1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:12,600
 Welcome, everyone. We do have a quorum present for the Development Code Review Committee.

2
00:00:12,600 --> 00:00:21,040
 It is 1237 on April 14, 2021. I'll call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda

3
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:30,600
 is consider approval of the January 14, 2021 minutes. So, entertain a motion. And just

4
00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:39,440
 as a reminder to everybody, we are now all voting members. So, anyone can make motions

5
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:46,760
 and seconds. Council Member Davis. I'll move approval. All right. And Margie? I'll second.

6
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:56,760
 All right. We have a motion and a second. Pull through here. Council Member Davis. I'll

7
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:04,920
 say you. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. I say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. I'll say you. Aye.

8
00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:10,520
 And the chair is an aye. So, that motion carries forward to zero. The next item up is election

9
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:18,880
 of a chair and vice chair. So, who that's not here, are we going to make the vice chair?

10
00:01:18,880 --> 00:01:26,560
 Teach them to not show up. I think I'd like to recommend that we have a vice chair from

11
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:35,720
 the PNC so that we've got... Yeah, I was just looking through the new document, the resolution,

12
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:43,320
 it requires that the chair and vice chair both be council members. Oh, okay. Okay. That's

13
00:01:43,320 --> 00:01:51,840
 correct. All right. Commissioner Ellis? How about I nominate Council Member Ryan as chair

14
00:01:51,840 --> 00:02:03,080
 and Council Member Davis as vice chair? Voted differently or separately. Yeah, well, I think

15
00:02:03,080 --> 00:02:12,080
 we can vote as a block. Okay. We have a motion. Commissioner Rossell. I'll second. Okay. We

16
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:19,740
 have a motion and a second. Commissioner Ellis, I'll say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. Aye.

17
00:02:19,740 --> 00:02:26,560
 Mayor Pro Tem. Aye. And the chair is an aye as well. So, that carries forward to zero.

18
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:35,720
 Thank you for your confidence in me to continue on. And so, we will move to item C, which

19
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:44,080
 is consider approval of the 2021 meeting calendar. So, I have a presentation and let me share

20
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:51,880
 my screen real quick to help in this discussion. I know that the calendar was sent out on Friday

21
00:02:51,880 --> 00:03:01,760
 and there was an update to that. So, just want to make sure that we have that. Scroll

22
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:15,640
 up real quick. And hopefully you all see the screen on here. So, these are the dates that

23
00:03:15,640 --> 00:03:27,960
 we have remaining until August 31st. And these are the Wednesdays that the DCRC mentioned

24
00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:35,860
 would work. And again, the calendar dates that you see here also reflect the availability

25
00:03:35,860 --> 00:03:43,800
 of this work session room and DTV. So, these are the dates that we have placed in, are

26
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:54,400
 asking for your consideration. Any questions or comments on the dates? Commissioner

27
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:58,480
 Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just curious, Ron, is this

28
00:03:58,480 --> 00:04:06,880
 the timeframe, 1230? That's 12 to 2 is what we've set. And so, sometimes it starts at

29
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:10,840
 1230 because there's a meeting in the morning. If we can get started at 12, that's what we're

30
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:18,200
 going to shoot for. But around 12 to 2 in the afternoon on Wednesdays is what we've

31
00:04:18,200 --> 00:04:34,560
 identified as the times. Thanks. Any other questions? Comments? Motion? Commissioner

32
00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:42,440
 Rossell? I move to accept the calendar as presented. Commissioner Ellis? Second. All

33
00:04:42,440 --> 00:04:51,280
 right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. We will take

34
00:04:51,280 --> 00:05:01,000
 the roll. Commissioner Rossell? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem? Aye. Council Member

35
00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:09,280
 Johnson? Aye. And the Chair is an aye. So, that motion carries unanimously. Moving on

36
00:05:09,280 --> 00:05:15,120
 to item D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding proposed code

37
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:20,040
 amendment related to replat procedures, plan development procedures, accessory dwelling

38
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:29,000
 units and subchapter 7 development standards. Great. Thank you, Chair. I will start my presentation

39
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:40,120
 here. Hopefully you all can see the agenda for this afternoon. Just really quickly, just

40
00:05:40,120 --> 00:05:46,360
 to talk about, number one, to recap, the code amendments that we've processed or discussed

41
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:53,760
 already. The last time we've seen these were back in November of 2020. So, I just want

42
00:05:53,760 --> 00:06:03,600
 to give the DCRC, as well as the viewing public, a recap of what we've already discussed. Number

43
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:08,720
 two, just to touch a little bit more on the replat procedure, I wanted to spend a little

44
00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:18,120
 bit more time on that one specifically. Number three is to go over our PD procedure or rezone

45
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:25,640
 to a PD development district procedure. There's a discussion that I would like for us to have.

46
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:31,160
 And then number four is the follow up to our discussion on accessory dwelling units. We

47
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:36,960
 had a question we wanted to address and bring that back in relationships to the number of

48
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:44,680
 maximum bedrooms. And if we have time this afternoon, we can start our review and consideration

49
00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:53,240
 of some of the development standards under subchapter seven. So, next slide here is really

50
00:06:53,240 --> 00:06:59,320
 to show what we've discussed. I won't read through all of them. You can see that we have

51
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:09,080
 not forwarded the first two. We are pending on the number three through five relationships

52
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:16,080
 to three-way agreements and contracts. So, that will be forthcoming in the future. We've

53
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:21,880
 put a hold on unity of title and declaration of lieu of union title. So, that one is to

54
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:31,160
 be determined and not currently on our schedule. We did a lot with subchapter two, specifically

55
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:39,920
 the table, table 2.2-A. And all that you see here listed are reflected code amendments,

56
00:07:39,920 --> 00:07:45,680
 proposed code amendments, that is, on that specific table. I won't read the list. As

57
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:54,280
 you can see, we're adding a number of application types, not necessarily new to the development

58
00:07:54,280 --> 00:08:01,000
 review process, but just new to the table. As we started to apply the development code,

59
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:07,000
 there were some questions and requests to include these application types in that table.

60
00:08:07,000 --> 00:08:16,360
 So, we've added these as well as references to that table. This here slide illustrates

61
00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:21,600
 what I'm referring to that table that you see here. The items in green are what we're

62
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:29,240
 adding as far as application types. And you can see that some of them are new. Some of

63
00:08:29,240 --> 00:08:35,760
 them are currently what we're processing today. For example, traffic impact analysis and real

64
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:40,460
 estate applications are applications that we've had and we're just putting it in this

65
00:08:40,460 --> 00:08:48,560
 table. Regarding the tree survey and preservation replacement plan, we have those. It wasn't

66
00:08:48,560 --> 00:08:54,720
 in the table and we felt that to provide a reference in this table was helpful for applicants

67
00:08:54,720 --> 00:09:02,480
 to know where to go in terms of applying for those application types.

68
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:08,080
 We continued our discussion on subchapter 2 and added a number of code amendments related

69
00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:12,840
 to procedures. Again, I'm not going to read all of them, but you can see that there's

70
00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:22,160
 a number of sections of the code that we added clarification, added language to help explain

71
00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:32,760
 the procedures and the role of each of these commission and boards. Again, continuing with

72
00:09:32,760 --> 00:09:39,720
 that subchapter 2, again, very lengthy chapter. It deals with administration and procedures.

73
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:47,280
 So, we had a number of code amendments, nothing that were complex. They were just there to

74
00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:53,040
 help explain and clarify things that after we applied the code, it just needed a little

75
00:09:53,040 --> 00:10:01,400
 bit more direction. You can see number 18 and number 19 are ones that we're going to

76
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:13,200
 be touching later in this presentation. Moving from subchapter 2, we went to subchapter 3

77
00:10:13,200 --> 00:10:21,120
 and 5 related to dimensional standards and to the table of allowed uses. We had some

78
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:27,840
 updates to setbacks and building height in subchapter 3 for dimensional standards that

79
00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:36,760
 you see there. And then number 26 is where we looked at specific land uses, medical office,

80
00:10:36,760 --> 00:10:43,880
 central preparation facilities, general personal services, parking lot as a principal use,

81
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:50,240
 and elderly housing. Now, these are not new uses. We just adjusted the zoning districts

82
00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:55,040
 where they were permitted as well as added a number of use specific standards related

83
00:10:55,040 --> 00:11:03,400
 to these uses. And then we got into a little bit more into the use specific standards as

84
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:10,360
 you all recall. We talked a lot about accessory uses and structures, short-term rentals, and

85
00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:15,800
 then accessory dwelling units. Again, we will be discussing later in this presentation accessory

86
00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:21,700
 dwelling units as it relates to the one bedroom maximum. And staff has a proposal that we'd

87
00:11:21,700 --> 00:11:31,640
 like for the DCRC to consider. So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and jump into the replat

88
00:11:31,640 --> 00:11:38,000
 procedure. Again, we had discussed this, but I feel like we need to spend a little bit

89
00:11:38,000 --> 00:11:46,680
 more time on this since there is a house bill tied to the replat procedure. So, with this

90
00:11:46,680 --> 00:11:53,760
 first slide, you can see that the addition of these steps have been added or is being

91
00:11:53,760 --> 00:12:00,600
 proposed to be added to that section of replat procedures to give a little bit more of an

92
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:10,840
 idea of how the process works. Anything that isn't read is new language or new text. And

93
00:12:10,840 --> 00:12:18,600
 you can see that there's a lot being added. And now they're not meant to add more regulations

94
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:25,640
 or standards. It's really to help clarify and give the reader, the applicant, an idea

95
00:12:25,640 --> 00:12:31,920
 or what is expected when it comes to replat. One of the things or a couple of the things

96
00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:40,520
 that I want to highlight is that what we're adding is also reflecting the house bill 3167

97
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:46,960
 as it relates to replat procedures. A lot of the references that you see here, you can

98
00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:54,560
 see references to 12 of the Texas local government code. So again, we're being consistent and

99
00:12:54,560 --> 00:13:03,000
 we're referencing those sections accordingly. And number three, as far as step three, it's

100
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:10,520
 there and is being provided again to provide that additional information for applicants.

101
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:20,280
 3A is related to replats that can be administered and approved by staff, while B provides a

102
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:26,040
 little bit more direction on those that are referred to the Planning, Zoning Commission.

103
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:35,080
 So I just want to highlight that that is what we're proposing to add to the replat procedure.

104
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:42,400
 We're also adding step four and step five. Again, anything in red and most of all of

105
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:48,960
 this is red. So these are being added specifically to that procedure. Again, not anything that

106
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:55,680
 would add regulations or standards, but more to provide that clarity that our applicants

107
00:13:55,680 --> 00:14:05,620
 and citizens would like. Specifically, I want to mention that the replats, if they require

108
00:14:05,620 --> 00:14:14,640
 a variance, that requires a public hearing and notification. However, replats that do

109
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:23,760
 not need a variance can simply be placed on the Planning, Zoning Commission agenda and

110
00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:30,840
 considered as part of an item for individual consideration. So this right here provides

111
00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:43,200
 that explanation. The step six, specifically to replat procedures, post decision actions.

112
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:52,840
 The one that I want to highlight here is really the notification. When a replat does not require

113
00:14:52,840 --> 00:15:01,480
 a variance, it does not need to be advertised or notified in advance of the meeting. What

114
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:08,680
 it does say is that after the consideration by the Planning, Zoning Commission, that

115
00:15:08,680 --> 00:15:21,200
 notification will be sent out after the meeting. So 15 days after the date the replat was considered.

116
00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:26,840
 The last slide for the replat procedure is the approval criteria. And I included this

117
00:15:26,840 --> 00:15:33,800
 because, again, anything that's in red or underlined is new to the code being proposed,

118
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:40,040
 that is to be included in the code. And we felt that it was important to provide a more

119
00:15:40,040 --> 00:15:47,840
 specific criteria for replat applications. So these are the six that we've included or

120
00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:58,840
 proposed to include. Moving on to rezone to a plan development district. This is where

121
00:15:58,840 --> 00:16:10,040
 we have a policy question for the DCRC, specifically to the first part of this types of plan development.

122
00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:19,000
 What we're referring to as overlay PD. What we would like to propose is an overlay PD

123
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:29,280
 is different from your standard PD, standard PD being the larger PDs that you're used to.

124
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:33,360
 Ropes and ranch is just the one that comes up to mind immediately. That's your standard

125
00:16:33,360 --> 00:16:43,120
 PD. While an overlay PD is a little bit less complex, less comprehensive or cumbersome,

126
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:51,480
 it specifically is where the applicant, if they're not able to meet a zoning district

127
00:16:51,480 --> 00:17:01,920
 requirement, they potentially can use an overlay PD to still accomplish what they're proposing.

128
00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:11,120
 So the question for the DCRC is, should the overlay PD be restricted to subchapter five

129
00:17:11,120 --> 00:17:19,120
 only in terms of restricting the types of uses allowed in that particular development

130
00:17:19,120 --> 00:17:28,160
 as well as applying more restrictive specific standards? So I'm going to pull this down

131
00:17:28,160 --> 00:17:39,800
 and see if there are any questions or any discussions related to this specific question.

132
00:17:39,800 --> 00:17:48,400
 Any questions? I'm not seeing any Rob.

133
00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:56,200
 So the other option that we've placed there, and I'm going to share my screen again, is

134
00:17:56,200 --> 00:18:04,440
 that in addition to subchapter five, the other items that could be included in overlay district

135
00:18:04,440 --> 00:18:13,880
 is to address setbacks, which is in subchapter three, landscaping, screening and buffering

136
00:18:13,880 --> 00:18:24,320
 requirements, which is in subchapter seven. So does the DCRC feel that this overlay district

137
00:18:24,320 --> 00:18:34,720
 can provide more restrictive requirements, including setbacks, landscaping, screening,

138
00:18:34,720 --> 00:18:44,120
 and buffering, or just keep it within subchapter five, which again, deals with the uses and

139
00:18:44,120 --> 00:18:52,440
 use specific standards. If you all are okay with this, then we can move forward with this

140
00:18:52,440 --> 00:18:59,960
 code amendment. And again, it would include these other requirements that are not in subchapter

141
00:18:59,960 --> 00:19:16,120
 five. I'd hate to move on. Richard, do you have maybe an example or maybe clarify this

142
00:19:16,120 --> 00:19:23,200
 a little bit more for the committee to understand why we're proposing this overlay PD? Because

143
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:29,360
 I know we've had submittals in the past, which deals primarily with just these types of applications.

144
00:19:29,360 --> 00:19:37,160
 Yeah. And really, a lot of this comes up to do with, if you recall in the old DDC, we

145
00:19:37,160 --> 00:19:44,840
 had that mixed use overlay protection zone. The new DDC, we removed that, but then there

146
00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:51,720
 was some language in there. And I think based upon some guidance that we had from legal

147
00:19:51,720 --> 00:19:59,040
 at the, shortly thereafter, that while staff can impose or ask that an overlay restriction

148
00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:03,960
 be, those overlay restrictions be put in place, primarily it had to do with the uses where

149
00:20:03,960 --> 00:20:09,720
 someone might be asking for R6 or R4 or even MN, but there were some other uses that maybe

150
00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:13,920
 weren't necessarily appropriate. And so there were these overlay restrictions or overlay

151
00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:19,720
 districts that we would put in place. And so now they, it just comes to P and Z kind

152
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:25,560
 of clunky. They ask for it on the spot. And so this would really kind of step in the shoes

153
00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:30,600
 of that. And really most of the time it's use related, but whether or not we want to

154
00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:36,440
 extend that to put further restrictions with respect to landscape or buffer and the like

155
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:44,240
 is really kind of where we're at and wanted to open that discussion.

156
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:50,320
 Margie. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I know, you know,

157
00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:54,680
 we had many situations where we included those types of items, you know, back in the day

158
00:20:54,680 --> 00:21:03,640
 when we put an overlay on a zoning request change. So that makes sense to me to be able

159
00:21:03,640 --> 00:21:09,540
 to include that in this. I assume that's where you were going with that, right?

160
00:21:09,540 --> 00:21:17,400
 Right. We wanted to make sure that we didn't overreach on what can be placed on an overlay

161
00:21:17,400 --> 00:21:27,260
 PD or keep it just to sub chapter five, where we often see most of those issues address

162
00:21:27,260 --> 00:21:33,160
 where someone limits the number or the uses to maybe one or two and that's all they needed

163
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:37,720
 to do. Yeah. And I guess that's, I guess we have

164
00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:41,100
 to just decide where we're going with this. You know, I mean, if it is being like the

165
00:21:41,100 --> 00:21:46,640
 old days and the old overlays, because I do remember discussing screening before and putting

166
00:21:46,640 --> 00:21:53,400
 that as part of the overlay. I do remember discussing buffering before in the past. So

167
00:21:53,400 --> 00:22:03,800
 I guess if that's the direction we're going here, it makes sense.

168
00:22:03,800 --> 00:22:12,520
 Yeah, just to clarify too, the intent would be to make it more restrictive, not necessarily

169
00:22:12,520 --> 00:22:16,920
 where someone's going the regular PD route where they may ask for relief on something

170
00:22:16,920 --> 00:22:21,280
 where it may be less restrictive in exchange for something else. The intent here is really

171
00:22:21,280 --> 00:22:26,520
 to make something more restrictive in the case of whether it's a use next to a residential

172
00:22:26,520 --> 00:22:30,640
 that maybe we want to make sure there's a larger buffer that something just comes to

173
00:22:30,640 --> 00:22:39,480
 comes to mind. That helps. Right. Councilmember Johnson. Well, I think that makes sense as

174
00:22:39,480 --> 00:22:45,720
 well to go ahead and just include it and just go ahead and the buffers and everything. It's

175
00:22:45,720 --> 00:22:55,280
 that way we'll know exactly. This is my opinion. Yes. And again, to restate what Richard said,

176
00:22:55,280 --> 00:23:03,600
 the way it's stated here, it's more restrictive, increased setback, increased landscaping,

177
00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:09,560
 increased screening, increased buffering. So it's to provide that additional protection,

178
00:23:09,560 --> 00:23:19,520
 I guess. So that's how it's worded. Okay. We'll move on to the next. I think we've got

179
00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:26,120
 a couple of slides here and I won't spend too much time on these next few slides. Other

180
00:23:26,120 --> 00:23:36,920
 than to let you know that we are also expanding the rezone to PD district procedure by including

181
00:23:36,920 --> 00:23:42,600
 more information, as you can see in red or underline, gives a little bit more clarity

182
00:23:42,600 --> 00:23:48,080
 on what is required or what is expected to be included in their application. And again,

183
00:23:48,080 --> 00:23:56,600
 this is for a standard PD, one that you would want to see more specific information. So

184
00:23:56,600 --> 00:24:06,420
 we have that included. We also have, again, what should be part of a PD development plan,

185
00:24:06,420 --> 00:24:12,880
 what happens during a phasing development. Again, all of these would be new to the Development

186
00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:20,920
 Code. Last, and I think this is second to the last, is the amendment process. We've

187
00:24:20,920 --> 00:24:27,640
 made sure that, you know, we want to make sure that any amendment follows the procedure

188
00:24:27,640 --> 00:24:35,720
 of the DDC, the current DDC. So this is what's being added to this section. And then similar

189
00:24:35,720 --> 00:24:41,800
 to the rezoning, I'm sorry, the replat, we've added approval criteria so that it gives the

190
00:24:41,800 --> 00:24:49,600
 staff and the commission and council a little bit more of some findings in order to make

191
00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:57,800
 their decision. So again, this is added to the, will be added with our code amendment.

192
00:24:57,800 --> 00:25:08,160
 All right. Our next topic for discussion is the accessory dwelling unit code amendment.

193
00:25:08,160 --> 00:25:14,600
 And when we spoke about this last, there was a question about limiting the number of bedrooms

194
00:25:14,600 --> 00:25:24,560
 to one. And it's currently shown here under the general section of accessory dwelling units.

195
00:25:24,560 --> 00:25:32,200
 We discussed that there might be opportunities for say a larger property to have more than

196
00:25:32,200 --> 00:25:40,320
 one bedroom and why limiting it to one. What was the reason? The response from staff was

197
00:25:40,320 --> 00:25:47,600
 we wanted to ensure that the neighborhood was protected where a person that provided

198
00:25:47,600 --> 00:25:57,480
 or proposed an accessory dwelling unit would not be creating a second unit in that it may

199
00:25:57,480 --> 00:26:06,160
 affect the character of the neighborhood. So limiting it to one was the attempt to protect

200
00:26:06,160 --> 00:26:16,840
 that neighborhood. What staff is proposing is that we've broken up the size of the lots

201
00:26:16,840 --> 00:26:26,380
 where an ADU is proposed. So any lots that are smaller than 10,000 would have that one

202
00:26:26,380 --> 00:26:36,640
 bedroom max where any lot that's above 10,000 square feet would only comply by requiring

203
00:26:36,640 --> 00:26:43,000
 them to have an ADU that's 50% of the square footage in the principal dwelling unit. So

204
00:26:43,000 --> 00:26:52,280
 if that particular lot that has 10,000 has let's say 6,000 square feet and they're proposing

205
00:26:52,280 --> 00:26:58,680
 a 3,000 square feet accessory dwelling unit, they can and they can have as many bedrooms

206
00:26:58,680 --> 00:27:06,440
 as they would like since that provision is not included in this particular scenario.

207
00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:14,680
 So again, the policy question here is should ADUs be limited to one bedroom for ADUs on

208
00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:22,920
 lots smaller than 10,000? Again, anything above, we don't have a provision. But for

209
00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:30,920
 the ones that are 10,000 or less, what is the discussion or consideration by the DCRC?

210
00:27:30,920 --> 00:27:47,400
 And let me, oops. Chair. Yes. I don't know if you can see me. Go ahead, Andrew. All right.

211
00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:51,640
 Thank you. Two questions real fast. Ron, are we not worried about a minimum on lots that

212
00:27:51,640 --> 00:28:00,900
 have bigger than 10,000 square feet? You can put a 250 square foot ADU into the rationale

213
00:28:00,900 --> 00:28:11,340
 behind taking away the minimum. And the other question I have is what's the, has there been

214
00:28:11,340 --> 00:28:18,080
 a problem of having two people stay or two bedrooms in an ADU on a small lot or maybe

215
00:28:18,080 --> 00:28:25,160
 some context of what we're trying to solve here? Yeah. I know that the ones that we've

216
00:28:25,160 --> 00:28:35,120
 seen recently applications-wise, they have proposed two to three. And what that does

217
00:28:35,120 --> 00:28:44,200
 is again, not forcing, but what it does, it's creating another unit on a lot that's similar

218
00:28:44,200 --> 00:28:51,080
 to the principal structure by having two to three. We went back and forth between one

219
00:28:51,080 --> 00:28:57,460
 or two. In the end, we felt that the intent of an accessory dwelling unit was really to

220
00:28:57,460 --> 00:29:06,000
 provide for that elderly parent or adult child in one bedroom was the number that we came

221
00:29:06,000 --> 00:29:13,680
 up with. So again, the issue here is we're seeing more than two bedrooms and we would

222
00:29:13,680 --> 00:29:21,040
 like to keep the character of the neighborhood. Rod, if I might be able to add a little something,

223
00:29:21,040 --> 00:29:28,360
 when we discussed this in the past, ultimately we did get direction from the previous committee

224
00:29:28,360 --> 00:29:34,220
 as well as even from council, there was concern with, especially in established neighborhoods

225
00:29:34,220 --> 00:29:41,440
 that they were going to turn into rentals, really defeating the purpose and the original

226
00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:50,440
 intent and that was for aging parents or for kids trying to get out on their own. And to

227
00:29:50,440 --> 00:29:58,720
 Ron's point, when the 2019 code went into effect, we saw any number of accessory dwelling

228
00:29:58,720 --> 00:30:06,920
 units that were multiples. So, and it was just that, that it is a rental opportunity.

229
00:30:06,920 --> 00:30:11,120
 So it was really trying to limit. And then a second piece to that, which I think Ron

230
00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:17,000
 will be getting into is really the parking to help address what that room or bedroom

231
00:30:17,000 --> 00:30:24,440
 count might look like in relation to parking. So, and I have no doubt that when we get before

232
00:30:24,440 --> 00:30:29,680
 the full bodies on both commission and council, that this will be a highly, highly debated

233
00:30:29,680 --> 00:30:37,560
 topic. Thank you, Scott, for that input. I've already gotten several emails about this,

234
00:30:37,560 --> 00:30:41,240
 but the context of renting and parking certainly makes sense. Ron, can we circle back around

235
00:30:41,240 --> 00:30:45,840
 to the minimum? Are we going to put a minimum in for larger lots or why not a minimum for

236
00:30:45,840 --> 00:30:55,280
 larger lots? Let's pull this up real quick. I want to make sure I reference this. So we

237
00:30:55,280 --> 00:31:01,000
 do have for the dwelling units, I'm sorry, the lots that are above, I'm sorry, smaller

238
00:31:01,000 --> 00:31:09,480
 than 10,000 square feet. We do have a minimum size. I'm trying to remember why the intent

239
00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:14,040
 would be now the intent would be that there'd be nothing. It was the consistency of a tiny

240
00:31:14,040 --> 00:31:20,080
 home versus an ADU in that 400 square feet would apply to both. So if that language hasn't

241
00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:28,880
 been proposed as of yet on there, that was the intent. Okay. Thanks, Scott. So, yes.

242
00:31:28,880 --> 00:31:32,960
 So then, then we would, you know, and then it's a great point, Commissioner Rossell is

243
00:31:32,960 --> 00:31:44,560
 that we would add that provision, the minimum square feet to the ADUs, which have lots 10,000

244
00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:54,360
 or larger. But as far as the one bedroom, I guess that's where we are still, you know,

245
00:31:54,360 --> 00:32:01,040
 discussing and if it is what you see here, acceptable or something that we want to bring

246
00:32:01,040 --> 00:32:08,960
 forward to the full PNZ and City Council, we certainly can. By adding it the way you

247
00:32:08,960 --> 00:32:17,840
 see it here, we'll certainly eliminate this here because that this would not be necessary

248
00:32:17,840 --> 00:32:24,440
 at this point. And we would just keep it the way you see here under the lots that are smaller

249
00:32:24,440 --> 00:32:36,360
 than 10,000. Ron, I would think that the bedroom might not be needed because when you limit

250
00:32:36,360 --> 00:32:45,520
 it to no more than 900 square feet, then that's going to be at most a two bedroom. 400 is

251
00:32:45,520 --> 00:32:54,320
 going to be a small one bedroom over efficiency. So the 900 would take care of the size of

252
00:32:54,320 --> 00:32:57,960
 it. Yeah, you're not going to have you could end up with two bedrooms at 900 square feet.

253
00:32:57,960 --> 00:33:08,160
 That's probably the average two bedroom size is 900 square feet. Okay. Council member Ryan,

254
00:33:08,160 --> 00:33:13,000
 just kind of a note, just from what we've experienced already is they'll they'll stack

255
00:33:13,000 --> 00:33:20,480
 them pretty tight. So ultimately 900 square feet, you can put a nine by nine, you know,

256
00:33:20,480 --> 00:33:31,560
 bedroom, and you're taking up 81 square feet, right, and you can put in multiple bedrooms.

257
00:33:31,560 --> 00:33:40,840
 Maybe a limit of two bedrooms, but I think of in terms of let's say it is a family member

258
00:33:40,840 --> 00:33:47,040
 going through an issue of a mother and child that just need to stay at the parents house

259
00:33:47,040 --> 00:33:51,880
 and you want to build this for them to stay in. You know, when you have a parent child

260
00:33:51,880 --> 00:34:00,640
 situation and the grandparents live in the main house, now you're going to want separation

261
00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:09,480
 for for the two. So I'm probably okay with limiting to no more than two bedroom. I think

262
00:34:09,480 --> 00:34:15,480
 there are situations where this where two bedroom might be a preferred unit size for

263
00:34:15,480 --> 00:34:24,640
 family member type situation like the the intended use of a ad. That's good. I mean,

264
00:34:24,640 --> 00:34:29,720
 then certainly that's what we want to be able to at least have that good conversation and

265
00:34:29,720 --> 00:34:33,500
 the beauty to having members from both PNC and Council in the different perspectives

266
00:34:33,500 --> 00:34:44,520
 is that that'll help us to carry this forward. So thank you. So for clarification, do we

267
00:34:44,520 --> 00:34:58,360
 need is the full full DCRC okay with two or are we just still it's discussing one bedroom.

268
00:34:58,360 --> 00:35:04,480
 You've proposed as such that you have one. It's it's restricted to one bedroom. You have

269
00:35:04,480 --> 00:35:08,240
 one person that's indicating that we should have multiple so then I think it's just the

270
00:35:08,240 --> 00:35:14,440
 other committee members to. Right. Yeah, Marty, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think

271
00:35:14,440 --> 00:35:23,880
 you bring up a good point. Councilman Ryan about it, perhaps needing more than one. I

272
00:35:23,880 --> 00:35:27,680
 do probably agree that it doesn't need to be more than two. I think we have to be really

273
00:35:27,680 --> 00:35:32,160
 careful because of the college town that we're in. So this doesn't get into a rental and

274
00:35:32,160 --> 00:35:40,320
 parking problem that that certainly is already happening. So I would be okay with changing

275
00:35:40,320 --> 00:35:55,320
 that to no more than two bedroom. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson or Commissioner

276
00:35:55,320 --> 00:36:04,200
 Roselle any comments. I can say both points because if you do two bedrooms and you never

277
00:36:04,200 --> 00:36:10,840
 know with families and children and yes that's understandable but if it's just meant to be

278
00:36:10,840 --> 00:36:17,280
 just for a parent home but if I was a parent going to live with my children I would need

279
00:36:17,280 --> 00:36:24,680
 two bedrooms not one because of the baggage that I bring with me and then the parking

280
00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:28,160
 would be a problem because we start parking on the streets and taking up all the parking

281
00:36:28,160 --> 00:36:36,240
 areas. So I guess I would be okay with two but I understand the concept of one because

282
00:36:36,240 --> 00:36:41,960
 it's sometimes it changes the dynamics and it becomes more of rental property as they

283
00:36:41,960 --> 00:36:49,240
 say more rental property and more people you add the more vehicles you add. Commissioner

284
00:36:49,240 --> 00:36:54,960
 Roselle. Yeah, I'm a little hesitant to support to just for the sake of if you put two bedrooms

285
00:36:54,960 --> 00:37:01,720
 on there you're gonna get four college kids that's four cars on the street and so my thought

286
00:37:01,720 --> 00:37:07,140
 is you leave it at one bedroom and then if it's a parent child configuration you leave

287
00:37:07,140 --> 00:37:13,040
 out a closet in one of the rooms right you make it make it an office and put a wardrobe

288
00:37:13,040 --> 00:37:19,120
 in there. I just yeah I mean obviously this is gonna go beyond this this committee but

289
00:37:19,120 --> 00:37:24,000
 my first thought is I mean two bedrooms is a lot of college kids and if the intent is

290
00:37:24,000 --> 00:37:30,320
 to worry about parking and rentals I think that that potentially opens you up. I understand

291
00:37:30,320 --> 00:37:37,720
 the intent from Councilmember Ryan. I just I think if the intent of what we're trying

292
00:37:37,720 --> 00:37:42,480
 to do with ADUs is to limit that I would I think the one bedroom is is is probably the

293
00:37:42,480 --> 00:37:50,080
 most pointed way to do that. Richard. Sure. Just to add a little more context regarding

294
00:37:50,080 --> 00:37:54,160
 the two bedroom discussion and where we've where this is really come into it hasn't been

295
00:37:54,160 --> 00:37:59,920
 a number of times but it has come up where especially in and around the university we

296
00:37:59,920 --> 00:38:06,120
 we have a lot of older stock housing many of those are two bedrooms and so it gets into

297
00:38:06,120 --> 00:38:12,600
 a you know how do you discern between a duplex versus a you know a two you know we have a

298
00:38:12,600 --> 00:38:18,800
 two bedroom house versus a two bedroom accessory dwelling for the most part it almost functions

299
00:38:18,800 --> 00:38:23,720
 really like like a duplex whether or not there's some flexibility where you know if you have

300
00:38:23,720 --> 00:38:29,020
 a two bedroom you're limited to one again just just throwing throwing some other options

301
00:38:29,020 --> 00:38:36,080
 or ideas out there. One of the question I would have on on are these required to be

302
00:38:36,080 --> 00:38:42,240
 detached structures so they are going to have to be a certain distance from the main house

303
00:38:42,240 --> 00:38:51,280
 and you know for fire code issues and see if I can answer that let me pull up the presentation

304
00:38:51,280 --> 00:38:59,880
 because I recall if I recall correct correctly they they were allowed to be connected ultimately

305
00:38:59,880 --> 00:39:07,040
 you couldn't renovate space i.e. a garage to do that oh you have the language thank

306
00:39:07,040 --> 00:39:19,160
 you so so yes Scott is correct it's both attached or detached units. And just for the committee

307
00:39:19,160 --> 00:39:25,640
 just want to make mention that there is a provision already in the development code

308
00:39:25,640 --> 00:39:35,480
 that requires one parking off street for each adu bedroom we're adding this language here

309
00:39:35,480 --> 00:39:44,000
 bringing it up to where the adu language is so that it's clear but currently any adu that's

310
00:39:44,000 --> 00:39:49,760
 being proposed would need to provide one off street parking which means they have they

311
00:39:49,760 --> 00:39:57,800
 have a dedicated parking space on site for each bedroom. And that again that was another

312
00:39:57,800 --> 00:40:14,840
 attempt in order to address the change in the character or the impact to the neighborhood.

313
00:40:14,840 --> 00:40:24,200
 So I hear a mix of one or two yeah I mean as said earlier you can just put it down as

314
00:40:24,200 --> 00:40:29,600
 being an office space and not have a closet in there and so it's not classified as a bedroom

315
00:40:29,600 --> 00:40:38,760
 and it's gonna operate the same you just put an armoire in there and keep on going. Yes

316
00:40:38,760 --> 00:40:44,240
 it's those people that make those applications just to make our life challenging. Well and

317
00:40:44,240 --> 00:40:58,640
 I did see on there that it is limited to one per lot correct one adu per lot. My thought

318
00:40:58,640 --> 00:41:07,480
 on it is it if we did the limit that it had to be a detached that we didn't allow attached

319
00:41:07,480 --> 00:41:12,280
 because it's really a separate dwelling unit you know you it's an attached and you're really

320
00:41:12,280 --> 00:41:18,960
 getting as we said a duplex. I think in that in the conversation it was you know whether

321
00:41:18,960 --> 00:41:25,800
 someone would want to have a aging parent and be able to be connected via a wall that

322
00:41:25,800 --> 00:41:30,360
 they could go in and help take care of her you know kitchen space or whatever it might

323
00:41:30,360 --> 00:41:37,080
 be. I think that dialogue was going back and forth it was a it was a lively conversation

324
00:41:37,080 --> 00:41:42,400
 and I think it's going to be even that much more now with just the changes in the environment

325
00:41:42,400 --> 00:41:51,520
 in which we live and more talk about alternative housing. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair

326
00:41:51,520 --> 00:41:58,080
 yeah but if it's attached it isn't that just an addition to the property and not an accessory

327
00:41:58,080 --> 00:42:03,640
 dwelling unit. I that seems strange especially if it's just a wall and not like a breezeway

328
00:42:03,640 --> 00:42:09,800
 or something it that that does seem strange. I mean when is it called something else. Yeah

329
00:42:09,800 --> 00:42:16,000
 and I and I don't recall the specifics on the conversation but it was it was discussed

330
00:42:16,000 --> 00:42:22,840
 with with both PNZ and council at the time and I think it was that you know because we

331
00:42:22,840 --> 00:42:30,660
 were if we required it to be detached it might be a barrier to people being able to use it

332
00:42:30,660 --> 00:42:36,240
 as they would and almost to Richard's point on the duplex piece that how it is that it

333
00:42:36,240 --> 00:42:42,160
 transitions from a single family to a duplex by virtue of having two same size units. Of

334
00:42:42,160 --> 00:42:47,160
 course the intent of this is is that it is 50 percent less than the primary structure

335
00:42:47,160 --> 00:42:52,760
 and you know that it that it really functions like an accessory dwelling and not like anything

336
00:42:52,760 --> 00:42:58,000
 else. It's just unfortunate for us is is the reality of what we've seen is people just

337
00:42:58,000 --> 00:43:04,240
 capitalizing on the ability to put in another building that they can ultimately rent because

338
00:43:04,240 --> 00:43:09,840
 we can't get into ownership we can't get into family we can't get any of that. So ultimately

339
00:43:09,840 --> 00:43:13,920
 if you've got a thousand square foot house you can put a 500 square foot accessory dwelling

340
00:43:13,920 --> 00:43:34,680
 unit and how many people can you stick in each. Any other comments? I mean from the

341
00:43:34,680 --> 00:43:41,040
 last slide you put up there when we if we do limit it to one where you talked about

342
00:43:41,040 --> 00:43:48,160
 adding a parking space off-street parking space. Yes as I mentioned earlier chair we

343
00:43:48,160 --> 00:43:55,160
 do have that already in the parking section of the code. So that's already required in

344
00:43:55,160 --> 00:44:01,520
 that language is essentially the same that you see here in that one additional off-street

345
00:44:01,520 --> 00:44:09,400
 parking. So if we if we kept it at one they would need to add a dedicated parking space

346
00:44:09,400 --> 00:44:18,920
 in addition to the required parking that that home wouldn't have. So they would have to

347
00:44:18,920 --> 00:44:25,700
 find a location on site. If they have already any paved concrete areas that they can dedicate

348
00:44:25,700 --> 00:44:31,560
 that does not impede maneuverability then that certainly can count as parking space

349
00:44:31,560 --> 00:44:41,920
 but they have to provide a space for that ADU on site. I think that kind of helps with

350
00:44:41,920 --> 00:44:47,000
 the the parking issue that was brought up earlier as to whether you went to allowing

351
00:44:47,000 --> 00:44:55,680
 two bedrooms and then have to add two parking spaces off-street. Right if this was to be

352
00:44:55,680 --> 00:45:02,320
 removed or we change this to two that parking requirement would again apply in the fact

353
00:45:02,320 --> 00:45:07,300
 that if two bedrooms were proposed they would need to provide two parking spaces again in

354
00:45:07,300 --> 00:45:13,720
 addition to what is required. And I'll go back to maybe some of my memory Mr. Chair

355
00:45:13,720 --> 00:45:18,560
 is that you know so where it is that we may have had garages the single car garage is

356
00:45:18,560 --> 00:45:24,920
 converted into living space some years ago. Ultimately some of those homes may have only

357
00:45:24,920 --> 00:45:31,480
 one parking space one off-street parking space which could be you know a single individual

358
00:45:31,480 --> 00:45:36,440
 living in that home or it could be a family living in that home. So you may have one vehicle

359
00:45:36,440 --> 00:45:41,000
 two vehicle three vehicle and then we're going to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be

360
00:45:41,000 --> 00:45:48,040
 constructed behind that structure and then so it has one parking space we're going to

361
00:45:48,040 --> 00:45:53,480
 say you're going to have to accommodate for another parking space or fundamentally three

362
00:45:53,480 --> 00:45:58,820
 well if they couldn't do three then there you are but that was that other just point

363
00:45:58,820 --> 00:46:03,720
 of conversation and I don't know if you recall just with the it was the parking and I think

364
00:46:03,720 --> 00:46:09,960
 primarily around the university and the older neighborhoods. My thought is if you converted

365
00:46:09,960 --> 00:46:13,600
 your garage and you want to add an ADU you got to bring your home up to code as well

366
00:46:13,600 --> 00:46:18,320
 so you're actually going to have to find five parking spaces four for the main unit and

367
00:46:18,320 --> 00:46:22,400
 then one for the accessory dwelling unit. We're going to assume that they got to permit back

368
00:46:22,400 --> 00:46:28,080
 in the day to do it. Well it doesn't mean that you no longer need to have off-street

369
00:46:28,080 --> 00:46:36,240
 parking. Sure sure. I mean if you're adding an additional structure you would be required

370
00:46:36,240 --> 00:46:43,800
 to I would think to bring that portion up to code. And and we weren't we were we weren't

371
00:46:43,800 --> 00:46:48,720
 and we did not propose to do that meaning that today it's required to have four off-street

372
00:46:48,720 --> 00:46:55,840
 parking. If somebody is putting in an accessory dwelling unit it doesn't require the primary

373
00:46:55,840 --> 00:47:06,580
 residents to come into compliance with the current zoning ordinance. That may be something

374
00:47:06,580 --> 00:47:12,640
 that we need to discuss at some point. Now is the time now is the time to get it out

375
00:47:12,640 --> 00:47:17,320
 there so all right thoughts. Richard did you have something as well? Yeah the only thing

376
00:47:17,320 --> 00:47:24,760
 I wanted to add it is just as a reminder we we did add a provision in the landscape code

377
00:47:24,760 --> 00:47:32,360
 requiring single-family that 30 percent of the front yard be maintained as as landscaping.

378
00:47:32,360 --> 00:47:36,120
 Part of that concern was if we were adding requiring additional parking and adding additional

379
00:47:36,120 --> 00:47:42,760
 parking with ADUs we wanted to avoid the entire front yard being being paved. We have had

380
00:47:42,760 --> 00:47:48,080
 that come up a couple times where folks have just put gravel down in their entire front

381
00:47:48,080 --> 00:47:52,880
 yard and had some code enforcement action. So just want to remind just that that we have

382
00:47:52,880 --> 00:47:57,800
 a provision in place now that would that would at least protect the way the neighborhood

383
00:47:57,800 --> 00:48:10,360
 looks so we don't have the entire front yard paved with with parking. And I guess my bigger

384
00:48:10,360 --> 00:48:15,640
 concern is not necessarily that they have to get up to the four but if there's probably

385
00:48:15,640 --> 00:48:22,480
 some out there that don't have any except for on street and now they add accessory dwelling

386
00:48:22,480 --> 00:48:28,240
 unit they only have to add one parking space. So I think we need something to bring them

387
00:48:28,240 --> 00:48:37,520
 back up whether that's saying that they needed a minimum of two for their main dwelling unit

388
00:48:37,520 --> 00:48:48,620
 and so they would have to come up with three spaces in order to be in compliance.

389
00:48:48,620 --> 00:48:55,920
 So see a head nod looking for a little bit a little bit of some comments here. Yeah need

390
00:48:55,920 --> 00:48:59,840
 a little help so we better understand what what direction that we need to start working

391
00:48:59,840 --> 00:49:04,240
 and of course we can bring this item back with some recommendations that are at least

392
00:49:04,240 --> 00:49:11,500
 in black and white or green and white or red and white. Yes orange. Thank you chair. So

393
00:49:11,500 --> 00:49:18,720
 currently if somebody wants to convert their garage what do they have to do? Convert regard

394
00:49:18,720 --> 00:49:27,920
 to parking. So they cannot convert their garage currently. Well if you've got if you've got

395
00:49:27,920 --> 00:49:33,680
 an existing off-street parking you're suggesting that you're going to lose off-street parking.

396
00:49:33,680 --> 00:49:41,640
 So they've got a driveway so that would count right if they have two spaces in their drive

397
00:49:41,640 --> 00:49:47,080
 they can convert their garage that's currently. So if somebody right now already has a converted

398
00:49:47,080 --> 00:49:53,720
 garage wants to put in an ADU does not have a driveway. Yeah I think we need something

399
00:49:53,720 --> 00:50:04,040
 that says yeah you can't do the ADU unless you change something. Okay that helps. Yeah.

400
00:50:04,040 --> 00:50:13,360
 I sure as hell. That was my Johnson on Margie can get more comments. Sorry yeah thanks chair.

401
00:50:13,360 --> 00:50:17,080
 Going back to the two-bedroom thing I think with the provision that we have in there currently

402
00:50:17,080 --> 00:50:22,560
 with parking I'm still okay with it being a minimum or a maximum of two-bedroom because

403
00:50:22,560 --> 00:50:28,640
 I think with the parking provision in there the the off-street parking one space per bedroom

404
00:50:28,640 --> 00:50:38,360
 I think that helps to eliminate concern about that. So let me ask a question. And again

405
00:50:38,360 --> 00:50:42,560
 I'm going to probably oversimplify this but but the reality is is if we have an existing

406
00:50:42,560 --> 00:50:50,320
 single-family residential they have some sort of parking i.e. a parking space or two or

407
00:50:50,320 --> 00:50:58,400
 more and they're proposing to put in an accessory dwelling unit that we would require them to

408
00:50:58,400 --> 00:51:06,560
 have no less than what's present plus the bedroom count or would we be saying they'd

409
00:51:06,560 --> 00:51:12,360
 have to have a minimum of two before they could ever consider adding an accessory dwelling

410
00:51:12,360 --> 00:51:17,480
 unit and the additional parking space. I heard two things there so that's why I'm somewhat

411
00:51:17,480 --> 00:51:27,320
 proposing if that's what I heard. I see so you're saying there are non-compliant houses

412
00:51:27,320 --> 00:51:34,000
 in this area of concern with regard to ADU correct? Yes there are some there are some

413
00:51:34,000 --> 00:51:40,840
 homes that have absolutely no off-street parking. Got it that's true and it's not due to a garage

414
00:51:40,840 --> 00:51:50,120
 conversion it's due to just not existing. And I hate to say it but it depends too. Going

415
00:51:50,120 --> 00:51:57,400
 back to sub chapter seven we have this minor tier one and major tier one and for some of

416
00:51:57,400 --> 00:52:03,600
 those there's exceptions for single-family but I think in some cases they're obviously

417
00:52:03,600 --> 00:52:09,120
 not expanding the you know if they're converting the roger obviously not expanding it but there

418
00:52:09,120 --> 00:52:13,680
 are certain provisions about you know adding the number of dwelling units so it gets it

419
00:52:13,680 --> 00:52:19,000
 gets a little complicated and maybe it's something that depending the direction we get on with

420
00:52:19,000 --> 00:52:23,240
 respect to the square footed bedrooms related to the ADUs let us take a look at that so

421
00:52:23,240 --> 00:52:28,600
 it kind of makes sure everything's consistent with respect to sub chapter seven but then

422
00:52:28,600 --> 00:52:34,920
 the other provisions in sub chapter one where any existing you know legal single-family

423
00:52:34,920 --> 00:52:40,080
 home is considered conforming under these standards so I just want to make sure we've

424
00:52:40,080 --> 00:52:44,360
 got all of those since there's multiple multiple sections maybe that's something we bring back

425
00:52:44,360 --> 00:52:48,600
 for the next meeting. No and I would agree that Richard that was it was that was the

426
00:52:48,600 --> 00:52:55,840
 piece of of just at least trying to understand what we might be hearing is if it wasn't that

427
00:52:55,840 --> 00:53:00,720
 they have to bring the previous home up to code unless they're proposing an expansion

428
00:53:00,720 --> 00:53:05,160
 so that would be the triggering event not necessarily the single family if I understood

429
00:53:05,160 --> 00:53:16,080
 it correctly. Yeah in terms of direction I think the off street parking requirement makes

430
00:53:16,080 --> 00:53:22,080
 me feel better about the the bedroom requirement just because yeah I think that could be a

431
00:53:22,080 --> 00:53:28,120
 mitigating factor to help out with putting in two or three bedrooms if there's an associated

432
00:53:28,120 --> 00:53:33,040
 off-street parking for each so that makes me in terms of my hesitancy on a two-bedroom

433
00:53:33,040 --> 00:53:39,320
 feel a little bit better. All right Roner you need any more guidance on this particular

434
00:53:39,320 --> 00:53:45,400
 topic because I think we really kind of need to bring this one back. No I've got some notes

435
00:53:45,400 --> 00:53:52,080
 here um I think we need to follow up on a topic that may not necessarily be related

436
00:53:52,080 --> 00:53:57,120
 to an ADU but really the non-conformity and the garage conversion I think that's something

437
00:53:57,120 --> 00:54:05,960
 else we need to address as part of this discussion because I think we heard that the ADU a two

438
00:54:05,960 --> 00:54:11,000
 bedroom is a possibility with the parking requirements it's just when we started to

439
00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:18,080
 talk about the conversion of garages that changed and went to a different direction.

440
00:54:18,080 --> 00:54:21,720
 Yeah and I think we can bring all of that back I think we just need to we need to work

441
00:54:21,720 --> 00:54:25,640
 through that at a staff level and then bring them back what recommendations would be there

442
00:54:25,640 --> 00:54:33,640
 instead of certainly not trying to make the sausage today. Sure sure okay and I would

443
00:54:33,640 --> 00:54:40,360
 say my thought on it is that if you have no off-street parking you need to get to at least

444
00:54:40,360 --> 00:54:46,200
 two off-street and then you add on to that for for whatever number of bedrooms you have

445
00:54:46,200 --> 00:54:51,720
 just that way we're actually curing one of the parking issues in the area so if you don't

446
00:54:51,720 --> 00:54:57,260
 have enough property to get that many parking spaces there then you can't build the ADU.

447
00:54:57,260 --> 00:55:04,400
 And that's what I thought I heard thank you. One last one last on this would it be helpful

448
00:55:04,400 --> 00:55:08,780
 if we brought some of the examples of of what we've approved recently just so you kind of

449
00:55:08,780 --> 00:55:13,540
 see the with that I mean because we've had some where there are new homes built with

450
00:55:13,540 --> 00:55:18,440
 with a you know accessory dwelling with the on top of a garage in the back which actually

451
00:55:18,440 --> 00:55:23,760
 looks looks great and we've had others where they've added on so maybe or maybe we can

452
00:55:23,760 --> 00:55:29,120
 just pull a couple examples so actually see how it what it actually looks like in various

453
00:55:29,120 --> 00:55:40,240
 situations. Yeah that would be helpful we can do that. Sure okay. Bring back my presentation

454
00:55:40,240 --> 00:55:52,000
 hopefully you all can see it. There was one additional discussion on the ADUs when it

455
00:55:52,000 --> 00:56:06,080
 was related to the visible view of entry doors. What you see here in letter A3 is that entry

456
00:56:06,080 --> 00:56:13,000
 doors shall not be visible from the front public right away. The question that arose

457
00:56:13,000 --> 00:56:23,880
 during the DCRC meeting was what if it's a corner lot can it face that street and I believe

458
00:56:23,880 --> 00:56:33,080
 the answer to that is yes as long as that there's no two front entry doors facing the

459
00:56:33,080 --> 00:56:41,160
 same direction. Does that make sense? So that's this is what we are proposing to address that

460
00:56:41,160 --> 00:56:49,960
 discussion and again the idea here is we didn't want to have a duplex look where two entries

461
00:56:49,960 --> 00:56:56,840
 were facing you know the street but understandably if it's a corner lot it's it makes it a lot

462
00:56:56,840 --> 00:57:10,440
 less you know impactful since it's on a separate street. All right so moving on to we're now

463
00:57:10,440 --> 00:57:20,000
 in sub chapter 7. We wanted to bring forward some code amendments related to this and when

464
00:57:20,000 --> 00:57:27,800
 you all were talking about you know what is required you know for development this has

465
00:57:27,800 --> 00:57:37,000
 some relationship to it. What sub chapter 7 is or contains are standards development

466
00:57:37,000 --> 00:57:44,000
 standards that you see here listed under this left column. It does include dimensional standards

467
00:57:44,000 --> 00:57:51,000
 but most of 7 starts from here down and you can see it discusses all of the following

468
00:57:51,000 --> 00:57:58,880
 including parking. When you all were discussing parking you know if there is a new construction

469
00:57:58,880 --> 00:58:08,200
 of course the tier this this check box here identifies that all of the parking requirements

470
00:58:08,200 --> 00:58:17,360
 apply. If it's a tier one where it only affects a certain percentage then only the development

471
00:58:17,360 --> 00:58:24,480
 impact area applies. So going back to what we were discussing earlier if it's just accessory

472
00:58:24,480 --> 00:58:34,440
 dwelling unit and it doesn't exceed that percentage then only that ADU would apply. However that

473
00:58:34,440 --> 00:58:41,280
 being said we definitely need to take this on as a separate item when it comes to say

474
00:58:41,280 --> 00:58:46,920
 the conversion and making sure again I've listed what we want is a minimum two at minimum

475
00:58:46,920 --> 00:58:55,160
 and then address ADUs. But I just want to illustrate that this table here is for that

476
00:58:55,160 --> 00:59:02,640
 purpose again is to see where these standards all these standards would apply in situations

477
00:59:02,640 --> 00:59:11,960
 where it's a new construction or there's expansions or additions or any of those types of development.

478
00:59:11,960 --> 00:59:21,240
 What you see here is just really corrections they were mislabeled so we're just correcting

479
00:59:21,240 --> 00:59:32,600
 in this particular section of the code. What we do have is code amendments related to that

480
00:59:32,600 --> 00:59:42,960
 percentage where it differentiates between tier one and tier two. The language that you

481
00:59:42,960 --> 00:59:51,400
 see in green or underlined and striked through are what staff is proposing and you can see

482
00:59:51,400 --> 01:00:00,160
 all of tier one would apply if you meet any of the five following. So the policy question

483
01:00:00,160 --> 01:00:11,600
 here for the DCRC is related to what counts as far as the expansion enlargement alteration

484
01:00:11,600 --> 01:00:20,840
 or modification. Prior or currently it only applies to structures existing structures.

485
01:00:20,840 --> 01:00:30,560
 We added lot development where it also counts if there is an expansion enlargement alteration

486
01:00:30,560 --> 01:00:38,000
 or modification to the lot itself. So that's the big difference that's being proposed is

487
01:00:38,000 --> 01:00:43,640
 not only talking about structures but also lot development. And we see a lot of this

488
01:00:43,640 --> 01:00:53,680
 type happening and we want to be clear that any lot development is included in that percentage

489
01:00:53,680 --> 01:01:01,160
 that we've established of 50%. So any of those expansions alterations or modifications less

490
01:01:01,160 --> 01:01:12,300
 than 50% fall under the tier one. Any above 50% goes to the tier two and those standards

491
01:01:12,300 --> 01:01:24,600
 under that chart shown earlier would apply. I'll use an example for the DCRC. Landscaping

492
01:01:24,600 --> 01:01:34,600
 for example, if you are proposing a development or addition alteration that's less than 50%

493
01:01:34,600 --> 01:01:42,880
 of the structure or a lot, then you would only be applying the landscaping screening

494
01:01:42,880 --> 01:01:51,000
 and buffering fencing only to the development impact area only. Not the entire site, just

495
01:01:51,000 --> 01:01:59,400
 that development impact area. However, if your development increases by altering the

496
01:01:59,400 --> 01:02:09,200
 site by more than 50%, you would be pushed to the tier two area or district and you would

497
01:02:09,200 --> 01:02:15,060
 need to comply with all of the landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing for the

498
01:02:15,060 --> 01:02:26,200
 entire site. So back to this, it's just really to add not just structures but also lot development

499
01:02:26,200 --> 01:02:34,600
 in this analysis or in this requirement. >> Ron, can you give an example of what lot

500
01:02:34,600 --> 01:02:43,120
 development versus structure would be? >> Yeah. So structures are typically, obviously,

501
01:02:43,120 --> 01:02:56,120
 we think of another building or another accessory structure that falls into that area. Lot development

502
01:02:56,120 --> 01:03:04,300
 would be if there were someone proposing an amenity area or something that develops that

503
01:03:04,300 --> 01:03:12,800
 site, that improves that site. So we're seeing not necessarily a structure but a non, I guess,

504
01:03:12,800 --> 01:03:22,200
 non-structure development. Amenity could be play, you know, ground or something to that

505
01:03:22,200 --> 01:03:29,100
 effect. That would, you know, they're developing that site. There's other amenities that can

506
01:03:29,100 --> 01:03:40,760
 be included. And that's just one example that I can think of. Storage area, I think a storage

507
01:03:40,760 --> 01:03:47,440
 area would be another thing that I can think of as far as, you know, increasing the development

508
01:03:47,440 --> 01:04:03,000
 of that site would be another example. Again, not necessarily a structure. >> Perdita, did

509
01:04:03,000 --> 01:04:07,360
 you have a question? >> So something like maybe adding a pool, is

510
01:04:07,360 --> 01:04:14,000
 that part of -- I'm not just sure what lot development. >> Yeah. Now it's just pulling

511
01:04:14,000 --> 01:04:21,860
 up the definition of development. >> It could be any outdoor use. So it may

512
01:04:21,860 --> 01:04:30,240
 be storage. It may be -- it may not be a structure. So to your point, a pool. And again, not necessarily

513
01:04:30,240 --> 01:04:36,040
 on one and two family dwellings. This would be more in terms on others. But yeah, it could

514
01:04:36,040 --> 01:04:43,640
 be outdoor storage. Could be parking. Could be any of those types of things. So where

515
01:04:43,640 --> 01:04:49,400
 it is that we were really kind of just stuck by that floor area of an existing structure,

516
01:04:49,400 --> 01:04:55,880
 this takes into account, truly, if it's developed. And Ron, I think, has that definition.

517
01:04:55,880 --> 01:05:04,880
 >> Right. Definition, as I read it here right from the codes, is any manmade change to improve

518
01:05:04,880 --> 01:05:11,400
 real estate, including but not limited to -- and it talks about buildings, paving, drainage,

519
01:05:11,400 --> 01:05:20,400
 including -- development activities include parking, fencing pools, signage, use -- temporary

520
01:05:20,400 --> 01:05:30,840
 uses in other facilities. So again, any improvement to that site would be included in that percentage.

521
01:05:30,840 --> 01:05:39,560
 And again, to make sure that those standards apply accordingly. And I'll bring back the

522
01:05:39,560 --> 01:05:47,080
 standards so you can all see that it is the majority of subchapter seven is all of these

523
01:05:47,080 --> 01:06:01,440
 standards from site design to landscaping to lighting and others. So this table here

524
01:06:01,440 --> 01:06:12,800
 helps us apply which standards would, you know, be required for a type of development

525
01:06:12,800 --> 01:06:28,280
 in terms of its area or intensity. So again. >> I guess the question I would have is, based

526
01:06:28,280 --> 01:06:34,960
 on what you said is lot development, if we are looking at -- because it doesn't say,

527
01:06:34,960 --> 01:06:44,480
 except for residential, if we are looking at somebody adds a pizza oven in their backyard,

528
01:06:44,480 --> 01:06:49,560
 that's lot development. Well, you don't really necessarily, to the best of my knowledge,

529
01:06:49,560 --> 01:06:57,080
 have to get a permit for something like that. So how would we -- you know, how would they

530
01:06:57,080 --> 01:07:08,080
 be required to bring those things up to date? >> In most instances, if I follow that example,

531
01:07:08,080 --> 01:07:17,400
 those homes would need to -- we would not necessarily revisit any of this, but obviously

532
01:07:17,400 --> 01:07:24,560
 they would have the landscape already in place. They would have the parking. They would have

533
01:07:24,560 --> 01:07:33,120
 all of these standards in place. And again, keeping with that idea, that area would be

534
01:07:33,120 --> 01:07:38,880
 such a small area that it would only impact that development impact area. I don't think

535
01:07:38,880 --> 01:07:45,880
 they are going to exceed that area percentage-wise if they were just adding that example that

536
01:07:45,880 --> 01:07:51,440
 you provided, Councilman Wright. >> There's a couple pieces to that, Ron.

537
01:07:51,440 --> 01:07:57,840
 That's specifically exempt. So that's exempt through our code that you wouldn't be required

538
01:07:57,840 --> 01:08:04,720
 to obtain the permit. And then the other piece is any time there's an exemption in the code,

539
01:08:04,720 --> 01:08:11,160
 the applicants or the individual -- and we're talking about homeowners -- would be required

540
01:08:11,160 --> 01:08:18,600
 to comply with zoning ordinance. This section is really geared towards commercial development.

541
01:08:18,600 --> 01:08:22,000
 It really doesn't have anything to do with single family. That's why I made the statement,

542
01:08:22,000 --> 01:08:27,240
 yes, pools, but really not single family. This is more about those larger developments

543
01:08:27,240 --> 01:08:34,440
 where we're going to impact with the impervious area, parking, circulation. Just when we think

544
01:08:34,440 --> 01:08:42,520
 of development, single family is for the most part exempt from a large portion of what we

545
01:08:42,520 --> 01:08:46,640
 do and what we talk about when it relates to development. It's that subdivision that

546
01:08:46,640 --> 01:08:56,400
 is the development, but single family is different. >> I get concerned of down the road when this

547
01:08:56,400 --> 01:08:59,560
 code is still in place, but we have different people up there reading it and how it gets

548
01:08:59,560 --> 01:09:04,880
 interpreted. I always want to make sure that we have it in writing in such a way that anybody

549
01:09:04,880 --> 01:09:13,440
 new coming in will understand what the intent was. >> If I can just add a little more context

550
01:09:13,440 --> 01:09:17,640
 and this is -- it's actually a good discussion because sometimes we think we know what it

551
01:09:17,640 --> 01:09:24,480
 means, but then obviously everybody thinks differently, so it's a good discussion. You

552
01:09:24,480 --> 01:09:28,680
 probably need to tighten it a little bit, but it's really, as Scott indicated, to capture

553
01:09:28,680 --> 01:09:38,160
 those commercial uses. Think of an auto dealership or an RV or type development that may have

554
01:09:38,160 --> 01:09:45,120
 a very small structure or their sales office, but they have a number of -- obviously a sale

555
01:09:45,120 --> 01:09:50,400
 or leasing area. We've had some where they're just not up to code to begin with and just

556
01:09:50,400 --> 01:09:55,480
 making sure that those expansions then improve either the whole site or, depending what they're

557
01:09:55,480 --> 01:10:01,480
 doing, should it apply to all. So other than just the back portion having to comply. That's

558
01:10:01,480 --> 01:10:08,480
 really kind of the brunt of this, but we can refine it a little better and maybe just define

559
01:10:08,480 --> 01:10:26,280
 what that lot development means. >> Any other questions or comments? All right.

560
01:10:26,280 --> 01:10:40,680
 We'll go back to the presentation here. There was one last policy question. We also looked

561
01:10:40,680 --> 01:10:49,680
 at the parking in terms of what triggers, again, tier one or tier two. It's number four

562
01:10:49,680 --> 01:10:57,100
 here that's listed. We've added parking space improvements or expansions. This is including

563
01:10:57,100 --> 01:11:04,760
 reconfigurations, reconstructing, or similar projects that impact greater than 10% of the

564
01:11:04,760 --> 01:11:11,000
 existing -- of the existing number of spaces. That does not include the resurfacing where

565
01:11:11,000 --> 01:11:20,120
 they're re-asphalting or re-striping or they're just repainting those parking spaces. Again,

566
01:11:20,120 --> 01:11:32,000
 anything that is done to a parking lot greater than 10% would be tier one. If they're just

567
01:11:32,000 --> 01:11:37,800
 adding anything additional parking space or reconstructing an area that's less than 10%,

568
01:11:37,800 --> 01:11:43,840
 they would not need to comply with any of the standards. Again, that 10% is what pushes

569
01:11:43,840 --> 01:11:53,000
 them over and needs to comply with that table. In the previous or in the current code, that

570
01:11:53,000 --> 01:12:05,520
 is, the requirement was anything greater than six spaces or 50%. We discussed this internally

571
01:12:05,520 --> 01:12:19,680
 and really questioned the number six on how that came about. And then 50% of a large parking

572
01:12:19,680 --> 01:12:30,640
 lot is a lot of area. So we came down to the 10% as a proposed, again, trigger point for

573
01:12:30,640 --> 01:12:37,920
 it to comply for that -- for those standards. So then again, the question -- policy question

574
01:12:37,920 --> 01:12:49,240
 for the DCRC is, should parking lot improvement expansion be a maximum percentage or number?

575
01:12:49,240 --> 01:13:01,720
 And we feel that staff feels that 10% is the appropriate percentage.

576
01:13:01,720 --> 01:13:14,360
 >> My only concern there is if you've got 10 spaces or less, 10% is one space. So no

577
01:13:14,360 --> 01:13:22,160
 matter what, if you do anything, you've got 10 spaces or less, you do anything, it automatically

578
01:13:22,160 --> 01:13:26,320
 triggers it. >> And that would only be tier one, and that

579
01:13:26,320 --> 01:13:35,680
 would be just for that single parking space. It's covered under tier one. So tier one again

580
01:13:35,680 --> 01:13:43,080
 is only that development area that's being affected. Is that --

581
01:13:43,080 --> 01:13:45,880
 >> Well, it would push you into tier two, though, because if you've got -- let's say

582
01:13:45,880 --> 01:13:51,600
 you've got nine, so you're going to mess with one space, that's more than -- that's greater

583
01:13:51,600 --> 01:13:56,040
 than the 10%. >> Right. And if I can share the screen again,

584
01:13:56,040 --> 01:14:04,020
 let me help see if I can clarify this. This here applies for tier one only. So anything

585
01:14:04,020 --> 01:14:11,680
 greater than 10, you would need to comply with the standards for that developed impact

586
01:14:11,680 --> 01:14:22,080
 area. If I can advance my slide, this does not apply to tier two. It does not fall under

587
01:14:22,080 --> 01:14:33,800
 tier two. And again, what we're saying is if there's -- yeah, 10 spaces, yes, if there

588
01:14:33,800 --> 01:14:39,680
 was one that would trigger a tier one compliance, but then that would only apply for that development

589
01:14:39,680 --> 01:14:52,280
 impact area for that particular lot or particular space.

590
01:14:52,280 --> 01:14:57,480
 And maybe that's the question. I mean, that's a great question, Councillor Ryan. I mean,

591
01:14:57,480 --> 01:15:05,720
 10 lots, we do have 10 lots in the city. Not, say, more towards the downtown, but outside

592
01:15:05,720 --> 01:15:12,200
 of the downtown, obviously, there's larger parking lots.

593
01:15:12,200 --> 01:15:19,480
 >> I'm thinking that we need a small number in there. Maybe it's three or four spaces,

594
01:15:19,480 --> 01:15:25,200
 10% or three or four spaces, so that you're not automatically catching anybody with a

595
01:15:25,200 --> 01:15:27,760
 small parking lot. >> Okay.

596
01:15:27,760 --> 01:15:32,720
 >> We're thinking in terms of, you know, you've got a big box store that's got --

597
01:15:32,720 --> 01:15:38,120
 >> Right. >> Two or three hundred spaces, well, that

598
01:15:38,120 --> 01:15:44,920
 10% is 20 spaces. So they could do something without triggering that a lot easier than

599
01:15:44,920 --> 01:15:52,120
 somebody who's got a dentist's office and only has seven spaces.

600
01:15:52,120 --> 01:15:59,840
 >> So Mr. Chair, if I might, the -- looking at that, I think that's a very valid point.

601
01:15:59,840 --> 01:16:08,680
 Parking space improvements or expansions for lots over X, including reconfiguring, blah,

602
01:16:08,680 --> 01:16:15,960
 blah, blah. So then it's really the question of what is that threshold? If I've got 20

603
01:16:15,960 --> 01:16:24,040
 parking spaces and I add, you know, over 10% or two spots, is that my number? Is 10 my

604
01:16:24,040 --> 01:16:33,640
 number? Is 25 my number? I guess I'm asking the entirety of the committee.

605
01:16:33,640 --> 01:16:41,600
 >> Andrew. >> Yeah, I think it's a valid question, Scott,

606
01:16:41,600 --> 01:16:48,120
 and I think Councilman Ryan brings up a good point. I would think this is just feel, obviously,

607
01:16:48,120 --> 01:16:55,440
 that adding two to 20 sounds like that would be a good trigger because that could reshape,

608
01:16:55,440 --> 01:17:01,520
 you know, landscaping or that could actually start impacting things. But if it's really

609
01:17:01,520 --> 01:17:07,440
 tiny, I kind of tend to agree with Councilmember Ryan. So I don't know where that exact number

610
01:17:07,440 --> 01:17:15,000
 is. I'd say when you threw out 20, that kind of felt more appropriate.

611
01:17:15,000 --> 01:17:21,360
 >> Mr. Chair, if we could do a little bit more research, at least looking at it from

612
01:17:21,360 --> 01:17:27,200
 this perspective, and maybe today we just offer up parking space improvements or expansions

613
01:17:27,200 --> 01:17:34,080
 exceeding any parking lot of 20 spaces or more, and then the rest of the language stay

614
01:17:34,080 --> 01:17:42,080
 the same. We'll validate that and then bring that back by if that makes sense to the committee.

615
01:17:42,080 --> 01:17:46,840
 That sounds a lot better. >> Okay. No, I think that was valid. Thank

616
01:17:46,840 --> 01:17:54,320
 you very much. >> Great question. I know we're approaching

617
01:17:54,320 --> 01:18:02,040
 our 2 o'clock here, and I want to be respectful of your time. I wanted to make sure what we

618
01:18:02,040 --> 01:18:13,000
 have as far as additional slides here. I think we can cover tier 2 and then conclude the

619
01:18:13,000 --> 01:18:23,680
 meeting. Tier 2, again, is just to again clarify that lot development is included in the calculation.

620
01:18:23,680 --> 01:18:33,120
 We also address or made sure that what's in tier 2 reflects what is over as far as percentages

621
01:18:33,120 --> 01:18:42,520
 in tier 1 to make sure that they make sense. And so tier 2, there's not much different

622
01:18:42,520 --> 01:18:49,320
 than the discussion that we had in the initial slide or the first slide where we talked about

623
01:18:49,320 --> 01:18:57,240
 tier 1. We also included in this particular section

624
01:18:57,240 --> 01:19:05,120
 some additional language to address electric substations and switch stations, that is,

625
01:19:05,120 --> 01:19:13,040
 and then also exemptions. So again, to your point, Councilman Ryan, exemption number 1,

626
01:19:13,040 --> 01:19:17,180
 expansions of a single-family detached dwelling duplex townhome within the permitted building

627
01:19:17,180 --> 01:19:22,560
 coverage. So if they comply with permitted building

628
01:19:22,560 --> 01:19:28,840
 coverage, then the expansion or the table that we referenced earlier would be exempted

629
01:19:28,840 --> 01:19:35,880
 for the single-family detached dwelling. There's also number 2, cumulative expansion or enlargement

630
01:19:35,880 --> 01:19:41,320
 of a multifamily development or nonresidential, I guess basically everything else, less than

631
01:19:41,320 --> 01:19:46,920
 1,000 square feet. So if they're doing something small, they would not need to -- they would

632
01:19:46,920 --> 01:19:52,120
 not fall under any of the tier 1 or tier 2. Conversion of a residential structure to a

633
01:19:52,120 --> 01:19:58,040
 nonresidential structure, use where no site improvement are required, assuming that a

634
01:19:58,040 --> 01:20:07,400
 lot of the work is more of an interior remodeling or alteration than the tier 1 and tier 2 application

635
01:20:07,400 --> 01:20:12,720
 would not apply. So those are the three exemptions that we've identified. Again, to help address

636
01:20:12,720 --> 01:20:17,840
 some of those comments that we heard earlier, but also to address some of those that we

637
01:20:17,840 --> 01:20:25,640
 feel that should not apply in terms of the tier 1 and tier 2.

638
01:20:25,640 --> 01:20:34,000
 So that's it on the first one under number -- or subchapter 7. Again, I want to be respectful

639
01:20:34,000 --> 01:20:42,880
 earlier time before we jump into another section. I think we can conclude here and bring back

640
01:20:42,880 --> 01:20:47,720
 rest of the amendments to you at our next meeting, in addition to the ones that we've

641
01:20:47,720 --> 01:20:57,200
 already noted as part of this discussion. Our next meeting is not next week. We have

642
01:20:57,200 --> 01:21:04,880
 the 28th as a date, and if we do have quorum, hopefully we do, and we will have another

643
01:21:04,880 --> 01:21:09,680
 opportunity to bring forward these discussions with you guys.

644
01:21:09,680 --> 01:21:19,440
 We'll go on to concluding items then. Scott? Mr. Chair, I didn't know if Richard had one

645
01:21:19,440 --> 01:21:25,400
 to provide a brief update on a couple of items that were coming forward.

646
01:21:25,400 --> 01:21:30,320
 Just quickly, we did end up having to pull one item that we had on the list to discuss

647
01:21:30,320 --> 01:21:37,480
 regarding platting, and this has to do with preliminary platting in the ETJ. So we had

648
01:21:37,480 --> 01:21:43,440
 actually processed a city-initiated text amendment to the DDC, part of the challenge that we

649
01:21:43,440 --> 01:21:49,240
 have while we're working through the update of our interlocal agreement with Denton County,

650
01:21:49,240 --> 01:21:55,120
 sort of an unintended consequence, and just a number of layers of issues that came up,

651
01:21:55,120 --> 01:22:02,680
 one with the ability of us to no longer require annexation if we're extending water and sewer.

652
01:22:02,680 --> 01:22:11,400
 But in the 2019 DDC, what we did was we allowed preliminary plats as an option. And in turn,

653
01:22:11,400 --> 01:22:18,400
 what that has caused is large, large subdivisions. We have one in particular over 500, almost

654
01:22:18,400 --> 01:22:26,160
 600 units that is developing under the city standard as required. However, those roads

655
01:22:26,160 --> 01:22:30,800
 would be dedicated. They're dedicated to the public, and it's sort of a two-step process.

656
01:22:30,800 --> 01:22:36,800
 The first is dedication. Once they're constructed, there's an acceptance of those improvements.

657
01:22:36,800 --> 01:22:43,160
 These roadways, internal roadways, for all intents and purposes, should be accepted by

658
01:22:43,160 --> 01:22:49,420
 Denton County. Denton County has indicated they do not want to accept those roads. This

659
01:22:49,420 --> 01:22:54,120
 is part of what prompted the update to the interlocal, because they don't maintain curb

660
01:22:54,120 --> 01:23:01,960
 and gutter. We also have now had a number of others, subdivisions, looking to develop

661
01:23:01,960 --> 01:23:07,720
 in the ETJ. So again, using the city's roads, we get no collection of impact fees related

662
01:23:07,720 --> 01:23:15,320
 to that other than water and sewer. But looking at the size of some of these subdivisions,

663
01:23:15,320 --> 01:23:20,600
 if they were to develop in one phase, it would be highly unlikely that that would come in

664
01:23:20,600 --> 01:23:27,640
 as a full -- they're not going to final plat one phase and have to install all those public

665
01:23:27,640 --> 01:23:33,840
 improvements. The one in particular I'm referencing is a three-phase development. And so this

666
01:23:33,840 --> 01:23:38,720
 is something where, you know, in the past, the old EDC did not allow for plonard platting

667
01:23:38,720 --> 01:23:44,760
 in the ETJ. Again, there were a number of changes, both from the statutory, from the

668
01:23:44,760 --> 01:23:51,040
 state level, that now we're seeing this sort of unintended consequence. And so one, we'd

669
01:23:51,040 --> 01:23:55,560
 like to stop it, because it's going to cause a number of issues in the future. If no one

670
01:23:55,560 --> 01:24:02,340
 accepts those roads, it ultimately, we think, will become a city issue when we have a number

671
01:24:02,340 --> 01:24:08,320
 of those residents want to annex into the city. And the fear is then annexing that area

672
01:24:08,320 --> 01:24:13,680
 and having to put new roads in an entire new subdivision where we've collected no impact

673
01:24:13,680 --> 01:24:22,000
 fees and have no tax generated from that area. And so it was one to curb that immediately.

674
01:24:22,000 --> 01:24:26,000
 And then we'll be coming back with an update to the ILA within the next month or so, just

675
01:24:26,000 --> 01:24:29,840
 working through some of those technical issues between us and Denton County. But we think

676
01:24:29,840 --> 01:24:37,380
 we have a solution. And then there are some other bills that were just recently filed

677
01:24:37,380 --> 01:24:42,520
 that caused some concern also with annexation that we're watching closely. So we just want

678
01:24:42,520 --> 01:24:48,240
 to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for long term issues, but want to make

679
01:24:48,240 --> 01:24:53,960
 sure that it is addressed at those roadways, whether if you want to use the city, ultimately,

680
01:24:53,960 --> 01:24:57,280
 if you want to use the city standard, you should annex into the city. And so that's

681
01:24:57,280 --> 01:25:01,140
 kind of what we're looking to do with the ILA. But we wanted to at least bring this

682
01:25:01,140 --> 01:25:07,160
 forward immediately to curb any so we don't have any other issues and have to deal with

683
01:25:07,160 --> 01:25:15,440
 a number of subdivisions in our ETJ that no one essentially owns the roads. So that'll

684
01:25:15,440 --> 01:25:27,240
 be coming to PNZ next week. And then we have it on city council for May 4th.

685
01:25:27,240 --> 01:25:40,240
 Anything else? And we will move on to concluding items. Anyone have anything? I've got one

686
01:25:40,240 --> 01:25:44,800
 because I'm looking forward through here, kind of discussed a little bit with Ron before

687
01:25:44,800 --> 01:25:54,200
 the meeting. And that is to look at non detached single family parking standards, residential

688
01:25:54,200 --> 01:26:03,600
 parking standards. And because we're requiring a duplex to have eight parking spaces, and

689
01:26:03,600 --> 01:26:08,680
 there's probably some other options to look at there. And that's mainly just bringing

690
01:26:08,680 --> 01:26:14,160
 what used to be because it used to be a triplex or fourplex was considered multifamily under

691
01:26:14,160 --> 01:26:19,240
 our previous code. So they would have been under the multifamily standards. And I'm just

692
01:26:19,240 --> 01:26:25,640
 thinking that maybe all of the attached, whether you're looking at a townhome, duplex, etc,

693
01:26:25,640 --> 01:26:31,040
 would possibly fall underneath that multifamily standard of one per bedroom or one and a quarter

694
01:26:31,040 --> 01:26:40,400
 per single bedroom unit. We can we can add that to the parking discussion

695
01:26:40,400 --> 01:26:49,200
 when we get to that point in our discussions. Anything else? Then we will adjourn this meeting

696
01:26:49,200 --> 01:26:54,160
 at two oh four. Great. Thank you.