WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:18.780 I will call the meeting to order at 1 02 on November 18, 2020 this is a video conference 00:00:18.780 --> 00:00:26.460 meeting for the governor's executive orders and said the first item on the agenda is consider 00:00:26.460 --> 00:00:34.420 approval of the minutes from November 11th and Councilmember Braves I'll move approval 00:00:34.420 --> 00:00:41.040 all right and I will second since the motioner and the seconder are the the only votes there 00:00:41.040 --> 00:00:47.040 I don't think it's necessary to take an actual vote count so the motion carries the next 00:00:47.040 --> 00:00:52.520 item and Ron do you need me to open up several of these yeah if you don't mind they're there 00:00:52.520 --> 00:01:00.240 when one presentation so it probably be best okay so I will call the rest of items for 00:01:00.240 --> 00:01:04.600 individual consideration which include receive a report hold discussion give staffs direction 00:01:04.600 --> 00:01:11.400 regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2 receive a report hold discussion give staff 00:01:11.400 --> 00:01:18.040 direction regarding code amendments to related to subchapter 3 item D receive a report hold 00:01:18.040 --> 00:01:24.040 discussion give staff direction record regarding code amendments to subchapter 5 and item EU 00:01:24.040 --> 00:01:27.900 receive a report hold discussion give staff direction regarding code amendments related 00:01:27.900 --> 00:01:36.720 to subchapter 7 it's all yours Ron thank you chair let me go ahead and share my presentation 00:01:36.720 --> 00:01:54.520 okay hopefully you all can see the presentation and can hear me make it full screen so we'll 00:01:54.520 --> 00:02:00.600 go ahead and get started we do have a number of code amendments hopefully that you see 00:02:00.600 --> 00:02:06.240 here on this list hopefully they are pretty straightforward some of them may require additional 00:02:06.240 --> 00:02:13.160 discussion I wanted to make mention that number 11 bringing that item back there was a clarification 00:02:13.160 --> 00:02:18.880 that we wanted to discuss further with the DCRC and then number 12 we're going to start 00:02:18.880 --> 00:02:23.880 off with development standards but it was more of an introduction the future agenda 00:02:23.880 --> 00:02:30.080 items at our next meeting will delve into more of the development standards but I just 00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:36.480 wanted to introduce that subchapter as we continue with the code amendment review so 00:02:36.480 --> 00:02:41.160 as you can see from this list I won't read it all but we're going to start off with annexation 00:02:41.160 --> 00:02:48.400 and then we make our way through all the way down to accessory dwelling units so the first 00:02:48.400 --> 00:02:56.240 item of discussion is the annexation procedures as you can see the intent here is to amend 00:02:56.240 --> 00:03:04.360 section 275 which is the section that speaks to annexation the language that cared forward 00:03:04.360 --> 00:03:10.120 was what you see strict stricken through here very simple statement that the annexation 00:03:10.120 --> 00:03:17.000 in the city of den maker pursuant to procedures outlined in text local government code 43 00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:23.060 but that's it that's all we we have in the current 2019 development code what staff is 00:03:23.060 --> 00:03:31.400 proposing to bring back or to put together a list of procedures for annexation and the 00:03:31.400 --> 00:03:37.000 first item or first section of that procedure section is the annexation permitted again 00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:43.320 this is generally a statement that talks about involuntary and voluntary may occur pursuant 00:03:43.320 --> 00:03:51.760 to again Texas local government code the next item on that section is the types of annexation 00:03:51.760 --> 00:03:58.680 so we know we have two types we have an involuntary annexation and we have a voluntary annexation 00:03:58.680 --> 00:04:04.160 now some of you may wonder why we have involuntary annexation listed in a development code where 00:04:04.160 --> 00:04:12.640 we we know that that is a very difficult process to to achieve but we the staff put it there 00:04:12.640 --> 00:04:17.960 because we just wanted to make sure that there's an understanding that there's both involuntary 00:04:17.960 --> 00:04:24.440 annexation and a voluntary annexation procedure one specifically for voluntary annexation 00:04:24.440 --> 00:04:29.320 is going to be more involved in the ddc and that's what we're going to be discussing 00:04:29.320 --> 00:04:34.600 on the next few slides but as far as involuntary annexation that very statement that you see 00:04:34.600 --> 00:04:41.720 here in 1a is all that's referenced in the code as relates to involuntary annexation 00:04:41.720 --> 00:04:50.040 then anybody have any questions on that particular section and specifically why we're including 00:04:50.040 --> 00:04:57.560 involuntary annexation into the ddc again just as a statement not necessarily any procedures 00:04:57.560 --> 00:05:07.680 pertaining to involuntary annexation if not i'll go ahead and proceed with sorry sorry 00:05:07.680 --> 00:05:16.480 chair i didn't see my foot my uh my uh hand near um the uh the one of the house bills 00:05:16.480 --> 00:05:21.480 did say we can no longer do an involuntary annexation is correct we did a couple cases 00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:28.000 on that or is that am i wrong understanding the house bill or not go let erin for the 00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:33.320 most part that avenue has been foreclosed but there is a list of exceptions even in 00:05:33.320 --> 00:05:42.220 the 2019 uh statutory amendment that would allow for involuntary annexations in whether 00:05:42.220 --> 00:05:47.200 applies to the city it would really depend on the on in the future on the facts and circumstances 00:05:47.200 --> 00:05:52.760 so i i think there's been grumblings on a legislative basis that involuntary annexation 00:05:52.760 --> 00:05:58.360 that that house bill might get turned over whether it does or not doesn't matter but 00:05:58.360 --> 00:06:03.560 what if it does get turned over and there is involuntary annexation as allowed again 00:06:03.560 --> 00:06:08.560 without really strict regulations around it would we just need to do a code amendment 00:06:08.560 --> 00:06:12.480 again to change that to reflect it and that i guess the way we have it we built in the 00:06:12.480 --> 00:06:17.160 code now which is referencing referencing it doesn't really limit us by any means it's 00:06:17.160 --> 00:06:21.360 just really a reference to get it to there if there is ability for us to do it we'll 00:06:21.360 --> 00:06:27.000 just add a code amendment at that point in time that's that's exactly um the intent of 00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:35.920 adding that or any code amendment okay yeah i'll just remind everybody that uh i am zooming 00:06:35.920 --> 00:06:39.840 from the house so when the presentation's up i see nobody on the screen except for whoever's 00:06:39.840 --> 00:06:46.800 talking and uh when when the presentation's not up i only see nine faces up there at a 00:06:46.800 --> 00:06:53.680 time so if i don't recognize you just go ahead and feel free to hop on in i'll make sure 00:06:53.680 --> 00:07:02.040 to pull down the presentation when i ask for questions okay okay so we'll continue with 00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:08.080 the presentation again annexation procedures uh applicability um that basically states 00:07:08.080 --> 00:07:12.880 that voluntary annexation again voluntary annexation procedures apply to annexations 00:07:12.880 --> 00:07:26.960 initiated by the requester um nothing uh complex there next slide is the procedures uh specifically 00:07:26.960 --> 00:07:34.640 to um voluntary annexations again i don't have the the whole procedure listed i just 00:07:34.640 --> 00:07:40.000 wanted to identify the sections of what is being proposed and pretty much very similar 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:47.600 to what we've seen in the other application types obviously annexation is a separate application 00:07:47.600 --> 00:07:54.320 has a lot of other procedures we recently went through an annexation of a property south 00:07:54.320 --> 00:07:59.880 of town the municipal service agreement is mentioned there so that's something that we 00:07:59.880 --> 00:08:06.300 included in the procedures as far as timing and ordinance requirement that is all covered 00:08:06.300 --> 00:08:13.080 under this section and again will be in compliant with the texas local government code schedules 00:08:13.080 --> 00:08:18.160 and timing so i didn't want to spend a whole lot of time on these because we know that 00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:24.560 what we're trying to do here is just bring into the dc the procedures for again voluntary 00:08:24.560 --> 00:08:29.720 annexations 00:08:29.720 --> 00:08:36.340 i did want to however include the voluntary annexation approval criteria this is what 00:08:36.340 --> 00:08:43.600 we will look at when considering voluntary annexations this is section d of this particular 00:08:43.600 --> 00:08:49.440 item and again i'm going to read just just a brief summary of each one of them the first 00:08:49.440 --> 00:08:55.560 one is that it's consistent with our annexation policy adopted by the city of denton that 00:08:55.560 --> 00:09:00.200 annexation policy is covered in our comprehensive plan and there may be some other policies 00:09:00.200 --> 00:09:05.800 related but primarily within our comprehensive plan the owners of all the property in the 00:09:05.800 --> 00:09:13.840 area have joined joined sorry in the requests for annexation that there is no previously 00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:19.600 non-annexation or similar agreement conflicts number four that the annexation is necessary 00:09:19.600 --> 00:09:25.480 to ensure again adjoining the current city limits which may have significant impact upon 00:09:25.480 --> 00:09:30.440 the city and then last the annexation will ensure that the added growth land use and 00:09:30.440 --> 00:09:36.800 building control are in place in areas again which growth is anticipated so those are the 00:09:36.800 --> 00:09:44.760 five criteria's that we will look at in considering any voluntary annexation 00:09:44.760 --> 00:09:50.920 so that that's up the the end of that item again does anybody have any comments questions 00:09:50.920 --> 00:09:58.520 related to the annexation procedures councilmember braves yeah and it may have been in there 00:09:58.520 --> 00:10:03.520 and it may not need to be but whenever we do an annexation part of the the question 00:10:03.520 --> 00:10:10.920 is city services water utilities things like that is that does that need to be addressed 00:10:10.920 --> 00:10:17.480 here and do those have to be pointed out before the annexation occurs or is that something 00:10:17.480 --> 00:10:23.640 that happens afterwards uh councilman breaks that actually happens during the uh the discussion 00:10:23.640 --> 00:10:29.440 and negotiation of the municipal service agreement so that is a different process that we do 00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:35.360 while considering the annexation so uh it's mentioned or will be uh you know identified 00:10:35.360 --> 00:10:40.800 during the municipal service agreement uh discussions and his municipal service agreement 00:10:40.800 --> 00:10:46.560 is that here in the um on the list of things that we that they have to do before correct 00:10:46.560 --> 00:10:55.240 correct that's part of the procedure the process okay great question and there has been discussion 00:10:55.240 --> 00:11:04.080 uh chair may i just yes yes there has been discussion about um broadband and um wi-fi 00:11:04.080 --> 00:11:11.040 is is that something um that that we address or is that not going to be included in annexations 00:11:11.040 --> 00:11:15.440 i know that it was part of our conversation on council and it may just be too soon to 00:11:15.440 --> 00:11:22.040 bring it back up but um it's something that i i think that we were talking about considering 00:11:22.040 --> 00:11:27.960 right i i do i do know about that uh request or that that suggestion uh in some areas of 00:11:27.960 --> 00:11:35.400 town where uh broadband isn't as um as strong as as others and ensuring that there is facilities 00:11:35.400 --> 00:11:41.040 or capacity to provide that um i don't know i don't know the answer to that question i 00:11:41.040 --> 00:11:44.400 don't know if that's part of our municipal service agreement i don't think we provide 00:11:44.400 --> 00:11:48.800 that service so it probably won't be that might be something that the development community 00:11:48.800 --> 00:11:55.320 uh may may need to address and something that we may have to look at uh later in in you 00:11:55.320 --> 00:12:02.760 know as we continue with the code amendments in a different section okay thank you okay 00:12:02.760 --> 00:12:09.360 anyone else i've got one uh ron on uh number three on the criteria there about uh does 00:12:09.360 --> 00:12:16.280 not violate uh or conflict with any previous non-annexation or similar agreement does that 00:12:16.280 --> 00:12:24.960 cover if they do start developing that uh uh yeah no i think that um obviously there's 00:12:24.960 --> 00:12:29.360 a non-annexation agreement or if there is an agreement that stipulates certain terms 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:34.840 if they obviously breach those terms uh then whatever is covered under that agreement would 00:12:34.840 --> 00:12:40.280 take precedent i think what this says is that um we won't obviously annex if they comply 00:12:40.280 --> 00:12:47.000 or continue with uh their agreement so again just to make sure that um we are all in good 00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:52.000 standings both as far as their non-annexation agreement if we're not going to annex them 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:55.480 obviously because of the agreement that they have in place that's my understanding of what 00:12:55.480 --> 00:13:01.360 number three is about making sure that there's no conflict with any other agreement okay 00:13:01.360 --> 00:13:06.640 so if they do basically violate not necessarily violate but they decide to start developing 00:13:06.640 --> 00:13:12.760 that non-annexation agreement says that you will agree voluntarily to the annex so right 00:13:12.760 --> 00:13:18.000 and then so they're if they do that then they're they're they're gonna comply with the non-annexation 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:22.480 agreement or whatever agreement uh so that's not necessarily a conflict per se because 00:13:22.480 --> 00:13:26.040 uh they they've agreed to the agreement and they're they're complying with it and they're 00:13:26.040 --> 00:13:33.600 moving forward with an annexation under their terms or under their request okay i just wonder 00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:40.120 if we might want to reword that a little bit that also says is in compliance with or i'm 00:13:40.120 --> 00:13:48.840 i don't know how you would do that does not violate or conflict or is a uh yeah i see 00:13:48.840 --> 00:14:00.760 you're saying is a follow-through to a non-annexation agreement in compliance okay we can we can 00:14:00.760 --> 00:14:11.480 certainly word smith that uh to make that clear okay all right i'm gonna go ahead and 00:14:11.480 --> 00:14:17.880 unless there's any other questions i'm gonna continue with the presentation okay i see 00:14:17.880 --> 00:14:28.480 none so we'll move on to the next item and that is appeal of administrative decision 00:14:28.480 --> 00:14:36.120 procedures um these are obviously towards the zoning board of adjustment uh when there 00:14:36.120 --> 00:14:45.080 are um appeals to decision and this really this code amendment is not only to uh ensure 00:14:45.080 --> 00:14:50.480 it's clear process uh but we also want to be in compliance and follow uh house bill 00:14:50.480 --> 00:14:59.080 2497 that was passed that speaks to um the process and procedure for uh the zoning board 00:14:59.080 --> 00:15:06.400 of adjustment which includes the appeal process of administrative decisions so i wanted to 00:15:06.400 --> 00:15:13.240 first introduce the where it's applicable um who may appeal and this is clearly stated 00:15:13.240 --> 00:15:22.560 in the house bill section of where it talks about the the persons that may appeal a decision 00:15:22.560 --> 00:15:28.400 the main thing there that i think we mentioned it at our previous meeting that anybody both 00:15:28.400 --> 00:15:34.560 in that's related or not related may appeal a decision so that's what we are proposing 00:15:34.560 --> 00:15:41.680 to include in the procedure section here so again i won't read all of it i'm just uh know 00:15:41.680 --> 00:15:50.080 that the uh proposed code amendment is consistent with what is covered under the new bill that 00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:59.040 was passed and how an appeal and who can appeal um can be processed 00:15:59.040 --> 00:16:06.960 we go into also the the actual timing of the appeal uh it went from 10 to 20 so that is 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:13.960 reflected in this code amendment and also the content of that appeal application we just 00:16:13.960 --> 00:16:18.400 state that the applicant or the administrative appeal application shall be in written uh 00:16:18.400 --> 00:16:25.400 statement and that is being submitted again within that 20 days there's also a stay of 00:16:25.400 --> 00:16:29.960 proceedings and basically what this is is that if there is a current appeal of an administrative 00:16:29.960 --> 00:16:39.880 decision that all other proceedings shall remain undecided until that appeal has been 00:16:39.880 --> 00:16:47.880 considered and decided upon 00:16:47.880 --> 00:16:52.440 some house cleaning house cleaning here the uh the intent of this code amendment which 00:16:52.440 --> 00:16:58.000 is the top one here is that the administrative appeal uh there is none that goes to the planning 00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:02.840 zoning commission the ones that do go are either to the zoning board of adjustment and 00:17:02.840 --> 00:17:10.800 or to city council uh the next one below that excuse me is regarding the another section 00:17:10.800 --> 00:17:16.280 of the code um or the texas local government code that was updated or amended where that 00:17:16.280 --> 00:17:21.760 when the appropriate decision-making body when the zoning board of adjustment the decision 00:17:21.760 --> 00:17:27.200 on the appeal shall be made on the next meeting for which notice can be provided following 00:17:27.200 --> 00:17:33.040 the public hearing of the appeal however not later than 60 days after the date of the appeal 00:17:33.040 --> 00:17:40.400 was submitted so an appeal is submitted the staff has up to 60 days to bring it forward 00:17:40.400 --> 00:17:47.280 to the cba for consideration but they can only consider it after a second meeting so 00:17:47.280 --> 00:17:53.020 we will schedule a meeting that first meeting they will they will discuss it we will present 00:17:53.020 --> 00:17:59.560 it that is and then they will not make a decision they will make a decision after that in their 00:17:59.560 --> 00:18:05.160 next meeting but again it has to be within 60 days and again that is what is called under 00:18:05.160 --> 00:18:09.840 the house bill that was passed and again we're just trying to ensure that it's clear in our 00:18:09.840 --> 00:18:16.960 procedure so that it is followed and is and is consistent with texas local government 00:18:16.960 --> 00:18:27.120 code so that concludes that section of our list um again the main takeaway there is that 00:18:27.120 --> 00:18:33.040 we are complying with the texas local government code amendments that were passed and incorporating 00:18:33.040 --> 00:18:38.320 them into our development code and as you see as presented do you all have any questions 00:18:38.320 --> 00:18:53.840 not seeing any rounds okay continue on we'll continue on um next section is related to 00:18:53.840 --> 00:19:00.400 alternative esa plan environmentally sensitive area plan procedures uh there are two code 00:19:00.400 --> 00:19:07.720 of mems here that uh is being presented um one again is more or less trying to make sure 00:19:07.720 --> 00:19:14.280 we're consistent in how decisions are made i'm just going to read it for the record an 00:19:14.280 --> 00:19:21.080 approved alt isa shall expire after 24 months if progress has not been made to our completion 00:19:21.080 --> 00:19:26.720 so again the 24 month as you recall is what we're trying to ensure consistency throughout 00:19:26.720 --> 00:19:32.000 the number of applications that we're presenting so we're calling 24 months for this type of 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:38.560 application as well should an approved alt isa expire a new alt isa must be applied for 00:19:38.560 --> 00:19:43.960 and approved before any permit may be released allowing encroachment into that alt isa or 00:19:43.960 --> 00:19:54.080 that esa so again just to bring that 24 month expiration uh into this uh procedure i have 00:19:54.080 --> 00:20:01.520 a question yes ma'am um so esas are a little bit different than than other things uh because 00:20:01.520 --> 00:20:10.480 they're it's natural and things can change um what is the current expiration for an esa 00:20:10.480 --> 00:20:16.280 it's a good question i i'm trying to think i i don't know if there is one and maybe that's 00:20:16.280 --> 00:20:20.240 that's why we're introducing the 24 months and richard i don't know if you are aware 00:20:20.240 --> 00:20:26.600 of that i thought at one point we had when when that isa assessment is first done i thought 00:20:26.600 --> 00:20:30.640 it was two years i was just going to pull the code because i thought it might have been 00:20:30.640 --> 00:20:37.480 mentioned in the old ddc um i just need to i just need to go back to the 2018 version 00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:42.840 yeah if we and i know that we did some um updates on the isa as well in the um the guide 00:20:42.840 --> 00:20:48.120 the handbook so um i mean this is fine but if it's normally like a year and we're extending 00:20:48.120 --> 00:20:56.600 it to two years i'd like to know that um yeah and um i don't know if christy upton's on 00:20:56.600 --> 00:21:03.160 the call or she's called in maybe she might have an answer thank you ron i am here um 00:21:03.160 --> 00:21:10.480 yes you are correct there is a two-year expiration on the isa field assessment i believe ron 00:21:10.480 --> 00:21:17.400 that this proposal is for the alternative isa plan is that correct that's correct so 00:21:17.400 --> 00:21:25.240 there's not an expiration date at this time for the alternative isa plans okay so like 00:21:25.240 --> 00:21:31.060 since there's not an expiration in our current code someone could get a alternative isa and 00:21:31.060 --> 00:21:36.880 hold on to that and come back three or four years later and use that same one um use the 00:21:36.880 --> 00:21:50.440 same plan yes okay okay so this just all right thank you great thank you christy 00:21:50.440 --> 00:22:00.480 so the um the next item um or next item rather next section of this item is related to um 00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:07.040 what what is normally covered under the alt isa plan we often when i say we the city adds 00:22:07.040 --> 00:22:14.920 a number of conditions we wanted to uh make sure that when a person is applying for an 00:22:14.920 --> 00:22:21.120 alt isa they are aware that these conditions are going to be part of the ordinance and 00:22:21.120 --> 00:22:28.800 so again i'll read briefly of what these conditions are that the vegetation is part of the approved 00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:36.920 that re-vegetation plan shall be seeded and maintained and planted for a period of three 00:22:36.920 --> 00:22:43.160 years following installation so they have to maintain that within within three years 00:22:43.160 --> 00:22:48.600 or as long as three years and then the second part of that is that the applicant or a property 00:22:48.600 --> 00:22:54.360 owner shall submit an annual report to the environmental services director for that three 00:22:54.360 --> 00:23:02.560 years and if and during those annual report reviews there are mitigations or needs to 00:23:02.560 --> 00:23:10.200 replace any plant that is done within 30 days of that direction to them so again this is 00:23:10.200 --> 00:23:20.080 just to help explain to the proposed applicant that any alt isa they would need to provide 00:23:20.080 --> 00:23:25.440 the following and this will be part of the code amendment i'm sorry the uh the ordinance 00:23:25.440 --> 00:23:35.960 excuse me and um again to be upfront on what the city's expectation is and that is really 00:23:35.960 --> 00:23:43.600 just the two items for that particular section or item that's my breaks yeah i think that's 00:23:43.600 --> 00:23:49.400 great to have it in there so when we do go through the process there's no surprises um 00:23:49.400 --> 00:23:57.640 on the um so it's the annual review and in that annual review is that when they say well 00:23:57.640 --> 00:24:02.760 this is what's dead or dying i mean is it is it self-reporting because i know that when 00:24:02.760 --> 00:24:10.240 we put um one year two year three years on landscape it's um like people can report that 00:24:10.240 --> 00:24:15.060 it's dying you know we have zoning officers that can drive by and see that it's dying 00:24:15.060 --> 00:24:19.800 and then um then they have to replace it so is this a little bit different process for 00:24:19.800 --> 00:24:26.520 the i think i think it's the same and then i'll let christy um chime in uh three years 00:24:26.520 --> 00:24:30.680 is like you just mentioned galsman breaks is consistent with our landscaping uh minimum 00:24:30.680 --> 00:24:35.520 requirement uh but i'll have christy verify that we don't wait till that annual report 00:24:35.520 --> 00:24:40.360 that if there is something that is either um needs to be mitigated it's as mitigated 00:24:40.360 --> 00:24:46.800 uh as soon as possible but again christy do you have a response to that question yes um 00:24:46.800 --> 00:24:55.520 but that is that is accurate when staff notices that uh there are vegetation that is not getting 00:24:55.520 --> 00:25:04.320 established as it was proposed um we we do uh occasionally inspect these these sites 00:25:04.320 --> 00:25:14.600 and do follow up with the applicant or landowner as appropriate and i thought it was two years 00:25:14.600 --> 00:25:21.360 on regular landscaping did we expand that to three years 00:25:21.360 --> 00:25:26.440 my understanding is three but three okay yes my understanding is three i'm just looking 00:25:26.440 --> 00:25:42.520 to see richard okay great and we'll come back to that um if there are no other questions 00:25:42.520 --> 00:25:56.880 i'll continue with the presentation okay so the next section um is related to interpretations 00:25:56.880 --> 00:26:04.560 this is a procedure that um can be applied for uh by an applicant and if there are any 00:26:04.560 --> 00:26:11.480 appeals to that interpretation we just wanted to clarify that it is appealed to the zoning 00:26:11.480 --> 00:26:17.840 board of adjustment that's pretty much it and that's just this quick code amendment 00:26:17.840 --> 00:26:22.720 just to clarify that any appeal is to the zoning board of adjustment so i don't think 00:26:22.720 --> 00:26:31.800 that's um complex there so if there's no question i'll go ahead and move on to the next item 00:26:31.800 --> 00:26:39.680 this is related to the historic landmark designation procedure um where um the hlc will review 00:26:39.680 --> 00:26:48.760 um a an application to designate a building or or area or site as a historic local landmark 00:26:48.760 --> 00:26:55.560 ultimately the city council approves these historic landmark designations so far today 00:26:55.560 --> 00:27:05.120 that is we have five procedures on listed under designations we the the staff and as 00:27:05.120 --> 00:27:11.240 what was when roman was here what was proposed uh he he wanted to add the following and i'm 00:27:11.240 --> 00:27:16.560 just gonna just briefly read through this there's a i believe a total of five additional 00:27:16.560 --> 00:27:23.040 um or six additional amendments or additions to the procedures that the designation of 00:27:23.040 --> 00:27:29.480 the historic landmark may be amended or removed using the same procedure as uh provided in 00:27:29.480 --> 00:27:36.840 the designation any person making application to have a building site district or area um 00:27:36.840 --> 00:27:43.840 as a historic landmark uh shall pay development review fees as as adopted by the fee schedule 00:27:43.840 --> 00:27:49.040 property owner consent is required for designation however if the property owner does not give 00:27:49.040 --> 00:27:55.920 consent to designate then a three-fourth vote of the hlc playing zoning commission and city 00:27:55.920 --> 00:28:01.720 council is required again most most of the time it's being brought forward by the property 00:28:01.720 --> 00:28:09.320 owner but there may be occasions where the city or some other entity might nominate or 00:28:09.320 --> 00:28:18.040 bring forward a a historic landmark designation application number nine property owners by 00:28:18.040 --> 00:28:22.560 religious organizations as qualified under state law may not be designated without consent 00:28:22.560 --> 00:28:32.080 so any religious organization are exempted from the designation without their consent 00:28:32.080 --> 00:28:37.320 number 10 not later than the 15th day of the date of the initial hearing the historic landmark 00:28:37.320 --> 00:28:43.360 designation the property the property of the hlc planning zoning commission and city council 00:28:43.360 --> 00:28:50.000 the owner shall be provided a statement describing the impact of the historic designation may 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:55.280 have on the owner and the owner's property the statement shall include so the following 00:28:55.280 --> 00:29:01.960 again would be identified and presented to the property owner so that they are familiar 00:29:01.960 --> 00:29:07.720 with what it means of what a historic landmark designation is and for the most part they 00:29:07.720 --> 00:29:11.720 are familiar with obviously that's one of the reasons why they're they're looking to 00:29:11.720 --> 00:29:19.080 designate their their structure site or area into a historic landmark designation i believe 00:29:19.080 --> 00:29:28.160 that's it so just an additional five procedures to be a little bit more clear on what is required 00:29:28.160 --> 00:29:36.720 in designating designating a historic landmark does anybody have any questions so we don't 00:29:36.720 --> 00:29:42.160 have a historic landmark officer now do and it mentions that in the previous numbers one 00:29:42.160 --> 00:29:50.520 through five does that prohibit or complicate things for anyone no uh we we have one acting 00:29:50.520 --> 00:29:55.960 as a historic preservation officer and that's that's me for now uh until we find someone 00:29:55.960 --> 00:30:03.000 to um to hire as a historic preservation officer i know that the city has been advertising 00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:09.560 and looking to hire a historic preservation officer one that has more of that historic 00:30:09.560 --> 00:30:15.440 preservation experience as well as an architectural background we hope to have someone in place 00:30:15.440 --> 00:30:20.840 as soon as possible but for now we we still have a historic preservation officer and can 00:30:20.840 --> 00:30:31.160 act under those um those requirements thanks yeah 00:30:31.160 --> 00:30:36.480 and i will continue um with the next item and this is going to be a little bit more 00:30:36.480 --> 00:30:44.760 i think uh more policy questions the first few items were just you know helpful uh clarifications 00:30:44.760 --> 00:30:51.120 additions and and uh clearing up some of the the requirements and uh consistency with uh 00:30:51.120 --> 00:30:58.520 state uh house uh bills and state uh law so the next item is related to dimensional standards 00:30:58.520 --> 00:31:07.040 and what we are proposing staff's proposing is to amend the side yard setback for properties 00:31:07.040 --> 00:31:15.600 within the r3 residential three zoning district right now the setback requirement is 10 feet 00:31:15.600 --> 00:31:23.320 what staff is proposing is to bring that down to five feet what we have found is that uh 00:31:23.320 --> 00:31:30.560 in some instances uh a lot of the homes that were zoned nr3 as you all recall from previous 00:31:30.560 --> 00:31:37.000 um development code the previous development code um it it was developed under if they 00:31:37.000 --> 00:31:42.920 were developed under the r3 nr3 uh most of those developments had a five yard uh five 00:31:42.920 --> 00:31:51.320 yard five foot setback side yard however with the 2019 what happened was uh we moved that 00:31:51.320 --> 00:31:59.120 up to 10 in in as a result it created a lot of non-conformity uh and so for for those 00:31:59.120 --> 00:32:06.600 that have a five foot setback for example and want to add an addition or something to 00:32:06.600 --> 00:32:13.680 that home they are now looked at as as being a 10 foot setback which is not consistent 00:32:13.680 --> 00:32:20.640 to what was initially actually developed in addition uh nr3 we feel that uh should be 00:32:20.640 --> 00:32:26.240 five feet um instead of 10 feet again to be consistent with what has already been developed 00:32:26.240 --> 00:32:32.920 and uh and and what is consistent with um what other uh zoning district around that 00:32:32.920 --> 00:32:39.960 particular um district for example and i'll change it to the next slide you can see that 00:32:39.960 --> 00:32:48.440 as we leave um as we go from rr to r2 the side yard setback is 10 uh but once we cross 00:32:48.440 --> 00:32:56.480 over from r3 on forward it goes down to five and um looking at um again this is kind of 00:32:56.480 --> 00:33:01.760 the middle area within the history i'm sorry within the zoning districts that um there 00:33:01.760 --> 00:33:09.760 is an opportunity here uh to amend this to be more consistent to what's in in in the 00:33:09.760 --> 00:33:17.600 city today and again between r4 and r2 we feel that uh the five foot yard setback uh 00:33:17.600 --> 00:33:24.920 is appropriate so that's a policy question policy direction um is is needed anybody have 00:33:24.920 --> 00:33:33.880 any questions or comments as to this proposed requirement or code amendment if i may just 00:33:33.880 --> 00:33:38.940 add uh really quickly part part of the other uh challenge with that is if you look at the 00:33:38.940 --> 00:33:43.800 numbers from the chart at r3 you're you're essentially stuck with a 40 foot wide building 00:33:43.800 --> 00:33:48.440 pad and so if you wanted to go with a house slightly larger uh you're limited to the same 00:33:48.440 --> 00:33:56.440 size house that you'd have in um r4 r6 or r7 so they all you have a bigger lot but but 00:33:56.440 --> 00:34:02.640 essentially a smaller building pad or the same building pad as um the r4 r6 or r7 district 00:34:02.640 --> 00:34:05.160 that have the 50 foot wide lots with the five foot setbacks 00:34:05.160 --> 00:34:15.360 councilmember briggs yeah i'm okay with this i have a a real life situation question to 00:34:15.360 --> 00:34:23.640 ask though um would this does this also go to currently um built homes um i have someone 00:34:23.640 --> 00:34:29.840 here in the neighborhood who wanted to do a carport uh next to that the house and even 00:34:29.840 --> 00:34:35.120 just to make it even with the fence line and um was told no they couldn't do that because 00:34:35.120 --> 00:34:42.520 of the setback um even though it didn't go into the row it still went into the the setback 00:34:42.520 --> 00:34:47.160 which was new for me because i'm used to talking about that when we talk about new developments 00:34:47.160 --> 00:34:53.080 um but applying it to to an older development was different so um changing something like 00:34:53.080 --> 00:34:58.680 this would that alleviate those stresses for homeowners when they're trying to take advantage 00:34:58.680 --> 00:35:04.440 of the property that they own um and make an addition i think especially if i can answer 00:35:04.440 --> 00:35:09.000 that question especially when their setback that was applied to when they first built 00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:14.920 the home was five foot um and now we're saying that they can't add anything closer than five 00:35:14.920 --> 00:35:22.000 foot or 10 feet so the answer is yes um this will hopefully help in that situation um and 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:28.240 i don't know that particular um real life scenario but i know when when looking at this 00:35:28.240 --> 00:35:32.720 code amendment we've we've heard a number of them so that's what triggered us looking 00:35:32.720 --> 00:35:37.560 at this even more and as richard mentioned you know the as we move forward not only those 00:35:37.560 --> 00:35:44.560 existing but as we move forward this could um be a lot worse so um having this proposed 00:35:44.560 --> 00:35:49.720 code amendment not only alleviates the existing situations that you described councilman briggs 00:35:49.720 --> 00:35:56.600 but also as we develop or the areas of our three develops hopefully we can avoid that 00:35:56.600 --> 00:36:06.520 same situation okay thanks okay so i don't see any other hands and i'm just going to 00:36:06.520 --> 00:36:11.840 go ahead and continue with the presentation i appreciate that uh those questions aren't 00:36:11.840 --> 00:36:20.480 that question so um next item um or next part of the dimensional standards is related to 00:36:20.480 --> 00:36:29.920 the maximum building height for the hi zoning district hi is a transition from icg from 00:36:29.920 --> 00:36:36.720 the previous 2002 code and i don't know if you all remember but there was a code amendment 00:36:36.720 --> 00:36:43.280 back in um it was prior to 2019 i don't have the exact year but we increased the height 00:36:43.280 --> 00:36:53.520 limit for the icg to 140 it was primarily to address a i believe is the the target a 00:36:53.520 --> 00:37:00.600 warehouse off of airport road and they needed they they were proposing a height of greater 00:37:00.600 --> 00:37:09.360 than or close to 140 so that's what um was approved in 2000 um again i apologize i don't 00:37:09.360 --> 00:37:16.800 have the exact date but it was pre 2019 um so 140 feet was was uh the the height however 00:37:16.800 --> 00:37:25.640 in 2019 when we amended the code uh that number went down to 75 obviously we feel uh the staff 00:37:25.640 --> 00:37:34.920 feels that in the hi uh the heavy industrial uh zoning district areas primarily west of 00:37:34.920 --> 00:37:41.320 i-35 right by the airport area that's that's where you'll see most of the hi zoning district 00:37:41.320 --> 00:37:50.400 a height of 140 is appropriate and we are proposing to bring that back 240 now um the 00:37:50.400 --> 00:37:57.120 two the footnote two that you see here is also being added um wanting to let you all 00:37:57.120 --> 00:38:02.880 know that if there are proposed buildings that are going to exceed a certain height 00:38:02.880 --> 00:38:09.560 uh they also have to follow the airport height hazard district requirements again we we want 00:38:09.560 --> 00:38:15.680 to make sure that any federal height limits are met and so even though we say under 40 00:38:15.680 --> 00:38:22.000 feet that height limit would still be subject to again any airport height hazard district 00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:27.800 requirements for those that are not within those within that district their height could 00:38:27.800 --> 00:38:35.240 be up to 140 feet and again i just wanted to see if you all had any questions uh related 00:38:35.240 --> 00:38:37.080 to this if questions or comments 00:38:37.080 --> 00:38:45.080 councilman braves 00:38:45.080 --> 00:38:49.160 yeah sorry i'm just trying to go back to the conversation we had when we were reviewing 00:38:49.160 --> 00:38:54.160 the code the first time was it did we talk about this and lower the height because there 00:38:54.160 --> 00:39:01.960 were um potential and industrial areas in the center of town that may like take advantage 00:39:01.960 --> 00:39:06.920 of this like i'm trying to go back to the conversation if there was an intentional reason 00:39:06.920 --> 00:39:11.840 why we did it and then the height could be allowed with an sup like is that was that 00:39:11.840 --> 00:39:17.960 part of our conversation or or no i i don't recall honestly i just know that when we looked 00:39:17.960 --> 00:39:23.880 at some combination or combining some zoning districts there may have been a compromise 00:39:23.880 --> 00:39:30.920 to go from whatever it was 75 for one zoning district and then maybe 140 and it was it 00:39:30.920 --> 00:39:37.240 was just decided to go down to 75 that is what i think happened i don't think we had 00:39:37.240 --> 00:39:42.520 a discussion and some of the other dcrc members if you do recall i please remind but i don't 00:39:42.520 --> 00:39:50.280 remember discussing specifically for um the downtown area well i i think we remember having 00:39:50.280 --> 00:39:57.280 uh certain discussions about um like uh skyscrape like to make sure that certain views weren't 00:39:57.280 --> 00:40:02.360 um obstructive um around areas but i don't know if that's part of this conversation or 00:40:02.360 --> 00:40:09.520 not so um no i do know that there there are um sections of the other like for example 00:40:09.520 --> 00:40:16.600 mr uh md sorry md uh the mixed use downtown zoning district there is a height limit there 00:40:16.600 --> 00:40:23.120 and if anything exceeds it uh it would require either an sup or maybe a variance but i believe 00:40:23.120 --> 00:40:28.200 that's what we were discussing and wanting to get to protect those view sheds but specifically 00:40:28.200 --> 00:40:33.360 for the hi i think it was just when we combined zoning districts the height that was selected 00:40:33.360 --> 00:40:39.000 was more of the conservative versus the 140 but we feel that the hi and specifically in 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:45.040 the area that we're talking about would be appropriate and with the airport hazard district 00:40:45.040 --> 00:40:51.320 um that's still another additional um requirement okay thanks for clarifying i think i was getting 00:40:51.320 --> 00:40:59.800 two conversations mixed up okay there's the question i'm going to go ahead to the next 00:40:59.800 --> 00:41:10.520 dimensional standard i think it's just to basically provide that same amendment as it 00:41:10.520 --> 00:41:15.640 relates as it's shown here would which kind of summarizes all the zoning districts within 00:41:15.640 --> 00:41:22.640 the non-residential districts so again the 75 to 140 uh we also bring that same note 00:41:22.640 --> 00:41:33.400 here to again complete that code amendment okay so now we're moving into a table the 00:41:33.400 --> 00:41:40.680 table of allowed uses the staff has a couple of things again as you all know one of the 00:41:40.680 --> 00:41:46.680 things that we're trying to do is address non-conformities but also to look at these 00:41:46.680 --> 00:41:53.640 use specific standards and these allowed uses uh to apply when we apply them to see what 00:41:53.640 --> 00:41:59.280 we can do to improve not only their consistency but to again address those non-conformities 00:41:59.280 --> 00:42:09.160 so the first item our first one here is related to medical office um what we are proposing 00:42:09.160 --> 00:42:19.120 is that the sc zoning district that it'd be permitted um without any use specific standards 00:42:19.120 --> 00:42:29.680 right now the p uh is actually p plus um and that plus refers to uh this particular use 00:42:29.680 --> 00:42:34.760 specific standard that you see here in number three if we were to change this to just a 00:42:34.760 --> 00:42:41.440 simple p then this would not be applicable for any properties within the zone uh zone 00:42:41.440 --> 00:42:49.480 sc zoning district and that they can develop any medical office can develop more than 25,000 00:42:49.480 --> 00:42:57.640 square feet again we're talking about within the sc zoning district so to kind of summarize 00:42:57.640 --> 00:43:09.760 again currently the medical office is permitted in the sc with a p plus that plus states that 00:43:09.760 --> 00:43:18.840 any medical office with more than 25,000 square feet must require sup what we're saying is 00:43:18.840 --> 00:43:25.640 that we remove that plus and allow medical office within the sc zoning district and not 00:43:25.640 --> 00:43:38.480 have a maximum uh square foot requirement uh by right or with an sup and again if i 00:43:38.480 --> 00:43:51.040 need to clarify that if you have any questions uh please let me know and sc's are typically 00:43:51.040 --> 00:43:59.120 located along major corridors um t's lee loop 28 uh i'm not sorry loop 288 university 00:43:59.120 --> 00:44:12.800 are mainly sc's any questions i'm not seeing any takers ron so okay move move on to if 00:44:12.800 --> 00:44:19.200 you if you think of any if you come over and just please let me know or let the chair know 00:44:19.200 --> 00:44:27.600 so we'll move on to the next one this is related to central preparation facilities these are 00:44:27.600 --> 00:44:34.680 typically associated with food trucks as you all know we have a number of food trucks that 00:44:34.680 --> 00:44:42.680 are allowed here in the city either on private property in sometimes within public property 00:44:42.680 --> 00:44:52.920 with the right permits so these food trucks have to by by law have to replenish or they 00:44:52.920 --> 00:45:00.200 have to get rid of any waste or whatever it may be for the next day and they have to be 00:45:00.200 --> 00:45:06.480 able to do that in a central preparation facility is what we're calling them often also known 00:45:06.480 --> 00:45:13.840 as commissaries the city currently does not have a use that speaks to what we're calling 00:45:13.840 --> 00:45:19.840 again central preparation facility most of these are located outside the city some in 00:45:19.840 --> 00:45:25.500 the county i know that some are also down in lewisville and this is where our our food 00:45:25.500 --> 00:45:34.040 trucks the food trucks have to go to get again products replenish and or remove any waste 00:45:34.040 --> 00:45:41.120 that they've accumulated what we're saying is that we should identify this as a use and 00:45:41.120 --> 00:45:45.920 identify where they should be or could be permitted we are saying that they should be 00:45:45.920 --> 00:45:53.120 located only within the li and the hi the light industrial and the heavy industrial 00:45:53.120 --> 00:46:02.240 with a plus u specific standard section 535 i which specifically and i'll go into that 00:46:02.240 --> 00:46:08.440 let me think it's the next slide here which specifically states that use of a private 00:46:08.440 --> 00:46:14.160 residence assistant as a central preparation facility is prohibited so again not that that's 00:46:14.160 --> 00:46:20.480 going to happen hopefully there's not a private residence in a li or hi there may be but again 00:46:20.480 --> 00:46:27.600 if it is it would be prohibited any food establishment used as a central facility such an exist an 00:46:27.600 --> 00:46:34.080 existing restaurant shall be permitted by appropriate local regulatory authority by 00:46:34.080 --> 00:46:39.840 the department of state health services be constructed in a manner approved by the appropriate 00:46:39.840 --> 00:46:44.360 local regular authority again most likely the development i'm sorry the department of 00:46:44.360 --> 00:46:50.840 state health services meet all applicable zoning health building and fire codes and 00:46:50.840 --> 00:46:58.360 comply with the chapter 13 of the of the city municipal code of ordinances which is related 00:46:58.360 --> 00:47:07.080 to food and food service establishment so again what we're trying to do is it is identify 00:47:07.080 --> 00:47:13.800 central preparation facility also known as commissaries as a use and identifying where 00:47:13.800 --> 00:47:19.840 they're located or should be located and that is the li and the hi zoning districts only 00:47:19.840 --> 00:47:28.520 we also provide a definition if you all need to know what what it is but again basically 00:47:28.520 --> 00:47:35.320 it's a facility that is that is an approved and permitted food establishment at a at which 00:47:35.320 --> 00:47:41.900 a at which food is prepared stored wrapped in and that the mobile unit is supplied with 00:47:41.900 --> 00:47:50.500 fresh water potable water ice and emptied of waste into a proper waste disposal system 00:47:50.500 --> 00:47:56.000 and clean including washing rinsing and sanitizing so basically what you would think would need 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:03.920 to happen after they've been out during the day and just need to re replenish restart 00:48:03.920 --> 00:48:11.720 for the next coming workday so i'm gonna stop sharing and again ask if there are any questions 00:48:11.720 --> 00:48:20.360 that's my breaks i i do have a question um because we have food truck parks and i don't 00:48:20.360 --> 00:48:27.120 i don't necessarily see those trucks moving off location to do what you're talking about 00:48:27.120 --> 00:48:32.180 um is there a is there a difference and i guess what i'm trying to get out here is that 00:48:32.180 --> 00:48:40.720 right now i know that um we need to be innovative and there's a lot of um other um places struggling 00:48:40.720 --> 00:48:49.200 and i don't want to uh create any um hardships for um people who are trying to be flexible 00:48:49.200 --> 00:48:53.160 um so i don't know if this is by adding this we're making this a requirement and it's going 00:48:53.160 --> 00:48:58.960 to become an issue um if you could just help me understand that and and is this does this 00:48:58.960 --> 00:49:04.240 also incorporate cottage bakeries because i know that we have people individuals who 00:49:04.240 --> 00:49:10.720 bake things and give them to the food trucks to sell so is that gonna um is this gonna 00:49:10.720 --> 00:49:17.160 make those um places be restrictive on what they can do and cannot do in their home right 00:49:17.160 --> 00:49:22.500 right so so the the ones that you're referring to the the bakeries or whatever uh food preparation 00:49:22.500 --> 00:49:27.720 that's done by home would not um fall under this what we're what we're saying is those 00:49:27.720 --> 00:49:35.600 food trucks that need a place to again wash up or do what they need to do have a place 00:49:35.600 --> 00:49:43.120 in the city of denton as far as how often they should go i know that our food establishment 00:49:43.120 --> 00:49:49.680 chapter and our municipal code of orensis speaks uh directly to that and again i believe 00:49:49.680 --> 00:49:55.880 it's within a certain amount of time i want to say 24 hours but i i don't know for sure 00:49:55.880 --> 00:50:01.880 i don't know if it's scott if scott mcdonald is on the line if he's aware of how often 00:50:01.880 --> 00:50:09.020 a food truck needs to be uh needs to visit pay commissary and or central preparation 00:50:09.020 --> 00:50:15.640 facility well that's i mean i don't i just want to make sure that we're not um by creating 00:50:15.640 --> 00:50:21.300 something new we're not putting any new hardships on um people who have been used to doing things 00:50:21.300 --> 00:50:26.340 a certain way if it's been in our rules and they've been following them then it's not 00:50:26.340 --> 00:50:32.480 an issue right right yes ma'am the that that requirements i'm sorry those are also state 00:50:32.480 --> 00:50:36.120 requirements those are those are state yeah so they would be following what we're trying 00:50:36.120 --> 00:50:42.880 to do is offer a place closer to town or in town for uh these food truck businesses so 00:50:42.880 --> 00:50:53.840 helping them okay thanks and ron i have a question because this is scott mcdonald oh 00:50:53.840 --> 00:51:01.360 go ahead scott thank you thank you mr chair um and um keely just to your point this this 00:51:01.360 --> 00:51:05.960 is actually going to make it simpler this is not more restrictive um we have a number 00:51:05.960 --> 00:51:11.320 of food trucks that have to travel a long ways it just offers a greater opportunity 00:51:11.320 --> 00:51:17.360 for that commissary to be located in the city of denton and convenient for food truck operators 00:51:17.360 --> 00:51:22.960 it is a component within state law and is required for those trucks to clean um after 00:51:22.960 --> 00:51:29.200 day's service so it's required for them to do for a state license and we just replicate 00:51:29.200 --> 00:51:35.720 that with our municipal code so less restrictive um more convenient perfect and so up until 00:51:35.720 --> 00:51:43.040 now we didn't allow those in the city of denton we we we don't have anything in our zoning 00:51:43.040 --> 00:51:47.880 that would allow for that use specifically okay all right well thanks for finding it 00:51:47.880 --> 00:51:56.740 thanks but at the same time councilmember briggs we've had regulations that have addressed 00:51:56.740 --> 00:52:01.680 food trucks that were found in the city's amendments to the texas food establishment 00:52:01.680 --> 00:52:06.760 rules that contain some of the same provisions that ron is going over today so there has 00:52:06.760 --> 00:52:12.560 been some regulation but it's it's the the regulation of the zoning the use itself that 00:52:12.560 --> 00:52:25.040 has not been regulated in the past and one other question on this is should this somehow 00:52:25.040 --> 00:52:31.400 reflect central preparation facility as a primary use because i know of some restaurants 00:52:31.400 --> 00:52:38.680 that are that have been looking at trying to do where they allow the food truck to come 00:52:38.680 --> 00:52:44.040 in in the morning because they're only open for an evening service so you know it's kind 00:52:44.040 --> 00:52:50.200 of the dual use in that same facility and that would not be in an li or hi zoning district 00:52:50.200 --> 00:52:58.520 so thereby it would be against our our rules good question um i'm trying to think of because 00:52:58.520 --> 00:53:05.840 i know that that was a discussion and they may fall under just a restaurant use and the 00:53:05.840 --> 00:53:12.840 actual primary use would not be permitted in any other places such as li or hi but while 00:53:12.840 --> 00:53:20.160 you're talking to um councilman ryan is that if it's a restaurant and they're able to do 00:53:20.160 --> 00:53:24.640 what they need to do that will fall under a restaurant but let me let me circle back 00:53:24.640 --> 00:53:29.000 on that because i think that is a good point are they are they considered a commissary 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:37.040 under um under or are they a restaurant in that situation and ron we can confirm that 00:53:37.040 --> 00:53:43.520 but um yeah ultimately the primary use is a restaurant and they may offer a commissary 00:53:43.520 --> 00:53:52.280 so that that isn't uncommon so it and i think that is permitted okay i i recall that if 00:53:52.280 --> 00:53:57.840 i may chair i i recall that when the council had a series of work sessions on this back 00:53:57.840 --> 00:54:05.520 in like 2013 or 2014 there was a concern regarding allowing restaurants to to serve as a commissary 00:54:05.520 --> 00:54:10.640 and i believe it had to do something with the grease traps the the amount of of deposits 00:54:10.640 --> 00:54:15.520 within that especially in the downtown area so it's something that we can certainly or 00:54:15.520 --> 00:54:20.320 at least staff can look back at at the work session videos from that time to see if that 00:54:20.320 --> 00:54:24.480 was the concern that gave council pause from going forward in that direction 00:54:24.480 --> 00:54:33.120 and any other questions or comments on that 00:54:33.120 --> 00:54:51.800 okay i guess we move up move on ahead okay okay well um we've already talked about this 00:54:51.800 --> 00:55:01.680 one um next allowed or use is related to a personal service our general personal service 00:55:01.680 --> 00:55:07.400 and these are um an establishment that provides repair care maintenance i'm reading right 00:55:07.400 --> 00:55:13.920 here below or customizing of wearing peril or other personal articles of or human grooming 00:55:13.920 --> 00:55:20.920 services include include such as beauty barber shops dry cleanings shoe repair and so on 00:55:20.920 --> 00:55:26.280 and so forth this does not include commercial laundry or dry clean facility so we're talking 00:55:26.280 --> 00:55:35.080 about again your general personal services what we are proposing is a allowance for these 00:55:35.080 --> 00:55:44.280 types of businesses within an r7 zoning district and as you all know some of the r7 when transitioned 00:55:44.280 --> 00:55:53.360 from the previous code were nrmu 12 in some instances so they already had some commercial 00:55:53.360 --> 00:56:00.200 uses non-residential uses what we would like to recommend is a specific use permit for 00:56:00.200 --> 00:56:07.280 these types of uses again within the r7 if there are any mitigation or impacts to be 00:56:07.280 --> 00:56:13.920 mitigated the sup would be able to address those but again this gives an opportunity 00:56:13.920 --> 00:56:20.320 for someone that may want to open a barbershop that's maybe in a particular location on the 00:56:20.320 --> 00:56:28.020 r7 that's on a roadway an arterial or corridor or collective road that is gives them the 00:56:28.020 --> 00:56:33.600 opportunity at least to apply for a specific use permit in that situation so again this 00:56:33.600 --> 00:56:39.280 is what staff's proposing do you all have any question related to general personal service 00:56:39.280 --> 00:56:47.640 i have just a comment like so when you hear people talking about wanting complete neighborhoods 00:56:47.640 --> 00:56:54.200 would this making this allowed in r7 kind of inch a little bit closer to that to have 00:56:54.200 --> 00:56:59.660 retail in a walkable area i think so i think if you if you mean we have to look at site 00:56:59.660 --> 00:57:05.040 by site and that's where the specific use permit comes in you know we i'm just trying 00:57:05.040 --> 00:57:10.600 to think of some places you know down in downtown in downtown area southeast end to be specific 00:57:10.600 --> 00:57:16.360 if if there is a barbershop or something that helps the neighborhood or helps you know provide 00:57:16.360 --> 00:57:20.420 services to a neighborhood that that might be a possibility again the zoning has to be 00:57:20.420 --> 00:57:26.760 r7 right and within the r7 if they propose something like this a specific use permit 00:57:26.760 --> 00:57:34.660 so there's still avenues to review what they're proposing and if there's any public opposition 00:57:34.660 --> 00:57:40.840 we can certainly address it at that time either by you know considering it or not considering 00:57:40.840 --> 00:57:51.160 it or if we do consider it place conditions it's good sure if i might add we if you recall 00:57:51.160 --> 00:57:55.960 we did a similar amendment i want to say at the beginning of the year for r7 to allow 00:57:55.960 --> 00:58:01.800 for medical office this was in relation to the dentist office down on teesley and so 00:58:01.800 --> 00:58:08.880 we had medical office is now allowed if it's less than 10,000 anything greater than 10,000 00:58:08.880 --> 00:58:21.000 square feet requires an sqp and so just kind of following along those same lines okay we'll 00:58:21.000 --> 00:58:26.480 continue i think there there's probably some use specific standard code amendments related 00:58:26.480 --> 00:58:33.600 to what just what richard just mentioned as well um as it relates to medical office um 00:58:33.600 --> 00:58:42.160 next um use is parking lots as a principal use as you can see here what we're proposing 00:58:42.160 --> 00:58:50.640 is to add this use as a permitted use under the pf public facilities for um whatever reason 00:58:50.640 --> 00:58:57.240 it was left out um i don't think it was contemplated at the time but we know that the city the county 00:58:57.240 --> 00:59:04.680 and some other public entities often own property that may um may be useful to be parking lot 00:59:04.680 --> 00:59:11.200 that's a part uh that's a principal use so we are proposing that uh this particular type 00:59:11.200 --> 00:59:16.400 of use be permitted in the pf and again the definition for parking lot as a principal 00:59:16.400 --> 00:59:23.500 use is stated as a the ownership lease operation and or i'm sorry or management of a surface 00:59:23.500 --> 00:59:33.080 parking lot above ground or below ground structure so again again introducing it under the pf 00:59:33.080 --> 00:59:38.880 do you all have any questions comments concerns with this code amendment proposed code amendment 00:59:38.880 --> 00:59:52.360 okay we will continue to i think this might be one more i think it's one more but um the 00:59:52.360 --> 01:00:00.560 next use is elderly housing similar to um the other use that we talked about allowing 01:00:00.560 --> 01:00:09.080 in the sc we feel that elderly housing is an appropriate use on within a suburban corridor 01:00:09.080 --> 01:00:17.400 zoning district that is again located along you know loop 28 and or um university any 01:00:17.400 --> 01:00:23.220 suburban corridor zoning district elderly housing is defined as a structure licensed 01:00:23.220 --> 01:00:29.000 by the texas department of aging and disability which 80 percent of those occupants are of 01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:35.800 age or are 50 or aged i'm sorry are of age or older and that meets the definition of 01:00:35.800 --> 01:00:41.640 one of the following four listed below so um there are four breakout types of elderly 01:00:41.640 --> 01:00:50.760 housing but again this is what we're talking about allowing them within the sc zoning district 01:00:50.760 --> 01:00:57.360 by right without us without any use specific standard but again permitted by right any 01:00:57.360 --> 01:01:18.320 questions comments regarding this proposed code amendment okay we'll move on um this 01:01:18.320 --> 01:01:25.320 is this is a actually part of it i i failed to change my slide here um what we are also 01:01:25.320 --> 01:01:32.080 saying is that the mn uh there is currently if we if we go back up there is a p plus what 01:01:32.080 --> 01:01:40.240 we're saying is that um within the mn removing that use specific standard um where it limits 01:01:40.240 --> 01:01:48.520 the maximum number i'm sorry maximum score footage of 55 000 per lot um we feel that 01:01:48.520 --> 01:01:57.360 some mn zoning districts um in in this situation would be able to uh it would be appropriate 01:01:57.360 --> 01:02:06.720 to be 55 000 square feet um again thoughts there because again mn most of the mn are 01:02:06.720 --> 01:02:13.520 located within areas that would be suitable for elderly housing and again they're typically 01:02:13.520 --> 01:02:22.240 one stories so they take up a larger area uh and maximizing it to 55 square feet 50 01:02:22.240 --> 01:02:29.680 sorry 55 000 square feet uh could be limiting in in some situations so the proposed code 01:02:29.680 --> 01:02:36.520 amendment is to remove that plus uh which means that they will that any elderly housing 01:02:36.520 --> 01:02:44.080 proposed in the mn uh would not be limited uh currently they are limited to only 55 000 01:02:44.080 --> 01:02:51.760 square feet per lot 01:02:51.760 --> 01:02:57.400 any questions on that ron i think my preference would be that uh that would be limited to 01:02:57.400 --> 01:03:04.280 55 000 unless they got an sup because mn goes through you know some of our historic areas 01:03:04.280 --> 01:03:09.920 uh you know over around the campuses we've got a lot of that that you know i don't know 01:03:09.920 --> 01:03:14.920 exactly how i guess that would just be a one of the uh use specifics that if you were an 01:03:14.920 --> 01:03:21.600 mn you would you could go up to 55 000 with without an sup but if you want to be over 01:03:21.600 --> 01:03:28.400 55 000 you need to get that sup understood i mean i think we have similar um um provisions 01:03:28.400 --> 01:03:34.040 that that that have that so if that's the direction we can certainly make that change 01:03:34.040 --> 01:03:39.560 for this uh particular code amendment it's a great suggestion 01:03:39.560 --> 01:03:49.320 okay all right looks like we have consensus so we'll go ahead and adjust that and we'll 01:03:49.320 --> 01:03:59.360 keep the plus uh but add uh as it falls here um and and and for the dcrc that's only for 01:03:59.360 --> 01:04:09.040 the mn not the r6 and r7 we'll make sure that that's clear correct okay all right sounds 01:04:09.040 --> 01:04:18.680 good appreciate that all right so um we are now um jumping into the next topic and that 01:04:18.680 --> 01:04:24.960 is our item on the agenda and that is use specific standards uh this uh specifically 01:04:24.960 --> 01:04:33.840 is related to uh five four three um general accessory structures uh uses sorry and structures 01:04:33.840 --> 01:04:40.240 uh we are adding what you see here in green if it's underlined it's being added if it's 01:04:40.240 --> 01:04:47.360 uh struck through that means it's being deleted uh so letter c i'm just going to read it um 01:04:47.360 --> 01:04:56.920 for the dcrc so any accessory uses or structures where permitted non-habitable accessory structures 01:04:56.920 --> 01:05:06.480 shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the property line non-habitable um habitable 01:05:06.480 --> 01:05:15.600 structures that again if it's obviously um a room or other um kitchen or whatnot shall 01:05:15.600 --> 01:05:21.360 be set back in accordance with the requirements of the property zoning district so if it's 01:05:21.360 --> 01:05:30.840 a if it's a storage unit or a patio i mean i'm trying to think of an accessory structure 01:05:30.840 --> 01:05:38.080 a pergola or something to that effect they shall be set back from the property line three 01:05:38.080 --> 01:05:46.440 feet any habitable structure um shall follow the setback requirements of the the property 01:05:46.440 --> 01:05:54.800 zoning district a letter e we are adding a little bit more clarification to this requirement 01:05:54.800 --> 01:06:03.200 uh all accessory structures that are more than 200 feet shall be architecturally compatible 01:06:03.200 --> 01:06:09.760 with its associate primary i'm sorry principal dwelling unit and or screen from public view 01:06:09.760 --> 01:06:16.000 of budding properties and public rights away so the first part of that is uh it says required 01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:22.000 a required building permit we want to be clear that any accessory structure that is 200 square 01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:32.000 feet or more uh shall be architecturally compatible anything not 200 feet less than 200 feet 199 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:39.120 or 200 or less will not necessarily have to be architecturally compatible but again those 01:06:39.120 --> 01:06:47.000 that are more than 200 feet shall be architecturally compatible the second part of this is that 01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:54.720 it shall be um architecturally compatible with and or screen from view of a budding 01:06:54.720 --> 01:07:01.760 properties what is architecturally compatible is often asked of staff what do you mean by 01:07:01.760 --> 01:07:07.800 what's architecturally compatible we are saying that this includes but is not limited to the 01:07:07.800 --> 01:07:16.320 architectural style and details the roof design exterior color and also the height of that 01:07:16.320 --> 01:07:23.880 building shall be less or equal to the principal structure principal dwelling unit furthermore 01:07:23.880 --> 01:07:30.680 pergolas and decks are excluded from being required because we know that some of these 01:07:30.680 --> 01:07:37.760 are um don't have roofs or are very limited as far as types of um architectural features 01:07:37.760 --> 01:07:46.280 so again we we excluded them from from that particular requirement um any questions related 01:07:46.280 --> 01:07:51.600 to this i i know i went through that fairly quickly i just wanted to highlight again that 01:07:51.600 --> 01:07:59.100 200 square feet is what is required uh for a building permit so we're staying that plainly 01:07:59.100 --> 01:08:06.640 here and that them uh those that have a square feet of greater than 200 feet must be compatible 01:08:06.640 --> 01:08:10.760 uh or screen from the budding or public right away 01:08:10.760 --> 01:08:20.120 ron so you said that 200 square feet or more and you you had it crossed out that requires 01:08:20.120 --> 01:08:24.920 it doesn't it won't require a building permit it was that was reading weird to me let me 01:08:24.920 --> 01:08:34.440 go back to that um i think we were trying to clean that up um no they would still require 01:08:34.440 --> 01:08:40.280 a building permit um just it reads it reads with a line through it like yeah square feet 01:08:40.280 --> 01:08:43.120 doesn't need a building requirement just needs to be architecturally compatible with its 01:08:43.120 --> 01:08:47.800 associated principal dwelling maybe we keep this right here i think i think that would 01:08:47.800 --> 01:08:53.640 be best right i think i think we were trying to we were trying to clear uh provide a clear 01:08:53.640 --> 01:08:58.760 understanding what requires a building permit by way of doing that we inadvertently may 01:08:58.760 --> 01:09:04.360 uh have deleted this we will certainly bring this back because i don't think it hurts by 01:09:04.360 --> 01:09:13.160 keeping it here no ron mr chair yes go ahead um the the building code has an exemption 01:09:13.160 --> 01:09:18.520 for accessory structures under 200 square feet not requiring a building permit so they 01:09:18.520 --> 01:09:22.160 still have to comply with the zoning ordinance but not necessarily the building permit so 01:09:22.160 --> 01:09:27.600 if somebody wanted to bring in an eight by ten shed a building permit is not required 01:09:27.600 --> 01:09:33.360 for that that's that's the purpose and just being consistent with the construction codes 01:09:33.360 --> 01:09:38.920 all right just if we're adding in there that 200 square feet or more then we have some 01:09:38.920 --> 01:09:42.720 of the other items in there i think it would be safe to just go ahead but building requirement 01:09:42.720 --> 01:09:47.440 or a building permit would be required just because that's the way it is in the in the 01:09:47.440 --> 01:09:53.040 code there so might as well reference is there a reason for that not being in there then 01:09:53.040 --> 01:09:59.480 no that would be that would be accurate building permit be required okay we can clean that 01:09:59.480 --> 01:10:00.480 up thanks 01:10:00.480 --> 01:10:10.440 yes council member breaks thanks tim for that question i had i had the same one so um anything 01:10:10.440 --> 01:10:17.480 less than 200 feet um square feet or would not need a permit what if it's not so if it's 01:10:17.480 --> 01:10:25.120 non-habitable it would not need a permit correct it's you know how it reads it's really accessory 01:10:25.120 --> 01:10:34.240 structures for for one and two family dwellings um so if a person did and again go back to 01:10:34.240 --> 01:10:40.040 a detached garage um less than 200 square feet is exempt from the building permit but 01:10:40.040 --> 01:10:46.480 still must comply with the zoning requirements okay yeah just um as long as that because 01:10:46.480 --> 01:10:52.120 i have people asking me questions like that all the time they're just not sure if um that 01:10:52.120 --> 01:10:58.480 information's made easily available so i i do have a question because i know that um 01:10:58.480 --> 01:11:04.400 a while ago there was an end of there was a um a household who wanted to build a pool 01:11:04.400 --> 01:11:09.760 house um and they had a lot of issues there were some issues that took a lot longer than 01:11:09.760 --> 01:11:16.200 um than i think it was supposed to have those issues been addressed um in this code as we 01:11:16.200 --> 01:11:24.000 update it i'm trying to remember i mean it may have been more of a an architectural issue 01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:28.800 i'm not i'm not quite sure i'm trying to miss on woodland yeah i think i know what you're 01:11:28.800 --> 01:11:34.600 referring to councilman briggs um it was um it was a cabana or i think like you said a 01:11:34.600 --> 01:11:39.880 pool house and the requirement was that it be architecturally compatible and so that's 01:11:39.880 --> 01:11:44.120 where the question came up well what does that mean and you know in some instances you 01:11:44.120 --> 01:11:50.680 know some of our plans examiners have one idea uh while some others may have a different 01:11:50.680 --> 01:11:56.880 idea so all we're trying to say is putting in the code what we've drafted here is that 01:11:56.880 --> 01:12:04.440 they shall be architecturally compatible uh in in terms of i'll pull it up again the that 01:12:04.440 --> 01:12:10.480 the architectural style and details um the roof design the roof pitch for example uh 01:12:10.480 --> 01:12:18.360 the exterior color um shall be consistent with the primary home as to look like it was 01:12:18.360 --> 01:12:23.880 uh intended to be part of the home and that is the height shall not exceed the height 01:12:23.880 --> 01:12:31.960 of the primary or principal unit so trying to minimize any um adverse impact to the the 01:12:31.960 --> 01:12:37.720 neighborhood by keeping it as close to the architecture of the home the primary home 01:12:37.720 --> 01:12:44.800 as possible and so our when i when you read that list um are all of them required pitch 01:12:44.800 --> 01:12:52.200 color i mean or is it just a mixture or maybe one of them um and and also when someone applies 01:12:52.200 --> 01:12:58.560 for this are are we requiring architecture architectural drawings to be submitted as 01:12:58.560 --> 01:13:05.560 well so the first part um the answer is is yes to all of those requirements um and then 01:13:05.560 --> 01:13:12.960 two yes we do require elevations so that we can review it and confirm that it does match 01:13:12.960 --> 01:13:19.160 the primary or principal dwelling unit we can move on i may have some more conversation 01:13:19.160 --> 01:13:29.720 about um the matchiness of it but um yeah we can we can continue okay okay i don't see 01:13:29.720 --> 01:13:41.720 any other questions all right so we get into um a short-term rental um this is the another 01:13:41.720 --> 01:13:49.000 topic and i know that we've talked about this as far as the dcrc i know that there may be 01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:54.440 a person or two that may not have been part of it and i just wanted to make sure that 01:13:54.440 --> 01:14:02.120 the dcrc is aware and is familiar with what we're proposing primarily what you see here 01:14:02.120 --> 01:14:10.120 is in response to a comment or question that came after the code was adopted our update 01:14:10.120 --> 01:14:21.240 that is was adopted in 2019 a person or persons asked to help understand letter b where we 01:14:21.240 --> 01:14:32.480 state that verification of the proposed short-term rental um is the primary applicant's uh resident 01:14:32.480 --> 01:14:41.000 or the applicant's primary resident um in most cases that's not the case um what we 01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:48.920 would like to propose is a i guess a compromise that reads as follows verification that the 01:14:48.920 --> 01:14:55.320 proposed short-term rental property is owned by the applicant that resides in the city 01:14:55.320 --> 01:15:02.000 of denton for more than six months out of the year so they don't necessarily live in 01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:08.320 that primary primary resident but reside in the city of denton the applicant must provide 01:15:08.320 --> 01:15:14.720 proof of their residency by evidence of a state issued identification document the reason 01:15:14.720 --> 01:15:22.560 why we chose six months is we know people travel um and then we know people have other 01:15:22.560 --> 01:15:32.680 homes out elsewhere why we chose reside in the city of denton is because we want to have 01:15:32.680 --> 01:15:38.280 those property owners of short-term rentals be within the city of denton and not necessarily 01:15:38.280 --> 01:15:42.880 out of state or out of country and again this is just a proposal and this is what staff 01:15:42.880 --> 01:15:53.600 is um recommending and i can stand for any questions or any comments that you'll have 01:15:53.600 --> 01:16:02.120 all right uh let's start with uh commissioner smith and we'll go to commissioner alice and 01:16:02.120 --> 01:16:07.440 then council member breaks i think the i think the requirement for it to be uh i think i 01:16:07.440 --> 01:16:13.360 think the state or location geographic requirement is intelligent and smart to do i'm worried 01:16:13.360 --> 01:16:19.960 that the city of denton border might be a little bit too narrow um just corinth is right 01:16:19.960 --> 01:16:25.600 there i mean crumb is right there there's argiles right there and then if you're right 01:16:25.600 --> 01:16:29.400 on those borderline cities i would almost want to recommend it being den county but 01:16:29.400 --> 01:16:33.880 i don't know it really seems like the boundary line was just just to protect against having 01:16:33.880 --> 01:16:40.480 outside um you want to call it an an alien investor so to speak being involved in order 01:16:40.480 --> 01:16:45.680 owning short-term rental properties um i would say maybe expanding the borders in county 01:16:45.680 --> 01:16:50.840 that'd be just to for those little small little instances where an argile owner somebody lives 01:16:50.840 --> 01:16:55.640 in argile owns a property in denton and it's kind of where they're splitting hairs a little 01:16:55.640 --> 01:17:08.040 too much there for my opinion okay margie go ahead okay all right so i mean i i think 01:17:08.040 --> 01:17:12.520 this is kind of probably a wish list i'm assuming by the city i mean to think that we have people 01:17:12.520 --> 01:17:18.800 that are short-term and rentaling short-term rental their property and are living in it 01:17:18.800 --> 01:17:26.360 six months is is is probably not happening um on a lot of them and so are you saying 01:17:26.360 --> 01:17:30.560 you want them to live in the city of denton six months and prove that they're a resident 01:17:30.560 --> 01:17:36.640 of denton as well so they don't have to live in that primarily that that unit the short-term 01:17:36.640 --> 01:17:42.640 rental they just have to be a resident of the city of denton for six months so living in 01:17:42.640 --> 01:17:49.360 the city now i know commissioner smith mentioned expanding that from the city to the county 01:17:49.360 --> 01:17:58.080 but that is the intent is to to keep the owners of these short-term rentals a resident of 01:17:58.080 --> 01:18:04.240 the city and or county for six months at minimum six months and i think what with this what 01:18:04.240 --> 01:18:10.920 we're probably keeping them from doing is registering because they probably won't because 01:18:10.920 --> 01:18:20.040 i i'm not saying i have the answer to to you know to make this improvement i'm just speaking 01:18:20.040 --> 01:18:26.440 of the reality of the situation um that when we're dealing with short-term rentals they 01:18:26.440 --> 01:18:36.120 are oftentimes uh not in this city oftentimes not in this country um so again i i don't 01:18:36.120 --> 01:18:43.440 know i mean what's to say how do they prove they're living in the city of dentin six months 01:18:43.440 --> 01:18:50.080 a year again i mean that's where where the state required you know identification and 01:18:50.080 --> 01:18:56.200 and just let me let me just let me mention again the reason why we were brought this 01:18:56.200 --> 01:19:01.500 uh it was brought to our attention is as i understand it there was a owner or uh of multiple 01:19:01.500 --> 01:19:08.560 short-term rentals that was not living in the city of dentin just outside the city and 01:19:08.560 --> 01:19:15.900 part of this concern or question came from our our code enforcement or zoning enforcement 01:19:15.900 --> 01:19:22.200 officer where responding to complaints and they were not able to get a hold of the property 01:19:22.200 --> 01:19:28.760 owner because they're either out of state or out of reach at that time so that that's 01:19:28.760 --> 01:19:33.120 sort of somewhat of the background um again you're right is this the right answer then 01:19:33.120 --> 01:19:38.720 this is why we're bringing it to you to help us determine what that answer is yeah i'm 01:19:38.720 --> 01:19:43.480 not saying there doesn't need to be improvement to it and fixes to it i just don't know that 01:19:43.480 --> 01:19:54.600 this is actually fixing what what the problem is um 01:19:54.600 --> 01:20:02.400 so i remember our conversation it was uh quite a long one um in the feedback that we got 01:20:02.400 --> 01:20:07.640 from individuals who lived in dentin who have uh short-term rentals and so i think maybe 01:20:07.640 --> 01:20:13.840 that suggestion may have come from that person which is great so i i believe one of the things 01:20:13.840 --> 01:20:19.240 we um were saying that i'm glad that we're not saying anymore is that they had to actually 01:20:19.240 --> 01:20:24.420 live in the unit i think that was um complicated it wasn't what we intended but it somehow 01:20:24.420 --> 01:20:31.840 kind of got mixed up in there so um and i i do believe that it's important for whoever 01:20:31.840 --> 01:20:38.920 is the owner of the short-term rentals to be accessible and to be um nearby so that 01:20:38.920 --> 01:20:45.120 if there are issues that are um habitual issues that are created within the neighborhoods 01:20:45.120 --> 01:20:55.120 of our long-term residents then they could be addressed yes marge go ahead thank you 01:20:55.120 --> 01:21:01.560 chair um yes but you know why can't somebody who is doing a short-term rental and not living 01:21:01.560 --> 01:21:07.600 here um just be required to have a management company contact or something that of that 01:21:07.600 --> 01:21:14.800 um you know to to to be the point of contact locally i mean we could be precluding somebody 01:21:14.800 --> 01:21:22.280 who's taking maybe a three-month job overseas but wants to keep their property here in denton 01:21:22.280 --> 01:21:27.560 for when that they're done overseas and maybe that's what they want to do to it is is turn 01:21:27.560 --> 01:21:32.840 it into an airbnb or something like that what do we do with them they wouldn't be allowed 01:21:32.840 --> 01:21:39.160 to do it because they're not going to be living here they're living abroad um so so i think 01:21:39.160 --> 01:21:45.720 i think which we need to fix the code enforcement issues and again i'm not sure that this requirement 01:21:45.720 --> 01:21:52.680 fixes the code enforcement issues um you know i i know we've talked about the registration 01:21:52.680 --> 01:21:59.600 of these properties um you know maybe on that it has to have a local contact for when there 01:21:59.600 --> 01:22:07.200 are issues or coding code violations or what have you um you know again just you know back 01:22:07.200 --> 01:22:12.600 to it i just i just don't know that this requirement um does what we need it to do and it actually 01:22:12.600 --> 01:22:18.080 might have unintended consequences for a situation that i just illuminated 01:22:18.080 --> 01:22:27.200 yeah i mean i think that's a great idea having a management company or a local contact or 01:22:27.200 --> 01:22:31.540 something somewhere that you can actually pick up or if somebody needs to leave to drive 01:22:31.540 --> 01:22:37.900 over to see what the situation is that's occurring um would would be great i mean it's something 01:22:37.900 --> 01:22:43.960 that we should definitely entertain i think that we're just trying to address having someone 01:22:43.960 --> 01:22:51.480 who our city can reach out to if there's an issue with the registered unit where the owner 01:22:51.480 --> 01:22:57.120 is absent 01:22:57.120 --> 01:23:01.840 and i would agree with that i know a few years back state law changed where multifamily over 01:23:01.840 --> 01:23:07.200 a certain size was required to have an emergency contact number that would be answered 24 hours 01:23:07.200 --> 01:23:14.200 a day so maybe we can look at that to bring in as to how you know making sure that we've 01:23:14.200 --> 01:23:20.080 got a contact point that's really what it sounds like the issue is is it is more having 01:23:20.080 --> 01:23:25.360 someone that can take care of a problem when one exists sure no i think that's a great 01:23:25.360 --> 01:23:33.380 idea i gotta dump that down so management company local contact um what about the suggestion 01:23:33.380 --> 01:23:41.000 about extending it to den county versus city of denton 01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:49.520 that well i think if the other two um options are explored then that would be obsolete right 01:23:49.520 --> 01:23:55.320 away okay i agree i think i don't know i'm just asking that's true that's true since 01:23:55.320 --> 01:23:59.600 you know the local company or uh or management company can be close by 01:23:59.600 --> 01:24:10.140 all right i think that residency requirement would then go away right 01:24:10.140 --> 01:24:15.080 robin did you have something to add on that one i was just gonna say i know i read and 01:24:15.080 --> 01:24:20.440 i was gonna ask erin if he had any experience or had read that city of san antonio case 01:24:20.440 --> 01:24:25.800 where it talks specifically about what miss ellis brought up regarding a resident who 01:24:25.800 --> 01:24:29.520 lived out of the country for several months out of the year i think that's what that case 01:24:29.520 --> 01:24:34.400 is about i don't know what that determined for how sts are regulated and i know it was 01:24:34.400 --> 01:24:39.840 a different circuit but i wasn't sure if he was familiar i'm not familiar with that case 01:24:39.840 --> 01:24:43.640 i'm familiar with the city of austin's case which is in the supreme court right now i'm 01:24:43.640 --> 01:24:49.560 also familiar with that the last two legislative sessions there have been six total bills on 01:24:49.560 --> 01:24:54.400 on short-term rentals that are limiting what they propose to limit the city's ability to 01:24:54.400 --> 01:24:58.600 regulate them i anticipate that there'll be some filed this legislative session as well 01:24:58.600 --> 01:25:05.000 so we'll monitor those as well i wasn't sure if their proposal was in compliance with that 01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:12.120 that's all thank you well that's a great suggestion and we'll certainly um we'll revisit that 01:25:12.120 --> 01:25:21.000 or we revise that item to include a management company and or a local contact in in that 01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:30.600 verification requirement okay i know we've got a couple more um under short-term rental 01:25:30.600 --> 01:25:40.440 d is just um it's stated restated what is required under 531 uh i i believe the intent 01:25:40.440 --> 01:25:48.920 here was that um we have it under 531 d and and we don't necessarily have to make mention 01:25:48.920 --> 01:25:59.320 here so the proposal is to delete d from this particular section 01:25:59.320 --> 01:26:06.920 as it relates to short-term rentals again there is a section in the code 535t which 01:26:06.920 --> 01:26:16.120 is the first one here where it prohibits um um certain short-term rentals and one of the 01:26:16.120 --> 01:26:22.880 things that we would like to add is to prohibit uh the operation of a short-term rental in 01:26:22.880 --> 01:26:30.920 a recreational vehicle or trailer travel trailer so um that would not be allowed as a short-term 01:26:30.920 --> 01:26:38.960 rental a recreational vehicle or travel trailer uh the second one here number 112 is really 01:26:38.960 --> 01:26:47.080 just to amend uh or revise where the registration form is located and what fees are are where 01:26:47.080 --> 01:26:52.800 they're where they are referenced that is and again it's in city's adopted fee schedule 01:26:52.800 --> 01:27:00.140 and then um number 13 is just to clarify that if a dwelling unit on a lot has offered for 01:27:00.140 --> 01:27:06.760 rent then that dwelling unit plus amenities may be inspected so just again to clear that 01:27:06.760 --> 01:27:13.920 up um it doesn't say it first initially it said if only portions of the premise uh is 01:27:13.920 --> 01:27:19.840 offered um we're we're just clearing that up a little bit more and just saying any dwelling 01:27:19.840 --> 01:27:26.480 unit on the lot um if it's being offered for rent uh for dwell as a dwelling unit it shall 01:27:26.480 --> 01:27:35.120 be a part of the inspection okay so that that's it on short-term rental the the next uh item 01:27:35.120 --> 01:27:42.000 is accessory dwelling unit similarly um we had a long discussion with the dcrc on this 01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:49.520 prior and again we wanted to bring this up uh to share with the um members of dcrc that 01:27:49.520 --> 01:27:58.680 may not have um seen this before what we are adding to or proposing to add to this uh this 01:27:58.680 --> 01:28:06.320 particular use specific standard under accessory dwelling units is as follows so right now one 01:28:06.320 --> 01:28:14.640 adu shall be allowed per lot adu shall only be permitted on lots where the principal use 01:28:14.640 --> 01:28:20.840 is a single family detached dwelling so it has to have or the primary use of principal 01:28:20.840 --> 01:28:27.760 use has to be single family what we're proposing is to add the following only one mail back 01:28:27.760 --> 01:28:36.380 i'm sorry one mailing address and mailbox is allowed on a lot so um if you have an accessory 01:28:36.380 --> 01:28:44.360 dwelling unit it does not um will not get a second address and will not have a second 01:28:44.360 --> 01:28:53.280 mailbox on the lot adus um letter d adu shall not be conversions of any square footage of 01:28:53.280 --> 01:28:59.480 the living space attic or attached garage of the principal dwelling unit so if it was 01:28:59.480 --> 01:29:08.800 a garage or if it was um say a living room or part of a bedroom or part of the main house 01:29:08.800 --> 01:29:15.520 it cannot be converted into a accessory dwelling unit it either has to be attached as a separate 01:29:15.520 --> 01:29:23.800 unit or detached as a separate dwelling unit letter e adu shall be limited to one bedroom 01:29:23.800 --> 01:29:34.840 um letter f one additional off-street parking space is a place dedicated for the adu is 01:29:34.840 --> 01:29:42.880 required so any additional parking um um is sorry any required parking for the single 01:29:42.880 --> 01:29:50.400 family has to be there and any other i mean one other parking space would be required 01:29:50.400 --> 01:29:59.080 because of the additional adu and i know that is a lot i wanted to make sure i share my 01:29:59.080 --> 01:30:08.680 or bring down my screen to see if there are any questions councilmember briggs 01:30:08.680 --> 01:30:12.780 it is a lot i didn't really um the two that stuck out i'm good with d i'm glad that we 01:30:12.780 --> 01:30:17.920 put that in there i know that there were some um tried like conversions and instead of making 01:30:17.920 --> 01:30:23.280 it you know like one house and carving up one room and saying it was a an accessory 01:30:23.280 --> 01:30:29.840 dwelling unit so i'm glad that that letter d is in there um is there a reason why it's 01:30:29.840 --> 01:30:36.560 just one bedroom i mean if somebody wanted to like a you know a single parent or just 01:30:36.560 --> 01:30:42.000 a family with a child wanted to live in one because it was more affordable but since it's 01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:48.960 one bedroom we're limiting the um the amount of or the types of families or individuals 01:30:48.960 --> 01:30:53.840 that could move into these so um can you explain the thinking of making it just a one bedroom 01:30:53.840 --> 01:30:59.520 instead of maybe two yeah i think the the reason um just a real quick answer is if we 01:30:59.520 --> 01:31:07.520 did add two that would mean um two more cars two more parking spaces just basically increasing 01:31:07.520 --> 01:31:15.680 the the density of the neighborhood um so we decided to go with one um just again by 01:31:15.680 --> 01:31:23.680 adding one you still have the opportunity for a older child or an elderly parent to 01:31:23.680 --> 01:31:30.480 be able to occupy that space but if we went to two we potentially could have two you know 01:31:30.480 --> 01:31:37.680 different adults that live there i think we can't you know we can't tell who lives there but again 01:31:37.680 --> 01:31:43.760 it was just to address the uh the increased density of that neighborhood that was that's 01:31:43.760 --> 01:31:49.920 generally the the reason to limiting it to one and again if if richard if anybody else 01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:56.000 recalls or has anything to add to that please let me know the only thing i'll add is there were one 01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:00.960 or two that we looked at also that um they were starting to border along the lines of when when 01:32:00.960 --> 01:32:05.840 does it become a duplex versus an accessory dwelling um and we just wanted to make sure 01:32:05.840 --> 01:32:10.320 that we don't what's intended doesn't go the wrong way for the accessory dwellings 01:32:11.760 --> 01:32:16.320 and and i would agree with richard's statement and we may even have talked about it with the 01:32:16.320 --> 01:32:22.720 committee back in the day um but but you know keep in mind that many of these are going to be 01:32:22.720 --> 01:32:28.400 utilized for college students and it's going to be a second rental even though the intent may 01:32:28.400 --> 01:32:35.920 be for an elderly parent or a you know someone's family member um it what we're what we're 01:32:35.920 --> 01:32:44.320 recognizing is that largely they're they're turning in just rentals so councilmember briggs 01:32:44.320 --> 01:32:56.640 councilmember briggs you're on mute i was going to say margie can go ahead and and go i saw okay 01:32:58.960 --> 01:33:06.560 okay thank you um hey ronda are there uh square footage restrictions on these i remember discussing 01:33:06.560 --> 01:33:10.320 that back yes sorry to cut you out there yes it'll be on the next slide but i just want to 01:33:10.320 --> 01:33:19.120 make sure that there were any questions on the first slide that brings my question up so if there 01:33:19.120 --> 01:33:26.160 are square footage is that um what if they can get two rooms in within that square footage are 01:33:26.160 --> 01:33:33.600 we still going to say um just one bedroom that's the current proposal yes okay 01:33:33.600 --> 01:33:41.040 yeah i don't know that i necessarily go along with the idea of doing the limit to one bedroom 01:33:41.040 --> 01:33:45.680 because i i looked ahead on the slide and when you get to 900 square feet that's generally a two 01:33:45.680 --> 01:33:52.480 bedroom size and then if your lot is larger than 10 000 square feet you can do up to 50 percent of 01:33:52.480 --> 01:33:59.200 whatever the house square footage is um you know you could end up with a 2500 01:33:59.200 --> 01:34:03.120 square foot accessory dwelling unit with one bedroom doesn't make sense at all so 01:34:03.120 --> 01:34:09.200 and when you get into those bigger lots a lot of times they are a guest house type situation so 01:34:09.200 --> 01:34:17.040 and truly not a rental but just for when guests come over which quite often go up to two or three 01:34:17.040 --> 01:34:26.080 bedrooms margie go ahead thank you chair so yeah that leads me to a question of guest house versus 01:34:26.080 --> 01:34:34.320 accessory accessory dwelling unit two different things correct define differently define different 01:34:34.320 --> 01:34:41.040 guests guest quarters typically are not rented uh accessory dwelling units are typically leased or 01:34:41.040 --> 01:34:47.680 rented do we make depiction of that in our definition i'll double check but i know we 01:34:47.680 --> 01:34:52.240 have a definition for accessory dwelling units we may have a definition for guest quarters 01:34:52.240 --> 01:34:56.560 okay yeah i would love to know how we're defining each of those 01:34:56.560 --> 01:35:05.440 because that may help us craft this better and i'm looking for sent to get helping out 01:35:05.440 --> 01:35:12.480 with the definition guest quarters yeah because that that definitely brings up a whole new can 01:35:12.480 --> 01:35:18.960 of worms on that that okay i go ahead and i build a guest house and it's three bedroom 2000 square 01:35:18.960 --> 01:35:25.760 foot etc you know 10 years down the road i sell my house the next person that buys it wants to rent 01:35:25.760 --> 01:35:32.960 that out or you know rents out both buildings separately you know so it's difficult to discern 01:35:32.960 --> 01:35:38.320 what the difference would be down the road so something just informed me that there is no 01:35:38.320 --> 01:35:45.520 definition for guest quarters in our current tpc but we definitely have one for accessory dwelling 01:35:45.520 --> 01:35:52.960 units and if you'd like i can read the definition for well accessory dwelling units if you would like 01:35:52.960 --> 01:35:59.040 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 01:35:59.040 --> 01:36:05.520 almost goes back to council member briggs your question regarding the um the cabana or the the 01:36:05.520 --> 01:36:10.960 pool house in the old ddc we did have that distinction between guest house or guest quarters 01:36:10.960 --> 01:36:16.320 and accessory dwelling and they kind of they just didn't they didn't mesh and i think when we updated 01:36:16.320 --> 01:36:22.800 if i'm if i'm recalling from memory correctly as part of the the update to the standards for 01:36:22.800 --> 01:36:29.440 accessory dwellings i think we removed the um sup requirement and then eliminated the the the 01:36:29.440 --> 01:36:35.200 guest quarters um because it just didn't fit with with with kind of where where things were headed 01:36:35.200 --> 01:36:39.600 and everything where everything was included as part of that accessory dwelling if if my memory 01:36:39.600 --> 01:36:45.840 serves correct and and and yes richard and i think you are correct and one other piece that i might 01:36:45.840 --> 01:36:53.360 add to this is about the same time we were doing this we were we were experiencing a lot of growth 01:36:53.360 --> 01:36:59.120 in the rent by the room and i think that was the other component that was coming into this where 01:36:59.120 --> 01:37:07.920 we had proposals for individuals um that that actually came into building safety and were 01:37:07.920 --> 01:37:13.760 attempting to permit a structure and and do it by the room where all of a sudden we start turning 01:37:13.760 --> 01:37:24.880 what was an accessory dwelling unit into um a multi-family building 01:37:24.880 --> 01:37:33.840 so what i'm what i'm hearing i think there's there's questions on the one bedroom 01:37:33.840 --> 01:37:36.880 maximum or required um 01:37:40.160 --> 01:37:44.000 is let me bring back up so we can look at this 01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:55.280 so c we're okay d we're okay i think one i'm sorry f is one that we currently have 01:37:55.280 --> 01:38:00.880 and i mean that's just um to to restate that a parking space is required 01:38:00.880 --> 01:38:09.920 but e is what we're talking about and if we want to continue that or if you want me to go on and 01:38:09.920 --> 01:38:15.280 talk about the maximum um square footages and minimum square footage we can do that 01:38:15.280 --> 01:38:22.000 and come back to this if we need to um or if there's some direction that's uh the dcrc would 01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:26.480 like to give staff on letter e we can certainly um discuss that as well 01:38:26.480 --> 01:38:36.800 yeah i think letter e just it just does not make sense uh as it's as it stands uh again when you 01:38:36.800 --> 01:38:43.200 get up into that square footage that on a lot up to 10 000 square foot you can go up to 900 square foot 01:38:43.200 --> 01:38:54.640 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 01:38:54.640 --> 01:39:02.880 what the the primary structure is or yeah from from what i read i mean what you're going to end 01:39:02.880 --> 01:39:08.560 up with is somebody who's going to build an accessory dwelling unit that has uh you know a 01:39:08.560 --> 01:39:13.280 living room a family room a great room you know all these extra rooms that they're just not going 01:39:13.280 --> 01:39:18.480 to call bedrooms but that's essentially what they will be used for and they just you know if it's a 01:39:18.480 --> 01:39:23.760 guest house you just put an armoire in there instead of a uh having a closet so 01:39:29.600 --> 01:39:35.280 yes pardon yeah and and maybe we just need to work on the definition because 01:39:35.280 --> 01:39:39.760 are we saying a guest house is an excel accessory dwelling unit i mean that's kind of what we're 01:39:39.760 --> 01:39:48.480 saying and so then um i mean then that definitely doesn't work for one bedroom i mean certainly 01:39:48.480 --> 01:39:53.520 you know and obviously a pool house is an accessory dwelling well no you don't necessarily stay in a 01:39:53.520 --> 01:39:58.800 pool house per se but certainly a guest house would be considered that so i think um again to 01:39:58.800 --> 01:40:04.640 to mitigate what we're trying to to do um we got to make sure that this is actually 01:40:04.640 --> 01:40:12.400 right so again as fixed right as i was mentioning earlier i think what we're trying to mitigate is 01:40:12.400 --> 01:40:20.560 the increase in number of um vehicles or density in the area because as scott mentioned this is 01:40:20.560 --> 01:40:27.280 most likely going to be rented out so if it's just a one bedroom that prevents that i mean like you 01:40:27.280 --> 01:40:32.080 said but is it practical is that it's got is that going to prevent someone from doing something 01:40:32.080 --> 01:40:37.120 different maybe and what do you do with somebody who has a two bedroom guest house because those 01:40:37.120 --> 01:40:43.520 do already exist so what so what are those those would just be non-conforming if if this were to 01:40:43.520 --> 01:40:49.760 be passed you know and well to john's point about size when we get into that type of square footage 01:40:49.760 --> 01:40:57.520 that i mean that that doesn't even make sense even in you know in reality you know of building 01:40:57.520 --> 01:41:05.600 something that large but saying it can only have one bedroom in it so that this is a this is a great 01:41:05.600 --> 01:41:10.000 conversation for for the committee and really the purpose in the committee so we can kind of vet 01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:17.120 this before we take it for pnz and council um keep in mind if we if we looked at a 500 square foot 01:41:17.120 --> 01:41:24.800 accessory dwelling unit and we used 100 square feet for a kitchen living area leaves 400 square feet 01:41:24.800 --> 01:41:32.800 and that could fundamentally be four bedrooms so in a 500 square foot unit you could you know house 01:41:32.800 --> 01:41:39.120 four individual people so if we elect to do something different parking standards create 01:41:39.120 --> 01:41:47.120 another type of use you know that's what we're looking for that direction if i recall correctly 01:41:47.120 --> 01:41:54.240 it's really kind of what we ended up with after we adopted the code when we adopted the code we 01:41:54.240 --> 01:42:00.080 started putting this into practice a number of the council members were receiving phone calls we were 01:42:00.080 --> 01:42:07.360 getting a a lot of applications and and those applications were primarily for accessory dwelling 01:42:07.360 --> 01:42:13.760 units for rental purposes and when we did that that's where the mailbox came from and some of 01:42:13.760 --> 01:42:19.360 these other provisions is really we were getting the account the guidance from dcrc committee 01:42:19.360 --> 01:42:25.920 members and this was that one that we were going to take back to council for really that the the 01:42:25.920 --> 01:42:32.160 full body to to make a decision and determination and how we want to do it so i just i guess want 01:42:32.160 --> 01:42:38.480 to make sure that we're we're clear and and kind of how we came to this and it was it was primarily 01:42:38.480 --> 01:42:46.080 i think that focus that we recognize it's being utilized close to twu and unt and our historic 01:42:46.080 --> 01:42:52.320 districts and where there are you know detached um you know maybe there were a single car garage 01:42:52.320 --> 01:42:57.440 back in the day but they've been converted since or going to be converted and especially if those 01:42:57.440 --> 01:43:03.760 are already rental properties um it just adds another couple of units or the more the beds the 01:43:03.760 --> 01:43:14.960 more profitable the property is it's andrew thanks chair um i just wanted to uh kind of echo 01:43:14.960 --> 01:43:21.120 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 01:43:21.120 --> 01:43:27.280 the problem is that we're trying to solve and then solve that problem it doesn't seem inherently 01:43:27.280 --> 01:43:31.440 there's a problem with number of beds it seems like inherently there's some other problem with 01:43:31.440 --> 01:43:39.040 parking or capping rental income or capping the ability to have four bedrooms and a 400 square 01:43:39.040 --> 01:43:45.280 foot uh building whatever that problem is i think the language should be geared towards solving 01:43:45.280 --> 01:43:51.120 that problem explicitly because as other individuals in this commission or committee have spoken about 01:43:51.120 --> 01:43:56.080 that one bedroom thing seems weird um and it seems like there's probably some non-conformities and 01:43:56.080 --> 01:44:00.160 there's probably going to be some limitation to property rights to limit it to one bedroom 01:44:00.160 --> 01:44:05.920 so i think that bullet whether it's d or e should probably be either removed or cleaned up but i 01:44:05.920 --> 01:44:11.840 think more broadly speaking uh the committee council p and z staff needs to figure out what's 01:44:11.840 --> 01:44:17.840 the problem uh and then actually write language to solve that problem and if it's rental income then 01:44:17.840 --> 01:44:23.440 then carve out some sort of cap on renting you can only rent one bedroom of an auxiliary dwelling 01:44:23.440 --> 01:44:28.800 unit whatever it should be i think we can think more creatively to be more specific about addressing 01:44:28.800 --> 01:44:37.040 the problem and thank you andrew and and i'll add that um it really wasn't anything to do with 01:44:37.040 --> 01:44:43.680 rental capping um whatever somebody's going to do that that's absolutely fine um as i recall the 01:44:43.680 --> 01:44:49.040 conversation it was really concerned with preserving the neighborhoods so i think that first and 01:44:49.040 --> 01:44:54.800 foremost the primary issue was parking because we already have a parking problem in many of those 01:44:54.800 --> 01:45:01.360 neighborhoods and it was the inability to add um you know where it is let me just go back to the 01:45:01.360 --> 01:45:08.000 example of it being a single car garage that was converted into living and it's got a single 01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:13.120 driveway and you've already got a couple of occupants in the primary structure there really 01:45:13.120 --> 01:45:20.880 is no off-street parking and and so um the one came out of the came out of or i believe we heard 01:45:20.880 --> 01:45:26.720 that through the committee trying to to limit the impact and then the other piece to that you know 01:45:26.720 --> 01:45:32.400 really got into that ancillary stuff of of whether it's going to be a nuisance because it's a rental 01:45:32.400 --> 01:45:39.680 property but i'm happy to take the feedback and work forward um on whatever the direction is we 01:45:39.680 --> 01:45:49.040 receive yeah and i might think about changing f to one additional off-street per bedroom because 01:45:49.040 --> 01:45:53.600 then you're going to start when you start looking at density you've got lot coverage when you start 01:45:53.600 --> 01:45:58.640 adding that that additional parking place you might be limited to you can only put in one 01:45:58.640 --> 01:46:03.920 bedroom or only put in two bedrooms because you can't get your lot coverage right with having to 01:46:03.920 --> 01:46:13.760 add those additional parking spaces absolutely john thank you let me bring this up again yes 01:46:13.760 --> 01:46:19.440 you're absolutely correct when we drafted this it was stated to be one bedroom so we just said one 01:46:19.440 --> 01:46:26.080 additional parking off-street parking but if this were to not be included we would definitely make 01:46:26.080 --> 01:46:33.200 sure that this reflected uh based on the number of bedrooms that each bedroom is required to provide 01:46:33.200 --> 01:46:41.040 one off-street parking additional so if i was hearing that correctly john and and maybe we can 01:46:41.040 --> 01:46:47.760 get some consensus on this is that so the intent of this is it's really for it to be an accessory 01:46:47.760 --> 01:46:56.000 dwelling unit um and ultimately that it would be a minimum of one parking spot for each bedroom 01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:04.400 provided one off-street parking and so the secondary piece to that is we we have the primary 01:47:04.400 --> 01:47:10.720 residence which we will make the assumption that they have an off-street parking spot i don't know 01:47:10.720 --> 01:47:15.680 that we can even take the assumption of two off-street parking spots which wouldn't be included 01:47:15.680 --> 01:47:23.760 would that be an accurate statement no what i'm looking at is our current building code if you were 01:47:23.760 --> 01:47:28.960 building your house new today you'd be required to have four off-street parking places if i'm 01:47:28.960 --> 01:47:37.040 if i'm correct on that so if so if you wanted to add a three bedroom accessory dwelling unit you 01:47:37.040 --> 01:47:43.760 would have to meet the current code for parking for your primary plus so you'd have to have seven 01:47:43.760 --> 01:47:50.160 off-street parking places which is you know if you've got in two or three acres that's no problem 01:47:50.160 --> 01:47:54.720 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 01:47:54.720 --> 01:48:00.480 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 01:48:00.480 --> 01:48:08.800 going to be more rental at that point so do you have a recommendation that we could work from 01:48:10.880 --> 01:48:21.760 um maybe must meet current off-street parking requirements and have one additional off-street 01:48:21.760 --> 01:48:29.120 parking place per bedroom they they wouldn't be able to do that today largely and if you were just 01:48:29.120 --> 01:48:35.760 go down oak street they don't have four off-street parking so and i think that was really where this 01:48:35.760 --> 01:48:44.320 the catalyst for this was well well if they if they don't have if they can't meet that standard 01:48:44.320 --> 01:48:54.960 then i mean technically they can't meet the code and share yeah i i'm not really that comfortable 01:48:54.960 --> 01:49:01.200 doing that with the requirement of the parking at this point because then we're saying well sorry 01:49:01.200 --> 01:49:08.880 due to code you can't build it um just because of car access so maybe if they could provide 01:49:08.880 --> 01:49:16.640 you know other access or you know prove that there's other transportation um i i i don't know i i 01:49:16.640 --> 01:49:21.120 think we still need to to be a little bit more creative when we're talking about this instead of 01:49:21.120 --> 01:49:30.080 requiring seven spaces for you know a house and an accessory dwelling unit how about if we take this 01:49:30.080 --> 01:49:36.000 back as staff at least on this portion of the topic ron you can continue on and we'll see if 01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:41.120 we can't come up with some ideas or suggestions that that kind of meet the intent of what we're 01:49:41.120 --> 01:49:47.760 hearing and and i guess if i were to summarize that is that we um the committee doesn't care for 01:49:47.760 --> 01:49:54.160 the one bedroom like to find some alternatives and as andrew pointed out is is what are the 01:49:54.160 --> 01:49:59.040 potential problems and what are some of those solutions and we'll bring those back to you for 01:49:59.040 --> 01:50:03.680 a little further discussion sounds good 01:50:03.680 --> 01:50:12.160 okay um uh sorry sorry to interrupt this i'm gonna let anyone know that i have a hard stop at three 01:50:12.160 --> 01:50:18.880 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 01:50:18.880 --> 01:50:25.360 a stop at three uh uh chair i sent you an email just a minute a minute ago so they said ron you 01:50:25.360 --> 01:50:33.440 better hurry up no i i i see the clock i want to be respectful of everyone's time um and this may 01:50:33.440 --> 01:50:40.160 be the the last item we talk about um with regards to accessory dwelling is we also are proposing 01:50:40.160 --> 01:50:47.120 that we change up the minimum sizes as well as the the maximum size for adus 01:50:48.400 --> 01:50:55.920 that the adus shall be 50 now these are for uh adus um a lot smaller than 10 000 square feet 01:50:55.920 --> 01:51:01.600 adu shall not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of a principal structure 01:51:01.600 --> 01:51:09.280 in addition shall not exceed 900 square feet and shall not be less than 400 square feet 01:51:09.280 --> 01:51:14.960 900 we chose 900 because that's the minimum square footage for a single family detach 01:51:16.160 --> 01:51:22.560 we chose 400 because that is the minimum requirement for a multi-family dwelling 01:51:22.560 --> 01:51:28.800 unit so that's where you see these numbers again just to set some parameters on how big and how 01:51:28.800 --> 01:51:36.960 small a an accessory dwelling unit should or could be now we also know that there are lots that are 01:51:36.960 --> 01:51:42.880 10 000 square feet or larger in that particular case they cannot exceed 50 percent of the principal 01:51:42.880 --> 01:51:48.080 dwelling unit they do not have the follow the two that we just described or i described 01:51:48.080 --> 01:51:54.000 uh to follow but they still have that 50 percent of the principal dwelling unit maximum 01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:05.120 some of the other items under accessory dwelling unit are just mainly clean up um one i want to 01:52:05.120 --> 01:52:12.800 specifically address is the last one here where the entry doors shall not be visible from a public 01:52:12.800 --> 01:52:18.960 building right away and to your point andrew the the reason why that's being introduced is that we 01:52:18.960 --> 01:52:27.440 want to keep the the fabric of the neighborhood and having one front entry doorway visible means 01:52:27.440 --> 01:52:35.200 that that's you know that's one home under one lot having more than one will appear to be a duplex 01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:38.880 and change the fabric or the character of the neighborhood and so that's what we're trying to 01:52:38.880 --> 01:52:44.480 address here is by adding this limitation it can still be accessed but it's just not visible from 01:52:44.480 --> 01:52:52.400 the public right away at least not in the front and it can be accessed through the side facing entry 01:52:52.400 --> 01:52:58.400 and then last again as part of that keeping the fabric in the character of the neighborhood 01:52:58.400 --> 01:53:02.160 we want to make sure that that additional accessory dwelling unit is architecturally 01:53:02.160 --> 01:53:09.120 compatible with the primary home uh chair 01:53:09.120 --> 01:53:17.200 these there is easy yeah yeah go ahead go ahead andrew sorrows so ron how does that work on corner 01:53:17.200 --> 01:53:26.560 lots um where it the backyard is the side yard is the adu supposed to be facing uh perpendicular 01:53:26.560 --> 01:53:31.200 to the street in that regard it doesn't seem like that's the aesthetic for neighborhoods 01:53:31.200 --> 01:53:37.360 no i think i i sorry to cut you off there i think for internal lots um not facing the front right of 01:53:37.360 --> 01:53:43.040 course then there won't be two front for a corner lot um the that is a good question you know where 01:53:43.040 --> 01:53:48.480 would it face i think in that we probably need to add something to um reflect corner lots and in that 01:53:48.480 --> 01:53:55.920 particular case a corner lot where the adu say on the side of the the other street would be able to 01:53:55.920 --> 01:54:02.000 have a front entry doorway facing that street and we can certainly add that to the amendment 01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:14.720 okay any other questions on this comments that's a good that's a good point 01:54:14.720 --> 01:54:23.040 i think the other the last item under accessory dwelling unit we'll we'll we'll stop it at that 01:54:23.040 --> 01:54:31.840 is that any amenities or sorry services separate water or sewer service for adu shall not be 01:54:31.840 --> 01:54:38.320 allowed so they must be off of the primary sewer and water service however separate meeting for 01:54:38.320 --> 01:54:46.800 other utilities electric or others can be allowed as long as those separate meters are within 01:54:48.080 --> 01:54:54.560 direct sight of each other and the intent there the reason why we have this is that when a service 01:54:54.560 --> 01:55:02.320 person comes they are servicing one area and also for public safety reasons if there were a fire or 01:55:02.320 --> 01:55:07.680 electric issue the fire department can shut off the electric at one location not have to look at 01:55:07.680 --> 01:55:12.800 it or find it in a different location so that is the intent of why we feel that it should be within 01:55:12.800 --> 01:55:22.320 the same proximity or close direct sight of each other and that's it um and i'm not going to jump 01:55:22.320 --> 01:55:28.800 into the next item because we're close to the time and i'll stand for any questions or additional 01:55:28.800 --> 01:55:36.960 directions on any of the code amendments any questions comments concerns 01:55:38.880 --> 01:55:44.160 seen none i think that brings us to concluding items unless you had anything else wrong just uh 01:55:44.160 --> 01:55:49.200 just appreciate the the comments and suggestions i i we've heard a lot um specifically with the 01:55:49.200 --> 01:55:53.520 short-term rentals as well as the eccentric dwelling units we'll certainly um circle back 01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:59.840 with you on those items one of the things i want to just discuss real quickly next week um is um 01:55:59.840 --> 01:56:06.880 thanksgiving uh or the day before so um my suggestion is that we postpone the next 01:56:06.880 --> 01:56:14.560 meeting to december 2nd if i remember yes december 2nd and if that's okay with the dcrc members uh 01:56:14.560 --> 01:56:21.920 we'll certainly make accommodations okay council member briggs real quick are we going to discuss 01:56:21.920 --> 01:56:26.800 sros um i know that there was a stall last time in the discussion and it went to planning and 01:56:26.800 --> 01:56:30.880 zoning and then it was supposed to come back i don't know like we were talking about definition 01:56:30.880 --> 01:56:36.000 or there was a lot of um discussion that i don't ever know if it was completed or not so 01:56:36.640 --> 01:56:42.240 does that come back to this committee or is that just gone we we currently do not have a code 01:56:42.240 --> 01:56:48.480 amendment uh directly um related to sros um if there is a particular section in the code that 01:56:48.480 --> 01:56:53.360 you would like us to research regarding that item we can certainly do so okay thanks 01:56:53.360 --> 01:56:58.720 all right any concluding items 01:57:00.960 --> 01:57:06.800 seeing none we will adjourn at 2 59 thank you everyone