

C

Those types of things are staying the same and those are all incorporated into a table as they are now. The one unique thing about the current district is the m districts that medical mixed use, medical area their heights are based on a height map, not the districts themselves, and so that is being maintained as well. One of the changes we've made in the development standards, a subtle change- was uh what we call the build to range. It was 0 to 10 in some districts and zero to five in others.

C

um I can't recall which one was which, but we decided to try and make that all the same and then through staff discussions. We also decided, since the draft you've seen to change that, to 5 to 15 feet and what that build to range is. Is it's it's? It's both a setback and a maximum setback, so the current Table says 0 to 10 or 0 to 5, depending on which district you're in and our interpretation of. That means your building has to be located within that distance.

C

So that becomes key to um a lot of our other discussions that we'll go through tonight. So that's the way that works, but it's not really a change. That's the way, we're interpreting um that it works. Now and staff kind of confirmed that the other change within that table is, we are converting. The most of these districts do not have a lot cover Bridge standard, but they do have a landscape required landscape area. That's based on a percentage, a lot, and so we're kind of merging those ideas and saying Within, These districts.

C

We want a usable open space, so there is an open space requirement and- and that will come into play um in other in a it and it's comparable to the required landscape area. But what we count towards that might be subtly different than what you do now under it being a required landscape area where it's supposed to be landscape. These are fairly urban districts and so active Gathering spaces and hardscapes, and things like that.

C

We want to count and I'll go into that in a minute as well and then the last thing is because we are separating non-residential and residential. We have this issue that we sort of haven't really resolved in our own minds between staff and ourselves of what the best approach is, but there's the idea of what about residential, only projects in these districts or mixed-use buildings in these districts. So right now we we have that placeholder. That says those projects use the Mur 3B standards, which this committee has yet to see, because that's our last installment.

C

But our assessment is that's the most Urban and highest density District of the the mixed-use residential districts, and so it will be appropriate to roll those into these non-residential districts as well and we're looking for. What's the easiest way to do that, is it better to do it by cross reference? Is it better to merge them all back the way you currently have it and not keep them separated, so we'll figure out the most user-friendly approach, but substantively that's what we want to accomplish.

C

uh The next major bullet point down is where we have our our most significant changes and that's a what we we're calling a comprehensive design strategy.

C

You'll see in a moment that um all of the things we have in here regarded design are regulated in some fashion or another in all of the districts they're, just not regulated um in each of the districts, so some districts might have something on um transplant required, transparency or a required building line, and others don't um and interestingly, the the mub districts, the one where you're trying to get the most mixed use and pedestrian or in don't really have many design standards at all.

C

But there are a few of them that were that we're carrying over, but we want to take an approach, that's more comprehensive, but that's also simplified. So those first three things are what we're focusing on front edges, buildings and open space. If we regulate those three things well, then we can start to be do different types of strategies for those districts based on their context.

C

So, for example, if you're on a a really pedestrian or in the street, you might have different standards than you are if you're on a more traffic or industry and I'll go through that in a moment and then to round out that idea was we want we're trying to get objective standards for all of those things, even though they're design related topics, it's hard to be objective on design related topics, but we want to start with a baseline, that's something that's easily measurable and then, with the the strategies and techniques behind them, come up with options on how to achieve that, and then the last part that would round out that flexibility is we've been integrating that idea of administrative adjustments into all of the standards, particularly the when we're dealing with design standards and then, lastly, we'll cover a sustainable site and building guidelines that we've included in this uh chapter as well.

C

So um overall I mentioned our comprehensive design approach. It's based on on this simple idea, and if, if you haven't, aren't familiar with this book, I would recommend it. It kind of changed the way I looked at planning in cities and design and and codes honestly I started. Thinking like this is. This is really quite simple.

C

um Why do we have so many challenges and problems, and these three rules are what this author, David suture thought was, makes good walkable pedestrian-oriented places, um and it's and it's true, and so that's where our frontages uh building design and open space came from. Incidentally, on number three: the prohibit parking in front.

C

He takes a strong position on that, because he's aiming for the most walkable places, um you'll see, we've come up with a strategy that lets us be lenient in some cases, but strict in other cases, but this is the main idea that permeates through all of these and it kind of influences a lot of the way we think about Urban Design, particularly in non-residential areas.

C

uh So I mentioned earlier that uh all of the things we're talking about are things that um are currently in the code in some fashion or another, and so you see those listed on on the left. um They were most prominent in the M districts. There was uh required building lines that were, and what I mean by that is.

C

Your building has to be occupying the frontage of the lot for a certain percentage of it, and so that in the M districts, that was 75 percent and it applied everywhere, but it didn't apply in the mub districts, and so our thought was well it's important there too, but there also might be reasons for guaranteeing relief to that and and entering the the mub standards here did have some suggestions for when you would consider alternatives and and things that would define the edge of the property along the streetscape, but didn't necessarily have to be the building.

C

So we've got some more specifics on that idea. uh The other area where a lot of these design standards came from was there's a section of the code that applies only to large retail buildings and so um and and those were written in a way that you could tell they were geared towards large retail buildings.

C

um So the standards were a little bit, um I would say not generally applicable, but the ideas they were trying to implement certainly were that idea of breaking up larger blank walls relating buildings to spaces and creating some variation in interest on walls, especially on more pedestrian ordin areas or things we we wanted to carry over. There was also things about entryways and creating connections to spaces, and so we we carried that over and essentially what we did was we just grouped them into those three topics.

C

I mentioned Frontage types and design standards, which has addresses these issues here that are all currently regulated, so front, building line where the building sits required extent to the front building line. How much of the lot needs to be occupied by a building Frontage and then the rest is access with and parking extent work, working, car oriented parts of the site be, and that encompasses everything we want to talk about. With regard to non-residential front edges, uh then, with the building design itself, it deals with massing and blank walls.

C

How do you break up that volume I mentioned earlier? The tables are starting with the same building volumes you have. We didn't necessarily hear any issues that those needed to be adjusted so we're carrying those over, um but how you use up that volume can can create buildings that are a little more friendly to adjacencies and and streetscapes, and things like that and then moving on down some of the more Street oriented issues with transparency. Again, some districts had it others didn't and then materials and details that was mainly in the large commercial building.

C

So that's one we're kind of working with of you know are: we are we sure we're being flexible enough, so those of you that have looked at that section in detail and and are interested in that issue. We certainly appreciate your feedback, if, if not tonight, over the coming weeks on that, because we want to make sure that's the that's, always a sticky issue of regulating and we want to make sure sure, we're being really flexible and we want to make sure we're meeting the intent so that people have options to do good things.

C

I think there's a lot of misguided material standards that we don't want to. We don't want that to be the case in this code and then the last part I mentioned was open space types and Designs. So we are looking at a little bit differently so that one connecting with those Civic and social spaces that we talked about under chapter three, the the larger scale subdivision standards, where, if you have some common or public areas nearby, perhaps those count towards a requirement but then also creating Gathering spaces within your project.

C

So things like plazas Courtyards, even on building things like balconies and decks and things that are active social spaces that we want to contribute to the open space requirement but and then um streetscape in frontages. So I'll cover that in relation to the landscape standards as well, that are in chapter eight uh and and then I mentioned, building related amenities, those balconies and Courtyards, and things like that. But then also the buffering and screening should count as well.

C

The current code, with required landscape areas, just seems to think that open space should be about landscape and and those types of things, but we want it to be more about active Urban spaces as well, so moving into the substance of each of those so with Frontage design we've come up with. This is an approach we take often to take those ideas from David. Suture's book of you know build to the street.

C

um Yes, that's awesome, do it. It makes great Urban Villages, um but not every street, in a well um well-planned area or even a really functional area. You need your messy streets right. You need streets that aren't serving those or you have uses that are support, uses that can't possibly meet those standards.

C

um So we we kind of relax them, and so this idea of a through D um frontages, we didn't have a better name yet, but Matt and I want to come up with better names. If we, if we need to um you know, we want them to be kind of embraced by your context.

C

But you know the idea is more pedestrian oriented to the left, A and B uh more car oriented to the right, C and D, but there might be some terminology that resonates that we could name these if this concept sticks, but essentially we're regulating five main things, the front building line.

C

So that's where the building sits and proximity to the lot and and again right now in all of these districts, it's either zero to five or zero to ten and we're considering converting that to five to Fifteen and I'll, explain that in a moment required front building line. How much of the the lot needs to be occupied by that. So the the idea of in these urban areas and in mixed use areas we want to be framing streetscapes to the extent we can or to the extent we aren't.

C

We want to know that we're in a context where that's appropriate as well, so the C and DS, and then that gets to access width and spacing and then parking location. The idea of hide minimize the parking move it to the back of these buildings is a good thing for walkable areas, but we know you have car iron areas and- and you have some examples where you've done a really good job of what what you do with the frontage when there is parking along it.

C

So there's these are things that are already happening in the community, even though there aren't necessarily standards for it. As you can see by the representative pictures there and then the last part of Frontage is the streetscape.

C

So what we did was uh and again this table has changed, but it all starts with this front building line, which is um again the current standards from the the development and dimension table, um except we started to relax them a bit for Frontage, B and C. So it was okay for the buildings to be set back a little bit further and then in the frontage D um it could be set back completely and it could be more of a parking oriented site.

C

um Currently that was isn't evident in the standards and I think a couple of your projects might have gone through a PUD zoning. Because of that, and then there just wasn't good guidance on where you could and should do that. One of the things in some preliminary staff discussions was.

C

We wanted to convert this to a 5 to 15, because oftentimes we're dealing with streetscapes that might be a bit incomplete and so the idea of moving the building back has some advantages, because you can gain some of that space to complete the streetscape and so that plays into what we also want on account as open space. So in in the instance where a building does that um you, they should get credit for that as their open space requirement completing the streetscape.

C

So we have a a provision in the code that that does that so extending the sidewalk creating some type of um Plaza or seating, creating Street trees and Landscape on streets where there isn't enough room um as an extension of the streetscape would be a very positive thing and and so that five feet will give us the range to do that.

C

And then, in cases where the street already is complete in terms of what the code would require from from chapter three and more complete streets design, the alternative, the administrative adjustments could allow it to go up to zero. So, though, that idea is not in the version, you all saw that kind of evolved with some staff discussions over the last couple weeks when we went through this, so the second row down begins to say: what's the required building line? How much of that Frontage do you need to occupy with the building this a 75 percent?

C

It it comes from the current standard in the M districts is I, believe it's either 70 or 75, but there's that idea of we want most of the lot to be covered by by building Frontage in these mixed use in urban areas. So then we just sort of looking at. We actually did a sort of a windshield survey down Broadway and looked at some sites to come up with these ranges, but the idea that not everyone has the perfect Urban building and you can see it as a standard being relaxed in some cases.

C

The other key point about this provision is what we count for the required front. Building line I mentioned that the the mub district currently has a provision that says um certain things can count. um We think that's should be true in all districts. So, for example, if someone builds um outdoor seating with a with a street wall along it, um those should be acceptable for a non-building frontage as well, that still counts towards your required minimum percentage. So we have some examples of that.

C

We'll show you as well I think the next two are sort of self-explanatory. It's mainly just trying to limit the car influence on sites the car and influence, particularly adjacent to the streetscapes through access and parking location and parking setback. We we're going to cover these with with public works. These standards really come from the current limit on access.

C

Width generally is 30 feet and it's just says that generically throughout the the entire development code- and so we began to scale that, towards you, know whether you're more pedestrian oriented or car oriented- and this roughly reflects a lot of the measurements we took on some of your key blocks that reflect these different types. But we also don't these aren't really traffic oriented standards. So we want to make sure we're not saying that these are solving traffic issues.

C

um They they aren't necessarily, although they probably could and should work, but these are mainly Urban design standards. How to protect the streetscape limit, curb Cuts things like that and keep the keep a pedestrian-oriented environment where it where it needs to be um so any I'll pause there. I guess any questions on the the elements of the frontage design.

A

Chris, this is Matt. Just one item, maybe to clarify. um Would the frontages be mapped and specified.

C

A

um Really good document.

C

Yeah, that's a great question and we did talk about that at staff level. Two and so I have a couple thoughts on that um and that leads into this bottom part of the table where how it applies um so that they could be, although they they aren't, and they won't be with this code effort, it would be um a little bit of a difficult task to do that and you'd want to do it based on some thinking about long-range analysis and development potential.

C

However, um the development code and the procedures have a specific plan process, so one that the city is currently going through or attempting to go through for the downtown area. When this code gets in place. It would be very easy to use that plan to go map these frontages and forever. Answer that question on certain blocks.

C

So, based on how the development's going to be organized you can, you can very specifically coordinate the frontage types with the street types and we would think that would be a very good way in specific plans to go through and do that so we're trying to set up the code that eventually the city could start doing several specific plans for different areas based on this approach.

C

Until we get there, what we did was we set up what we think our default standards so in mu, and we think this is at least as good or if not a better decision-making process than you currently have, because remember there currently is a build to range it just doesn't it's not exactly clear when or where you would relax it and in the M District it's it's high and in the other districts it's sort of unknown of how much the required building line is um so this this top part, is that more comprehensive approach that we mentioned the going across the rows is the more flexible approach.

C

So what we started with was the default in the mub and M B one and two you're you're. More mixed use, retail commercial districts ought to be Frontage a, but we know that B and C are perfectly acceptable in certain contexts, so staff could do use administrative adjustments to Grant projects.

C

Those opportunities and the criteria in the administrative adjustments would help analyze that so it would be more context based and then before you got to Frontage D um in our original version we have conditionally used permits, but another all that was signaling is something that gets an elevated review to Planning Commission um in our disc preliminary discussions with staff. That kind of was the wrong term, because it's not really a use issue.

C

It's a design issue, so that idea of the administrative adjustments that that can't be approved by staff, where the staff bumps up to the next level. That would be what a frontage D standard would be.

C

um What we think that's kind of solving, as I mentioned earlier, that I suspect a couple of the projects that are puds may have done that, probably not just because of this Frontage question, but the Chick-fil-A is an example. It doesn't have a Street Front building on on any portion of the site. It's surrounded by a drive-through, but it has an excellent Street wall and landscape wall and partly because that was a PUD. It didn't have to go by these standards. So it answered those questions.

C

We think there's an opportunity to not have to force it into a PUD. But if you meet the right criteria that that could be done through a discretionary review that would we would replace this com, uh this section not with conditional use permit, but some type of elevated exception process or special exception process for the design requirements. That would require at least a Planning Commission review or or Council review, and then tracking down. We just get a little more relaxed in the the mixed use.

C

Medical districts because they're not as heavily commercial and so um a lesser standard might be acceptable in in all cases and then for industrial, the most relaxed, um all of them being applicable because we're not shooting for pedestrian-oriented environments and it's more of a functional need in those districts if you're doing industrial uses.

C

um So that's the the approach and the idea to the applicability, but to back to your original question Matt, they certainly could be mapped and we think it'd be a great idea and a great tool to map them based on on future planning efforts.

B

Okay and Michelle has a question.

F

Yes, um in with uh specifically with regards to the access spacing um instead of one one per block Max, um could there be any consideration that it might be instead of per block um like one for every I?

F

Don't know, I'm thinking of some of the smaller properties, the more uh along uh Old, Hampton or even Broadway that um if they've been redeveloped oftentimes, especially if the in Frontage a the parking's behind the rear of the building you're going to need access for cars to get there and that maybe one, maybe there's not a parking lot that stretches between all of those properties in the back.

F

um So is there a way to sort of um make that a little bit more flexible and then, of course, um the width of it depending on what the tenants are. My background is um commercial, retail and so Property Management, so I'm, always thinking about retail and stuff like that, um but the access width, some of that also also depends on what type of tenants are there. Of course, we have to plan for every kind of tenant, but to get some semis through there for delivery.

F

uh I just want to know if there's some flexibility with the width and the spacing.

C

Yes, um I think there's there's flexibility in two regards one where these aren't necessarily set in stone. Yet so we're continuing to look at whether this is the right approach or not, um and two I think in any case, where we ran into a situation where it just doesn't work and the and the right solution is different than one per block or the 20 feet. That administrative adjustment process should be able to give some relief to that standard.

C

um However, Frontage a is clearly meant for this is intended for the the alley loaded blocks, so the primary access should be the alley if, in the event, that Frontage a and again there's plenty of mubs that aren't alley loaded. So we get that so that's where um B and C perhaps are are, are allowed or an option where you do Frontage, with an administrative adjustment to whether it's one per block or that width would certainly be possible.

C

We want to get this standard as close as close as we can to correct and I think for for the alley loaded blocks with mainly Street Front buildings. This seems to be correct and that the truck access is done by another way, not through that. This is kind of picturing that laneway that goes up between buildings and and maybe is shared by a number of lots on the Block to get to that alley or to get to that internal block axis. But yeah.

F

Both the customers and like the loading and the trash and all that stuff come up and down the alley is what you're correct.

C

Yeah and then again, and one of the things on front of Jay is, if you recall our streetscapes, we'll probably have guidance in here that you know this is only on streets with generous on-street parking. You know you wouldn't put front of Jay on the street with no parking um that wouldn't make sense, um because right, the parking is is key to this, and and so having street parking is what makes Frontage work. Okay,.

F

And then not to open up a gigantic can of worms, but when you talk about the administration or administrative, um you know flexibility. How are you going to describe that in the code.

C

Yeah, so that's a great question so um two places. So if you recall back in in um in chapter two in the procedures, we have this section that we're referring to um in well, it's not on this table, but in the text it refers to section 16 2-10, which will actually be moved to 11 based on recent amendments, but there's a section that has specific criteria on how to do administrative adjustments.

C

It guides the decision to look at the context, look at what we're trying to achieve from the design objectives and and and render a decision based on that. The other thing is in each section where we allow them. There are criteria specific to that so for the frontages. Specifically, this 1664 has the criteria for how to consider an adjustment to the frontage standards. So our hope is those criteria along with the design objectives. Well, actually, I have a slide on this. So let me just Advance ahead a little bit um all right.

C

I did, let me see I skipped it I might have moved it out. I'm, sorry for the jumping around here.

F

Well, like I, said, I didn't want to open a giant can of worms so.

C

This is the this is the idea, um so we a lot in chapter two. No, this this isn't a can of worms. This is actually crucial to this approach. um So it's a great question um in chapter two: we have the process for administrative adjustments when it applies. What are the review criteria and it's just it's a staff procedure unless it deviates from a certain uh degree from the standards and it is no longer a staff decision, but other than that the staff should be capable of making some of these flexibility decisions.

C

We start at the standard because that's objective and measurable right, each of these sections has intent and design objectives. What are we trying to achieve? What's our outcome, they may have context applicability so that a b c and d are the frontages. You could look and decide which one to apply and then to the extent you're still not meeting the standard, there's design strategies following each of these. It gives you options and then, lastly, if you can't do it, there's an administrative adjustment that swings you all the way back to.

C

We only Grant these if you're still meeting our intent and design objectives, so that kind of circular process is trying to get us. You know the certainty of the standards here that are objective and measurable, but the flexibility of trying to meet different objectives with different techniques is the idea.

F

Right because we're we're in Infield City I mean so, we've got all sorts of different sizes and those sizes I mean they're they're not going to get smaller for the most part they're going to get bigger if they change at all. But there is a lot of different things to plan for so. Okay. That makes perfect sense. Thank.

G

You so uh Chris and Michelle. This is Brooke Bell and I. Just wanted to add in that uh you know we're talking a lot about administrative adjustments, uh which is great, uh but but you know you guys know the Planning and Zoning commission, but we also have the board of adjustment and appeals right right and um pretty much. Almost anything can go other than a use.

G

Question uh to the board of adjustment appeals in terms of a an appeal to a staff decision or a variance to some sort of uh dimensional requirement, um and so that's always available, and you know, as staff we hear you know, potential requests that we say well I.

G

You know you may not meet the criteria, but you're welcome to apply, and then we hear other cases where yeah you've got a really good case and you're welcome to apply and they can apply either way regardless, regardless of what staff thinks, but um so uh Beyond these tables, many of the stuff we're going over tonight um can be appealed but, more importantly, just requested a variance uh from the board of adjustment and appeals and and those are typically hinge on unique physical conditions.

G

So yes, in our infill city, um we we have tons of unique physical conditions and so um those it's very appropriate to take those to the board of adjustment and appeals, and uh so I just want to throw that into the mix. Well,.

F

Thank you, and after the last couple planning and zoning meetings, um those people on board of adjustment and appeals do a do a hard job.

G

Yes- and they are they're very- they follow the criteria, which is very specific.

F

C

You yeah and we are working on um even through our staff discussions, the idea of some of the intent and design objectives being less looking, we're going to take our finer tooth back to the finer tooth comb back to those to make sure they're pretty concrete, because we want those to be. Although they're not regulatory, they do explain how we want these standards to apply and they also explain when the standards aren't working and something else works better. We want to consider that as well.

C

I'll move on to the building design part, so that was all about building placement in the frontage, and then this is more of the design elements. The idea here is simply the the closer to the street you're building is placed, and that would be determined by those front edges. We just mentioned the more um human scale details we want on it.

C

So blank wall limits, front entry, features the transparency on First and upper stories, and then materials and again all of the these are there's current standards in the code for these they're just not universally applied in all districts. um So this concept is reflected in this table, um the first one massing and modulation. When, when do we want the walls to be broken up?

C

um The current standard? That's in there is from the large retail buildings and that's starting at 75 feet that it would be broken up, but that also requires the building to be offset. In other words, you have to actually physically change the mass of the building and step it back. I think three feet is the requirement, and so what we simply did was we. We created three thresholds based on how close to the street.

C

You are smaller scale, closer to the street larger scale farther from the street, but then also gave a different strategies and techniques to break up the building. So it wouldn't always be the case that you have to change the volume you can do it through other things, whether it's architectural features, whether it's things like balconies or voids in the buildings that you see in some mixed use buildings. So there's a number of things that can be done to break up the mass into modulation.

C

But at least this idea started from the current standard of of 75 feet for those large-scale retail buildings, entry features and spacing, there's I think the current standard in there is just one per building. Looking at buildings closer to the street, you you often see them even more frequent than this, but the idea is: we want more activity on those streets when there's buildings closer to them. Unless so, when it's, when it's set back and um the transparency requirement is just in the M districts, um it is I believe staff.

C

You guys can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm broke um I thought it was in the in the a range for all of the M districts, um but we so we may have adjusted how you measure this slightly. But the idea was this. Similarly, it becomes lesser important, the further you get back. So the idea was, let's start with a lesser percentage when the building's further back and let's start with a lesser percentage and then also only count it within 50 feet of the entry.

C

The further back you are, and so I think these features are sort of seen in in other buildings and I can I can jump to those slides in a moment that that show this principle with the building designs hold on I'm. Sorry,.

C

um The last section is the material one as I mentioned that's um so this just refers to a table where we listed all the current material standards from the um large commercial retail buildings. We also added in a few that we think are appropriate, um and then we also specified more of how primary and secondary materials could and should be used.

C

um So we're not sure we're on the target, for that. So I would encourage um some of you all to take a look at that, especially if you've um from reviewing projects as planning Commissioners or looking at projects or knowing your development, community and and the things you want to see um that this is the one area where I'm the least comfortable, where we're at. However, it is based on things that are in your current code. Let's put it that way: um I want to jump ahead a minute and apologize again for jumping I.

C

Have some of these out of order.

C

I want to kind of explain that a little bit further so that you can see that some of those principles on this so obviously Frontage a there's, frequent entrances, lots of ground floor transparency, lesser Upper, Floor, transparency and then the buildings are broken up in more rhythms here um through things that aren't that you know this is one big Mass, but it's broken up through pillars here and some details on the facade that are non um mass and things that break it up and all even contemporary buildings use the same strategies.

C

So it's broken up in smaller increments, um a frontage B this one get reflects. That example of um although people may not recognize this is the most beautiful architecture and sustainability. It's a great Urban site and building it has a parking lot to the side. um Most of the frontage is occupied by activity, although very little of it is building Frontage. But this is an example of that open and Civic space that could count, particularly when they created a street wall here and the parking is minimized.

C

So this one's hitting that at that 50 percent to 75 percent of active spaces on the Frontage, um a frontage C another.

C

If I could mix my metaphors, another A Plus on the C Frontage, a car, a car oriented site with not much building Frontage along it except over here it does, and then the building does all the right things when it's on the front edge when it's not building Frontage the site's doing all the right things with regard to landscape and low screening. This is a really an excellent job of a more car oriented site and then, lastly, the D Frontage, um the one I mentioned earlier, the Chick-fil-A none of its building.

C

In fact, it's all circulated by a drive-through, but because of the landscape, Edge and building wall. This is a a really good contributor for an area that is more car oriented again. You wouldn't want this next to build a block like this, but certainly in areas that are more current. This is um an A plus version of a d Frontage again to mix the metaphors, so these are all things that we, where we took the the concepts and principles from the current code and sorry.

B

Chris, can you take a question question from Christine, or would you.

C

Like absolutely absolutely when.

H

You go back to the Chick-fil-A one. Yes, um I was wondering if those purple flowers in front, if those count in your rewrite as a shrub or ornamental grass or what I was noticing trees, ornamental trees, shrubs and I, didn't know how bigger floral xeriscape plants like that, where, where would those fit in yeah.

C

That's a good question: um I'm gonna be out of my element on that. Although I do know from our landscape architect, he usually allows and I think this is in the table. um The shrub to the ornamental grasses are usually a three to one comparison, so in other words, one shrub equals three of the ornamental grasses. Whether what each of these counts as I'm, not sure of what the species are I, don't know, I think some people on staff might have a little more expertise on that than I. Do Christine.

G

That's a Russian sage. That's purple!.

H

Yeah but is, does that count as a shrub or.

G

Absolutely yeah, that's that's going to be okay. We treat.

H

G

Shrubs is five gallons, and uh so typically a Russian sage would be five gallon. It could be one gallon, but uh we, our current code, uh to be counted as a shrub requires uh it to be five gallon, but we also have a substitution of a certain amount of one gallons can equal a five gallon and uh ornament grasses a lot of times the smaller ones.

G

I think those are Carl Forster, uh but those are often one gallons, but yes, I think we do need to your point, uh the equivalencies for one gallons to five gallons, and then uh this is a pretty xeriscape uh landscape. Actually.

F

Well and that's that's, like you said it's a great example because it's xeriscaped and it needs to be xeriscape because it's on two very busy streets, they're, nothing but concrete so or asphalt so foreign.

C

These buildings here that we selected also kind of reflect that idea of um this one, particularly the idea that um the transparency doesn't apply to this whole building. Frontage, it's set way back, but it does apply within the um distance to the entrances um and then this one just a similar deal to a lesser degree, because that building's within 25 feet to the streetscape I think it's right out about 25 by our rough measurements.

C

uh So that was the the concept for building design again trying to take um regulate some simple Concepts fairly objectively, um give some leniency based on the context of where the building is, and then each of these elements in this table has some strategies and techniques below it. That can that of how we would measure it and what can meet it and then again. Lastly, if someone's not meeting it but has a a better design solution, they're certainly eligible to propose it under the administrative adjustment criteria.

C

Any questions on on the Frontage and building design I'll move to open space. Next, if not.

C

Okay, the last major design category under the non-residential was the open space and again um the current code would have a required landscape area, there's just based on a percentage of the lot for all um zoning districts again that there's not a building coverage standard, but there is a required landscape area. That's I believe it's around 10 percent for most of the sites, and so and then that would essentially mean that you're counting this column here this third column over things that are landscape, that's usually done for screening or just to soften and create green.

C

um But in these mixed use and urban environments. We also want to count some of these spaces as well as not only count them but actually require them as part of the the um the provisions for design. So we actually put a provision that we would limit to the extent your landscape and um like, for example, your parking lot landscaping or your your landscape that you're doing a buffer.

C

We want that to count towards the required landscape area because you're investing in landscape to for a purpose, but we don't want that to be everything you shouldn't be able to get all your credits by just doing your landscape parking, because those aren't the types of spaces we're Desiring. So there is a requirement to do some of these building spaces or social spaces. So the idea is that and and then similarly with the building spaces, these are more private and they're, not common in public, or they certainly don't relate to the streetscape.

C

So these are also a limited category where you can only meet a certain percentage of your requirement through these types of spaces, but the idea was giving them options um to do any of these three categories for the private spaces and I mentioned earlier that credits for the public in common. So if someone this top one is to represent that enhanced streetscape.

C

So if they were on a street where the actually the buildings, the front lot line was was here in the middle of the sidewalk, and you had a sidewalk that had an insufficient width if they expanded it enough to have outdoor seating or a sufficient walkway, that's on private property or through easements.

C

That could counter their open space as well or, if they're, in areas that are already well served by larger public Open, Space Systems, some of those parks and trails and and Civic spaces that we talked about under chapter three, that those could count as well. So that's what that section!

C

um Sixteen six six is about, and then those would depending on. If it's you know so, the The Hardscape areas may not require as much landscape as the the pure landscape areas. So it that's. What I was referring to when I was mentioning that it's not all Landscaping I have some things in chapter eight that I will jump to in a minute that will round that idea out any questions on that portion.

B

D

I I didn't get a chance to read through it totally. Is there going to be any incorporation of water quality and things like that into this part of the discussion, or is that have to be in a separate part of this or.

C

Is that water quality from like runoff and.

A

C

Okay, um I think that would mainly be in chapter eight, which we're about to jump to next, um but I'm I'm, not entirely sure we'll have your issue covered so be sure and jump in if, if we don't um but we dealt with it primarily through the landscape provisions, okay,.

D

I just know with you know some of these Urban spaces and we can start having some different types of water quality features as opposed to just the landscape side of it. So.

B

D

Just a way of leaving it open and I can read through the information that you've.

C

Sent out to also and there's there's a section that um that we're pretty um open and generic that I'll refer to in a moment on that, and so, if that doesn't answer your question, um let us know uh well, here's. This is a sort of a segue I guess we end chapter six with the idea of sustainable site and building guidelines. um This came directly from a lot of ural's discussion.

C

um So if you recall we we talked about you know, what's the best strategy for some of these sustainability ideas, you know require all the way down to just coordinate, and so this section was more of a a catch-all for um reminding us of all the good things that we need to do that are going to be addressed in more squarely in the building code and wherever the city lands on the the updates to the building and energy codes um and then reminding ourselves that, to the extent doing the right thing under those codes, a conflict from this code, then we'd want to be there's another item.

C

To give you an administrative adjustment for so we essentially listed the things that we want to achieve from a sustainability standpoint um under these six main categories and then what I did here is I referred to, where we might already have something in the code relating to that so, for example, passive, Heating and Cooling.

C

We know we have standards with regard to building placement, the build two lines and we know we have landscape requirements, so we would hope those are enabling people to do passive, Heating and Cooling, but to the extent they aren't, we would want to accept an exception to either where you placed your landscape or how you oriented place your building if it handled some of those elements.

C

Similarly, with more green buildings, some of the the building code issues, if there's anything, creating conflicts with that, we would want to address that, but this code isn't specifically requiring a certain rating. Our view is that's the job of the building code in that separate policy discussion. So a similar um thought process goes through. All of these I think Urban heat island is one where maybe there's a lot of different balances and competing interests, um sites site scale. Renewable energy probably deserves a little bit of attention because the city is um had a third party.

C

Do a an audit of the code and their assessment was the code needed some improvements, because it's silent to a lot of these things. Our assessment was it's silent to them, because it's it's so ubiquitous and allowed as an accessory use that everyone's doing it and and we we just treat it like, we would any accessory structure or use, and it gets all the exceptions that you would for.

C

You know: High equipment and the setbacks, those types of things so we're we're monitoring that to make sure that the solar particularly, is um clearly permitted and clearly permitted in the the easiest way possible.

C

um So we don't think we think we're on the right track with that from looking at the audit, but we're working through that with staff um there's another example of to the extent we can relieve other standards that better support site scale, renewable energy. We want the code to be ready to do that.

B

um Oh sorry, Christine has a question. I didn't know if you were done. Sorry Chris.

C

Nope yeah I think it's fine.

H

uh Thanks on the renewable energy uh bullet point, one idea I had that I was wondering if we could look at is for commercial buildings that have sloped roofs, um not flat if they could be oriented towards the South or the West um to to maximize the solar potential, because that's where we really need the solar, and that seemed more of a a development code, saying that a building code thing.

C

Yeah and I think we we can probably direct it in any way. I think the the question there would be. We certainly don't think there's anything in the code that would prohibit that.

C

um But if a build to line was you know forcing them to put their Orient their building a certain way so that the slope couldn't be properly allocated, um then yes, by all means allow that that to be an administrative adjustment to promote this principle.

C

um If the question is, should we then require all slow proofs to have that orientation?

C

um I'd leave that up to the the committee and and staff to give us Direction on that, because currently right now, we think it's it's open to doing that, and we would encourage it and promote it, and if we have any standards that worked against that, we would relieve them, but we don't specifically require it.

H

uh Okay, then, on that note, my preference would be to discuss if we could require it for slope truths um and short of that. If we could at least put explicit wording to encourage it rather than just just say, if it happens to happen, then we'll accept it, but something a little more proactive on that front.

C

um One of any other thoughts on that idea or.

D

I think I'd be supportive of that, but I was gonna say. Is there any way that we can include um in these sustainable sites and building guidelines? Also a mention of the water quality side of things also I noticed that is um kind of the guidelines in 1667b.

D

You know that we note all of these items here, I think or just about all of them, but if we get somehow include enhancing water quality, I think that would be good. Yes, the storm water. Thank you.

B

And then Kate.

I

I I was actually going to mention something similar under water efficiency that storm water, quality or um or green infrastructure type things would be part of water efficiency.

B

Okay and Bernie.

J

Yeah I just wanted to mention something on the requirement for the roof slope. um I I I understand the intent there, but I think that's a slippery slope. You have to remember that there's a lot of other things that come into the way in which a building is designed other than providing a platform for solar panels. So um you know maybe having a roof.

J

That slopes to allow sunlight in is maybe more important that for the occupants and having the ability to put solar panels at the right access point also I think with a lot of um our Urban buildings having flat roofs, I think there's different ways of coordinating that in there and actually potentially hiding the solar panels so they're they become a little bit more efficient, put on and it's part of the design process, if they so choose to do that so I I, just I would highly recommend against trying to determine which way roof slopes go.

B

F

I would um agree with what Bernie just said and I think. We also need to remember that we are uh taking on this whole project with an eye to the Future, and we don't know what solar panels are going to look like down the road uh and and so I just don't want to get too specific on all this stuff so that we have to let's. Let's look to the Future and understand that we may not know everything, so some flexibility might be a better idea.

C

Foreign on one of the interesting notes on the the solar audit was, um there was a critique that, because the code was silent to it, it wasn't clear if um rooftop solar panels got the same exception, that other rooftop equipment did in terms of height limits, and we would say yes and if not we'll, make it clear in this code update and to the second part on the screening, um the the solar audit said.

C

Well, anything that requires screening of it is is negative because that's going to cost more and that costs that will be a detriment to solar and I'm. Not so sure. We agree with that from the consultant standpoint, because you're screening all rooftop equipment anyway, and it's not necessarily an onerous thing. However- and this goes to the point of the sloped roof issue issue as well, if the best location for the solar panel meant that it couldn't be screened, this code would certainly Grant an administrative adjustment for that.

C

Based on this section, um so I think that's the place. I think that's how we want to end up and address some of those things in the the audit, as well as addressing some of the comments and concerns we're hearing from you, you all as well.

C

um I'll jump into chapter eight real quickly um and- um and this does some of the water quality issues come in here, although we certainly need to add it back into um that sustainable sites element, um essentially what we, the biggest change as I mentioned, was converting from the the required landscape area to then breaking the landscape requirements down by your site elements.

C

Currently, the required landscape area is just a flat percentage of the site, whereas the site elements approach will allow us to tailor what your landscape requirement is to what you have going on and I'll explain that a little bit more in a moment, but our our thought process on that is that then we're sure that we're getting landscape, that that is um that's more targeted towards meeting certain design objectives, in other words, we're putting it in not just to count landscape and get a certain percentage.

C

We want it to be to meet specific design and performance goals, so breaking it into the side elements. We think does that perhaps a little bit better, but we we think we will end up at roughly about the same plant requirements as a typical site, depending on what you you have and don't have going on. The other major change. Was we um not a major change? I. Think it's a subtle change. Is we change your buffer standards by our assessment? There's three different buffer standards, but none of them were that different than the other.

C

They almost all ended up at the same plant count. So we created three different types based on the the width and density of plants and then created three different scenarios for when you'd use each type, um we improved the xeric guidance. It's it's nothing. It's it's fairly, simple things and I think it's actually based off of the um Dr Cog Water Wise guidance, um but we did up the in the table.

C

There's a non-living allowance that says only up to 30 can be non-living and we bump that to 50 in in the base table, and then the xeric guidelines actually become because they're guidelines and we think almost all Landscapes can can meet them. um We did establish them as a baseline, for all.

C

Landscapes should be um water wise in that regard, um we're open to suggestions or critiques on that, because we certainly don't want to um push too far on that, but I think the the way the guidelines read: um they're they're, just good helpful advice on how to do landscape and arid climates and and it and it certainly they can be very attractive as well under those kind of criteria um and then the last section we reorganized and simplified the the fence standards with with fence and walls with, we think no substantive changes, but just trying to make them a little more simple.

E

B

Kate has a question and then Brooke.

I

uh Maybe I should hold this if we're gonna go into it more in detail, but I just had a comment on the xeric requirements or suggestions.

C

Yes, go ahead. That's fine. I didn't have a specific slide on that. So this is good time.

I

um A city of Aurora just recently updated update their requirements to have a maximum of 500 square feet of sod surface. um So I didn't know. If that was something we would want to consider. If Aurora can do it, we can do it um and then from there the rest would need to be Zurich or artificial turf or other kinds of landscaping. Something.

H

B

You're on mute, oh.

I

You're still on me, there.

B

G

Chris, if you could go back to the last slide on the uh yeah, so that is correct. Currently you can only have currently, you need 70 of the required landscape area to be living and uh the rest of the 30 percent of your landscape can be non-living and um so I think the the living is important, uh but I that that we have a lot of living landscape in the city and, in my opinion, uh living landscape. You know replenishes the air uh evapo transparates, you know moisture, um so I think living is important.

G

I think perhaps um we can lower not not lower, necessarily the living- or this is my suggestion from uh 50 down to or 70 down to, 50 percent, but perhaps say that um 70 needs to be living, uh but twenty percent of that has to be xeriscape, meaning Zurich plantings, not necessarily rock or just mulch, but that perhaps it's still 70 percent living with a portion of that living being.

G

You know bona fide xeric plantings and that can be be determined by certain plant lists and um it's just a something to throw out there to keep the living percentage high, but also raise the standards for what is Zurich and what is not. And perhaps that comes in conjunct. Conjunction with you know, limiting the amount of bluegrass.

C

G

C

Are both good suggestions if I can just comment real quickly on that, because one one of the things that we may find on trying to address both of those ideas is because we've broken it into these elements.

C

um These are all assuming that these are all going to be living requirements, because these are these are plant requirements in all of these site elements, so the when we got to the other, um what's the rest of the unbuilt site, that's where we came up with that. That's essentially the leftover of your required landscape area.

C

um So um perhaps because we're counting some of those Civic spaces that I mentioned that it might be Hardscape but have like a landscape area, but they they need to be landscaped according to this section. Maybe that addresses that, and this should go back down or perhaps this is the area where we also limit the irrigated turf grass shouldn't exceed certain amounts in in this area and and we've we've done codes and we're familiar with that requirement. It's just a matter of finding. What's what's the right fit for you all,.

B

D

And I'm glad to see that you have permeable services in there, I think there is a bit of a challenge with the artificial turf that I don't think we fully understand. Yet how obviously there's benefits the fact that it doesn't require water, but it's not a complete. You know it's not. Typically, it's not a permeable surface. The water just runs right off of it and you can end up with problems there, as well as just some of the processing and things that happen.

D

So I don't see that anywhere in here I think it was on the previous page or I. Think maybe you mentioned it, but I think not pushing artificial turf. I think would be a benefit if it is used in some places. I think that's okay, but as long as we're calling for permeable areas uh for those places, I think that would be better.

C

Yeah and um I'll go ahead and I I think I didn't have a slide as clearly as I wanted on your other point of the storm water, but one of the sections to pay attention to in the the plant specifications.

C

In other words, the first couple sections are just trying to get you to what's your number, what do you need on the site and then you have the flexibility to kind of design the site to meet all of those design objectives, but when we get to the plant specifications- okay, that gets to the the question earlier on.

C

What's a shrub versus um uh perennial grass or ornamental grass, so those things we we're trying I think the city there's a current reference in the current code to the Inglewood landscape manual, and so we just want to make sure that that's the the best resource where that has all the preferred species and how they're organized and and coordinated how they're planted We Believe. Those types of things should be outside of the development code. That's actually one of the most one of the most essential parts of this. Our landscape art text always reminds us.

C

You can require whatever you want, but it's only going to live if it's planted correctly. So that's a big huge part of it, but we think like referring to that in the plant. Specifications is important.

C

This is also where we have what we think is at least the first approach to that water quality issue, and we will need to round it out, but it's the idea that storm water, the the storm water requirements for each site, from from our understanding with the technical committee they're, going to be required, regardless of of how big or how little you build. The landscape requirements aren't guaranteed that you meet your storm water requirements, um that's outside of this code and every site will have to meet it.

C

What we want to do is to make sure that things meeting the land that storm water requirement with regard to quantity and quality are can contribute to it through landscape standards. So in that specifications we have a provision that says your storm. Water requirements should be landscaped according to this this code and that's how we're trying to integrate the the water, quantity and quality part with the site, design and Landscape um I.

C

Don't know that we have that 100 buttoned up between how it's currently working and I, don't know that we have your specific issues on water quality and what might be going on now addressed, but that would that would at least be the place to expand on it. In the code um there that subsection.

G

Chris um you're you're very correct on the Storm wall. The water quality aspect of all this and uh Public Works and engineering does sort of trump our code in a good way in terms of water quality. We're always uh happy to hear them say well, you're going to need some water quality, and so you need to propose something and they often suggest uh our landscaping and that just helps emphasize uh the the need for landscape.

G

So so I I think uh that that's that's a great approach on that and then in terms of our landscape manual. I would not necessarily use that as a uh as our guidepost for uh some of what you're talking about with our species and so forth, it's it's uh it. It has its place, but it's not uh necessarily doesn't necessarily have a xeriscape bent. Okay,.

C

Oh shoot I was hoping um we've. In that case, we might want to refer to other Regional resources.

F

C

Know CSU extension has a really good one.

A

C

So we could okay good.

C

um I'll, go in a little bit more about why we, we thought this breaking it in the site. Elements might work better.

C

um This is sort of this block is sort of meant to represent every possible scenario you could run into in a non-residential setting, um and so you can see that um if you were on, if let's say, if this you were on one of these and buildings here, there's a Street Front building and you built the whole site.

C

um You really wouldn't have a landscape requirement other than the street skate. So your streetscape could be everything you need to the extent you add parking to it. Well then, you're going to have a parking landscape requirement to the extent you have a building, that's set back, you might have a frontage buffer requirement or a foundation area landscape requirement for your building and then to the extent you have anything on your site, that's requiring to be buffered and screened for our performance criteria. Then you're going to have that requirement. So it was.

C

It was a way in our mind to make the landscape stand, there's a little more context based and a little more Performance Based by still having the same or similar plant objectives, rather than just saying that every site needs at least 10 percent required landscape or whatever the percentage might be. So that's at least the the logic to it. It's probably um not perfect, but again, that's why we wanted to have you take advantage of the administrative adjustments criteria and give something that's flexible, but very guided towards some specific outcomes and goals.

C

um Rounding I put this slide in again because again, that idea of the some of these spaces that are not landscaped are going to have landscape components with them. So just because you have a more of a Hardscape Plaza doesn't mean it doesn't have landscape elements in it. Just because you're building, Frontage down this lower left corner is set back, doesn't mean it's all landscape part of it could be seating and Patio part of it could be landscape.

C

So there's that combination of Hardscape and landscape with some of these spaces- and so that's sort of the idea behind chapter 8.

C

um And again, these are the three main sections, so this table is setting the sort of the default that objective standard that you can count measure get to your number um and in all of these, you go through this process of looking at the design objectives.

C

Looking at what the requirement is um looking at the design techniques and options, and then if you can't meet the standard, the administrative adjustment processes available, and so that works with both the landscape requirements, the buffer and screening and the plant specifications, foreign I'm going to hit chapter 10, real, quick and then unfortunately, I do I'm a little behind my exit time and I'm going to have to jump off, but um I do want the conversation to continue because I think it's been great so far and Matt will be prepared to take notes.

C

If that's all right with you all um chapter 10 is essentially this the flood plain standards. We aren't floodplain experts, we can help organize the code and make it more simple. We can also listen to any concerns that are being um that the current standards are creating and we can look for ways to make the flood plain standards work with all the other things we're doing. So that's what we're trying to do right now. um We don't anticipate any substantive changes to that section. Public Works is reviewing it for things that they can.

C

They think need to be cleaned up and take the opportunity in this effort. But essentially what we plan on doing is just sort of reorganizing the current floodplain standards to to meet and match this format, the new revised format of the code and maybe maybe simplify some of the wording here and there when we can to make it work better, but unless you all are or have heard from others that there's things that are wrong with that.

C

um We that's what we plan on doing I think there's a lot of opportunities to integrate some of these things into more Civic design, assets of the community like whether it's streetscape or whether it's open spaces um we want. We want to make that happen to any extent we can, and so that's what we're looking for with regard to chapter 10.

B

D

I did have one item that I noted on here and I thought. We had changed it recently, where we, instead of saying the specific study that was done, changed it to the latest version of whatever fad study or whatever um that was completed for the city. I was looking online at the the mini code and it looks like we still show.

D

You know the boundaries of West, Harvard, Gulch and Arbor girls prepared, and these specific studies and I thought that we had had changed that to more of a general whatever the latest version is Shelby what we uh regulate to so, if we can do that, I think that would be helpful if we haven't already here, maybe I'm, just looking at an older version.

G

I I think um public works, as Chris mentioned, is reviewing that and I think there will be sensitive to that. There's um you know uh or latest Amendment type of language, latest revision latest version.

G

Obviously the female maps are always changing um and uh and there's other studies that are done even when the FEMA Maps don't change so I I think, uh if anything, that that's a great comment uh to make sure that we're going off of the latest language I will say that um oh gosh I think it was 2013 or so that the uh water conservation, Colorado water conservation board was very prescriptive in language that they wanted Colorado municipalities to adopt and to to uh to a point of uh we made changes to our code and had to have them reviewed by uh buy them by Colorado water conservation board and- and so they they've got some very standardized.

G

This language, which I think actually think, is a good thing.

D

Yeah and obviously, if there's precedent that they have to that, we have to follow because of their requirements. uh Obviously we'll need to do that, but I think it would be good to make it as general as possible. So we can, you know, regulate to those that latest information as it gets updated and we don't get stuck regulating something old.

A

All right so Chris, I'm gonna, send you off on your way, because I do believe it is your anniversary, and we need to get you off this meeting and over to your family event. So uh thank you for your presentation and I will do my best to take good notes on the questions that come up from here on out.

C

It was yesterday I'm not that terrible of a husband, but um we have a concert to go to so thanks. Everyone.

F

Happy anniversary, yes,.

B

D

This Christmas bye it's a late night.

A

It is, it is so um all right, so I just want to make sure that there are no additional questions um again. I am not as well versed as Chris is in the backwards and forwards of uh many of these items, but uh we'll go ahead and make sure that we're capturing the questions uh in the notes and that we can deal with that. So uh Christine. If you have a question.

H

Yeah thanks I I had one other uh state to see if it would be possible in chapter six in the intent to add a bullet point for uh sustainability. There.

A

Yes, um suggestion to add a bullet point uh in the intent.

A

For sustainability, did you have anything uh in particular that you were thinking related to that or just a general um kind of blanket coverage.

H

Yeah General uh-huh.

A

H

Back in chapter six about the the building commercial building design, it had lots of really good um overall goals and I think another overall goal for sustainability would fit very nicely in that list.

A

A

All right any other uh comments or questions uh the concepts that folks want to go back to I do have the presentation shared, so we can Backtrack on slides. If you would like.

A

All right uh so just moving forward I want to give you a preview of where we're headed next.

A

uh So our next steering committee meeting with the November 15th uh with the housing and neighborhood design being covered, we're also looking at chatting with John and the rest of the city staff, about the possibility of integrating some of the affordable housing components into that discussion as well, and so I just need to make sure that the two efforts are tracking correctly uh before we make that final call as to how those issues will be formally rolled out with you. But you should know that uh here within the next uh next week, or so.

A

As far as the progress on on those items, uh Kate I see a handout.

I

It's not sorry, I had a couple things I wanted to mention. I just wasn't sure if it was time or not um so can I still add add a few comments. Yes,.

A

I

um This might have been covered in some of my comments from last time, but I think one of the things that would be great to be able to explore, especially for parking lot. Landscape is looking at a percent shade coverage, um maybe more so than the uh tree per number of spaces um unless and rookie or others might have good examples of whether trees can survive because the hotter it is the less likely they're going to survive.

I

So the spacing might look nice, but if it's not um viable, then it doesn't really make sense to put it in the code like that, so other communities have recently I, think Portland and a few other places have put in a percent coverage as the goal um rather than spacing, and another thing I didn't know um a few considered for some of the plan. um But thinking about some of the um best practices um from crime prevention through environmental design and um whether you know different plants or things that are added in.

I

um They also have like the list of plants and things that are less likely for like people to hide in or how they're placed in relationship to the building. Things like that.

A

uh Yes, do you I would anticipate that that might be a um uh design objective or something referenced in um that type of a section that would say um you know looking to balance the uh safety elements uh related to the the planting, materials and location.

G

um Yeah that that's a really good point: Kate uh yeah crime prevention through environmental design. You know you don't want to create hiding places and hedges for people to jump out of and um I'm not familiar with the uh percentage of shade but I think that's very interesting, I'm guessing it's based on species, but uh yeah. If you have anything you could forward that you saw or we could look at Portland but uh I I've. Never heard of that. That sounds interesting.

B

F

Well, I have lived both in Portland and um obviously here and I will tell you that the climate is radically different and um it's much easier to grow, trees and grow. Everything faster in Portland, but um I. Think Kate's point is a very good one. We should try to maximize shade because those parking lots are just are just heat Islands, but that set is.

F

I'm sorry, what oh I heard something in the background: I.

E

Don't think it was an intentional Michelle keep going. Okay.

F

um But unfortunately, here in Colorado, especially with a new or newer development, it's impossible to plant trees that really offer any shade. Unfortunately, um it's just you can't transplant a tree that big and expect to keep it alive. So it's a great goal: I, just and I think we need to strive for it, but I, don't know how specific we need it put it in the code.

F

I

I was just gonna say the example is actually from Phoenix, so I'll share that one.

B

D

And and I I hear your say, Michelle and I think there's a practical side of it. There are ways, though, to grow trees and Transplant them. I know like the 16th Street Mall is doing that, where they're growing, pretty huge trees to basically be able to put in you know at a time where they'll be actually substantiative, as opposed to just the little Twigs that that tend to go in so I. Don't know that it needs to be in here, specifically I.

D

Think the the goal of having the coverage I think would be great, but you know if we can push towards that. I think that would be a benefit to to everybody.

F

And and Colin you know I work for a tree company too right.

B

Christine go ahead. I didn't know that.

H

I really like this idea, Michelle good to hear uh I like Colin's approach of exploring what it is to get bigger trees, but even if that were not possible, it seems like you could um plan for there to be a certain amount of shade in a certain number of years in the future.

H

um We know that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the next blessed time is today. So with that in mind, uh I, wouldn't let the fact that the trees aren't huge to start with discourage us from from promoting putting them. In now,.

B

G

uh Christine's right you, you would do it at uh uh what what what what the plant would be at maturity um and there's always going to be a range there, but certainly some trees are provide more shade than others at maturity and that's how you would do it. You wouldn't want to be spading trees or putting in huge trees. Not only is in in Practical, impractical and uneconomical, but it also uh planting smaller.

G

Trees uh is actually in terms of caliper uh better in terms of uh viability and they they're they go through a lot less shock when they're planted so yeah I think um having some kind of uh tying something to shade is interesting, but yeah. You wouldn't see those results uh for some time, but that's okay.

B

K

Yeah I have a question I'm not very experienced in urban planning or am I going to pretend I know anything about it, but um I guess. My question regarding all of this is how to prevent, as we we think about the city center and any new development that might be happening in that area. How does how do we prevent any anything from happening again? Where we have? Are these large expanses of unused parking space?

K

You know say that whole area in front of the Big Lots or the whole area in front of between the Office Depot and the hardware store we've talked a lot: how to make it uh surround the parking lots we really haven't talked about how much parking does each business? How much are they allowed to take up? Is there any limit to that so that we don't even have these large unused spaces or am I just or is that answered by the marketplace?.

A

I would uh say it's a.

K

A

um The market is definitely going to drive towards uh less uh expansive parking uh and more driven by actual use numbers Additionally. The code is proposing to reduce the amount of with iron parking um to minimize that amount. Obviously, previous standards were either left open to individual businesses. Who provided as much as they possibly could under the philosophy that more is better.

A

um Certainly, with iron land costs. That's going to naturally limit. um You know the the amount of parking that's provided, and, additionally, the number of required parking spaces will be addressed in a different section of code as well.

K

E

Don't know if you were here for the last meeting, but I think Chris touched on it a little bit um and the parking numbers are in the draft currently they're, not all concrete as to what the recommendation is yet they're still kind of filtering through, but one of the items that he talked about was using things called Soft, maximums that if they get to a certain threshold of our requirement that you could require them to do additional things to try to mitigate that parking. One of those items generally is Landscaping.

E

um So that was another part of the end.

K

Thanks, yes, I was here, but I didn't pick up that. Thank you.

A

All right uh any other questions or comments.

A

All right and as we are working through uh the schedule, it looks like uh either the 22nd or the 29th. We will be working through the other Provisions uh again just uh coordinating with staff on when the actual meeting would take place due to the holidays, and that would include some of those additional items, including signs, uh Telecom and historic preservation.

A

um The other important thing to keep in mind is that we will be working through similar sessions like these to introduce these city council uh two chapters, and so those will start gearing up uh in early November and really starting to bring this code to that Bobby Ford additional discussion, but it's been really positive for us to be able to go through the steering committee with this level of details to make sure we're on the right track so that we do have a solid series of recommendations for city council to begin reviewing.

A

So so with that I do believe we are at the end of the presentation, uh Brooke or Brian. Do you have anything additional to add.

E

E

No I just want to verify that we have the November 15th the dates right on here for our next meetings.

A

uh Nancy I know that Chris did have some dates that uh I had difference. So let's double check that um November dates.

B

I thought it was November 8th, but that would be the regular meeting night I believe. Yes, that's the second or the first meeting after city council. That would be the regular night, but whatever the committee wants to do.

A

So Brian is there uh a need to shift that stage or um is that the correct, correct night for the meeting for housing and neighborhood design.

E

I think that eight is the correct night, but can we double check and if we need to reach back out tomorrow, to make sure that we have the correct night? Is that okay? Yes, absolutely Nancy is that okay, with you I see Michelle's hand up Michelle? Is that, okay with you.

F

Well, I I was I, think the last time we discussed this or one of the times we discussed this I pointed out that the eighth is election night and there's many people who um well there may or may not volunteer at the polls and things like that, and it may not be the best night to have a meeting so.

B

I was checking Inglewood and Gates, but yeah. We can certainly get that figured out tomorrow. Okay,.

A

Very good um Nancy Brian. We will Circle back with you tomorrow on that topic and get a notice out to the canoe uh just confirming uh the specific night for the next meeting.

A

All right uh Michelle do you have something new.

F

No I'm sorry I forgot to lower my hands. Sorry, no.

A

Worries no worries well with that I just want to. Thank you all for your time this evening, really great feedback. um I've got a quite a few notes from the discussion to be able to share uh with the team and with Chris uh as we um button this these chapters up and uh uh with that. Thank you all and have a great evening.

K

A