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