Nov 18, 2020 Development Code Review Committee on 2020-11-18 1:00 PM

I will call the meeting to order at 1 02 on November 18, 2020 this is a video conference meeting for the governor's executive orders and said the first item on the agenda is consider approval of the minutes from November 11th and Councilmember Braves I'll move approval all right and I will second since the motioner and the seconder are the the only votes there I don't think it's necessary to take an actual vote count so the motion carries the next item and Ron do you need me to open up several of these yeah if you don't mind they're there when one presentation so it probably be best okay so I will call the rest of items for individual consideration which include receive a report hold discussion give staffs direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2 receive a report hold discussion give staff direction regarding code amendments to related to subchapter 3 item D receive a report hold discussion give staff direction record regarding code amendments to subchapter 5 and item EU receive a report hold discussion give staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 7 it's all yours Ron thank you chair let me go ahead and share my presentation okay hopefully you all can see the presentation and can hear me make it full screen so we'll go ahead and get started we do have a number of code amendments hopefully that you see here on this list hopefully they are pretty straightforward some of them may require additional discussion I wanted to make mention that number 11 bringing that item back there was a clarification that we wanted to discuss further with the DCRC and then number 12 we're going to start off with development standards but it was more of an introduction the future agenda items at our next meeting will delve into more of the development standards but I just wanted to introduce that subchapter as we continue with the code amendment review so as you can see from this list I won't read it all but we're going to start off with annexation and then we make our way through all the way down to accessory dwelling units so the first item of discussion is the annexation procedures as you can see the intent here is to amend section 275 which is the section that speaks to annexation the language that cared forward was what you see strict stricken through here very simple statement that the annexation in the city of den maker pursuant to procedures outlined in text local government code 43 but that's it that's all we we have in the current 2019 development code what staff is proposing to bring back or to put together a list of procedures for annexation and the first item or first section of that procedure section is the annexation permitted again this is generally a statement that talks about involuntary and voluntary may occur pursuant to again Texas local government code the next item on that section is the types of annexation so we know we have two types we have an involuntary annexation and we have a voluntary annexation now some of you may wonder why we have involuntary annexation listed in a development code where we we know that that is a very difficult process to to achieve but we the staff put it there because we just wanted to make sure that there's an understanding that there's both involuntary annexation and a voluntary annexation procedure one specifically for voluntary annexation is going to be more involved in the ddc and that's what we're going to be discussing on the next few slides but as far as involuntary annexation that very statement that you see here in 1a is all that's referenced in the code as relates to involuntary annexation then anybody have any questions on that particular section and specifically why we're including involuntary annexation into the ddc again just as a statement not necessarily any procedures pertaining to involuntary annexation if not i'll go ahead and proceed with sorry sorry chair i didn't see my foot my uh my uh hand near um the uh the one of the house bills did say we can no longer do an involuntary annexation is correct we did a couple cases on that or is that am i wrong understanding the house bill or not go let erin for the most part that avenue has been foreclosed but there is a list of exceptions even in the 2019 uh statutory amendment that would allow for involuntary annexations in whether applies to the city it would really depend on the on in the future on the facts and circumstances so i i think there's been grumblings on a legislative basis that involuntary annexation that that house bill might get turned over whether it does or not doesn't matter but what if it does get turned over and there is involuntary annexation as allowed again without really strict regulations around it would we just need to do a code amendment again to change that to reflect it and that i guess the way we have it we built in the code now which is referencing referencing it doesn't really limit us by any means it's just really a reference to get it to there if there is ability for us to do it we'll just add a code amendment at that point in time that's that's exactly um the intent of adding that or any code amendment okay yeah i'll just remind everybody that uh i am zooming from the house so when the presentation's up i see nobody on the screen except for whoever's talking and uh when when the presentation's not up i only see nine faces up there at a time so if i don't recognize you just go ahead and feel free to hop on in i'll make sure to pull down the presentation when i ask for questions okay okay so we'll continue with the presentation again annexation procedures uh applicability um that basically states that voluntary annexation again voluntary annexation procedures apply to annexations initiated by the requester um nothing uh complex there next slide is the procedures uh specifically to um voluntary annexations again i don't have the the whole procedure listed i just wanted to identify the sections of what is being proposed and pretty much very similar to what we've seen in the other application types obviously annexation is a separate application has a lot of other procedures we recently went through an annexation of a property south of town the municipal service agreement is mentioned there so that's something that we included in the procedures as far as timing and ordinance requirement that is all covered under this section and again will be in compliant with the texas local government code schedules and timing so i didn't want to spend a whole lot of time on these because we know that what we're trying to do here is just bring into the dc the procedures for again voluntary annexations i did want to however include the voluntary annexation approval criteria this is what we will look at when considering voluntary annexations this is section d of this particular item and again i'm going to read just just a brief summary of each one of them the first one is that it's consistent with our annexation policy adopted by the city of denton that annexation policy is covered in our comprehensive plan and there may be some other policies related but primarily within our comprehensive plan the owners of all the property in the area have joined joined sorry in the requests for annexation that there is no previously non-annexation or similar agreement conflicts number four that the annexation is necessary to ensure again adjoining the current city limits which may have significant impact upon the city and then last the annexation will ensure that the added growth land use and building control are in place in areas again which growth is anticipated so those are the five criteria's that we will look at in considering any voluntary annexation so that that's up the the end of that item again does anybody have any comments questions related to the annexation procedures councilmember braves yeah and it may have been in there and it may not need to be but whenever we do an annexation part of the the question is city services water utilities things like that is that does that need to be addressed here and do those have to be pointed out before the annexation occurs or is that something that happens afterwards uh councilman breaks that actually happens during the uh the discussion and negotiation of the municipal service agreement so that is a different process that we do while considering the annexation so uh it's mentioned or will be uh you know identified during the municipal service agreement uh discussions and his municipal service agreement is that here in the um on the list of things that we that they have to do before correct correct that's part of the procedure the process okay great question and there has been discussion uh chair may i just yes yes there has been discussion about um broadband and um wi-fi is is that something um that that we address or is that not going to be included in annexations i know that it was part of our conversation on council and it may just be too soon to bring it back up but um it's something that i i think that we were talking about considering right i i do i do know about that uh request or that that suggestion uh in some areas of town where uh broadband isn't as um as strong as as others and ensuring that there is facilities or capacity to provide that um i don't know i don't know the answer to that question i don't know if that's part of our municipal service agreement i don't think we provide that service so it probably won't be that might be something that the development community uh may may need to address and something that we may have to look at uh later in in you know as we continue with the code amendments in a different section okay thank you okay anyone else i've got one uh ron on uh number three on the criteria there about uh does not violate uh or conflict with any previous non-annexation or similar agreement does that cover if they do start developing that uh uh yeah no i think that um obviously there's a non-annexation agreement or if there is an agreement that stipulates certain terms if they obviously breach those terms uh then whatever is covered under that agreement would take precedent i think what this says is that um we won't obviously annex if they comply or continue with uh their agreement so again just to make sure that um we are all in good standings both as far as their non-annexation agreement if we're not going to annex them obviously because of the agreement that they have in place that's my understanding of what number three is about making sure that there's no conflict with any other agreement okay so if they do basically violate not necessarily violate but they decide to start developing that non-annexation agreement says that you will agree voluntarily to the annex so right and then so they're if they do that then they're they're they're gonna comply with the non-annexation agreement or whatever agreement uh so that's not necessarily a conflict per se because uh they they've agreed to the agreement and they're they're complying with it and they're moving forward with an annexation under their terms or under their request okay i just wonder if we might want to reword that a little bit that also says is in compliance with or i'm i don't know how you would do that does not violate or conflict or is a uh yeah i see you're saying is a follow-through to a non-annexation agreement in compliance okay we can we can certainly word smith that uh to make that clear okay all right i'm gonna go ahead and unless there's any other questions i'm gonna continue with the presentation okay i see none so we'll move on to the next item and that is appeal of administrative decision procedures um these are obviously towards the zoning board of adjustment uh when there are um appeals to decision and this really this code amendment is not only to uh ensure it's clear process uh but we also want to be in compliance and follow uh house bill 2497 that was passed that speaks to um the process and procedure for uh the zoning board of adjustment which includes the appeal process of administrative decisions so i wanted to first introduce the where it's applicable um who may appeal and this is clearly stated in the house bill section of where it talks about the the persons that may appeal a decision the main thing there that i think we mentioned it at our previous meeting that anybody both in that's related or not related may appeal a decision so that's what we are proposing to include in the procedure section here so again i won't read all of it i'm just uh know that the uh proposed code amendment is consistent with what is covered under the new bill that was passed and how an appeal and who can appeal um can be processed we go into also the the actual timing of the appeal uh it went from 10 to 20 so that is reflected in this code amendment and also the content of that appeal application we just state that the applicant or the administrative appeal application shall be in written uh statement and that is being submitted again within that 20 days there's also a stay of proceedings and basically what this is is that if there is a current appeal of an administrative decision that all other proceedings shall remain undecided until that appeal has been considered and decided upon some house cleaning house cleaning here the uh the intent of this code amendment which is the top one here is that the administrative appeal uh there is none that goes to the planning zoning commission the ones that do go are either to the zoning board of adjustment and or to city council uh the next one below that excuse me is regarding the another section of the code um or the texas local government code that was updated or amended where that when the appropriate decision-making body when the zoning board of adjustment the decision on the appeal shall be made on the next meeting for which notice can be provided following the public hearing of the appeal however not later than 60 days after the date of the appeal was submitted so an appeal is submitted the staff has up to 60 days to bring it forward to the cba for consideration but they can only consider it after a second meeting so we will schedule a meeting that first meeting they will they will discuss it we will present it that is and then they will not make a decision they will make a decision after that in their next meeting but again it has to be within 60 days and again that is what is called under the house bill that was passed and again we're just trying to ensure that it's clear in our procedure so that it is followed and is and is consistent with texas local government code so that concludes that section of our list um again the main takeaway there is that we are complying with the texas local government code amendments that were passed and incorporating them into our development code and as you see as presented do you all have any questions not seeing any rounds okay continue on we'll continue on um next section is related to alternative esa plan environmentally sensitive area plan procedures uh there are two code of mems here that uh is being presented um one again is more or less trying to make sure we're consistent in how decisions are made i'm just going to read it for the record an approved alt isa shall expire after 24 months if progress has not been made to our completion so again the 24 month as you recall is what we're trying to ensure consistency throughout the number of applications that we're presenting so we're calling 24 months for this type of application as well should an approved alt isa expire a new alt isa must be applied for and approved before any permit may be released allowing encroachment into that alt isa or that esa so again just to bring that 24 month expiration uh into this uh procedure i have a question yes ma'am um so esas are a little bit different than than other things uh because they're it's natural and things can change um what is the current expiration for an esa it's a good question i i'm trying to think i i don't know if there is one and maybe that's that's why we're introducing the 24 months and richard i don't know if you are aware of that i thought at one point we had when when that isa assessment is first done i thought it was two years i was just going to pull the code because i thought it might have been mentioned in the old ddc um i just need to i just need to go back to the 2018 version yeah if we and i know that we did some um updates on the isa as well in the um the guide the handbook so um i mean this is fine but if it's normally like a year and we're extending it to two years i'd like to know that um yeah and um i don't know if christy upton's on the call or she's called in maybe she might have an answer thank you ron i am here um yes you are correct there is a two-year expiration on the isa field assessment i believe ron that this proposal is for the alternative isa plan is that correct that's correct so there's not an expiration date at this time for the alternative isa plans okay so like since there's not an expiration in our current code someone could get a alternative isa and hold on to that and come back three or four years later and use that same one um use the same plan yes okay okay so this just all right thank you great thank you christy so the um the next item um or next item rather next section of this item is related to um what what is normally covered under the alt isa plan we often when i say we the city adds a number of conditions we wanted to uh make sure that when a person is applying for an alt isa they are aware that these conditions are going to be part of the ordinance and so again i'll read briefly of what these conditions are that the vegetation is part of the approved that re-vegetation plan shall be seeded and maintained and planted for a period of three years following installation so they have to maintain that within within three years or as long as three years and then the second part of that is that the applicant or a property owner shall submit an annual report to the environmental services director for that three years and if and during those annual report reviews there are mitigations or needs to replace any plant that is done within 30 days of that direction to them so again this is just to help explain to the proposed applicant that any alt isa they would need to provide the following and this will be part of the code amendment i'm sorry the uh the ordinance excuse me and um again to be upfront on what the city's expectation is and that is really just the two items for that particular section or item that's my breaks yeah i think that's great to have it in there so when we do go through the process there's no surprises um on the um so it's the annual review and in that annual review is that when they say well this is what's dead or dying i mean is it is it self-reporting because i know that when we put um one year two year three years on landscape it's um like people can report that it's dying you know we have zoning officers that can drive by and see that it's dying and then um then they have to replace it so is this a little bit different process for the i think i think it's the same and then i'll let christy um chime in uh three years is like you just mentioned galsman breaks is consistent with our landscaping uh minimum requirement uh but i'll have christy verify that we don't wait till that annual report that if there is something that is either um needs to be mitigated it's as mitigated uh as soon as possible but again christy do you have a response to that question yes um but that is that is accurate when staff notices that uh there are vegetation that is not getting established as it was proposed um we we do uh occasionally inspect these these sites and do follow up with the applicant or landowner as appropriate and i thought it was two years on regular landscaping did we expand that to three years my understanding is three but three okay yes my understanding is three i'm just looking to see richard okay great and we'll come back to that um if there are no other questions i'll continue with the presentation okay so the next section um is related to interpretations this is a procedure that um can be applied for uh by an applicant and if there are any appeals to that interpretation we just wanted to clarify that it is appealed to the zoning board of adjustment that's pretty much it and that's just this quick code amendment just to clarify that any appeal is to the zoning board of adjustment so i don't think that's um complex there so if there's no question i'll go ahead and move on to the next item this is related to the historic landmark designation procedure um where um the hlc will review um a an application to designate a building or or area or site as a historic local landmark ultimately the city council approves these historic landmark designations so far today that is we have five procedures on listed under designations we the the staff and as what was when roman was here what was proposed uh he he wanted to add the following and i'm just gonna just briefly read through this there's a i believe a total of five additional um or six additional amendments or additions to the procedures that the designation of the historic landmark may be amended or removed using the same procedure as uh provided in the designation any person making application to have a building site district or area um as a historic landmark uh shall pay development review fees as as adopted by the fee schedule property owner consent is required for designation however if the property owner does not give consent to designate then a three-fourth vote of the hlc playing zoning commission and city council is required again most most of the time it's being brought forward by the property owner but there may be occasions where the city or some other entity might nominate or bring forward a a historic landmark designation application number nine property owners by religious organizations as qualified under state law may not be designated without consent so any religious organization are exempted from the designation without their consent number 10 not later than the 15th day of the date of the initial hearing the historic landmark designation the property the property of the hlc planning zoning commission and city council the owner shall be provided a statement describing the impact of the historic designation may have on the owner and the owner's property the statement shall include so the following again would be identified and presented to the property owner so that they are familiar with what it means of what a historic landmark designation is and for the most part they are familiar with obviously that's one of the reasons why they're they're looking to designate their their structure site or area into a historic landmark designation i believe that's it so just an additional five procedures to be a little bit more clear on what is required in designating designating a historic landmark does anybody have any questions so we don't have a historic landmark officer now do and it mentions that in the previous numbers one through five does that prohibit or complicate things for anyone no uh we we have one acting as a historic preservation officer and that's that's me for now uh until we find someone to um to hire as a historic preservation officer i know that the city has been advertising and looking to hire a historic preservation officer one that has more of that historic preservation experience as well as an architectural background we hope to have someone in place as soon as possible but for now we we still have a historic preservation officer and can act under those um those requirements thanks yeah and i will continue um with the next item and this is going to be a little bit more i think uh more policy questions the first few items were just you know helpful uh clarifications additions and and uh clearing up some of the the requirements and uh consistency with uh state uh house uh bills and state uh law so the next item is related to dimensional standards and what we are proposing staff's proposing is to amend the side yard setback for properties within the r3 residential three zoning district right now the setback requirement is 10 feet what staff is proposing is to bring that down to five feet what we have found is that uh in some instances uh a lot of the homes that were zoned nr3 as you all recall from previous um development code the previous development code um it it was developed under if they were developed under the r3 nr3 uh most of those developments had a five yard uh five yard five foot setback side yard however with the 2019 what happened was uh we moved that up to 10 in in as a result it created a lot of non-conformity uh and so for for those that have a five foot setback for example and want to add an addition or something to that home they are now looked at as as being a 10 foot setback which is not consistent to what was initially actually developed in addition uh nr3 we feel that uh should be five feet um instead of 10 feet again to be consistent with what has already been developed and uh and and what is consistent with um what other uh zoning district around that particular um district for example and i'll change it to the next slide you can see that as we leave um as we go from rr to r2 the side yard setback is 10 uh but once we cross over from r3 on forward it goes down to five and um looking at um again this is kind of the middle area within the history i'm sorry within the zoning districts that um there is an opportunity here uh to amend this to be more consistent to what's in in in the city today and again between r4 and r2 we feel that uh the five foot yard setback uh is appropriate so that's a policy question policy direction um is is needed anybody have any questions or comments as to this proposed requirement or code amendment if i may just add uh really quickly part part of the other uh challenge with that is if you look at the numbers from the chart at r3 you're you're essentially stuck with a 40 foot wide building pad and so if you wanted to go with a house slightly larger uh you're limited to the same size house that you'd have in um r4 r6 or r7 so they all you have a bigger lot but but essentially a smaller building pad or the same building pad as um the r4 r6 or r7 district that have the 50 foot wide lots with the five foot setbacks councilmember briggs yeah i'm okay with this i have a a real life situation question to ask though um would this does this also go to currently um built homes um i have someone here in the neighborhood who wanted to do a carport uh next to that the house and even just to make it even with the fence line and um was told no they couldn't do that because of the setback um even though it didn't go into the row it still went into the the setback which was new for me because i'm used to talking about that when we talk about new developments um but applying it to to an older development was different so um changing something like this would that alleviate those stresses for homeowners when they're trying to take advantage of the property that they own um and make an addition i think especially if i can answer that question especially when their setback that was applied to when they first built the home was five foot um and now we're saying that they can't add anything closer than five foot or 10 feet so the answer is yes um this will hopefully help in that situation um and i don't know that particular um real life scenario but i know when when looking at this code amendment we've we've heard a number of them so that's what triggered us looking at this even more and as richard mentioned you know the as we move forward not only those existing but as we move forward this could um be a lot worse so um having this proposed code amendment not only alleviates the existing situations that you described councilman briggs but also as we develop or the areas of our three develops hopefully we can avoid that same situation okay thanks okay so i don't see any other hands and i'm just going to go ahead and continue with the presentation i appreciate that uh those questions aren't that question so um next item um or next part of the dimensional standards is related to the maximum building height for the hi zoning district hi is a transition from icg from the previous 2002 code and i don't know if you all remember but there was a code amendment back in um it was prior to 2019 i don't have the exact year but we increased the height limit for the icg to 140 it was primarily to address a i believe is the the target a warehouse off of airport road and they needed they they were proposing a height of greater than or close to 140 so that's what um was approved in 2000 um again i apologize i don't have the exact date but it was pre 2019 um so 140 feet was was uh the the height however in 2019 when we amended the code uh that number went down to 75 obviously we feel uh the staff feels that in the hi uh the heavy industrial uh zoning district areas primarily west of i-35 right by the airport area that's that's where you'll see most of the hi zoning district a height of 140 is appropriate and we are proposing to bring that back 240 now um the two the footnote two that you see here is also being added um wanting to let you all know that if there are proposed buildings that are going to exceed a certain height uh they also have to follow the airport height hazard district requirements again we we want to make sure that any federal height limits are met and so even though we say under 40 feet that height limit would still be subject to again any airport height hazard district requirements for those that are not within those within that district their height could be up to 140 feet and again i just wanted to see if you all had any questions uh related to this if questions or comments councilman braves yeah sorry i'm just trying to go back to the conversation we had when we were reviewing the code the first time was it did we talk about this and lower the height because there were um potential and industrial areas in the center of town that may like take advantage of this like i'm trying to go back to the conversation if there was an intentional reason why we did it and then the height could be allowed with an sup like is that was that part of our conversation or or no i i don't recall honestly i just know that when we looked at some combination or combining some zoning districts there may have been a compromise to go from whatever it was 75 for one zoning district and then maybe 140 and it was it was just decided to go down to 75 that is what i think happened i don't think we had a discussion and some of the other dcrc members if you do recall i please remind but i don't remember discussing specifically for um the downtown area well i i think we remember having uh certain discussions about um like uh skyscrape like to make sure that certain views weren't um obstructive um around areas but i don't know if that's part of this conversation or not so um no i do know that there there are um sections of the other like for example mr uh md sorry md uh the mixed use downtown zoning district there is a height limit there and if anything exceeds it uh it would require either an sup or maybe a variance but i believe that's what we were discussing and wanting to get to protect those view sheds but specifically for the hi i think it was just when we combined zoning districts the height that was selected was more of the conservative versus the 140 but we feel that the hi and specifically in the area that we're talking about would be appropriate and with the airport hazard district um that's still another additional um requirement okay thanks for clarifying i think i was getting two conversations mixed up okay there's the question i'm going to go ahead to the next dimensional standard i think it's just to basically provide that same amendment as it relates as it's shown here would which kind of summarizes all the zoning districts within the non-residential districts so again the 75 to 140 uh we also bring that same note here to again complete that code amendment okay so now we're moving into a table the table of allowed uses the staff has a couple of things again as you all know one of the things that we're trying to do is address non-conformities but also to look at these use specific standards and these allowed uses uh to apply when we apply them to see what we can do to improve not only their consistency but to again address those non-conformities so the first item our first one here is related to medical office um what we are proposing is that the sc zoning district that it'd be permitted um without any use specific standards right now the p uh is actually p plus um and that plus refers to uh this particular use specific standard that you see here in number three if we were to change this to just a simple p then this would not be applicable for any properties within the zone uh zone sc zoning district and that they can develop any medical office can develop more than 25,000 square feet again we're talking about within the sc zoning district so to kind of summarize again currently the medical office is permitted in the sc with a p plus that plus states that any medical office with more than 25,000 square feet must require sup what we're saying is that we remove that plus and allow medical office within the sc zoning district and not have a maximum uh square foot requirement uh by right or with an sup and again if i need to clarify that if you have any questions uh please let me know and sc's are typically located along major corridors um t's lee loop 28 uh i'm not sorry loop 288 university are mainly sc's any questions i'm not seeing any takers ron so okay move move on to if you if you think of any if you come over and just please let me know or let the chair know so we'll move on to the next one this is related to central preparation facilities these are typically associated with food trucks as you all know we have a number of food trucks that are allowed here in the city either on private property in sometimes within public property with the right permits so these food trucks have to by by law have to replenish or they have to get rid of any waste or whatever it may be for the next day and they have to be able to do that in a central preparation facility is what we're calling them often also known as commissaries the city currently does not have a use that speaks to what we're calling again central preparation facility most of these are located outside the city some in the county i know that some are also down in lewisville and this is where our our food trucks the food trucks have to go to get again products replenish and or remove any waste that they've accumulated what we're saying is that we should identify this as a use and identify where they should be or could be permitted we are saying that they should be located only within the li and the hi the light industrial and the heavy industrial with a plus u specific standard section 535 i which specifically and i'll go into that let me think it's the next slide here which specifically states that use of a private residence assistant as a central preparation facility is prohibited so again not that that's going to happen hopefully there's not a private residence in a li or hi there may be but again if it is it would be prohibited any food establishment used as a central facility such an exist an existing restaurant shall be permitted by appropriate local regulatory authority by the department of state health services be constructed in a manner approved by the appropriate local regular authority again most likely the development i'm sorry the department of state health services meet all applicable zoning health building and fire codes and comply with the chapter 13 of the of the city municipal code of ordinances which is related to food and food service establishment so again what we're trying to do is it is identify central preparation facility also known as commissaries as a use and identifying where they're located or should be located and that is the li and the hi zoning districts only we also provide a definition if you all need to know what what it is but again basically it's a facility that is that is an approved and permitted food establishment at a at which a at which food is prepared stored wrapped in and that the mobile unit is supplied with fresh water potable water ice and emptied of waste into a proper waste disposal system and clean including washing rinsing and sanitizing so basically what you would think would need to happen after they've been out during the day and just need to re replenish restart for the next coming workday so i'm gonna stop sharing and again ask if there are any questions that's my breaks i i do have a question um because we have food truck parks and i don't i don't necessarily see those trucks moving off location to do what you're talking about um is there a is there a difference and i guess what i'm trying to get out here is that right now i know that um we need to be innovative and there's a lot of um other um places struggling and i don't want to uh create any um hardships for um people who are trying to be flexible um so i don't know if this is by adding this we're making this a requirement and it's going to become an issue um if you could just help me understand that and and is this does this also incorporate cottage bakeries because i know that we have people individuals who bake things and give them to the food trucks to sell so is that gonna um is this gonna make those um places be restrictive on what they can do and cannot do in their home right right so so the the ones that you're referring to the the bakeries or whatever uh food preparation that's done by home would not um fall under this what we're what we're saying is those food trucks that need a place to again wash up or do what they need to do have a place in the city of denton as far as how often they should go i know that our food establishment chapter and our municipal code of orensis speaks uh directly to that and again i believe it's within a certain amount of time i want to say 24 hours but i i don't know for sure i don't know if it's scott if scott mcdonald is on the line if he's aware of how often a food truck needs to be uh needs to visit pay commissary and or central preparation facility well that's i mean i don't i just want to make sure that we're not um by creating something new we're not putting any new hardships on um people who have been used to doing things a certain way if it's been in our rules and they've been following them then it's not an issue right right yes ma'am the that that requirements i'm sorry those are also state requirements those are those are state yeah so they would be following what we're trying to do is offer a place closer to town or in town for uh these food truck businesses so helping them okay thanks and ron i have a question because this is scott mcdonald oh go ahead scott thank you thank you mr chair um and um keely just to your point this this is actually going to make it simpler this is not more restrictive um we have a number of food trucks that have to travel a long ways it just offers a greater opportunity for that commissary to be located in the city of denton and convenient for food truck operators it is a component within state law and is required for those trucks to clean um after day's service so it's required for them to do for a state license and we just replicate that with our municipal code so less restrictive um more convenient perfect and so up until now we didn't allow those in the city of denton we we we don't have anything in our zoning that would allow for that use specifically okay all right well thanks for finding it thanks but at the same time councilmember briggs we've had regulations that have addressed food trucks that were found in the city's amendments to the texas food establishment rules that contain some of the same provisions that ron is going over today so there has been some regulation but it's it's the the regulation of the zoning the use itself that has not been regulated in the past and one other question on this is should this somehow reflect central preparation facility as a primary use because i know of some restaurants that are that have been looking at trying to do where they allow the food truck to come in in the morning because they're only open for an evening service so you know it's kind of the dual use in that same facility and that would not be in an li or hi zoning district so thereby it would be against our our rules good question um i'm trying to think of because i know that that was a discussion and they may fall under just a restaurant use and the actual primary use would not be permitted in any other places such as li or hi but while you're talking to um councilman ryan is that if it's a restaurant and they're able to do what they need to do that will fall under a restaurant but let me let me circle back on that because i think that is a good point are they are they considered a commissary under um under or are they a restaurant in that situation and ron we can confirm that but um yeah ultimately the primary use is a restaurant and they may offer a commissary so that that isn't uncommon so it and i think that is permitted okay i i recall that if i may chair i i recall that when the council had a series of work sessions on this back in like 2013 or 2014 there was a concern regarding allowing restaurants to to serve as a commissary and i believe it had to do something with the grease traps the the amount of of deposits within that especially in the downtown area so it's something that we can certainly or at least staff can look back at at the work session videos from that time to see if that was the concern that gave council pause from going forward in that direction and any other questions or comments on that okay i guess we move up move on ahead okay okay well um we've already talked about this one um next allowed or use is related to a personal service our general personal service and these are um an establishment that provides repair care maintenance i'm reading right here below or customizing of wearing peril or other personal articles of or human grooming services include include such as beauty barber shops dry cleanings shoe repair and so on and so forth this does not include commercial laundry or dry clean facility so we're talking about again your general personal services what we are proposing is a allowance for these types of businesses within an r7 zoning district and as you all know some of the r7 when transitioned from the previous code were nrmu 12 in some instances so they already had some commercial uses non-residential uses what we would like to recommend is a specific use permit for these types of uses again within the r7 if there are any mitigation or impacts to be mitigated the sup would be able to address those but again this gives an opportunity for someone that may want to open a barbershop that's maybe in a particular location on the r7 that's on a roadway an arterial or corridor or collective road that is gives them the opportunity at least to apply for a specific use permit in that situation so again this is what staff's proposing do you all have any question related to general personal service i have just a comment like so when you hear people talking about wanting complete neighborhoods would this making this allowed in r7 kind of inch a little bit closer to that to have retail in a walkable area i think so i think if you if you mean we have to look at site by site and that's where the specific use permit comes in you know we i'm just trying to think of some places you know down in downtown in downtown area southeast end to be specific if if there is a barbershop or something that helps the neighborhood or helps you know provide services to a neighborhood that that might be a possibility again the zoning has to be r7 right and within the r7 if they propose something like this a specific use permit so there's still avenues to review what they're proposing and if there's any public opposition we can certainly address it at that time either by you know considering it or not considering it or if we do consider it place conditions it's good sure if i might add we if you recall we did a similar amendment i want to say at the beginning of the year for r7 to allow for medical office this was in relation to the dentist office down on teesley and so we had medical office is now allowed if it's less than 10,000 anything greater than 10,000 square feet requires an sqp and so just kind of following along those same lines okay we'll continue i think there there's probably some use specific standard code amendments related to what just what richard just mentioned as well um as it relates to medical office um next um use is parking lots as a principal use as you can see here what we're proposing is to add this use as a permitted use under the pf public facilities for um whatever reason it was left out um i don't think it was contemplated at the time but we know that the city the county and some other public entities often own property that may um may be useful to be parking lot that's a part uh that's a principal use so we are proposing that uh this particular type of use be permitted in the pf and again the definition for parking lot as a principal use is stated as a the ownership lease operation and or i'm sorry or management of a surface parking lot above ground or below ground structure so again again introducing it under the pf do you all have any questions comments concerns with this code amendment proposed code amendment okay we will continue to i think this might be one more i think it's one more but um the next use is elderly housing similar to um the other use that we talked about allowing in the sc we feel that elderly housing is an appropriate use on within a suburban corridor zoning district that is again located along you know loop 28 and or um university any suburban corridor zoning district elderly housing is defined as a structure licensed by the texas department of aging and disability which 80 percent of those occupants are of age or are 50 or aged i'm sorry are of age or older and that meets the definition of one of the following four listed below so um there are four breakout types of elderly housing but again this is what we're talking about allowing them within the sc zoning district by right without us without any use specific standard but again permitted by right any questions comments regarding this proposed code amendment okay we'll move on um this is this is a actually part of it i i failed to change my slide here um what we are also saying is that the mn uh there is currently if we if we go back up there is a p plus what we're saying is that um within the mn removing that use specific standard um where it limits the maximum number i'm sorry maximum score footage of 55 000 per lot um we feel that some mn zoning districts um in in this situation would be able to uh it would be appropriate to be 55 000 square feet um again thoughts there because again mn most of the mn are located within areas that would be suitable for elderly housing and again they're typically one stories so they take up a larger area uh and maximizing it to 55 square feet 50 sorry 55 000 square feet uh could be limiting in in some situations so the proposed code amendment is to remove that plus uh which means that they will that any elderly housing proposed in the mn uh would not be limited uh currently they are limited to only 55 000 square feet per lot any questions on that ron i think my preference would be that uh that would be limited to 55 000 unless they got an sup because mn goes through you know some of our historic areas uh you know over around the campuses we've got a lot of that that you know i don't know exactly how i guess that would just be a one of the uh use specifics that if you were an mn you would you could go up to 55 000 with without an sup but if you want to be over 55 000 you need to get that sup understood i mean i think we have similar um um provisions that that that have that so if that's the direction we can certainly make that change for this uh particular code amendment it's a great suggestion okay all right looks like we have consensus so we'll go ahead and adjust that and we'll keep the plus uh but add uh as it falls here um and and and for the dcrc that's only for the mn not the r6 and r7 we'll make sure that that's clear correct okay all right sounds good appreciate that all right so um we are now um jumping into the next topic and that is our item on the agenda and that is use specific standards uh this uh specifically is related to uh five four three um general accessory structures uh uses sorry and structures uh we are adding what you see here in green if it's underlined it's being added if it's uh struck through that means it's being deleted uh so letter c i'm just going to read it um for the dcrc so any accessory uses or structures where permitted non-habitable accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the property line non-habitable um habitable structures that again if it's obviously um a room or other um kitchen or whatnot shall be set back in accordance with the requirements of the property zoning district so if it's a if it's a storage unit or a patio i mean i'm trying to think of an accessory structure a pergola or something to that effect they shall be set back from the property line three feet any habitable structure um shall follow the setback requirements of the the property zoning district a letter e we are adding a little bit more clarification to this requirement uh all accessory structures that are more than 200 feet shall be architecturally compatible with its associate primary i'm sorry principal dwelling unit and or screen from public view of budding properties and public rights away so the first part of that is uh it says required a required building permit we want to be clear that any accessory structure that is 200 square feet or more uh shall be architecturally compatible anything not 200 feet less than 200 feet 199 or 200 or less will not necessarily have to be architecturally compatible but again those that are more than 200 feet shall be architecturally compatible the second part of this is that it shall be um architecturally compatible with and or screen from view of a budding properties what is architecturally compatible is often asked of staff what do you mean by what's architecturally compatible we are saying that this includes but is not limited to the architectural style and details the roof design exterior color and also the height of that building shall be less or equal to the principal structure principal dwelling unit furthermore pergolas and decks are excluded from being required because we know that some of these are um don't have roofs or are very limited as far as types of um architectural features so again we we excluded them from from that particular requirement um any questions related to this i i know i went through that fairly quickly i just wanted to highlight again that 200 square feet is what is required uh for a building permit so we're staying that plainly here and that them uh those that have a square feet of greater than 200 feet must be compatible uh or screen from the budding or public right away ron so you said that 200 square feet or more and you you had it crossed out that requires it doesn't it won't require a building permit it was that was reading weird to me let me go back to that um i think we were trying to clean that up um no they would still require a building permit um just it reads it reads with a line through it like yeah square feet doesn't need a building requirement just needs to be architecturally compatible with its associated principal dwelling maybe we keep this right here i think i think that would be best right i think i think we were trying to we were trying to clear uh provide a clear understanding what requires a building permit by way of doing that we inadvertently may uh have deleted this we will certainly bring this back because i don't think it hurts by keeping it here no ron mr chair yes go ahead um the the building code has an exemption for accessory structures under 200 square feet not requiring a building permit so they still have to comply with the zoning ordinance but not necessarily the building permit so if somebody wanted to bring in an eight by ten shed a building permit is not required for that that's that's the purpose and just being consistent with the construction codes all right just if we're adding in there that 200 square feet or more then we have some of the other items in there i think it would be safe to just go ahead but building requirement or a building permit would be required just because that's the way it is in the in the code there so might as well reference is there a reason for that not being in there then no that would be that would be accurate building permit be required okay we can clean that up thanks yes council member breaks thanks tim for that question i had i had the same one so um anything less than 200 feet um square feet or would not need a permit what if it's not so if it's non-habitable it would not need a permit correct it's you know how it reads it's really accessory structures for for one and two family dwellings um so if a person did and again go back to a detached garage um less than 200 square feet is exempt from the building permit but still must comply with the zoning requirements okay yeah just um as long as that because i have people asking me questions like that all the time they're just not sure if um that information's made easily available so i i do have a question because i know that um a while ago there was an end of there was a um a household who wanted to build a pool house um and they had a lot of issues there were some issues that took a lot longer than um than i think it was supposed to have those issues been addressed um in this code as we update it i'm trying to remember i mean it may have been more of a an architectural issue i'm not i'm not quite sure i'm trying to miss on woodland yeah i think i know what you're referring to councilman briggs um it was um it was a cabana or i think like you said a pool house and the requirement was that it be architecturally compatible and so that's where the question came up well what does that mean and you know in some instances you know some of our plans examiners have one idea uh while some others may have a different idea so all we're trying to say is putting in the code what we've drafted here is that they shall be architecturally compatible uh in in terms of i'll pull it up again the that the architectural style and details um the roof design the roof pitch for example uh the exterior color um shall be consistent with the primary home as to look like it was uh intended to be part of the home and that is the height shall not exceed the height of the primary or principal unit so trying to minimize any um adverse impact to the the neighborhood by keeping it as close to the architecture of the home the primary home as possible and so our when i when you read that list um are all of them required pitch color i mean or is it just a mixture or maybe one of them um and and also when someone applies for this are are we requiring architecture architectural drawings to be submitted as well so the first part um the answer is is yes to all of those requirements um and then two yes we do require elevations so that we can review it and confirm that it does match the primary or principal dwelling unit we can move on i may have some more conversation about um the matchiness of it but um yeah we can we can continue okay okay i don't see any other questions all right so we get into um a short-term rental um this is the another topic and i know that we've talked about this as far as the dcrc i know that there may be a person or two that may not have been part of it and i just wanted to make sure that the dcrc is aware and is familiar with what we're proposing primarily what you see here is in response to a comment or question that came after the code was adopted our update that is was adopted in 2019 a person or persons asked to help understand letter b where we state that verification of the proposed short-term rental um is the primary applicant's uh resident or the applicant's primary resident um in most cases that's not the case um what we would like to propose is a i guess a compromise that reads as follows verification that the proposed short-term rental property is owned by the applicant that resides in the city of denton for more than six months out of the year so they don't necessarily live in that primary primary resident but reside in the city of denton the applicant must provide proof of their residency by evidence of a state issued identification document the reason why we chose six months is we know people travel um and then we know people have other homes out elsewhere why we chose reside in the city of denton is because we want to have those property owners of short-term rentals be within the city of denton and not necessarily out of state or out of country and again this is just a proposal and this is what staff is um recommending and i can stand for any questions or any comments that you'll have all right uh let's start with uh commissioner smith and we'll go to commissioner alice and then council member breaks i think the i think the requirement for it to be uh i think i think the state or location geographic requirement is intelligent and smart to do i'm worried that the city of denton border might be a little bit too narrow um just corinth is right there i mean crumb is right there there's argiles right there and then if you're right on those borderline cities i would almost want to recommend it being den county but i don't know it really seems like the boundary line was just just to protect against having outside um you want to call it an an alien investor so to speak being involved in order owning short-term rental properties um i would say maybe expanding the borders in county that'd be just to for those little small little instances where an argile owner somebody lives in argile owns a property in denton and it's kind of where they're splitting hairs a little too much there for my opinion okay margie go ahead okay all right so i mean i i think this is kind of probably a wish list i'm assuming by the city i mean to think that we have people that are short-term and rentaling short-term rental their property and are living in it six months is is is probably not happening um on a lot of them and so are you saying you want them to live in the city of denton six months and prove that they're a resident of denton as well so they don't have to live in that primarily that that unit the short-term rental they just have to be a resident of the city of denton for six months so living in the city now i know commissioner smith mentioned expanding that from the city to the county but that is the intent is to to keep the owners of these short-term rentals a resident of the city and or county for six months at minimum six months and i think what with this what we're probably keeping them from doing is registering because they probably won't because i i'm not saying i have the answer to to you know to make this improvement i'm just speaking of the reality of the situation um that when we're dealing with short-term rentals they are oftentimes uh not in this city oftentimes not in this country um so again i i don't know i mean what's to say how do they prove they're living in the city of dentin six months a year again i mean that's where where the state required you know identification and and just let me let me just let me mention again the reason why we were brought this uh it was brought to our attention is as i understand it there was a owner or uh of multiple short-term rentals that was not living in the city of dentin just outside the city and part of this concern or question came from our our code enforcement or zoning enforcement officer where responding to complaints and they were not able to get a hold of the property owner because they're either out of state or out of reach at that time so that that's sort of somewhat of the background um again you're right is this the right answer then this is why we're bringing it to you to help us determine what that answer is yeah i'm not saying there doesn't need to be improvement to it and fixes to it i just don't know that this is actually fixing what what the problem is um so i remember our conversation it was uh quite a long one um in the feedback that we got from individuals who lived in dentin who have uh short-term rentals and so i think maybe that suggestion may have come from that person which is great so i i believe one of the things we um were saying that i'm glad that we're not saying anymore is that they had to actually live in the unit i think that was um complicated it wasn't what we intended but it somehow kind of got mixed up in there so um and i i do believe that it's important for whoever is the owner of the short-term rentals to be accessible and to be um nearby so that if there are issues that are um habitual issues that are created within the neighborhoods of our long-term residents then they could be addressed yes marge go ahead thank you chair um yes but you know why can't somebody who is doing a short-term rental and not living here um just be required to have a management company contact or something that of that um you know to to to be the point of contact locally i mean we could be precluding somebody who's taking maybe a three-month job overseas but wants to keep their property here in denton for when that they're done overseas and maybe that's what they want to do to it is is turn it into an airbnb or something like that what do we do with them they wouldn't be allowed to do it because they're not going to be living here they're living abroad um so so i think i think which we need to fix the code enforcement issues and again i'm not sure that this requirement fixes the code enforcement issues um you know i i know we've talked about the registration of these properties um you know maybe on that it has to have a local contact for when there are issues or coding code violations or what have you um you know again just you know back to it i just i just don't know that this requirement um does what we need it to do and it actually might have unintended consequences for a situation that i just illuminated yeah i mean i think that's a great idea having a management company or a local contact or something somewhere that you can actually pick up or if somebody needs to leave to drive over to see what the situation is that's occurring um would would be great i mean it's something that we should definitely entertain i think that we're just trying to address having someone who our city can reach out to if there's an issue with the registered unit where the owner is absent and i would agree with that i know a few years back state law changed where multifamily over a certain size was required to have an emergency contact number that would be answered 24 hours a day so maybe we can look at that to bring in as to how you know making sure that we've got a contact point that's really what it sounds like the issue is is it is more having someone that can take care of a problem when one exists sure no i think that's a great idea i gotta dump that down so management company local contact um what about the suggestion about extending it to den county versus city of denton that well i think if the other two um options are explored then that would be obsolete right away okay i agree i think i don't know i'm just asking that's true that's true since you know the local company or uh or management company can be close by all right i think that residency requirement would then go away right robin did you have something to add on that one i was just gonna say i know i read and i was gonna ask erin if he had any experience or had read that city of san antonio case where it talks specifically about what miss ellis brought up regarding a resident who lived out of the country for several months out of the year i think that's what that case is about i don't know what that determined for how sts are regulated and i know it was a different circuit but i wasn't sure if he was familiar i'm not familiar with that case i'm familiar with the city of austin's case which is in the supreme court right now i'm also familiar with that the last two legislative sessions there have been six total bills on on short-term rentals that are limiting what they propose to limit the city's ability to regulate them i anticipate that there'll be some filed this legislative session as well so we'll monitor those as well i wasn't sure if their proposal was in compliance with that that's all thank you well that's a great suggestion and we'll certainly um we'll revisit that or we revise that item to include a management company and or a local contact in in that verification requirement okay i know we've got a couple more um under short-term rental d is just um it's stated restated what is required under 531 uh i i believe the intent here was that um we have it under 531 d and and we don't necessarily have to make mention here so the proposal is to delete d from this particular section as it relates to short-term rentals again there is a section in the code 535t which is the first one here where it prohibits um um certain short-term rentals and one of the things that we would like to add is to prohibit uh the operation of a short-term rental in a recreational vehicle or trailer travel trailer so um that would not be allowed as a short-term rental a recreational vehicle or travel trailer uh the second one here number 112 is really just to amend uh or revise where the registration form is located and what fees are are where they're where they are referenced that is and again it's in city's adopted fee schedule and then um number 13 is just to clarify that if a dwelling unit on a lot has offered for rent then that dwelling unit plus amenities may be inspected so just again to clear that up um it doesn't say it first initially it said if only portions of the premise uh is offered um we're we're just clearing that up a little bit more and just saying any dwelling unit on the lot um if it's being offered for rent uh for dwell as a dwelling unit it shall be a part of the inspection okay so that that's it on short-term rental the the next uh item is accessory dwelling unit similarly um we had a long discussion with the dcrc on this prior and again we wanted to bring this up uh to share with the um members of dcrc that may not have um seen this before what we are adding to or proposing to add to this uh this particular use specific standard under accessory dwelling units is as follows so right now one adu shall be allowed per lot adu shall only be permitted on lots where the principal use is a single family detached dwelling so it has to have or the primary use of principal use has to be single family what we're proposing is to add the following only one mail back i'm sorry one mailing address and mailbox is allowed on a lot so um if you have an accessory dwelling unit it does not um will not get a second address and will not have a second mailbox on the lot adus um letter d adu shall not be conversions of any square footage of the living space attic or attached garage of the principal dwelling unit so if it was a garage or if it was um say a living room or part of a bedroom or part of the main house it cannot be converted into a accessory dwelling unit it either has to be attached as a separate unit or detached as a separate dwelling unit letter e adu shall be limited to one bedroom um letter f one additional off-street parking space is a place dedicated for the adu is required so any additional parking um um is sorry any required parking for the single family has to be there and any other i mean one other parking space would be required because of the additional adu and i know that is a lot i wanted to make sure i share my or bring down my screen to see if there are any questions councilmember briggs it is a lot i didn't really um the two that stuck out i'm good with d i'm glad that we put that in there i know that there were some um tried like conversions and instead of making it you know like one house and carving up one room and saying it was a an accessory dwelling unit so i'm glad that that letter d is in there um is there a reason why it's just one bedroom i mean if somebody wanted to like a you know a single parent or just a family with a child wanted to live in one because it was more affordable but since it's one bedroom we're limiting the um the amount of or the types of families or individuals that could move into these so um can you explain the thinking of making it just a one bedroom instead of maybe two yeah i think the the reason um just a real quick answer is if we did add two that would mean um two more cars two more parking spaces just basically increasing the the density of the neighborhood um so we decided to go with one um just again by adding one you still have the opportunity for a older child or an elderly parent to be able to occupy that space but if we went to two we potentially could have two you know different adults that live there i think we can't you know we can't tell who lives there but again it was just to address the uh the increased density of that neighborhood that was that's generally the the reason to limiting it to one and again if if richard if anybody else recalls or has anything to add to that please let me know the only thing i'll add is there were one or two that we looked at also that um they were starting to border along the lines of when when does it become a duplex versus an accessory dwelling um and we just wanted to make sure that we don't what's intended doesn't go the wrong way for the accessory dwellings and and i would agree with richard's statement and we may even have talked about it with the committee back in the day um but but you know keep in mind that many of these are going to be utilized for college students and it's going to be a second rental even though the intent may be for an elderly parent or a you know someone's family member um it what we're what we're recognizing is that largely they're they're turning in just rentals so councilmember briggs councilmember briggs you're on mute i was going to say margie can go ahead and and go i saw okay okay thank you um hey ronda are there uh square footage restrictions on these i remember discussing that back yes sorry to cut you out there yes it'll be on the next slide but i just want to make sure that there were any questions on the first slide that brings my question up so if there are square footage is that um what if they can get two rooms in within that square footage are we still going to say um just one bedroom that's the current proposal yes okay yeah i don't know that i necessarily go along with the idea of doing the limit to one bedroom because i i looked ahead on the slide and when you get to 900 square feet that's generally a two bedroom size and then if your lot is larger than 10 000 square feet you can do up to 50 percent of whatever the house square footage is um you know you could end up with a 2500 square foot accessory dwelling unit with one bedroom doesn't make sense at all so and when you get into those bigger lots a lot of times they are a guest house type situation so and truly not a rental but just for when guests come over which quite often go up to two or three bedrooms margie go ahead thank you chair so yeah that leads me to a question of guest house versus accessory accessory dwelling unit two different things correct define differently define different guests guest quarters typically are not rented uh accessory dwelling units are typically leased or rented do we make depiction of that in our definition i'll double check but i know we have a definition for accessory dwelling units we may have a definition for guest quarters okay yeah i would love to know how we're defining each of those because that may help us craft this better and i'm looking for sent to get helping out with the definition guest quarters yeah because that that definitely brings up a whole new can of worms on that that okay i go ahead and i build a guest house and it's three bedroom 2000 square foot etc you know 10 years down the road i sell my house the next person that buys it wants to rent that out or you know rents out both buildings separately you know so it's difficult to discern what the difference would be down the road so something just informed me that there is no definition for guest quarters in our current tpc but we definitely have one for accessory dwelling units and if you'd like i can read the definition for well accessory dwelling units if you would like for me to read that out loud or i can bring it up as well if i can just add in really quick if you almost goes back to council member briggs your question regarding the um the cabana or the the pool house in the old ddc we did have that distinction between guest house or guest quarters and accessory dwelling and they kind of they just didn't they didn't mesh and i think when we updated if i'm if i'm recalling from memory correctly as part of the the update to the standards for accessory dwellings i think we removed the um sup requirement and then eliminated the the the guest quarters um because it just didn't fit with with with kind of where where things were headed and everything where everything was included as part of that accessory dwelling if if my memory serves correct and and and yes richard and i think you are correct and one other piece that i might add to this is about the same time we were doing this we were we were experiencing a lot of growth in the rent by the room and i think that was the other component that was coming into this where we had proposals for individuals um that that actually came into building safety and were attempting to permit a structure and and do it by the room where all of a sudden we start turning what was an accessory dwelling unit into um a multi-family building so what i'm what i'm hearing i think there's there's questions on the one bedroom maximum or required um is let me bring back up so we can look at this so c we're okay d we're okay i think one i'm sorry f is one that we currently have and i mean that's just um to to restate that a parking space is required but e is what we're talking about and if we want to continue that or if you want me to go on and talk about the maximum um square footages and minimum square footage we can do that and come back to this if we need to um or if there's some direction that's uh the dcrc would like to give staff on letter e we can certainly um discuss that as well yeah i think letter e just it just does not make sense uh as it's as it stands uh again when you get up into that square footage that on a lot up to 10 000 square foot you can go up to 900 square foot of size again that's a that's a two bedroom and on lots over 10 000 you can do up to 50 percent of what the the primary structure is or yeah from from what i read i mean what you're going to end up with is somebody who's going to build an accessory dwelling unit that has uh you know a living room a family room a great room you know all these extra rooms that they're just not going to call bedrooms but that's essentially what they will be used for and they just you know if it's a guest house you just put an armoire in there instead of a uh having a closet so yes pardon yeah and and maybe we just need to work on the definition because are we saying a guest house is an excel accessory dwelling unit i mean that's kind of what we're saying and so then um i mean then that definitely doesn't work for one bedroom i mean certainly you know and obviously a pool house is an accessory dwelling well no you don't necessarily stay in a pool house per se but certainly a guest house would be considered that so i think um again to to mitigate what we're trying to to do um we got to make sure that this is actually right so again as fixed right as i was mentioning earlier i think what we're trying to mitigate is the increase in number of um vehicles or density in the area because as scott mentioned this is most likely going to be rented out so if it's just a one bedroom that prevents that i mean like you said but is it practical is that it's got is that going to prevent someone from doing something different maybe and what do you do with somebody who has a two bedroom guest house because those do already exist so what so what are those those would just be non-conforming if if this were to be passed you know and well to john's point about size when we get into that type of square footage that i mean that that doesn't even make sense even in you know in reality you know of building something that large but saying it can only have one bedroom in it so that this is a this is a great conversation for for the committee and really the purpose in the committee so we can kind of vet this before we take it for pnz and council um keep in mind if we if we looked at a 500 square foot accessory dwelling unit and we used 100 square feet for a kitchen living area leaves 400 square feet and that could fundamentally be four bedrooms so in a 500 square foot unit you could you know house four individual people so if we elect to do something different parking standards create another type of use you know that's what we're looking for that direction if i recall correctly it's really kind of what we ended up with after we adopted the code when we adopted the code we started putting this into practice a number of the council members were receiving phone calls we were getting a a lot of applications and and those applications were primarily for accessory dwelling units for rental purposes and when we did that that's where the mailbox came from and some of these other provisions is really we were getting the account the guidance from dcrc committee members and this was that one that we were going to take back to council for really that the the full body to to make a decision and determination and how we want to do it so i just i guess want to make sure that we're we're clear and and kind of how we came to this and it was it was primarily i think that focus that we recognize it's being utilized close to twu and unt and our historic districts and where there are you know detached um you know maybe there were a single car garage back in the day but they've been converted since or going to be converted and especially if those are already rental properties um it just adds another couple of units or the more the beds the more profitable the property is it's andrew thanks chair um i just wanted to uh kind of echo i think my same question i had two weeks ago uh and it's to scott's point is i'd like to know what the problem is that we're trying to solve and then solve that problem it doesn't seem inherently there's a problem with number of beds it seems like inherently there's some other problem with parking or capping rental income or capping the ability to have four bedrooms and a 400 square foot uh building whatever that problem is i think the language should be geared towards solving that problem explicitly because as other individuals in this commission or committee have spoken about that one bedroom thing seems weird um and it seems like there's probably some non-conformities and there's probably going to be some limitation to property rights to limit it to one bedroom so i think that bullet whether it's d or e should probably be either removed or cleaned up but i think more broadly speaking uh the committee council p and z staff needs to figure out what's the problem uh and then actually write language to solve that problem and if it's rental income then then carve out some sort of cap on renting you can only rent one bedroom of an auxiliary dwelling unit whatever it should be i think we can think more creatively to be more specific about addressing the problem and thank you andrew and and i'll add that um it really wasn't anything to do with rental capping um whatever somebody's going to do that that's absolutely fine um as i recall the conversation it was really concerned with preserving the neighborhoods so i think that first and foremost the primary issue was parking because we already have a parking problem in many of those neighborhoods and it was the inability to add um you know where it is let me just go back to the example of it being a single car garage that was converted into living and it's got a single driveway and you've already got a couple of occupants in the primary structure there really is no off-street parking and and so um the one came out of the came out of or i believe we heard that through the committee trying to to limit the impact and then the other piece to that you know really got into that ancillary stuff of of whether it's going to be a nuisance because it's a rental property but i'm happy to take the feedback and work forward um on whatever the direction is we receive yeah and i might think about changing f to one additional off-street per bedroom because then you're going to start when you start looking at density you've got lot coverage when you start adding that that additional parking place you might be limited to you can only put in one bedroom or only put in two bedrooms because you can't get your lot coverage right with having to add those additional parking spaces absolutely john thank you let me bring this up again yes you're absolutely correct when we drafted this it was stated to be one bedroom so we just said one additional parking off-street parking but if this were to not be included we would definitely make sure that this reflected uh based on the number of bedrooms that each bedroom is required to provide one off-street parking additional so if i was hearing that correctly john and and maybe we can get some consensus on this is that so the intent of this is it's really for it to be an accessory dwelling unit um and ultimately that it would be a minimum of one parking spot for each bedroom provided one off-street parking and so the secondary piece to that is we we have the primary residence which we will make the assumption that they have an off-street parking spot i don't know that we can even take the assumption of two off-street parking spots which wouldn't be included would that be an accurate statement no what i'm looking at is our current building code if you were building your house new today you'd be required to have four off-street parking places if i'm if i'm correct on that so if so if you wanted to add a three bedroom accessory dwelling unit you would have to meet the current code for parking for your primary plus so you'd have to have seven off-street parking places which is you know if you've got in two or three acres that's no problem to put that in but if if you're on a small inner city lot you're not going to be able to build it because we're just we're just saying we don't want you to get that dense we don't we know that it's going to be more rental at that point so do you have a recommendation that we could work from um maybe must meet current off-street parking requirements and have one additional off-street parking place per bedroom they they wouldn't be able to do that today largely and if you were just go down oak street they don't have four off-street parking so and i think that was really where this the catalyst for this was well well if they if they don't have if they can't meet that standard then i mean technically they can't meet the code and share yeah i i'm not really that comfortable doing that with the requirement of the parking at this point because then we're saying well sorry due to code you can't build it um just because of car access so maybe if they could provide you know other access or you know prove that there's other transportation um i i i don't know i i think we still need to to be a little bit more creative when we're talking about this instead of requiring seven spaces for you know a house and an accessory dwelling unit how about if we take this back as staff at least on this portion of the topic ron you can continue on and we'll see if we can't come up with some ideas or suggestions that that kind of meet the intent of what we're hearing and and i guess if i were to summarize that is that we um the committee doesn't care for the one bedroom like to find some alternatives and as andrew pointed out is is what are the potential problems and what are some of those solutions and we'll bring those back to you for a little further discussion sounds good okay um uh sorry sorry to interrupt this i'm gonna let anyone know that i have a hard stop at three i'm not going to be rude but if it carries over i might i might uh exit out sorry no i i also have a stop at three uh uh chair i sent you an email just a minute a minute ago so they said ron you better hurry up no i i i see the clock i want to be respectful of everyone's time um and this may be the the last item we talk about um with regards to accessory dwelling is we also are proposing that we change up the minimum sizes as well as the the maximum size for adus that the adus shall be 50 now these are for uh adus um a lot smaller than 10 000 square feet adu shall not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of a principal structure in addition shall not exceed 900 square feet and shall not be less than 400 square feet 900 we chose 900 because that's the minimum square footage for a single family detach we chose 400 because that is the minimum requirement for a multi-family dwelling unit so that's where you see these numbers again just to set some parameters on how big and how small a an accessory dwelling unit should or could be now we also know that there are lots that are 10 000 square feet or larger in that particular case they cannot exceed 50 percent of the principal dwelling unit they do not have the follow the two that we just described or i described uh to follow but they still have that 50 percent of the principal dwelling unit maximum some of the other items under accessory dwelling unit are just mainly clean up um one i want to specifically address is the last one here where the entry doors shall not be visible from a public building right away and to your point andrew the the reason why that's being introduced is that we want to keep the the fabric of the neighborhood and having one front entry doorway visible means that that's you know that's one home under one lot having more than one will appear to be a duplex and change the fabric or the character of the neighborhood and so that's what we're trying to address here is by adding this limitation it can still be accessed but it's just not visible from the public right away at least not in the front and it can be accessed through the side facing entry and then last again as part of that keeping the fabric in the character of the neighborhood we want to make sure that that additional accessory dwelling unit is architecturally compatible with the primary home uh chair these there is easy yeah yeah go ahead go ahead andrew sorrows so ron how does that work on corner lots um where it the backyard is the side yard is the adu supposed to be facing uh perpendicular to the street in that regard it doesn't seem like that's the aesthetic for neighborhoods no i think i i sorry to cut you off there i think for internal lots um not facing the front right of course then there won't be two front for a corner lot um the that is a good question you know where would it face i think in that we probably need to add something to um reflect corner lots and in that particular case a corner lot where the adu say on the side of the the other street would be able to have a front entry doorway facing that street and we can certainly add that to the amendment okay any other questions on this comments that's a good that's a good point i think the other the last item under accessory dwelling unit we'll we'll we'll stop it at that is that any amenities or sorry services separate water or sewer service for adu shall not be allowed so they must be off of the primary sewer and water service however separate meeting for other utilities electric or others can be allowed as long as those separate meters are within direct sight of each other and the intent there the reason why we have this is that when a service person comes they are servicing one area and also for public safety reasons if there were a fire or electric issue the fire department can shut off the electric at one location not have to look at it or find it in a different location so that is the intent of why we feel that it should be within the same proximity or close direct sight of each other and that's it um and i'm not going to jump into the next item because we're close to the time and i'll stand for any questions or additional directions on any of the code amendments any questions comments concerns seen none i think that brings us to concluding items unless you had anything else wrong just uh just appreciate the the comments and suggestions i i we've heard a lot um specifically with the short-term rentals as well as the eccentric dwelling units we'll certainly um circle back with you on those items one of the things i want to just discuss real quickly next week um is um thanksgiving uh or the day before so um my suggestion is that we postpone the next meeting to december 2nd if i remember yes december 2nd and if that's okay with the dcrc members uh we'll certainly make accommodations okay council member briggs real quick are we going to discuss sros um i know that there was a stall last time in the discussion and it went to planning and zoning and then it was supposed to come back i don't know like we were talking about definition or there was a lot of um discussion that i don't ever know if it was completed or not so does that come back to this committee or is that just gone we we currently do not have a code amendment uh directly um related to sros um if there is a particular section in the code that you would like us to research regarding that item we can certainly do so okay thanks all right any concluding items seeing none we will adjourn at 2 59 thank you everyone