welcome to the may th meeting of the liquid planning commission this is a continuation of the april th meeting where we were discussing mixed use and housing issues and particularly some specific ordinances and at that meeting we asked staff to look into a few things but as the the public comment for this meeting was closed at the april th so we're going to continue with discussion and making recommendations on some of these ordinance possible ordinance changes so with that i understand you have a little bit tell us about what you've looked into based on our questions okay so i don't have a formal presentation but what i've done is we've got recommendations four or five and six to go through this evening recommendation five have happens to be in five parts and  so we'll just kind of go through essentially what we have in the powerpoint is what you have in your memo so the recommendation for is to address adu standards based on  the study sessions that we've had with planning commission and then when we put together staff recommendations or the the planning commission recommendations what you see before you in the accessory dwelling units addresses minimum lot size which the discussion at that point in time was to remove the minimum lot size and allow eighty use on in all the our districts in liquid and then increase the allowable size for an ad you right now there is a seven hundred square foot restriction and essentially the way the proposed amendment would read would be you could have a maximum of seven hundred square feet or forty percent of the gross floor area the structure whichever is greater that's recommendation for before you okay you want us to discuss that and then we'll get into the other one okay anybody have any questions or comments on on this item thank you so anybody who's got this any further i just are in trying to think this through we haven't had a lot of applications for any kind of ad use at this point have we if i recall that discussion from last time and the biggest big impediment is that it ad use have require a separate water meter in most of our water districts and that runs up the cost but i'm wondering if there are any other unintended consequences that might occur like in an r for example where backyards might get crowded i guess experience doesn't bear that out based on what we've seen from demand and then the cost of constructing these i don't think you're gonna see  garage that you you may put in the back yard and then they still the provisions in the our districts about lot coverage and open space still apply as well and then with the the maximum square footage or the forty percent of the structure i mean you you can have the the primary house take up a very large lot of part of the lot as well so i i don't see any unintended consequences by making these two changes to the accessory dwelling use standards okay that that's my question  requirements on setbacks and maximum coverage and those type of ordinances i mean those type of restrictions will will control what goes into the smaller lots i think they would come into play a lot more in the smaller locks so that you couldn't have that much of a structure i would think is that true as i mentioned you still have the the setbacks you have the height limitations and then you have lot coverage as well any other questions somebody want to make a motion are we gonna do these one yes okay i'll make a motion that we  any discussion before we we vote i think i think this is something that we had discussed and we're expecting this i i think it's i think it's a good idea i i question the timing of it because this is a sensitive area in some parts of the of the city and and and i don't see any urgency to do  this but i've said that before that's not going to be reason for me to vote no though i think the timing is really good given the dearth of homes housing available and  having family member live in an accessory dwelling unit or something i think that might solve some problems especially financially hearing a lot about housing units near the university and i those are are actually are our two and as a dus are only allowed in our one areas is that right they would be allowed in the our district so they would be r and r  yes they would it would apply to essentially the our district so there are one hundred and forty three down to and through the rmf anywhere where we would allow a single family home or a duplex  typically we're moving the the lot size limitation but duplexes are on smaller lots as well mm hmm okay that's true i think in that particular situation they are smaller but i was curious about that motion passes unanimously so let's let's talk about recommendation five makes use so recommendation five is actually a through e and then we were gonna ask that you discuss and discuss each one as we move through so you would start with a and and work through until we get to e and they're all related to mix juice in this particular recommendation we were looking at clarifying the language for mixed use descriptions and so this is kind of the introductory paragraph that leads you into the different mixed juice the mixed juice neighborhood mixed juice employment general urban core and mix juice residential so this an intent statement you can see what's underlined would be al added to the existing intent statement if you look towards the the bottom of the slide there or your memo you can see the general intent is that statement that currently leads you into the mixed juice so this this adds a little bit more what a mixed use district is what what kind of land use is it's it's providing and what we're looking at to do promote with mixed use district sustainability alternative transportation forms and so that's the proposal before you this evening you want to take these one at a time  sir are there any questions on this or somebody want to make a motion here i have a question on a so it says enable a range of land uses including three residential commercial and industrial are there other land uses besides that  that would fit in the mixed use it depends on how you classify all those if you wanted to look at institutional uses separately we could add the term institutional and i think that would cover it commercial is a broad range when when you know i catch myself a lot of times mitching retail uses retail is one type of commercial use you have you know galleries is something in studios you may see and that's a commercial use so it's like a subcategory personal service hair salons dry cleaners barbers things like that so yes if you would like to add the term institutional so residential commercial institutional and industrial uses that would be fitting so institutional would be anything from assisted living to schools to those we would either so the instant or the residential living would look at residential or commercial category so schools libraries museums police substations things like that or institutional uses hospital you can include that in the motion so that we don't have to worry about addendums if if that's what you're where where you're going with  no other questions or somebody want to make them motion i have a quick question hey go ahead sorry the last sentence that reads these statements are descriptive only in nature do not regulate the use of land buildings with an in each district does it make sense to incorporate by reference where one would go for those regulations or is it implied that no lay person reading this you wouldn't refer them to one one article so the the way the zoning ordinance is set up is article one sets out your policies and procedures and so forth or your how  administer the ordinance article two is procedures so rezoning special use hello that works number three is your zone districts so we tell you what those zone districts are and what they're intended to do but it's it's not a regulatory function it's more of a narrative article four is where your uses come in so all the land uses for mix juice you're gonna find in in table seventeen four one article five then you go two dimensions and development standards article six addresses design for residential article seven as is everything else commercial i so that's how its laid out so if you want to refer to the regulations you could say throughout the we could add some kind of statement throughout the zoning ordinance but it wouldn't be to one specific place you'd have to look in multiple these statements are talking about uses aren't they and so the uses would be in article four yeah so you could we could specifically these statements are descriptive do not regulate use  within each district use regulations are found in article four i think that would be good isn't this  description and and the use of the of the tables rather than following this description isn't that the wasn't that the focus of the really long discussion that we had with when we were visiting city council during a study session the painfully long silly thing yes sorry about the commentary but yes okay that's right that so then we're saying this is only a description you don't have to spend an hour arguing about it wasting people's time okay concept overall is getting people to live closer to where they're employed now this i may be overthinking this but i thought i see this as an objective of one of the objectives because people won't be using their cars as much if this object object is really achieved but in our experience so far has it really resulted in that i see an awful lot of people still driving to their employment and you don't mention cars you mentioned walking and cycling i'm saying you obviously this draft doesn't but i'd have you what does experience taught us so far so we are that's difficult to do to evaluate when we went so i'll kind of use the parking data that we have what we're finding with the residential developments that are being located in the mixed use district near the light rail station the the trip generation that was that you would typically predict that those trips aren't happening people have less cars  when we did counts approximately twenty percent of what you would find vehicles occupied the garage so people weren't out so they were either working from home or they took another form of transportation to employment so we are finding yes that you're getting people if they're not working where they're at at least they're in a location where they can take an alternative mode of transportation to get where they're employed we'd have to do some type of survey to see if they're actually working in the neighborhood where where they live but you are correct people are still using autos to get to and from places employment but it is changing at least that's what we're finding okay i believe it it'll never go away but it doesn't need to go away completely to solve a lot of the transportation problems it just we just need enough of  it every every car you take off the transportation systems is a plus so is there a motion and if so you want to include those two items that were discus adding adding an institutional and adding a reference to article for article four on the u i move that we adopt recommend recommendation number five article a clarifying the mixed use description language with the inclusion of institutional as one of the land uses and also at the end putting a reference to article four there a second i'll second motions been made and seconded discussion district i agree with the commissioner cohen that their intentions to reduce the amount of commuting to jobs but also to businesses and that we frequent in restaurants and and and that sort of thing but as well as provide places for people to to recreate near near their homes i like that i think it so i think is a valuable district it's i'd say we're in a period of transition where we have some leftover zones that  they're i guess they're they're isolated though i would say yeah i think overall and we're looking forward in some of the projects that we have seen being built they have been accomplishing the goals which is  all of the things we've mentioned plus something near public transportation something that reduces carbon emissions from automobiles and increases to bicycling hold all the positive things that we're looking for i would hate to see the the whole of this thrown out just because of a couple of specific properties that people don't agree with we've had a long process gotten lots of input from numerous citizens and other people and i that's my comment thank you seventeen thirty four as well and then we're actually getting into talking or describing the mixed use employment district specifically and there are just three changes the staff and  has proposed based on some the discussion and the dialogue process so one of the things as commissioner miller alluded to the the misunderstood district  a lot of people have focused on that that is the focus of the the mixed use district is office and campus employment and then there anything else is kind of secondary to that type of use what we were looking at with and we've started talking to a little bit is all the mixed use districts allow for different uses and and mixes or uses different percentages and so we're looking to clarify that so we would remove the term ancillary and then instead of referring to a buffer most of the zoning ordinance talks to transition areas and so just for clarification the term buffer would change to transitionary to be consistent with the rest of the code discussion we're talking about the description part now we're gonna get into some changes to the portion that employment is is the the use for a property that we've heard a fair amount about on green mountain is that right correct okay are there other other properties with a similar zoning and in us kind of similar situation near a lot of single family housing specifically any of the ones on union and makes u s employment there are you the one across the street of the thirty five and gordon i can't remember if it was an e or a g i would need to look that up but not on the union corridor but we have in different areas kind of northeast l think we've had some mixed use employment designations where they've done residential just just not in the ward for and every time asked about those the specific property so that  the criticism i think of that particular one was that it wasn't really transitioning from from single family residential to a higher density area i sort of plopped in the middle of it so are there other properties that are in that kind of that's the situation there there are and they're not limited to the mixed use employment as you move up the major corridors what's wor or the the two the two special use permits that came before the planning commission for the mini storage the one at garrison and colfax there actually was a street that  separated that particular development from the residential to the south the one further down just east of kipling there was a single family residential adjacent to that one and so what they did is they pulled the building back they did their water quality and detention some landscaping and the drive island parking area so they were able to provide seventy five eighty feet of separation to that that neighborhood and you did have some residents from that neighborhood come and talk and  e some of their concerns which i think we addressed but those are two examples where you do have commercial transitioning to a single family neighborhood there's not the one on green mountain is not unique in that aspect  not creating ordinances that satisfy one problem work solve one problem that especially if it's already passed like a parking for in a restaurant or or zoning at a place i don't in place where their zoning is already accepted but if there's something that that we might do in in this particular section of the mixed use code recommendation that we would make that would ensure more more mix use unless not so much single use i think that would be that would be useful if we have any thoughts about that i do have but i think i think mine are more appropriate in the  the definition i'm i'm okay with unless you want to put something in here that my question just not sorry to interrupt since we're planning on changing some of that the information on the table that ancillary should stay in the definition is what caused a lot of grief in question but we're changing the table to match that now does it say ancillary well the table would be saying that residential could not be a main you said about retail but but the change that we had proposed to the table was to make that as a so the way i like when we were originally talking about changing this definition we took out ancillary because those were allowed uses but since we're changing the table to not have them be primary uses anymore we already voted on that one we're looking at c correct no we're still on b my mind is going ahead okay we haven't if we haven't voted on that yet  i'm actually not i don't have a problem with ancillary i think yeah and it stirred up a lot of probably because it's it's not very because i didn't seem to really add anything but but you don't have a problem keeping it in either oh no i don't i think we should not keep it in should not yeah because i don't think it adds clarity thank you for the clarification clarification of that of your muddling statement excuse me the public comment is finished and ancillary only refers to retail not to residential it's just describing retail is that correct no ancillary retail and residential uses i have no problem taking it out and i have no problem leaving it in the staff want to weigh in is there i i think you did this based on our recommendation to you correct yeah i think you've solved the largest problem in the previous step by declaring these are descriptive statements so i don't know that it matters actually we've already had the discussion about the fact that this is a definition or a description rather and not not what it rightly is the code cuz that's in the tables correct right so i mean i think we've had the discussion i don't have a problem if council wants to change their mind on this i guess one of us has a problem with it it depends on how many of us have a problem with it and one way we can resolve that is to uh we've heard a lot about misty's employment and  even though it's not anything binding it's more of a correctly defining what this is and then we have the table to match  so does somebody want to make a motion either with or without that change important from some of the feedback we've heard i know we discussed this in our study sessions but unless other commissioners have a reason to specifically remove it i think it'd be okay to go ahead and include it i mean the reason i supported it is original ease i thought the term created some confusion i guess i was convinced in some of the discussion along those lines but i'm not sure i'm not sure we create any confusion especially with some of the changes that have been requested so i'll make a motion i move that we adopt a recommendation  b to modify the mixed use employment district description with the word ancillary remaining sarah second okay the motions been made and  what we're trying to do so any questions on  sara motion um here's a comment i wonder if in order to be consistent we added institutional on a should institution will be added on see where it lists residential commercial and industrial so i think with consistent for consistency's sake we also add institutional on c it's that emotion well i can make it i don't know that we're ready for the motion are we ready for the motion or is there more discussion this is just a definition that's in the appendix right and we're just trying to make it more clear more clear i don't have i don't have anything else to say chair hollander there are actually so d there are three options so what we were looking at is coming up with some alternatives to require more than one use in the mixed use employment districts so option one so when you get a multi family residential project that's thirty thousand square feet or larger they have to provide ground floor commercial space and then also associated with that that residential use sometimes you have either office uses where you have the the leasing office and so forth they may have some fitness space or some kind of shared conference room or something so we're putting a restriction on how much of that area can actually count for the ground floor use so that's option option one option two we're looking at instead of using a building size we're looking at parcel size so if you get a development proposal that's ten acres or larger you have a minimum of at least two land uses and the some type of employment use would have to comprise fifty percent or more of those  proposed uses and then option three not looking at development type at all but providing some type of incentives to incorporate more than one use into a development project and what we've we've looked at is is what we're proposing for incentives that could offer at this time and so those are the three options for d requiring a mix of uses in the employment district okay i'll start off the discussion on this one your next recommendation calls for  maximum commercial or office space in residential zones i know there's been a lot of discussion about wonder if you require  there's a tendency for it not to work that well i mean that's that was a lot of discussion but now we're talking about putting percentages and i'm not not saying that's wrong but where the where's the switch in  unless you have have looked into this hasn't seen examples my experience with incentivize makes you stones the it doesn't work you end up still with the single use in most cases an option t doesn't i mean there's a larger issue on this and and i think a lot of the problem based on what i've been hearing is there's too many zones that  e either either one one lot or or very small  two things we're trying to do here and one there's been problems brought up by a lot of people in in the city that you know we need we need to fix the the code and that's what we're trying to do here and the second thing is well maybe some of these zones aren't aren't zoned properly because i i keep running into where we have these small that the restrictions you put on on mixed use residential don't give a minimum size of building it just says you can't have more  can't we do that and all the mixed use zones but let me let me explain first so e is staff kind of generated and what we were looking at currently if you go into the code and you look under the mr district multi family residential is a permitted use outright so is club lodge and service organization so is daycare so is the the list that you see before you now the mixed juice residential has a limitation because we want primarily that district to be residential that if you choose to do a second use no more than twenty or thirty percent depending on where you're at can be any of those other uses and so what staff was finding you know somebody would want to come in to an m our district and do a standalone restaurant and they can't do it you have to have a residential use and then whatever the calculation for your residential uses you could do twenty or thirty percent not that you have to do so the the residential is what we're looking at is if you have a large residential project and you want to do a coffee shop or some kind of you know service use that you could do that and and so we're proposing to change those is accessory to clarify the residential uses is the permitted use these other things you can do after you have that residential use so e is a little different where residential is the primary use and that's the only thing you have to do if you choose but if you want a commercial component you can have one at a limited ratio okay but a little using that argument there's been a lot of discussion of mixed use employment should be primarily employment so why can't we we follow that logic and and put and and you one of the options is to put a a percentage in but it but it it limits it to larger multi family residential projects the issue why why can't it apply to the whole district and and i can see why in some of the some of the districts that are too small and and that that's where we're i'm going back to the other problem i think we have but in my opinion we ought to put this in you know come up with a percentage in all mixed use districts residential that's my is that is that your your position the real issue here is residential can be a primary use it cannot be or is not ever built as an accessory use within a building there's no such thing in lakewood as a primarily office building with a few floors of residential that that type of product does not exist well so whereas in residential you can say you can build a residential building and limit the amount of retailer office you can put in it because there is an opportunity to put retailer office in the ground floor of a residential building the opposite doesn't exist there is no office building with a ground floor of residential or a top floor of residential right so your options are in the mixed use employment district are either to prohibit residential outright and just say this isn't a mixed use it's just employment that's one option if you want it to be mixed use some of the buildings are going to have to be residential only and or resident or primarily residential with a ground floor of something else so that's where you get your option option one is you tackle it by building and you say where if you do a residential only building and it gets above a certain size you have to have something else in the ground floor option to tackles it at the other side way the the ultra green mountain project was a fifteen acre site where they did a bunch of small residential buildings none of them would have been over thirty zero square feet but we say if you have fifteen acres at least half of your buildings have to be non residential and so they could do half  dential and half something those are the two ways to get at mixed use and in in ways that might limit residential somewhat the only other option if you want to limit residential is just to prohibit it because saying fifty percent of every building can't go our it has no more than fifty percent of a building can be residential is an effective prohibition on residential well that's that's why i say that i mean individual building wise it doesn't make but as a district it should make sense otherwise why do we have mixed use employment and it puts us back to my first first comment that maybe some of these mixed use employment zones should not be mixed  employment and i love i love me more to say in that we can't actually be changing zoning though that's not well has to come from the from the property owner we're talking about what we what use is we we are a lot like it seems like we were jumping ahead to he actually wouldn't when maybe we should just stay with with d for a little while because i really well i i just talked about ii because i any of that makes you stones i do have question about d if we can if you were done with ya lost anybody okay so i kind of like all three options i was  particularly the first to is there a reason that we can't that you cho wrote them as in singular options i mean where we choose one rather than they seem to apply to  different situations and it it seems like the the it would be useful and helpful since one of the one of the criticisms even from me has been the mixed use hasn't been mixed juice  i like what i like about these is that some of the some of the properties that we've seen being developed of people we're criticizing might not have been developed in the same way but if these with these rules in place and i think that's a that's progress we can't go back and undo what's done but is it is there a reason that you don't that we wouldn't want to have say option one end to it certainly have both i'm sorry could have both and just tag along on that that's actually my question to you i was curious if either option one or two is more likely to occur in lakewood or why wouldn't we just have both options i mean as commissioner miller mentioned they seem like they're two different scenarios that could both potentially occur the the only hesitation i have is is a property where both apply and if there's if then you have a conflicting provision or if you could meet them both somehow and i haven't read it with that in mind yet but i you could put something in if if both conditions apply either you know one of them or the other one dictates or you know is there any is there any time that they would conflict maybe we keep them in just make sure it doesn't i don't see where it would conflict it's just you'd  we're certain certain situations you know you have to meet both certainly make that work if that's your preference absolutely well then i he's must be thinking this is should i wait you can see the gears churning paul make your motion and will well no i have another question i have another question for you then so option three i mean we would had talked in our previous meetings about and and study sessions about about incentivizing mix juice in it and so i i personally don't like the fact that we have to be we would have to choose that as an option i is i i wonder why we can't include the helps in three as well and has so in the ordinance you'd have the incentive where options one and two don't apply or you get the incentive even if you have to do it because of option  used employment in for this case makes use employment projects but i i guess i don't see why maybe i don't understand your question well yeah if there's a project in emmy that is less than thirty thousand square feet of building area and less than ten acres then it still could be all residential and then that's where that's where the incentives can kick in but again i don't i don't see that actually happening but you know i have no problem putting it in but i thousand square foot in a gross building area and less than ten acre you're okay with that being one hundred percent residential i think that's part of what what travis was just saying twelve feet of height for instance one additional story no more than twelve feet in height that i'd be pretty enticing to to a developer that would i would think i mean most cases unless yeah that one might become moot because by the time you've got a building of that height that you can add a story above your allowance you're over thirty zero square feet and i was i was actually thinking that patient i agree so i'm not sure that is something i really want to incentivize too much could i approach this from a somewhat different direction just to employment districts but i i want for a moment to flip that idea as a developer who might want to build an office building period because we used to have different tight and i didn't go back and look at the older ordinances but we used to actually have districts with principally office designations at the present time we have a see our commercial regional designat or district designated so i suppose you could build a pure office building there without any difficulty but if you come and go to mixed use employment district and want to under the what's been under the current code office is listed as a permitted use but this but the subsequent article limits it to twenty percent of the building know i was partly reacting to those voices who said they would rather have people looking out of their office windows during the day rather than from resident you know high view high density residential unit well i could see if we do even even adopt an option one and option two you know developer might might come in and just be under these numbers with all residential and then  but probably financially that wouldn't make sense for a developer to do that i was wondering about the ten acres on option two how how that number came about it's it's a size that would allow for multiple buildings much smaller than that and you're gonna have one one building wise to provide enough parking for whatever is that the use that they're do near they are building and we have seen that some types of businesses and require less  others more parking some are our short term parking you know where people come and pick something up and go and and others are longer term where there's a restaurant where people might spend a few hours  o i actually i like the idea of the incentives i was something i mentioned in our previous meetings that i think we we don't only want to swing a big club we also want to entice people developers to to build the kind of buildings that with the sort of uses that we want to see actual mixed use i don't know is it is a twenty percent reduction in parking too big do you think we should make it smaller if it were smaller seems like the fees on option three fifty percent that that could be really substantial yeah but considering the overall these developments that maybe it's not  it i think i think you know talking about incentivizing like this on the surface sounds really good but i in practice for many reasons one was brought out that  an additional story you're already probably going to be under the option one reduction in parking requirements we've had a lot of discussion of problems with parking and i don't want to go the other way with that and the reduction and fee is really not significant to a developer i think though that the parking discussions that we've had relate that where there were particular problems were locations around a school or a restaurant that didn't have enough parking and that in the study that was done generally there is enough parking in the buildings that are being built and i don't i don't think we had there's been a lot of attention drawn to parking and focus on that and we spent quite a bit of time on it but yeah and realized that we can't go back in and fix a problem that was already there but we in some of the other recommendations that we're making we are solving that by increasing the required number of spaces per per thousand square feet i think it is of of restaurant for instance i think in these in this mixed use employment  e reducing parking by twenty percent i like i said developer may not even want to do that part because they may feel they need to have the parking for the for whoever would we are their tenants and and customers  the businesses that might be there yeah i don't imagine developers are gonna beat just to reach there to take advantage of this incentive they would build a design a building in a structure that would not be attractive to  potential occupants i will say that when i built my wife and i built our solar house a city gave us a reduction in in some permits and you know it's not a lot of money but it makes a difference and well if you run resident resident it's a lot of money i'm talking about a developer that doing multifamily or her office or whatever the cost of those projects are so high that the developer might see that's building something under thirty zero square feet under less than ten acres so at thirty zero square feet if you just use it in totality at two dollars a square foot which is what we're proposing the the new school and phase that's sixty thousand dollars the parkland fee where we're still looking at its based on fair market value so we're trying to come up with what that fee but that kanak gives you an idea you know just using the number and the example here of what what a school and dedication fee might be under the new proposal okay so it's it's a fair amount of money i would think it also i think gives us the liquid the chance to not appear to be unfriendly toward developers i think sometimes we have that reputation that's what i hear  by that i don't mean that we're just trying to get all developers i mean that we are trying to get the kind of development that we want because if we if the problem and the criticism has been there were not getting some of the kind of development that we want we want to get people here i want to be here who will then show them report more friendly to someone who wants to do the sorts of things that we want to do i wonder where option three would fit because i liked earlier where we said we would combine options one and two so option one by building option to buy acreage and so if we combine those would option three then still what what are you thinking are you thinking would take precedence over the combined option one and two or instead of option one and two what are you thinking there i think that it would be the case of where when neither option one nor option to apply so if it's a building smaller than thirty zero square feet or if it's a development with less than ten acres someone that could then who would not be required to include t uses would through option three be incentivized to include two uses or more correct is that how it would would be used it wouldn't it wouldn't give all of these incentives to someone within when building one of those larger developments that's how i would understand it does that right okay for those are they not tied to those at all the use tables would refer to this section correct yes they would and but but this this language would be an article five where we have restrictions on could i just inquire about no this is private answered before but just to refresh my recollection the ten acres what's the magic about ten acres no magic it could be eight it could be twelve it's it's a size that would generally allow for more than one large building okay we give us an example of a ten acre site the one that's causing so much trouble in in green mountain is a fifteen acre site ok how many acres are some of these along union the ones with one building i don't know the beacon is probably five or six okay so the beacon might be five acres how many square feet is that building two hundred and some units yeah i can't give you square feet but  so the the beacon i think it was three hundred and sixty eight and then the one across the street van gordon was a much larger site because they had a lot of topography i think it was closer to ten acres and it was only two hundred fifty three units so that kind of gives you an idea of those two sites three hundred units even if they were if you figured so let's let's go three hundred units at roughly a thousand square feet that's a three hundred thousand square foot building ten times this thirty zero square so by including both these we would actually be we wouldn't be allowing that those developments as they are they'd have to have a commercial component mm hmm that seems like what that's what our goal  and for the smaller ones i like to say i'm still an advocate of incentivizing people to tell the developers to to bring the kind of project show that we want to see and if they get a little bit back from us that seems fair minded i suppose it's just as well that we note that developers have not been a big part of this dialogue i think we've had only a couple of comments from  development community and i'm disappointed in that really i would like to see more participation someone want to make a motion if nobody's got anything else to say i've rewritten some things to combine options one and two to make it one option and then i've written for incentivized so you want to hear it first or should i just make the motion i think we did whatever you would like to do okay might as well cut to the chase and i'd like to move that here so i'm going by what you said that option one is by building an option two is multiple buildings okay so i kind of glommed onto that okay so here i go again  no i let me just read it first that's why i'll do it that way pause so when a building is greater than thirty thousand square feet ground floor commercial space shall be provided and then number two an option one would also haven't rewritten that and and when ten acres or larger of when multiple buildings are on ten acres or larger then there is a requirement to have a minimum of two land uses and number two also so just combine that did that i kind of mumbled through that should i say that again i see some but what would a motion would emotion any think requesting that we incorporate options one and two or options one two and three and then you that was clear enough okay okay good yes there's a specific thing you want to add into it y ou should do that okay and well so then option three when a building is less than thirty thousand square feet or multiple buildings are unless than sorry on more on ten acres or more than incentives maybe you utilized well yeah but i don't even know that you need to say that you just say options one two and three and then options one and two and then also add option three a second discussion hi my comment is that i like this these are including all of these because we would going forward we will not allow the the kind of building that has we've for which we and and build some more the kind of developments that we want to see on even smaller lots i like these ideas as soon as i said it would be an improvement to this to the emmy zone ordinance let me just ask staff if this falls within the parameters of what the development community can can build around if we were to pass this would this make life too complicated for them more complicated could they could they reasonably build around these parameters reasonably i think i think option two is gonna drive people away generally developers build either focus either either on commercial or on residential and so finding a developer to say you have to build both on your law you have to build a commercial building and a residential  is going to cut down severely but it's it's feasible i have no problem with that because maybe we need to wait for the developer that builds what we want to be built in in that again back to my size issue the what the one project we've been talking about makes you simplement the development took up the whole mixed use  correct or their pieces left it the development is fifteen acres you said is the whole makes you so nifty nacre x or is there more mixed use zone goes on up alameda is there more property in that mix juice zone other than what's being developed on now i think the property the north is mixed use general but there's a lot there's the mixed use zoning continues all the way  yeah but that's a whole whole separate zone i'm talking about to mix juice employment and makes use employments the one that seems to be causing all the problems so this is one one development within the mixed use employment zone and there's no no other property within that mixed use zone mix juice employment zone adjacent to that property yes correct okay  my my only my only comment is even if we institute these they're still going to be mixed use zones where they're going to be hundred percent residential and that's okay if that's what we want in those zones but that doesn't meet the intent of mixed use employment keep in mind that prior to two thousand and twelve these were commercial only zones so as of right now except for those few locations that we have new apartment buildings they're  e hundred percent commercial so they're not mixed use now the only way to get them an excuse is dad residential except for buildings that have been built in the last five years they remain commercial only the missing use in these mixed use zones as residen any other discussion before we vote i think that's a good point and i still don't think the incentive is practical i have no problem putting it in but i don't think it's a bright it's practical this i mentioned earlier is staff generated and what we're looking at the the mixed juice residential the zone district requires residential use it's it's it's and then it allows for and i've actually opened the chapter that we're talking about it allows for other types of uses to be incorporated into the if you have a residential building so the difference between the twenty and thirty percent if you are an long and arterial street you can do thirty essentially all other streets collectors and locals you can do twenty percent of your development as another use other than residential and so to clarify that statement right now all those uses before you on this slide are listed as pees in the use chart and we're proposing that they go to a because they have to be accessory to a residential use and then the the second piece to that is uses they're more to that ie the institutional uses just changing that terminology so essentially all non residential uses would have to comply with those standards so that's the the proposal for amendment any questions i have one following along that's the same line of thinking that we're trying to make her are mixed use zones actual mixed use areas is there a reason to  in in number one where we are saying that all buildings located adjacent to an arterial street may contain may contain leasable non residential space on the ground floor if we're really going for a mixed usage should that say must rather than may i mean or that where would that whoever that caused a problem there are there are excuse me there are streets where retail and commercial uses on the ground floor will be successful and their streets where it won't so it's very so requiring it in every building if this is a building back in a neighborhood where there's not foot traffic to support that ground floor or commercial use then it doesn't make sense to require  and i go ahead please i'm just have a certain amount of unease in reading that the whole metro area is over built for retail space which you know are they are really going to be able to find tenants will would make this big requirement i wonder whether some of the same criteria has our options one and two should should be included for this one in the mixed use residential for larger developments if it makes sense then then we don't have the situation that we have in other places where it's all residential and there is no business even where there ought to be commercial another thing to think about well it's just difficult to do that by size in the way that we did it with employment because it's really a location issue or where commercial uses can be successful so it's hard for us to make a general rule that it should be cohen's right the city currently has too much retail so i mean the whole region does that this is a region been built on sales tax and so it's over zone and over built for retail region wide mm hmm well my comment was that's today and we're supposed to plan for i mean there's valuable little space within the city if if you're saying ultimately in the foreseeable future it's going to be that way that's one thing but in the foreseeable future retail is going to decrease we're going more to  internet ordering society and you were what age at that point of clarification on numbers one and two you took out commercial andor office and put in non residential but on number one second sentence  says however the amount of commercial and or office space so it seems like you ought to put in non residential there that change okay thank you coming back to i'm sure to your chagrin my my earlier comment about residential i agree that there are places where there's too much commercial we also have places where there's not enough you know some of the residential areas green mountains south towards morrison road west to see four hundred and seventy there's nearly no commercial even of the kind that people would use small retail shops or small service  code hadn't been updated in about thirty years and i'm not sure where this little provision came from they did allow for some commercial uses in that the five are was the highest residential zoning district these five are locations they'd be difficult to support commercial there's probably somewhere in there that somebody can point out and and say you could do commercial at this location but they're further embedded in the neighborhoods they're not along the the commercial corridors the collector streets they're actually further into the neighborhood and so they're either abutting other multi family residential uses or single family uses in most locations so they're not in the highest and most desirable retail locations in the city of liquid it to answer your question the incentive was a carryover we we and from the from the previous code essentially so these are mixed use residential zones that probably we wouldn't we'll never have anything other than residential  these are maybe a block off not hearing any other questions is there emotion sure i have a question first so should that non residential should we add that as we make a motion or you'll just wordsmith it to make it consistent okay you can say it you can say it included in the motion the to include non residential as is written here yes on the second sentence on one take out commercial andor office and put in non residential to be consistent with the other sections oh i see you're right i see  zone with one minor change to the what was presented and that's at following however the amount of commercial and or office space we change that to non residential discussion i did you say for recommendation for but it's five recommendation five anyway i would say i did say four okay so and i can i grant friendly amendment changed it to five i'm sure the seconder would agree if there's no further discussion are we ready to vote motion passes unanimously recommendation six so recommendation six is we had quite a bit of discussion about revolving around the mixed use and determining an area where we could look at kind of evaluating percentages of develop a complete neighborhood plan and as summarized i won't read all the bullets but that's what a recommendation six is is to recommend that council adopt this recommendation and have staff start that process to kind of develop that complete neighborhood plan there any questions i said one would you mind telling us more about the complete neighbourhood plan for anybody that might not be familiar with it and if we have it we have one already in enos i'm actually gonna ask roger what no to come down and address that question for you commissioner miller thank you your question was on to describe the complete neighborhood yes yeah the the complete neighborhood and it's outlined in an earlier memo in the april th memo but but that's a process really was  probably originated in portland and seattle to look at kind of all aspects of a neighborhood walkability access to local services access to parks and it has a general description we actually utilized that concept in the sheridan neighborhood when it was sustainable communities initiative grant where we looked at all of excellent access to employment and that was very specific to that neighborhood and to that part of town as i maybe mentioned at an earlier study session where they have significant  affordability issues the populations quite a bit different than the population that we would likely be looking at and union so although a lot of the the process is transferable the results based on the neighborhood would be much different so does that kind of give you an overview no i think that helps okay it was a that was an award winning project is that right there was a doctor cog award winning project yeah yeah i've seen the booklets that have been produced and so do you anticipate another publication for this union boulevard neighborhood yes yes again the process would the process would be the same the results obviously would be specific to that neighborhood but wait it would come out it would look similar and how much time or what's the time frame that you envision i think we would be looking at nine months to a year once we got started what does we be asking city council to and invest money in this because we wouldn't have a gran sheridan correct yeah there was a grand for sheridan i'm thinking we're looking at you my understanding utilize our existing staff okay as it planning to do this to do the work because they don't have enough to do yeah  we certainly being facetious in the work plan with a little bit of advance notice i'm being facetious they're working hard and i think johannes mentioned more than once that we should have a more  with this looking at recommendation a mixed mixture of uses and looking at a range of zoning mechanisms will that possibly look into the mixed use zone and the appropriateness of those mixed use zones at all part of it that's the intent of this i mean that the whole process to make these changes that the ame is kind of been rushed we have i mean we haven't looked at a single ami parcel of what the impacts would be right and that's that's the intent of this is to do this more thoroughly and i know changing his own legislatively is not something to take lightly but i think i mean it can be done and i think we need this series so you look at that can you take down the votes and then serve a motion on this i'd make a motion on this i move that we adopt for recommendation to city council recommendation number six adopt proposal to begin a complete neighborhood plan for the union boulevard neighborhood has written and i'll second discussion i have comment about about the all of this i think we've been slaving over mixed use for for many months i think the initial directive from city council was to move through this really fast and i think we realized it just can't be done we tried to listen to as much public comment as as there was and take it into consideration some of it was focused on a certain area and i think this recommendation addresses some of those concerns i hope that city council and the neighborhood would get behind the idea of having their own planning committee and and be able to actually take in more control specifically over their neighborhood and not try to write ordinances that apply to everyone in the city when really we're focused on some specific areas i think this is an outstanding idea and we need to hopefully people will get behind it and want to press city council to provide whatever resources are necessary be great my big concern is the time it's gonna take and i know we've said that before and especially that it only addresses one area of the city so i guess i mean how do we move forward from this one area is this kind of going to set like a system that you're gonna use for other parts of the city then or is it kind of something that you think would be a basis for other ones because that's probably my those are my two biggest concerns with that i think it's great to come up with something a little very specific to lakewood but it is just one little section just to make one more comment i've said nine months to a year you don't know until just come up and sometimes it takes less and sometimes it takes more to work through the issues but yeah it is it is commitment we had done a neighborhood planning process several years ago and it takes resources to do more than one neighborhood at a time or more than one neighborhood in sequence and i would just add that since incorporation in  sixty nine lakewood has embraced a really great deal of variety in land uses in the various neighborhoods and often you know we have this problem of one portion of the city not really understanding what the problems are in other parts of the city so there the uniformity of thinking is lacking too but this is one solution to it i know at one time we had  planning document about this thick on plan lakewood and it's difficult to get away from that really when you consider the diversity of the city being superimposed on so many different types of developments well i i think the recommendations we came up here go a long way to deal with the one part of the problem in that correcting some of the things that need to be corrected within the ordinance to to get closer to what all the citizens of lakewood can be proud of i think it's only part of the problem which  this last recommendation deals with i just can't see it all happening before most you're looking for a third about open space but i don't think we ever actually changed anything in the table and um one thing that i think should be addressed that i don't think we have is if somebody builds one hundred percent residential and m that open space should match what that makes what their multi family residential open space is so you're talking about two different cont here so the zoning is set up so that you have denser areas like belmar like union corridor and you step down density as you go out from these centers right colfax we have the light rail stations that have transit that have higher density the mixed use areas are the center of that density there are higher buildings lower open space yeah the mix use the residential multi family that's a periphery zone that's out so that's that's more of a neighborhood zone and so it's lower density higher open space so there's a really different situations but if somebody well we've just changed that one i think but so if someone built one hundred percent residential and mct let's say a tram transit zone in an mrt zone that would be a fifteen percent open space and space provided by mixed use when it's all residential isn't enough for residents a complaint that i've heard so that was just something that i wanted to bring up even though it is supposed to be a more dense area if you're providing a hundred percent residential to me it should have more open space yeah that's one of the things that should have had more discussion in this process but it's true because there is a certain reliance on public space for a publicly owned space for open space and a question of should we actually induce more private privately owned open space or require and to what degree can we do that what would privately owned open space look like only i'm surprised we didn't get more discussion about context urban and suburban context because i think i was looking for some possible pushback on the increase of urban cont not everybody likes the idea of building closer to the street but we didn't hear much terms of our dialogue so i'll leave that out there but i think that may come back in some form i agree because i think i think that concept works in certain places i don't think it works very well on arterial streets higher speed streets you know you're you're encouraging pedestrian traffic right up against you know high speed higher speed  streets and i'm not sure that's a good idea but that yeah that's something that i think warrants further discussion what are the steps for further discussion in other well we all agree about maybe we miss the open space issue can we do something about that or what are those steps well if somebody wants to recommend that we look into some other issues but i you know list i don't know if i should bring this up now or general business but i've been there there's an agenda item in the next city council meeting to form a development committee can you enlighten us at all about what that is and and specifically have we been wasting our time up here no i i think the council has learned from some of their past interactions that it's hard for them to adjust language and make compromises in a hearing and so i think my understanding is the intention of that committee is to hash out some differences and come to some sort of agreement on what the individual languages should be prior to going to a public hearing so that they can you know get all their considerations out on the table have the discussions and and make the tweaks that they need to make in language and then have one set of language before them when they when they go to a hearing  that wasn't that the point of a study session i mean when they made their study sessions more like a regular meeting it didn't that sort of suddenly mean that they have to do this this rather than have study sessions where you look at these have other non voting members that might include staff or other people staff was certainly being involved but yes certainly not voting as it's constituted by the council has public comment and has discussion on ik on camera in front of the public i think it's become just a another sort of public hearing and i think this is an opportunity to for them to take a step back and do some work before they get up there and talk about it on the dais thank you i mean i  could see that because sometimes i mean all we deal with is development issues they deal with a lot of a lot of other things and you know i feel sometimes through the process you know we we have we have study sessions we ask for things we get them back what we get back may or may not be what we were thinking we'd get back and then and then by the time we get to recommendation  we're not quite ready for exact wording and part of that may be because we've tried to condense this process too much but i just think that this seems like but a study session with fewer members and so it doesn't seem like it's well that's what would we would normally i think i think because study sessions at city council now have you know most of the meeting is taken up by public comment they don't have time to discuss these things which is why there's another step needed it's the question is why did the meetings become the study sessions become essentially additional meetings have to ask city council that they don't always make the right choice maybe they need to go back since council is waiting you know occasionally for my advice i would thought they were more productive when they sat across a table from each other but it did make public observation more complicated because the room often wasn't big enough for people to sit there but they really rather than to sit up here and doing this type of formality  i think we have the same problem in some ways that we do better in in these kind of study sessions if we're at a big table and looking at each other where everybody has a clear view of each other but the public there you know the public likes to see what we're doing well i think we should encourage the public to see what's going on so that they can make informed comments either prior to the public hearing well hopefully prior to the public hearing and then at the public hearing that's the way it's supposed to work it's kind of broken down a little let's get off that subject and we want to discuss it further we can discuss another general business the next item item for approval of minutes of the march st planning commission regular meeting  opposed say no mice habit general business does anybody have anything for general business i wonder if you heard about the availability and decided on a date for the retreat i haven't heard back from everybody yet so it's looking maybe the th but i still haven't heard it from everybody now i'm trying to get a date nailed down of a conference that i can't seem to assign a day to for some reason yeah or any other general business before we adjourn