Loading...
2005 03-10 SpecialMeridian Planning & Zoning Special Workshop/Meeting March 10, 2005 The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Workshop Meeting was called to order at 6:15 P.M. on Tuesday, March 10, 2005 by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, David Moe, Wendy Newton- Huckabay and Michael Rohm. Staff Present: Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark and Jessica Johnson. Others Present: Diane Kushlan., David Turnbull, Dave Bailey, Brad Miller and Dave McKinnon. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ Keith Borup ___X___ David Moe ___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman David Zaremba Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Discussion of the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Zaremba: I think my first question would be is there anybody that is alarmed by the general format or do we feel that this is a great improvement over the old format of the entire document, I mean, not picking any one thing? I don’t think I had a chance to look through it with more understanding. We are going in the right direction. Not hearing any objection to that I would assume that we are going in the right direction and the general format of the document is a good improvement. Canning: Did you guys like where we put the Planned Development section? Did that seem to make more sense? (Speaker unknown): Can I ask the question of Anna or Diane why you are there because it relates to that is that early on in the process, one of the two of you explained the difference between a zoning ordinance and a unified development code and I don’t remember exactly what that was – if that related to the outline of it in the overall layout of it? Kushlan: Well, basically you go one to one Chapter in the City Code, it will called unified format code. Canning: I think the distinction was that the subdivision was that the subdivisions were incorporated into the Chapter. Now, we could still call it a zoning ordinance. There is no reason we couldn’t. Having a clear break in the title might helpful in that. It will be clear that we scrapped all the old stuff and started off new because there is a new name. (Speaker unknown): Boise City still has a zoning ordinance and a subdivision code as two separate chapters in those. Canning: Right, but like in Ada County we combined them. We just called it the zoning ordinance or something like that. Zaremba: The next idea that I would propose, Keith has requested that we do essentially start the way the committee started and that is go to the charts and see if people are in agreement with the things that have changed or if we noticed what has changed in the use charts. What did you want to start with, Keith? Canning: Dave, can I make one – Zaremba: I am deferring to Keith because he has to leave in about 45 minutes. Canning: Well, and that is why I wanted to bring up one issue because I know some people are leaving. The Mayor has asked – she wanted you to and I think this should be coming from the Mayor, but it didn’t. So, it is coming from me. She wanted you to have it on your March 17th agenda. I explained to her that that is not possible because of noticing requirements. She would like you to have a hearing on March 31st . A public hearing. Zaremba: I will not be here – but it is up to the rest of the group. Moe: Nor will I. Borup: On the 31st ? That is not a normally scheduled – Canning: No, it isn’t. Zaremba: Well, it is the fifth Thursday and we do – we have said we would get together on fifth Thursdays, but I will be out of town and I hear that Keith and Michael will be out of town – (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Actually, I will also miss the first regularly scheduled meeting in April, it’s the seventh or something like that. Canning: Okay, so March 31st is out. Do you want to discuss later what day you want to have it after the end of tonight? I just wanted to hear from Keith before he took off. Okay. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: I hope we make a lot of progress tonight, but I kind of would like to see how much progress we make before we commit to the public hearings. Canning: I would agree, completely. It has been that kind of week, though. So, there you go. Zaremba: So, shall we go to the (inaudible) charts? Begin with residential -- I think one of the things you will notice is in many cases the committee liberalized things – things that may have been conditional we moved to principally permitted and some things that were prohibited, I think, were allowed. Much of that is – if the ordinances are right then we are saying that if the ordinances go through the public hearing and somebody comes in and does what the ordinance says, why should they have to go through another public hearing process if they are doing exactly what the public has already said they wanted them to do. So, along with tightening the ordinances and trying to take out some of the ambiguities, we said if in fact that is what you are doing then the director can approve. So, that didn’t happen on all of them and we discussed everyone of them, so some of them we said no, this one we still want to review and – Borup: -- some of them went backwards. Zaremba: Oh, did they? Canning: What went backwards? Borup: Multi-family is conditionally an R-40. Canning: We did talk about that quite a bit. We felt that, I think it was actually the guy that owns the biggest piece of R-40 vacant property in the city is the one that said, no, they need to be – all be a conditional use. (Speaker unknown): Then why is it zoned R-40? Canning: I think it was more of the design review aspects of an apartment complex – that were important enough that we needed to be able to look at them. (Speaker unknown): Didn’t we have some land use that was (inaudible------------- ---------------------). Canning: -- to review the design. Zaremba: I was thinking the intent was more of a design review than (inaudible discussion---------------). Canning: We talked about that. Let me double check and make sure. (Speaker unknown): Because it does have the start of the specific use standards here. Canning: Yeah. I don’t think it says that David. You are right. So, we could put that right after – the standards, when you go to the standards it’s all design related. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Well we can just put a note for “for design review”. Wait a minute, multi-family is permitted in our (inaudible). Borup: Not on residential. Where is it at up in commercial? Canning: No. Dwelling, multi-family. Oh a multi-family development is conditional, but a multi-family dwelling is permitted. (Speaker unknown): There is an asterisk, Anna, that multi-family and conditional in R-15 and R-40 an asterisk has indicated use (inaudible--------) to specific use standards. Canning: Yeah. So, we have got two multi-family there. There is one under dwelling, multi-family and there is development – because you could have a triplex, which would be a multi-family dwelling, but if you wanted to do an apartment complex that would be a multi-family development. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: We could just put a – something right after multi-family development – so I guess the question is is it okay the way that it is written? Since all the standards are design standards is that – Borup: What does that specific use standards – what does it say? Canning: It goes on for three pages. This was one of our guest speakers that we learned a lot from. (Speaker unknown): It’s 11-4-3-2.6, multi-family development. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): Basically, it’s a permitted use, but it’s permitted subject to those new standards. McKinnon: At the second asterisk, put a double asterisk on it and say a multi- family? Canning: We could put it in the purpose statement just to have the first purpose that says the purpose is to review the design of these developments. (Speaker unknown): It looks like this asterisk covers everything, doesn’t it? (Speaker unknown): Yeah, but I don’t think we want the public hearing to be where people say we don’t want that there. You at the public hearing be just discussing design aspects of it. Canning: Well, if you have got a public hearing – well – Borup: They can always say they don’t want it. It doesn’t matter. (Speaker unknown): Well, yeah, but I think it should be spelled out that that is an acceptable use in that zone and a permitted use. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: Well, can’t it still be the asterisk and have permitted use, but still be subject to the standards? Canning: No because you have to – it won’t get to you guys unless it’s – Kushlan: Do you think we could put the Old Town design and eventually the other design in this code? Canning: No. Kushlan: Because I was thinking you could have a whole other chapter that related to design. Canning: I think we were going to keep those guidelines when this was codified. Borup: Well (inaudible) permitted use, it has to comply with these (inaudible) doesn’t it? Canning: Yes. (Speaker unknown): Well, does that have to be a public hearing? Could it be a staff level determination if they meet those requirements in the use standards? Canning: It could. I mean, we went around a couple different times on this and for a while we had it permitted, but I think we felt like there was enough design issues and enough call on what was appropriate amenities and things like that. You guys will be able to get more amenities out of them than staff can. (Speaker unknown): I also think it had something to do with the subdivision that we assumed that a multi-family development wasn’t going to have subdivision as part of the application also and that was going anyways. Canning: Well, most of them will have an annexation and zoning with them and that is the question of whether it’s an appropriate use. David is saying that in the rare case that you have got a larger R-40 property. Rohm: I do like your comment that it be known that it isn’t subject to the conditional use part of it doesn’t mean that you can’t have the multi-family (inaudible). That is not subject to debate. Canning: Let’s do it in the purpose statement and say – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: No, but then it will never be a CU. How about if in the purpose statement that we have – Borup: (Inaudible-----) unless they appeal a staff decision, we wouldn’t see it. Canning: Right. How about the first purpose statement we will put the purpose of these – well, let’s see – where appropriately – Borup: What is wrong with staff reviewing it? Canning: Where a property is already zoned for high density, residential, the purpose of these standards is just to ensure quality design, not to ensure the appropriateness of apartments. Borup: So, don’t people have an expectation (inaudible) of an R-40 zone property? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Most of the time, I mean really, David has the only piece of empty R- 40, I think, out there. So, really most of the time it is not going to be an issue. (Speaker unknown): Well, what if you put something in there that staff has the right to appeal it to Planning and Zoning or the applicant has the right if they can’t come to an agreement? Borup: Well, the applicant already does have the right, if they don’t like what staff’s requirements are. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: Well I bet there is more than one – maybe not. Canning: R-40? Existing R-40? I think we looked at it before. Brad, is there more than one vacant R-40? (Speaker unknown): There is some vacant high density on the comp plan? Canning: On the comp plan, but it’s not zoned? (Speaker unknown): Yeah, request an R-40. Canning: Well, right, but that would be a separate – that would be the appropriate question as to whether or not apartments would be there is when they are requesting the zoning. Borup: I certainly agree with the design aspect – that needs to have some control. McKinnon: Why not have it permitted with subject to approval of Planning and Zoning Commission, but be there with the double asterisk that says subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission? (Speaker unknown): That’s a conditional use. McKinnon: But, it says that it’s permitted (inaudible-----------------------). Borup: But, it still has to go through another public hearing and adds another – so, would that stop it or would it go onto City Council? Canning: We can make it permitted. I mean, you can do that. I would recommend only doing that in the R-40 because we know that there is not very many vacant properties out there and most of the time they will have to get an annexation and zoning and you guys would review it then. Borup: Make it easier for someone that has got an R-40 land to – (Speaker unknown): We are only talking about one piece of property right now, are we not? (Speaker unknown): There might be one other one. I can’t remember. There may be one other. Canning: All right, I am making all of them conditional now. Borup: But, it’s zoned R-40 and it’s been that way for ten years. Canning: How big is it? Borup: A couple of acres. Canning: You are going to have a hard time meeting all those standards anyway on that. Well, no, we were easier on the little ones, huh? Newton-Huckabay: (Inaudible--------------------------------------). (Inaudible discussion) Canning: We could just put that the question of whether apartments are appropriate should be decided at the time of annexation or zoning, but the purpose of these are just for the design. Okay? We will leave it conditional? Clarify in the purpose statement. (Speaker unknown): The only thing that I would suggest is you have some clarifying that pretty much notes that it’s a permitted use and the conditions are – Canning: In the purpose statements we will put that the issue of whether or not multi-family development is appropriate, should be done with the annexation and rezone and/or rezone. But, the purpose of these designs – that these are basically design guidelines or development standards, rather. That should help. All right, have you got any other property, Keith? Like Wendy said, it was only meant in jest. I am sorry. Borup: Well, I don’t have any problem with design stuff. I mean, you are right, three amenities on (inaudible) acres is – Canning: It’s going to be tough. You may be seeking an appeal from the city. I think the issue -- they are just kind of tricky things and we have struggled with them so far. I think we felt more comfortable with you guys making that decision resolve. No, I would love a statement like Boise City has where residential, mixed to residential is compatible – single family, mixed residential – Borup: Well, that is a definition of compatible, isn’t it? (Speaker unknown): The Eagle City Code, too, for all the good that does. Canning: So much for that. Borup: So that covers everything under residential, right? (Speaker unknown): The only portion that I have is we had multi-family dwelling, multi-family allows a PUD on the R-8 – Canning: We took the PUD out. (Speaker unknown): Right now it has a footnote that says multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-4 and R-8 land uses (inaudible) in a planned unit development. Canning: And the planned unit development section if you read through that it basically says that when you come in for the planned unit development, you can’t ask for uses that normally wouldn’t be allowed. However, you can ask for things that are conditionally allowed and that little asterisk would allow you to ask for multi-family development as well. So, like if it’s an R-8 zone, you could ask that Art’s Entertainment or Recreation facilities be allowed or that a cemetery be allowed that (inaudible) be a church. All of those things are in that. You can’t ask for a new use, but you can ask that conditionally allowed items be allowed as principled permitted uses. (Speaker unknown): Well, my point is if you go down to multi-family developments it is prohibited in the R-8. Canning: Exactly. That is if you were doing a PUD, you might need multi-family units to make up that density. Say you had a flood plain going through it in an R- 8 and you wanted to preserve the flood plain, but you wanted multi-family dwelling. We could put the same note on the multi-family developments. Is that where you are going? (Speaker unknown): Yeah. Borup: There is an asterisk on that too. Canning: Oh, this is a footnote that you don’t see – anything else? Zaremba: Again, my question is that if you look down the list, does anything alarm you between what’s prohibited or not listed and what is an accessory use or a conditional use? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: But these are the only ones allowed in the residential, Keith. You don’t have to go to commercial to see which residential uses are allowed. Newton-Huckabay: Defining – whether it was requiring nursing care or assisted living. There was no definition in here, so – Rohm: Well, and then I guess what my question is is this writing taking that definition and clearing it up some? Canning: We looked at it. I don’t remember exactly what purpose. Rohm: I just remember listening to an argument at P&Z where people didn’t want nursing facilities adjacent to their property and the developers were saying well it’s really not a nursing home, it is an assisted living and I was just wondering if this writing was clearing up that? Kushlan: The definition is that the use of site for assistance to individuals needed to perform the routines of daily life. The use includes, but not limited to children’s treatment facility, assisted care, skilled nursing facility, residential care facility and drug and alcohol treatment facility. Rohm: So, it sounds like it has kind of combined the two into the same. Canning: No, the one that they were saying wasn’t really – those folks, they weren’t needed to perform their routines of daily life. It was more like you could come and get a communal meal, but they didn’t need daily help like getting out of bed, making their beds, getting into the bathroom – and I think the independent living ones we were just treating as multi-family. Rohm: Well, the word that kept on getting hung up on is whether they are residents or if they are a patient. Remember that in the discussion? Zaremba: I don’t remember which project it was, but I remember – Rohm: I just was thinking that we should get rid of the issue. Canning: These are the folks that are being cared for that have trained staff there caring for them. Zaremba: Nursing and residential care facilities? Canning: Yeah. Borup: So, the independent living will be --? Canning: Just the multi-family. Borup: Under multi-family, even though they have got a communal cafeteria they can still (inaudible)? Canning: Think about dorms. Newton-Huckabay: I might suggest you use the term client. Rohm: Or resident or anything, but not patient. Canning: It says the use of the site for providing assistance to individuals. Newton-Huckabay: Instead of patient or resident. Canning: It just says individuals. This is one that comes from a specific code, so anything that is two up or two down, we can count to. This is the one from the industrial classification code, so this is a standard definition. We tried to go to those wherever we could so that we could refer back to them and go up or down. Zaremba: It’s nice to have a standard to turn back to. If somebody says you are making this up and we say well no here is where we got it. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, but – which one? (Speaker unknown): Medium density residential district R-8. The one I am looking at specifically is on the ones for alleyways and garages, 4,000 square feet (inaudible--------). The only reason I bring that up is (inaudible) comments for example – Canning: Oh, the R-8 one. Sorry. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: And then what did we do in the traditional neighborhood district? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: What about the traditional neighborhood one? Does that get you there? Yeah, we don’t even have a frontage on that. I thought that the discussion that we had is that we would leave it that way in the R-8, but in the traditional neighborhood we opened it up a lot more so that if you were having the smaller blocks you could have the smaller frontages and all that. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): For instance, Heritage Commons has a mix of different types of products and probably wouldn’t want to zone just one section (inaudible- --------------------). Canning: No, we would probably want the whole thing TN-R. There is no minimum frontage at all when the TN-R – so that is where we really opened it up. Zaremba: Well, I would ask a question – are R-8, R-15 and R-40 has anybody done the math to see whether you physically could get 8 dwelling units in an R-8 district with these? The thing that we keep running into is somebody applies to an R-8 and they have got 2.4 dwellings and then they applied for an R-15 and they have got 3.69 dwelling units. The goal should be they ought to be able to get 15 in them. Canning: As a general rule of thumb, about 20 to 25 percent of the site gets eaten up in the roads and other things. So, with 4,000 square foot minimum requirement that would get you to 32,000, so you have got another 11,000 square feet per roads per acre. So, it should be – theoretically it’s close. Have we mapped them out? No. (Speaker unknown): In the R-1C in Boise, which has the 5,000 square foot minimum, I typically lay those out and I can get to five to the acre with a standard R-1C, which is 50 x 100 and standard streets in them. Without any other obstructions I can get to five. Now, if you go down to 40 foot lots, you need closer to six. Zaremba: Well, shouldn’t that be our goal. It’s something that identifies our R-8 or R-15 or R-40. It should be possible to do that. Borup: If we do that we would have to go back and revamp everything because most of the stuff (inaudible) would be R-3, if that is what we are doing. (Speaker unknown): I think we talked about that during the meetings here and say well we are moving from R-8 where you can only get 3.6 to the acre to an R- 8 where you can get five to the acre, so we are at least getting closer to that number than you are now without rocking the boat too much, I think was the topic of that conversation. Canning: I think there is so much existing R-8 we were afraid to take it all the way there. It would just be such drastic standards. Basically somebody could divide their lot. We weren’t sure that we wanted to do that. Borup: I wouldn’t want to see it much different than – this does get a little closer. Is this probably going to stop some of the – maybe some of the planned developments and CU’s that we are doing – Canning: That was the idea. Did you guys think about – last time I asked you to think about minimum living area and what kind of – if you wanted to still have minimum living areas? Borup: I have been thinking about that and I think it’s serving the city – I think the purpose good in the past. Now it is probably to a point where it is not going to make much difference. I am glad we had it earlier so – I don’t know does it make any difference whether it’s still there? Canning: Well the implementation of it the way that it is written now is it’s completely impractical. I mean, we are not following it because there is no way for staff to have that kind of time to track it. Borup: Do you mean on the percentage thing? Canning: Yeah. Borup: No, I don’t think that would – that is a big problem. From both staff’s standpoint and from the builder, developer how do you keep track of which lot is supposed to have which sized house and that is not necessarily the way the market goes and some people may want a little house on a big lot and vice-a- versa. Zaremba: Are you talking about the “B” section for dispersed in a residential development? Canning: Yeah. I mean we still have the minimum ground floor area and minimal living area. I guess I am not all that opposed to that, but – Borup: I question the minimum ground floor area, too. (Inaudible--------------). Zaremba: My comment on the “B” part of this where you say maximum percentage allowed. This actually isn’t a maximum, it’s an exact since it adds up to a 100 percent, you can’t add one percent to – without – I mean, you can’t do less in one area because you can’t do more in another area. So, if we are going to say the maximum allowable percentage, then the grand total has to add up to more than 100 percent for them to be able to pick and choose. The way we wrote it there is no flexibility. But, I guess the question is do we even want to have this standard period? Is that what Keith is asking. Borup: I don’t have any problem with the 1,300 foot or 1,400 foot minimum, personally. Canning: That is an R-8. R-4 was 1,400. R-8 was 1,300. Borup: 1,300 was an R-8? Canning: Yeah. Borup: I don’t think that is too strictive in an R-8 except for the part on the minimum ground floor. I guess I am basing that on personal experience. Some of the 1,500 or 1,600 foot homes that had less than 800 on the ground floors, so it had to be (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion and speaker) Canning: I don’t think so either. I mean if you are really worried about really, really tiny ones, but there is whole books on 1,000 square foot houses that win design awards. They are great little houses. Zaremba: I just have a comment. I see a very strong coming future market for smaller homes and I don’t mean (inaudible------). As I get older, I am beginning to think my R-4 house is bigger than I want to care for. I haven’t convinced my wife of that yet, but I can see a whole pile of baby boomers coming in that are going to want a nice place, but don’t want to spend three days cleaning it. (Speaker unknown): I think you have a compatibility problem if you remove that; not that they are going to build smaller than that in an R-4, but I think you end up with a compatibility problem if you are going to – with the neighbors saying I have my 1,800 or 1,900 square foot house in my R-4 and you are going to allow them to build any size house in the R-4 next to me, don’t give them that zone because it is not compatible. Zaremba: I wouldn’t reduce in the R-4. The R-8 – Canning: The R-8 and the R-15. That is where I would suggest you need to look at it because I think you are right. All those people – there is a lot of R-4 out there and we probably need to keep it there. Borup: Yeah, I think so and then (inaudible) standards for the R-8 (inaudible------ -------------------). Canning: Well, it would be the last lines in the table above “B” also. Borup: Right, on the minimum living areas. Canning: Is everybody in agreement with that? (Speaker unknown): Yes. Canning: Well, I asked you to think about it. Zaremba: What would be the worst case? Somebody would try and move a mobile home into one of them? Canning: Nope, can’t do that. But, they could move a modular 1,000 square foot house, maybe. There are some neat modular’s coming out. Zaremba: I am just trying to think of what could go wrong. Canning: If the covenants allowed it, yeah. Zaremba: Some person that wants to – Canning: You could get a 1,000 square foot garage with the 500 square foot house. Zaremba: I would buy that in a minute. As a matter of fact if there was a bathroom in the garage, (inaudible-----------------). (Speaker unknown): I spent six years in a 1,000 square foot house and a 600 square foot garage and about a 900 square foot shop and I thought it was about perfect. Canning: Then you got married and had kids and there went that. Okay, in the R-15 also? Borup: Yeah, even more so. Canning: Now what did you guys think about – I am sorry, Dave, you were kind of trying to lead this meeting and then I kind of took over again. Zaremba: No, only if it is quiet do I try and lead it. I would rather have you lead it. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: What we did is we – “B” on medium density residential is – you see the x, x, x’s on A and B? And those are the date that this was approved and the idea was that our R-15 right now was so far off that to bring the standards even halfway close was really scary for those people that have an R-15 zoning now. It would just be so different. So, basically we were saying okay if you have got R- 15 then from this point forward, you plat something from this point forward then you would have these standards otherwise you have these standards. That was the only way I felt comfortable doing it because otherwise the lot size just went from – what’s the R-15 now, like 4,000 square --? (Speaker unknown): 2,500. Canning: So, it is similar. R-15 now is 2,500? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: I wonder if this is one of those tables that got messed up. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: Well over on the next paragraph, it says 2,400. Canning: Yeah, that was for the new ones. Check on what the existing ones are. Borup: Twenty-four. Canning: Twenty-four? (Inaudible discussion) Borup: So, the (inaudible) has changed. Is that what you are saying? Canning: Yeah. What are the other standards, Brad? Miller: Twenty-four hundred square foot (inaudible) ideas, in a lot area. Twenty- foot on the front; fifteen on the rear; five on the interior side, that is per story. Canning: Well, I don’t know. Do we even need “A” then? Do we just go with “B”? They are not all that far off. The street frontage goes away. The front setback to the living area is ten instead of 15. We didn’t have a side setback. Borup: Spells out the alley voted (inaudible). Kushlan: The first ones should be the new ones and the second one should be the old ones. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Is that what happened? But these aren’t that much different than the ones above. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Just have eight go away? Sure would be easier to administer, we can just – McKinnon: If you allow all the existing R-8 to be able to go down to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: To R-8. What is the R-8 now? McKinnon: Was it the R-8 we had this discussion with? We didn’t want the R-8 to be able to go – (Tape turned over) Canning: I only remember it being on the R-15 because we had a fair amount of vacant R-15. Let’s just have eight go away and then just – Newton-Huckabay: We are going to get a new copy of this before the public hearings, right? Canning: Yeah. Borup: Then on the next page, minimum ground floor for multi-stories. Canning: Didn’t we already take that out? (Speaker unknown): As well as the living area. Borup: Well, I am looking at high density, R-40. So that is out also? Canning: Well – Borup: My question is multi-story is 800 minimum, but ground floor has to be 800, so – (Inaudible discussion): Borup: Well, I don’t worry about the size, but at two-story – I mean, if you want to do a 1,000 foot two story it won’t work. Canning: Did you want to take them out completely? Borup: My comment was just the ground floor. Canning: Well, yeah, apartments you probably don’t want to – Borup: (Inaudible) to a 1,000 foot apartment and five hundred to each floor, you have got 1,000 feet, which is over the minimum but it wouldn’t qualify because you don’t have 800 on the ground floor. Canning: Right. Zaremba: Is any of this going to be controlled by the building codes. I mean, when you are talking about ground floor square footage, you don’t count garage, but on the second floor you can build living space over the garage – more square footage on your second floor than you had on your first floor, more countable. Is any of that controlled by the building code or --? Canning: We specifically say that living area excludes garages. So, now the only place we have minimum living areas are R-2 and R-4. Zaremba: Is the dispersion table (inaudible)? Canning: (Inaudible). How come there is no interior sites setback on R-15? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Did you guys – we haven’t put a minimum side yard setback in the R- 15 because we talked about these being attached units so they wouldn’t have to ask for a zero lot line development, but if they do detach them then the building code has minimum separation standard. Zaremba: Yeah, I think we discussed that. They can’t have like two feet between buildings. It either has to be zero lot line or it has to be ten feet because the Building Code and the Fire Code says it has to be ten feet. Canning: Six feet. Zaremba: Oh, only six? Canning: Six between structures, so the lot line can kind of be anywhere, but it is six between structures. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Is that enough? I would just make it ten. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: No, we give them an easement. You give your neighbor an easement to be on your three feet. Zaremba: I guess the reason for three feet on the side is uncomfortable was that the things that you allowed to encroach into that setback, canopy and air conditioners and stuff could cut it down to one foot. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): Building Code wouldn’t allow those encroachments, would they? (Speaker unknown): No and the Fire Code doesn’t either, if it’s an egress corridor, it has to stay at the three feet (inaudible) encroachments. Zaremba: But, who would know that? (Speaker unknown): The person reviewing plans. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: But, you couldn’t control that. Canning: Right. (Speaker unknown): If the fireman shows up two years later carrying a ladder and (inaudible----------------------). Zaremba: My question is do we need to defend the setbacks? (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): Three foot side setbacks. It’s a very common thing to have threes – around here five is common, but throughout the U.S. it is common to have three side setbacks. Canning: If you think about it, your side yard is the most wasted yard you have got. Rohm: Just with no encroachments, no air conditioners and things such as that in a three foot setback. (Speaker unknown): I guess we could get staff to verify the (inaudible-------------). You have approved one (inaudible) Locust Grove place over there on south of the (inaudible) Fairview and they came and asked for the three foot and you approved that last year with the statement that no fences, no encroachments and that is the thing that if it gets to the point that somebody asks for a variance or a new conditional use usually the International Building Code trumps it almost anyway. I mean that is their argument. Borup: There is just an R-15 and R-40, right? Canning: Actually, it is just R-15, but the R-40 we are assuming they are multi- family structures, so we maintain the five feet per story on that one. (Speaker unknown): But you could have this defend the five foot minimum if you wanted to as far as you could put it in as the five foot setback as five feet if detached and zero if detached, obviously. If you didn’t want to go with the three for the Fire Code or Building Code. Canning: Did you follow that? Okay. Not that you weren’t clear, just double checking. We are all not very bright today, are we? I have seen this crowd livelier. Zaremba: That would be comfortable for me, again, if we are trying to go towards the direction of getting 15 dwellings in an R-15, do the setbacks make a difference? Or does it just mean that it is a smaller dwelling? Canning: Well, a couple of feet is a couple of feet. I mean, you know we have people – (Speaker unknown): Well, you have 60 lots and you add those (inaudible) feet on each (inaudible) and you come up with two more lots. Canning: When your fronted requirement is only 40 feet, two on each side, so that is four so that is ten percent – Zaremba: Well, that is true. (Speaker unknown): Well, I think this is how we always did it, explanation isn’t always the best thing, I think when it comes to your zoning stuff, I would say there is a lot of history in the city as far as how you come up with those things and you know thinking hard about changing (inaudible) is probably a good idea. Zaremba: Well, the two elements are the safety feature, but also the aesthetic feature. Do we want to have open space in a visual aspect, you know? And does four feet of open space make that much difference? Canning: So, if you kept the five that is (inaudible----) so those would be 30 feet wide units and the ones – we see a lot of 32, right, David is that it? So maybe that is where the fourth one came up to. We had the 40 foot frontage. Zaremba: Thirty-two would be because of those shape of building materials, right? Canning: Some of the narrower – there are some 30 foot design houses, but – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: -- yeah, they go down small. (Speaker unknown): Fifteen because they are building single lots in downtown Boise. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Exactly, so 32 is a desirable one. Zaremba: Well, and rural houses or brick brownstones or whatever they are called are narrower than that, but then there is the lot line. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Well, do we have an opinion on designed setback or should we just leave it the way that it is? (Speaker unknown): Well it is R-15 right now, if we took out “A”, “B” doesn’t even have it. Canning: That is why we are talking about it. Zaremba: Doesn’t even mention it. That is the discussion, should we put it in or just move it? Canning: Yeah, I wonder why we don’t have it. You know the table has gotten messed up at one point and I think it was these two tables. So, I don’t know what happened. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: I could see putting in a two-tier; zero lot line, no setback. If there is a setback then three, four or five feet? Borup: Four. Zaremba: Four feet? Rohm: I like just about 32 on the 40 foot lot. So it gives you four feet on each side and a 32 foot building. Canning: So, side four feet. Rear, what do you want on rear for R-15? (Speaker unknown): Well, the city has approved three projects in the last two years, where 12 has been allowed. It’s been 15 in a three foot – Canning: Okay and then what do you want – apparently we are missing side and rear on eight, also? What do you want for side on eight? Borup: Five. Canning: Five? And rear? Rohm: Fifteen. Canning: Okay, so five and 15 everybody? Zaremba: Five per story. Canning: Well, that would be more restrictive than it is now. I mean, it is something that you can do, but it is more restrictive than it is now. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: There are some interpretation problems with the first story stuff, just so you know, but we can do it. We would rather not, but we can do it and get into a lot of arguments as to what constitutes the story in single-family residential. Borup: I think it is made real simple for the Building Department, too, now. They don’t have to worry about what zone a subdivision is. Everything is the same. Canning: Now, we do have five feet for storing the high density residential. But, that is pretty easy to tell, you know, you either have three stories or – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: This setbacks are – projects as a whole. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: No, the setbacks for a multi-family development are measured from the site as a whole. If you only have five feet, you could do five feet away from your property line. Zaremba: Well, this is an exterior yard measurement, not just between buildings? Canning: Right. We specifically said in multi-family developments that the setbacks are those measured from the property as a whole. Then the relationship with buildings to one another would be dictated by the Building Code, not by zoning. (Speaker unknown): What do we say on the rear setback for R-15? Borup: Twelve. (Speaker unknown): Well, the Code currently you can do a four foot encroachment with an uncovered balcony. So, if you do 12, then you are getting that down to 8. Zaremba: Well and for that reason I would go back to 15 because we do have somewhere in the – it applies to all districts, it does talk about encroachments – Canning: Yeah, we took out a bunch of that stuff. Zaremba: So, if it is 15 minus an encroachment – Canning: The encroachments we allow are two feet for open structure such as porches, canopies, balconies, whatnot – chimneys, which do not increase the usable floor area and do not exceed 8 feet in width may project up to two feet. Those are the only two encroachments -- (Speaker unknown): Only two feet per --? Canning: Yeah, we took out a bunch of the encroachment stuff. So, if they want a big porch, they have got to make a smaller house. That is in all residential zones. Borup: So, we can do something different than R-15 there? Canning: Oh, look here. We had the minimum separation between detached structures shall be ten feet, unless greater separation is required by fire or building codes. So, if you wanted to make it 8 feet in the R-15, then we need to change it there. That is how we took care of the five feet. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Never mind. That was only for zero lot line properties. So, you could actually have detached structures that would be closer together than zero lot line structures. That doesn’t make any sense. We should make them the same. So, this should be eight feet, otherwise they are just going to set one foot off the lot line. That doesn’t make sense. You’ve got lot line going down the middle of it, you can be eight feet away from each other, but if you have got it right on the property line, they have to be ten feet away from each other. It doesn’t make sense. (Speaker unknown): I think when you have multiple attached zero lot line properties, you know just kind of like the point we made on the Hacienda thing, you want a bigger space between them, not just for appearance but also for fire access. Canning: No, what I think it means, is if here is your lot and here is your house here is the next one, then this distance needs to be ten instead of if it went like that then it would only be eight. So, we need to make those consistent. So, whichever way you guys want it, ten or eight. All those in favor of ten? Borup: And what zone? Canning: Well, this would be for any zero lot lines, so this would be R-8, R-15, R-40. Rohm: Isn’t that just on the structure that has at the end of the zero lot line – Canning: No, sometimes zero lot line developments they will put one wall right on the lot line. They will make it a firewall, but they will put it right on a lot line and then they will put all their side yard to the other side. (Speaker unknown): Especially if they have an open space lot on one side. You know, so they want to put the building right next to the open space and then – Canning: Then you don’t have to worry about having arrangements with your neighbor and the easements and all that kind of stuff, but you do have to have a firewall. We just need a – if you want 8, then that is fine, we will put 8. If you want 10, we will put 10. So, you just need to give me a number. Rohm: Well, just to keep it consistent, then the 8 is what you want. Canning: Right. That’s all I needed to know. Zaremba: Make it easier for the inspectors and everybody else. Speaker unknown: Is there something on the number – because you were talking about zero lot line and the area it zoned, is there something to say that you can only have one zero lot line and then an R-8 lot and then you can – Canning: Yeah. The only one interior side property line (inaudible-------------) setback per property in the area zone. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Okay, are we on to commercial? Borup: What is the difference between daycare center and daycare group? Canning: Well, let us tell you. Borup: (Inaudible---------------------------------) as the daycare centers are conditional. Canning: Okay, daycare facility. You have got a daycare center that is more than 12. Daycare group is more than six, but no greater than 12 and daycare family is six or fewer. That is for children under 12 years of age for periods less than 24 hours, while the parents or guardians are not on the premises. Zaremba: I think I asked before and I don’t remember the answers. How do those numbers match with the Idaho Code licensing and all that sort of stuff? Canning: Exactly. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: So a center is more than 12. A group is six to 12 and family is six or fewer. Borup: So, the purpose of the conditional use is to amend these and what the design, the feasibility of the facility or --? Canning: We have this discussion on everywhere I have ever seen, daycare facilities, anyway. Not necessarily the group or the accessory ones, but the daycare facilities are conditional, mostly to keep track on the licensing requirements and not making it easy. Maybe because these are our kids. Borup: So, why is it the group – the group is permitted, though? That was my question why they are different? (Speaker unknown): Yeah, why don’t they come out the same, which ever? Borup: Just because of the numbers? Canning: Yeah, I think so. Borup: So, if it is a big group, you got to watch them if it’s --? Canning: You have more traffic and more people coming and going. People are a little more aware of, I think, what’s happening to their kids when there is only six kids there. (Speaker unkown): Isn’t there also the picking the kids up and dropping them off and that traffic was an issue because --? Canning: Yes, the design is looking at those traffic issues. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: I am listening to two conversations and I effectively lost yours Dave. Zaremba: I think that one of the elements along with the traffic and everything is what the center would have is we wanted to have some design review (inaudible- -----) was going to be larger and some of that was driven by the castle looking one on Franklin. Kushlan: We also have a requirement that they provide a play area. Zaremba: I have gotten accustomed to it. I didn’t like it at first, but I have gotten used to it. (Speaker unknown): The daycare is nice. Rohm: That is a landmark. Canning: Yeah, Dave McKinnon had an issue that sounded interesting, so I was half listening to it before, so what was it that you were pointing out? McKinnon: Well in daycare families we don’t allow an area that is prohibited, unless it’s permitted in the L-O zone, but we have got multi-family, which would allow multi-family dwellings are conditional, but prohibited in the L-O zone and so you can have a family at a residence in an L-O zone, but residence is (inaudible) in an L-O zone, but you can have apartments in the C-C and C-G zones, but you can’t have any daycare in those multi-families. Zaremba: So, what you are saying is essentially it would never happen? McKinnon: It couldn’t happen either way. Zaremba: Because there is no building? McKinnon: Right. In the L-O zone if you are not going to allow multi-family, you wouldn’t be able to have family daycare, but you can allow family daycare in the C-C and C-G zone, but you are not allowing the daycare (inaudible). It has got to be flip-flopped. Canning: The daycare family, does it say it has to be in a home? Borup: No, just six and less, doesn’t it? Canning: Yeah, it doesn’t have to be in a home. McKinnon: So, would it be conditional in the (inaudible-----------). Canning: No, the daycare family in the L-O is mixed. It could be there. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: And the question is do you really want a daycare in C-G and C-C area? Daycare center you can have as accessory and group daycare you can have as accessory, so if it were accessory to the apartment complex, you could do that. McKinnon: But somebody living in the apartment couldn’t watch anybody else’s kids as a daycare? Canning: Right. So, do you really want people to take kids – I guess if they were already there, then you could maybe call it accessory, but the apartment, I don’t know. I don’t know if you want people doing daycare in an apartment anyway, do you? McKinnon: I think people already do it. Newton-Huckabay: (Inaudible------------------------------). (Speaker unknown): If you do it in an apartments in L-O zone, you can do it in apartments in a C-G zone. We already have several apartments in L-O and we are creating (inaudible---------------). (Inaudible discussion) Canning: So, if we put dwelling, multi-family C-N in an L-O does that take care of some of these issues? McKinnon: Yeah. Canning: It’s probably good not to create a bunch of non-conforming, it’s kind of stupid. Kushlan: So, did you want to permit family daycare in C-C and C-G? Canning: We can open up the accessory stuff, maybe. Kushlan: I think the original reason was, you know for a business that might want to have a small daycare within a business. Newton-Huckabay: Well and you are seeing malls that are putting in daycare centers – shop and drop. Canning: Well that is true. (Speaker unknown): Well, you have like a wing center, you know they have daycare in there – Canning: Do you want to do accessory at all zoned or just C-C and C-G? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Do you want accessory in all the commercial zones? Okay. (Speaker unknown): Wendy is going, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Actually my kids are all too old for daycare, but they are going to need someplace to work. Canning: Okay, anything else in the use chart? Zaremba: Well that is the question. What if Fred Meyer’s sets up a daycare? Canning: That is why we made it accessory use. Borup: I noticed there was one more change under storage facilities – Canning: Self service or --? Borup: Yeah. It was permitted in the C-C and C-G, previous – well – Canning: It was never very well defined before. Borup: It was permitted in the C-G before – only. (Speaker unknown): And I-L. Canning: And I think – Borup: What was the concern there? Canning: We tried to really leave the C-G for high intensity uses rather than low intensity ones. Borup: You might get more traffic. Canning: Well, we were trying to keep it for – you make that sound so bad. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): For example, Anna, of your definition of a C-G tell us of development – so Cross Roads, is that C-G? Canning: This is all C-G here and like if somebody were to use this land over here for storage, that is kind of a waste of prime commercial property. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: How about if we have it sandwiched between two residential zones? Canning: Well, then we would have to go back to the residential chart. Borup: No, it is zoned C-G. Canning: It’s already zoned C-G – it’s all accessory in the residential now. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: I don’t know. No, I don’t either. He just comes up with these very specific ones and it’s like what is going on? So, it’s in between two and it is C- G? Borup: Well, (inaudible) the property I thought, you know, this is going to be nice it’s zoned properly and I am using a permitted use and don’t have any public hearings. Canning: No, it is a valid question. It’s just, I guess, the idea was to try and save that C-G for the more intense uses. Borup: Well, in my case I don’t think apartments are going to want service stations and you know the high intensity C-G uses. Canning: So, I guess you would have to rezone. Borup: So, you would go into a conditional use, which works. (Inaudible discussion) McKinnon: St. Luke’s and St. Al’s are both in the L-O zone. Do you we want to just make that conditional use permit in the L-O zone, rather than having two non-conforming right off the bat? Canning: Yeah, probably. I am glad I wasn’t the Planning Director back then because it is like why L-O? Just because they didn’t want to ask for C-G, is that what it was? Any idea, Brad? Were they just afraid to ask for C-G zoning? The hospital? Miller: I wasn’t here for St. Luke’s and St. Al’s is a comp plan issue, I think – couldn’t ask for it. Borup: St. Luke’s it might have been the neighbors. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: I think the reason we didn’t list it under L-O is that we didn’t want to perpetual that for any more hospitals. Canning: Right, so they would be non-conforming. The problem is that every time they want a building permit, they have to – well, I am not sure we even prohibit it now, so I am not sure we leave that option. So, if the third one comes in we would have to have them – Zaremba: Could we rezone them? Canning: We could. We could rezone them. Zaremba: At some point we are going to go around and ask all the churches to rezone to L-O aren’t we? Canning: They usually come in and – yeah. We are going to get a lot more churches over time than we will hospitals. Zaremba: That is true. Canning: So, probably the issue on hospitals is already sited. There is not a third provider in the county yet, if there ever is. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): I got a call this week from an outfit that wants to do a hospital over on Overland Road. Canning: Oh, really. (Speaker unknown): Yeah. I don’t know who they are. Canning: A medical facility or a hospital? (Speaker unknown): A hospital. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: I don’t know. Whatever you guys want to do. (Speaker unknown): I would make it conditional. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Canning: You agree, what? With him? Conditional? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Is that on the record? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Does anybody want more sodas or anything? More sandwiches? Rohm: I am going to get one. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Vertically, integrated residential projects is prohibited in L-O. Wouldn’t we want to have it in L-O? Canning: You might want to make it conditional similar to C-N. Zaremba: I am thinking one of the elements of vertical integrated projects is offices and – (Speaker unknown): But, we put the maximum building height – 35 feet. Canning: I think we were looking at that L-O as a transition between neighborhoods. So, if you want to put it, it makes sense, but I would suggest conditional. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: So, there are some uses in (inaudible). Self storage is not permitted in any (inaudible) is it? Canning: Yeah, it is, C-C. Borup: What? Canning: Oh, principally permitted. No, it isn’t – well, it’s probably in the I-L. (Inaudible discussion) Newton-Huckabay: I think you would want to be (inaudible-------------------). Zaremba: Well, and people have stuff and they are pretty popular. And I know some people just use them – they own a big piece of property that some day is going to be something else, but they use it as a interim – they know they are going to tear it down 20 years from now and build something else on that property. (Speaker unknown): Self storage units need to be located closer to residential. (Inaudible----------------------------). Having it permitted in an I-L is great, but usually those I-L’s aren’t (inaudible). Canning: Well they are accessory with the residential, so if somebody wanted to do a subdivision and include an accessory lot for self storage, they could. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, but otherwise they would have to get – I don’t know I guess you could make them all conditional in a residential zone instead of accessory. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Again, the idea was to save the (inaudible) area for retail. Borup: Shouldn’t that be up to the landowner and how he wants to best use it? Canning: Well, he has purpose statements. So, the purpose of the neighborhood districts was small scale convenience, community business, district was larger scale and broader mix of retail office and service uses; C-G was larger scale and broadest mix of retail office service in light industrial uses and then the limited office was office centers and adaptive reuse of residential structures. Zaremba: I (inaudible) ought to say that they own a place that they can build storage units is in the wastewater treatment – just build a whole square mile of the storage units there and then we don’t have to worry about it what else it can be used for. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: So, did we make a decision? Canning: You know I think that conditionally, we can still do it. It discourages them from locating in those areas and I think that that’s not a bad idea. Moe: Works for me. Rohm: That makes sense. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: How do you feel about those dimensional standards? Basically, we took out a lot – well, there aren’t many dimensional standards now. I think we kept what we do have and we moved the landscape buffers from the landscape section to here. I don’t know if you noticed that on there. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: No, just here. So, instead of having a buffer between different types of land uses for these you will just have a street landscape buffer and then you have a landscape buffer to residential uses. (Speaker unknown): We have an (inaudible) that this is in a PD, right and it’s all development or a single property and they happen to have a C-N use and that is multi-family or something and they don’t want to do the full project. How do you read that? Twenty landscape buffers and residential – oh, okay and that is to any residential? Canning: Yeah. So, you would have to have a 20 foot buffer. (Speaker unknown): On the third one their maximum building size without design standards approval, do we have something that says that they want somebody – comes in (inaudible----) in a C-N and they do a 7,400 square foot building and they would actually do two of them right next to each other and they are connected with the foundation. Canning: You have got current interpretation, if they are connected by the same foundation and they are one structure, so they would have to come in. (Speaker unknown): Well, I could just see where to avoid having to do some of our design standards as long as it is clear that it is a single structure. Canning: Well, the intent of the design standards is to break up the mass, so if they are breaking up the mass, they are meeting the intent anyway. It’s really all the design standards have was some massing stuff. (Speaker uknown): Well, no, it got pretty detailed about roof design and parapets and articulate walls and – Kushlan: You know you are always going to have somebody that is just going to want to get around it like that. You know, I don’t know that you can – Zaremba: But, I still think that if they voluntarily broke up the building the way Brad is saying, then you still would not have this visual mass and yeah it’s getting around the ordinance, but I – Canning: But it’s getting around it the way we want them to. Kushlan: Yeah, you might get a lot of 7,499 square foot buildings, too. You probably would. I mean, whenever you set a threshold like that – (Speaker unknown): Yeah, I guess the other thing that we get a lot of complaints on was on entryway corridors because right now we don’t require design standards even if they are on entryway corridors for any building size. Right? I mean, they could be – seems like – on an entryway corridor like on Franklin and Main right here downtown for example, but we got a lot of complaints about a metal sited coregated building. That building is way under 7,500 square feet, but it’s primo land, you know? It seems like the standards was to – those visible areas where you are going to get the most attention, you want (inaudible--------) and off the beaten path, we don’t really – Kushlan: Yeah, I don’t think these design standards have that intent. They were basically to break up the mass and bulk of big buildings because of the scale of those buildings in that district. So, I think that if you are talking about design from Gateway Properties or (inaudible) and Properties, I think you are talking about a different kind of setup than what we have got in here now. Zaremba: The issue is valid, we didn’t establish any design standards for entryway corridors except for landscape buffers and that is the only thing. Canning: Well, MDC is working on – they started with the downtown core – or not MDC, but the design guidelines that Steve helped do more in his MDC role than his planning role in a sense were for the downtown core and the idea is to move out to include all those areas that are within the re-development district. So, that gets a lot of them. Now, it doesn’t get the entryway corridors from the other communities, but it gets that core area. But, no, we didn’t talk about it at all. That might be – I would suggest that it be another type of project maybe or some of the other guidelines be incorporated. Maybe the ones that come up with for this area here would be appropriate in some of those other entryway corridors. Zaremba: My question would be where would we even mention that? Entryway corridors are mentioned a couple of times and I am trying to remember where they were mentioned – in landscape I know they are mentioned. Kushlan: I think signs. Canning: Well, it would just be – it wouldn’t be a dimensional standard, but it would be regulations applying to all districts, it would be there. (Speaker unknown): Why is it you don’t do a design review? Too many? Is it a hassle setting up or is there a conscious decision that you are not doing design review or --? Canning: Both, but more the latter. (Speaker unknown): I guess my take on it is that if you don’t want to do the design review, don’t sneak little things in your zoning ordinance that try to make up for the fact that you don’t have one. If you want design review you have got to do it. Kushlan: There is design review throughout this. I mean there is design standards. Canning: There is form based standards in a lot of it. Kushlan: But, it is not in the traditional – you know a whole separate process kind of thing. Canning: The way we are moving more towards is design guidelines – if staff thinks you need design guidelines, you go through it. If they don’t think you need the design guidelines you go (inaudible----------). But, we don’t have those design guidelines. We haven’t talked about what would be appropriate for entryway corridor design guidelines at all. I think it is a valid point; something to put on our to-do list. (Speaker unknown): Right now they have façade standards; we have primary public entrance standards; we have (inaudible) standards; we have window percentage standards; we have pattern variations, this is all currently in this ordinance. Kushlan: Yeah, but it is all about bulk and the scale. Those are all kind of saying let’s break this building up with the roof line, with the texture and make sure the entryway is separate. They are all directed at trying to resolve scale issues and I think in a gateway that would probably be some valid standards, but you probably would want to have some other things, too. Zaremba: A gateway to those would be the minimum standards and then some visual standards – Canning: So, Brad you would just like to see those standards apply to entryways, also? Hawkins-Clark: I was just throwing it out there. I was just pointing out that it is not in here. Canning: But, is that what you were thinking? That those would be enough for – where is that stuff? Kushlan: It’s under structures – (Speaker unknown): 11-3-13. Canning: 3-A? Kushlan: Structure subject to design standards – 3-A-21, page 11 on this one, but I have no idea on the other. It is all relating to large structures if you look at the focus statement. Canning: Yeah, we would have to change all those purpose statements. Zaremba: Well, what if we just changed “B” instead of (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / DAVID ZAREMBA, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: ___ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK