WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.600 Welcome, everyone. We do have a quorum present for the Development Code Review Committee. 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 00:00:21.040 --> 00:00:30.600 is consider approval of the January 14, 2021 minutes. So, entertain a motion. And just 00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:39.440 as a reminder to everybody, we are now all voting members. So, anyone can make motions 00:00:39.440 --> 00:00:46.760 and seconds. Council Member Davis. I'll move approval. All right. And Margie? I'll second. 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 00:00:56.760 --> 00:01:04.920 say you. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. I say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. I'll say you. Aye. 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 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? 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 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, 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 00:01:43.320 --> 00:01:51.840 correct. All right. Commissioner Ellis? How about I nominate Council Member Ryan as chair 00:01:51.840 --> 00:02:03.080 and Council Member Davis as vice chair? Voted differently or separately. Yeah, well, I think 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 00:02:12.080 --> 00:02:19.740 have a motion and a second. Commissioner Ellis, I'll say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. Aye. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 00:03:15.640 --> 00:03:27.960 we have remaining until August 31st. And these are the Wednesdays that the DCRC mentioned 00:03:27.960 --> 00:03:35.860 would work. And again, the calendar dates that you see here also reflect the availability 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 00:03:43.800 --> 00:03:54.400 asking for your consideration. Any questions or comments on the dates? Commissioner 00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:58.480 Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just curious, Ron, is this 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 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 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 00:04:18.200 --> 00:04:34.560 identified as the times. Thanks. Any other questions? Comments? Motion? Commissioner 00:04:34.560 --> 00:04:42.440 Rossell? I move to accept the calendar as presented. Commissioner Ellis? Second. All 00:04:42.440 --> 00:04:51.280 right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. We will take 00:04:51.280 --> 00:05:01.000 the roll. Commissioner Rossell? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem? Aye. Council Member 00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:09.280 Johnson? Aye. And the Chair is an aye. So, that motion carries unanimously. Moving on 00:05:09.280 --> 00:05:15.120 to item D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding proposed code 00:05:15.120 --> 00:05:20.040 amendment related to replat procedures, plan development procedures, accessory dwelling 00:05:20.040 --> 00:05:29.000 units and subchapter 7 development standards. Great. Thank you, Chair. I will start my presentation 00:05:29.000 --> 00:05:40.120 here. Hopefully you all can see the agenda for this afternoon. Just really quickly, just 00:05:40.120 --> 00:05:46.360 to talk about, number one, to recap, the code amendments that we've processed or discussed 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 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 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 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 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. 00:06:25.640 --> 00:06:31.160 And then number four is the follow up to our discussion on accessory dwelling units. We 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 00:06:36.960 --> 00:06:44.680 maximum bedrooms. And if we have time this afternoon, we can start our review and consideration 00:06:44.680 --> 00:06:53.240 of some of the development standards under subchapter seven. So, next slide here is really 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 00:06:59.320 --> 00:07:09.080 not forwarded the first two. We are pending on the number three through five relationships 00:07:09.080 --> 00:07:16.080 to three-way agreements and contracts. So, that will be forthcoming in the future. We've 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 00:07:21.880 --> 00:07:31.160 be determined and not currently on our schedule. We did a lot with subchapter two, specifically 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, 00:07:39.920 --> 00:07:45.680 proposed code amendments, that is, on that specific table. I won't read the list. As 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 00:07:54.280 --> 00:08:01.000 review process, but just new to the table. As we started to apply the development code, 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:07.000 there were some questions and requests to include these application types in that table. 00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:16.360 So, we've added these as well as references to that table. This here slide illustrates 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 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 00:08:29.240 --> 00:08:35.760 them are currently what we're processing today. For example, traffic impact analysis and real 00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:40.460 estate applications are applications that we've had and we're just putting it in this 00:08:40.460 --> 00:08:48.560 table. Regarding the tree survey and preservation replacement plan, we have those. It wasn't 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 00:08:54.720 --> 00:09:02.480 to know where to go in terms of applying for those application types. 00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:08.080 We continued our discussion on subchapter 2 and added a number of code amendments related 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 00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:22.160 a number of sections of the code that we added clarification, added language to help explain 00:09:22.160 --> 00:09:32.760 the procedures and the role of each of these commission and boards. Again, continuing with 00:09:32.760 --> 00:09:39.720 that subchapter 2, again, very lengthy chapter. It deals with administration and procedures. 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 00:09:47.280 --> 00:09:53.040 help explain and clarify things that after we applied the code, it just needed a little 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 00:10:01.400 --> 00:10:13.200 be touching later in this presentation. Moving from subchapter 2, we went to subchapter 3 00:10:13.200 --> 00:10:21.120 and 5 related to dimensional standards and to the table of allowed uses. We had some 00:10:21.120 --> 00:10:27.840 updates to setbacks and building height in subchapter 3 for dimensional standards that 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, 00:10:36.760 --> 00:10:43.880 central preparation facilities, general personal services, parking lot as a principal use, 00:10:43.880 --> 00:10:50.240 and elderly housing. Now, these are not new uses. We just adjusted the zoning districts 00:10:50.240 --> 00:10:55.040 where they were permitted as well as added a number of use specific standards related 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 00:11:03.400 --> 00:11:10.360 you all recall. We talked a lot about accessory uses and structures, short-term rentals, and 00:11:10.360 --> 00:11:15.800 then accessory dwelling units. Again, we will be discussing later in this presentation accessory 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:12:18.600 --> 00:12:25.640 or standards. It's really to help clarify and give the reader, the applicant, an idea 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 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 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 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 00:12:54.560 --> 00:13:03.000 we're referencing those sections accordingly. And number three, as far as step three, it's 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:10.520 there and is being provided again to provide that additional information for applicants. 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 00:13:20.280 --> 00:13:26.040 little bit more direction on those that are referred to the Planning, Zoning Commission. 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. 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 00:13:42.400 --> 00:13:48.960 this is red. So these are being added specifically to that procedure. Again, not anything that 00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:55.680 would add regulations or standards, but more to provide that clarity that our applicants 00:13:55.680 --> 00:14:05.620 and citizens would like. Specifically, I want to mention that the replats, if they require 00:14:05.620 --> 00:14:14.640 a variance, that requires a public hearing and notification. However, replats that do 00:14:14.640 --> 00:14:23.760 not need a variance can simply be placed on the Planning, Zoning Commission agenda and 00:14:23.760 --> 00:14:30.840 considered as part of an item for individual consideration. So this right here provides 00:14:30.840 --> 00:14:43.200 that explanation. The step six, specifically to replat procedures, post decision actions. 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 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 00:15:01.480 --> 00:15:08.680 it does say is that after the consideration by the Planning, Zoning Commission, that 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. 00:15:21.200 --> 00:15:26.840 The last slide for the replat procedure is the approval criteria. And I included this 00:15:26.840 --> 00:15:33.800 because, again, anything that's in red or underlined is new to the code being proposed, 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 00:15:40.040 --> 00:15:47.840 specific criteria for replat applications. So these are the six that we've included or 00:15:47.840 --> 00:15:58.840 proposed to include. Moving on to rezone to a plan development district. This is where 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. 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 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. 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 00:16:33.360 --> 00:16:43.120 PD. While an overlay PD is a little bit less complex, less comprehensive or cumbersome, 00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:51.480 it specifically is where the applicant, if they're not able to meet a zoning district 00:16:51.480 --> 00:17:01.920 requirement, they potentially can use an overlay PD to still accomplish what they're proposing. 00:17:01.920 --> 00:17:11.120 So the question for the DCRC is, should the overlay PD be restricted to subchapter five 00:17:11.120 --> 00:17:19.120 only in terms of restricting the types of uses allowed in that particular development 00:17:19.120 --> 00:17:28.160 as well as applying more restrictive specific standards? So I'm going to pull this down 00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:39.800 and see if there are any questions or any discussions related to this specific question. 00:17:39.800 --> 00:17:48.400 Any questions? I'm not seeing any Rob. 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 00:17:56.200 --> 00:18:04.440 that in addition to subchapter five, the other items that could be included in overlay district 00:18:04.440 --> 00:18:13.880 is to address setbacks, which is in subchapter three, landscaping, screening and buffering 00:18:13.880 --> 00:18:24.320 requirements, which is in subchapter seven. So does the DCRC feel that this overlay district 00:18:24.320 --> 00:18:34.720 can provide more restrictive requirements, including setbacks, landscaping, screening, 00:18:34.720 --> 00:18:44.120 and buffering, or just keep it within subchapter five, which again, deals with the uses and 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 00:18:52.440 --> 00:18:59.960 code amendment. And again, it would include these other requirements that are not in subchapter 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 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 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. 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 00:19:37.160 --> 00:19:44.840 had that mixed use overlay protection zone. The new DDC, we removed that, but then there 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 00:19:51.720 --> 00:19:59.040 at the, shortly thereafter, that while staff can impose or ask that an overlay restriction 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 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 00:20:09.720 --> 00:20:13.920 weren't necessarily appropriate. And so there were these overlay restrictions or overlay 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 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 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 00:20:30.600 --> 00:20:36.440 extend that to put further restrictions with respect to landscape or buffer and the like 00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:44.240 is really kind of where we're at and wanted to open that discussion. 00:20:44.240 --> 00:20:50.320 Margie. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I know, you know, 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 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 00:21:03.640 --> 00:21:09.540 to include that in this. I assume that's where you were going with that, right? 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 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 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 00:21:33.160 --> 00:21:37.720 to do. Yeah. And I guess that's, I guess we have 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 00:21:41.100 --> 00:21:46.640 old days and the old overlays, because I do remember discussing screening before and putting 00:21:46.640 --> 00:21:53.400 that as part of the overlay. I do remember discussing buffering before in the past. So 00:21:53.400 --> 00:22:03.800 I guess if that's the direction we're going here, it makes sense. 00:22:03.800 --> 00:22:12.520 Yeah, just to clarify too, the intent would be to make it more restrictive, not necessarily 00:22:12.520 --> 00:22:16.920 where someone's going the regular PD route where they may ask for relief on something 00:22:16.920 --> 00:22:21.280 where it may be less restrictive in exchange for something else. The intent here is really 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 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 00:22:30.640 --> 00:22:39.480 comes to mind. That helps. Right. Councilmember Johnson. Well, I think that makes sense as 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 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, 00:22:55.280 --> 00:23:03.600 the way it's stated here, it's more restrictive, increased setback, increased landscaping, 00:23:03.600 --> 00:23:09.560 increased screening, increased buffering. So it's to provide that additional protection, 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 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 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 00:23:36.920 --> 00:23:42.600 more information, as you can see in red or underline, gives a little bit more clarity 00:23:42.600 --> 00:23:48.080 on what is required or what is expected to be included in their application. And again, 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 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, 00:24:06.420 --> 00:24:12.880 what happens during a phasing development. Again, all of these would be new to the Development 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 00:24:20.920 --> 00:24:27.640 made sure that, you know, we want to make sure that any amendment follows the procedure 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 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 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 00:24:49.600 --> 00:24:57.800 their decision. So again, this is added to the, will be added with our code amendment. 00:24:57.800 --> 00:25:08.160 All right. Our next topic for discussion is the accessory dwelling unit code amendment. 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 00:25:14.600 --> 00:25:24.560 to one. And it's currently shown here under the general section of accessory dwelling units. 00:25:24.560 --> 00:25:32.200 We discussed that there might be opportunities for say a larger property to have more than 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 00:25:40.320 --> 00:25:47.600 we wanted to ensure that the neighborhood was protected where a person that provided 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 00:25:57.480 --> 00:26:06.160 affect the character of the neighborhood. So limiting it to one was the attempt to protect 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:26:58.680 --> 00:27:06.440 as they would like since that provision is not included in this particular scenario. 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 00:27:14.680 --> 00:27:22.920 lots smaller than 10,000? Again, anything above, we don't have a provision. But for 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? 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. 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 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 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 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 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 00:28:25.160 --> 00:28:35.120 seen recently applications-wise, they have proposed two to three. And what that does 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 00:28:44.200 --> 00:28:51.080 to the principal structure by having two to three. We went back and forth between one 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 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 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 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, 00:29:21.040 --> 00:29:28.360 when we discussed this in the past, ultimately we did get direction from the previous committee 00:29:28.360 --> 00:29:34.220 as well as even from council, there was concern with, especially in established neighborhoods 00:29:34.220 --> 00:29:41.440 that they were going to turn into rentals, really defeating the purpose and the original 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 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 00:29:58.720 --> 00:30:06.920 units that were multiples. So, and it was just that, that it is a rental opportunity. 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 00:30:11.120 --> 00:30:17.000 will be getting into is really the parking to help address what that room or bedroom 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 00:30:24.440 --> 00:30:29.680 the full bodies on both commission and council, that this will be a highly, highly debated 00:30:29.680 --> 00:30:37.560 topic. Thank you, Scott, for that input. I've already gotten several emails about this, 00:30:37.560 --> 00:30:41.240 but the context of renting and parking certainly makes sense. Ron, can we circle back around 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:31:20.080 --> 00:31:28.880 been proposed as of yet on there, that was the intent. Okay. Thanks, Scott. So, yes. 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 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 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, 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 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 00:32:08.960 --> 00:32:17.840 see it here, we'll certainly eliminate this here because that this would not be necessary 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 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 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 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 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. 00:32:57.960 --> 00:33:08.160 That's probably the average two bedroom size is 900 square feet. Okay. Council member Ryan, 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 00:33:51.880 --> 00:34:00.640 situation and the grandparents live in the main house, now you're going to want separation 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 00:34:09.480 --> 00:34:15.480 there are situations where this where two bedroom might be a preferred unit size for 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, 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 00:34:29.720 --> 00:34:33.500 the beauty to having members from both PNC and Council in the different perspectives 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 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. 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 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 00:35:08.240 --> 00:35:14.440 other committee members to. Right. Yeah, Marty, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think 00:35:14.440 --> 00:35:23.880 you bring up a good point. Councilman Ryan about it, perhaps needing more than one. I 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 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 00:35:32.160 --> 00:35:40.320 parking problem that that certainly is already happening. So I would be okay with changing 00:35:40.320 --> 00:35:55.320 that to no more than two bedroom. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson or Commissioner 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:36.240 --> 00:36:41.960 it's sometimes it changes the dynamics and it becomes more of rental property as they 00:36:41.960 --> 00:36:49.240 say more rental property and more people you add the more vehicles you add. Commissioner 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:30.320 to worry about parking and rentals I think that that potentially opens you up. I understand 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 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 00:37:42.480 --> 00:37:50.080 most pointed way to do that. Richard. Sure. Just to add a little more context regarding 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 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 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 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 00:38:12.600 --> 00:38:18.800 two bedroom house versus a two bedroom accessory dwelling for the most part it almost functions 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 00:38:23.720 --> 00:38:29.020 a two bedroom you're limited to one again just just throwing throwing some other options 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 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 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 00:38:51.280 --> 00:38:59.880 because I recall if I recall correct correctly they they were allowed to be connected ultimately 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 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 00:39:19.160 --> 00:39:25.640 just want to make mention that there is a provision already in the development code 00:39:25.640 --> 00:39:35.480 that requires one parking off street for each adu bedroom we're adding this language here 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 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:49.760 being proposed would need to provide one off street parking which means they have they 00:39:49.760 --> 00:39:57.800 have a dedicated parking space on site for each bedroom. And that again that was another 00:39:57.800 --> 00:40:14.840 attempt in order to address the change in the character or the impact to the neighborhood. 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 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 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 00:40:38.760 --> 00:40:44.240 it's those people that make those applications just to make our life challenging. Well and 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:41:42.400 --> 00:41:51.520 in which we live and more talk about alternative housing. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:42:58.000 --> 00:43:04.240 capitalizing on the ability to put in another building that they can ultimately rent because 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 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 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 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 00:43:41.040 --> 00:43:48.160 adding a parking space off-street parking space. Yes as I mentioned earlier chair we 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 00:43:55.160 --> 00:44:01.520 that language is essentially the same that you see here in that one additional off-street 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 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 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 00:44:25.700 --> 00:44:31.560 that does not impede maneuverability then that certainly can count as parking space 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 00:44:41.920 --> 00:44:47.000 the the parking issue that was brought up earlier as to whether you went to allowing 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 00:44:55.680 --> 00:45:02.320 removed or we change this to two that parking requirement would again apply in the fact 00:45:02.320 --> 00:45:07.300 that if two bedrooms were proposed they would need to provide two parking spaces again in 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 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 00:45:18.560 --> 00:45:24.920 converted into living space some years ago. Ultimately some of those homes may have only 00:45:24.920 --> 00:45:31.480 one parking space one off-street parking space which could be you know a single individual 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 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 00:45:41.000 --> 00:45:48.040 constructed behind that structure and then so it has one parking space we're going to 00:45:48.040 --> 00:45:53.480 say you're going to have to accommodate for another parking space or fundamentally three 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 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 00:46:03.720 --> 00:46:09.960 primarily around the university and the older neighborhoods. My thought is if you converted 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 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 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 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 00:46:28.080 --> 00:46:36.240 parking. Sure sure. I mean if you're adding an additional structure you would be required 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 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 00:46:48.720 --> 00:46:55.840 parking. If somebody is putting in an accessory dwelling unit it doesn't require the primary 00:46:55.840 --> 00:47:06.580 residents to come into compliance with the current zoning ordinance. That may be something 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 00:47:12.640 --> 00:47:17.320 there so all right thoughts. Richard did you have something as well? Yeah the only thing 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 00:47:24.760 --> 00:47:32.360 requiring single-family that 30 percent of the front yard be maintained as as landscaping. 00:47:32.360 --> 00:47:36.120 Part of that concern was if we were adding requiring additional parking and adding additional 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 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 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 00:47:52.880 --> 00:47:57.800 a provision in place now that would that would at least protect the way the neighborhood 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 00:48:55.920 --> 00:48:59.840 a little help so we better understand what what direction that we need to start working 00:48:59.840 --> 00:49:04.240 and of course we can bring this item back with some recommendations that are at least 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 00:49:11.500 --> 00:49:18.720 currently if somebody wants to convert their garage what do they have to do? Convert regard 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:51:06.560 --> 00:51:12.360 have to have a minimum of two before they could ever consider adding an accessory dwelling 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:51:57.400 --> 00:52:03.600 those there's exceptions for single-family but I think in some cases they're obviously 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 00:52:09.120 --> 00:52:13.680 are certain provisions about you know adding the number of dwelling units so it gets it 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 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 00:52:23.240 --> 00:52:28.600 it kind of makes sure everything's consistent with respect to sub chapter seven but then 00:52:28.600 --> 00:52:34.920 the other provisions in sub chapter one where any existing you know legal single-family 00:52:34.920 --> 00:52:40.080 home is considered conforming under these standards so I just want to make sure we've 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 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 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 00:52:55.840 --> 00:53:00.720 they have to bring the previous home up to code unless they're proposing an expansion 00:53:00.720 --> 00:53:05.160 so that would be the triggering event not necessarily the single family if I understood 00:53:05.160 --> 00:53:16.080 it correctly. Yeah in terms of direction I think the off street parking requirement makes 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 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 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 00:53:33.040 --> 00:53:39.320 feel a little bit better. All right Roner you need any more guidance on this particular 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 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 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 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 00:54:05.960 --> 00:54:11.000 bedroom is a possibility with the parking requirements it's just when we started to 00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:18.080 talk about the conversion of garages that changed and went to a different direction. 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 00:54:21.720 --> 00:54:25.640 through that at a staff level and then bring them back what recommendations would be there 00:54:25.640 --> 00:54:33.640 instead of certainly not trying to make the sausage today. Sure sure okay and I would 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:55:29.120 --> 00:55:40.240 situations. Yeah that would be helpful we can do that. Sure okay. Bring back my presentation 00:55:40.240 --> 00:55:52.000 hopefully you all can see it. There was one additional discussion on the ADUs when it 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 00:56:06.080 --> 00:56:13.000 doors shall not be visible from the front public right away. The question that arose 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:57:20.000 --> 00:57:27.800 you all were talking about you know what is required you know for development this has 00:57:27.800 --> 00:57:37.000 some relationship to it. What sub chapter 7 is or contains are standards development 00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:44.000 standards that you see here listed under this left column. It does include dimensional standards 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 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:58.880 including parking. When you all were discussing parking you know if there is a new construction 00:57:58.880 --> 00:58:08.200 of course the tier this this check box here identifies that all of the parking requirements 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:58:55.160 --> 00:59:02.640 purpose again is to see where these standards all these standards would apply in situations 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. 00:59:11.960 --> 00:59:21.240 What you see here is just really corrections they were mislabeled so we're just correcting 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 00:59:32.600 --> 00:59:42.960 percentage where it differentiates between tier one and tier two. The language that you 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 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 01:00:00.160 --> 01:00:11.600 here for the DCRC is related to what counts as far as the expansion enlargement alteration 01:00:11.600 --> 01:00:20.840 or modification. Prior or currently it only applies to structures existing structures. 01:00:20.840 --> 01:00:30.560 We added lot development where it also counts if there is an expansion enlargement alteration 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 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:43.640 not only talking about structures but also lot development. And we see a lot of this 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 01:00:53.680 --> 01:01:01.160 that we've established of 50%. So any of those expansions alterations or modifications less 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 01:01:12.300 --> 01:01:24.600 under that chart shown earlier would apply. I'll use an example for the DCRC. Landscaping 01:01:24.600 --> 01:01:34.600 for example, if you are proposing a development or addition alteration that's less than 50% 01:01:34.600 --> 01:01:42.880 of the structure or a lot, then you would only be applying the landscaping screening 01:01:42.880 --> 01:01:51.000 and buffering fencing only to the development impact area only. Not the entire site, just 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:59.400 that development impact area. However, if your development increases by altering the 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 01:02:09.200 --> 01:02:15.060 need to comply with all of the landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing for the 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 01:02:26.200 --> 01:02:34.600 in this analysis or in this requirement. >> Ron, can you give an example of what lot 01:02:34.600 --> 01:02:43.120 development versus structure would be? >> Yeah. So structures are typically, obviously, 01:02:43.120 --> 01:02:56.120 we think of another building or another accessory structure that falls into that area. Lot development 01:02:56.120 --> 01:03:04.300 would be if there were someone proposing an amenity area or something that develops that 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, 01:03:12.800 --> 01:03:22.200 non-structure development. Amenity could be play, you know, ground or something to that 01:03:22.200 --> 01:03:29.100 effect. That would, you know, they're developing that site. There's other amenities that can 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 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 01:03:47.440 --> 01:04:03.000 of that site would be another example. Again, not necessarily a structure. >> Perdita, did 01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:07.360 you have a question? >> So something like maybe adding a pool, is 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 01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:21.860 up the definition of development. >> It could be any outdoor use. So it may 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 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 01:04:36.040 --> 01:04:43.640 be outdoor storage. Could be parking. Could be any of those types of things. So where 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, 01:04:49.400 --> 01:04:55.880 this takes into account, truly, if it's developed. And Ron, I think, has that definition. 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 01:05:04.880 --> 01:05:11.400 real estate, including but not limited to -- and it talks about buildings, paving, drainage, 01:05:11.400 --> 01:05:20.400 including -- development activities include parking, fencing pools, signage, use -- temporary 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. 01:05:30.840 --> 01:05:39.560 And again, to make sure that those standards apply accordingly. And I'll bring back the 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 01:05:47.080 --> 01:06:01.440 standards from site design to landscaping to lighting and others. So this table here 01:06:01.440 --> 01:06:12.800 helps us apply which standards would, you know, be required for a type of development 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 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, 01:06:34.960 --> 01:06:44.480 except for residential, if we are looking at somebody adds a pizza oven in their backyard, 01:06:44.480 --> 01:06:49.560 that's lot development. Well, you don't really necessarily, to the best of my knowledge, 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 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, 01:07:08.080 --> 01:07:17.400 those homes would need to -- we would not necessarily revisit any of this, but obviously 01:07:17.400 --> 01:07:24.560 they would have the landscape already in place. They would have the parking. They would have 01:07:24.560 --> 01:07:33.120 all of these standards in place. And again, keeping with that idea, that area would be 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 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 01:07:45.880 --> 01:07:51.440 you provided, Councilman Wright. >> There's a couple pieces to that, Ron. 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 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, 01:08:04.720 --> 01:08:11.160 the applicants or the individual -- and we're talking about homeowners -- would be required 01:08:11.160 --> 01:08:18.600 to comply with zoning ordinance. This section is really geared towards commercial development. 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, 01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:27.240 yes, pools, but really not single family. This is more about those larger developments 01:08:27.240 --> 01:08:34.440 where we're going to impact with the impervious area, parking, circulation. Just when we think 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 01:08:42.520 --> 01:08:46.640 do and what we talk about when it relates to development. It's that subdivision that 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 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 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 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 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 01:09:17.640 --> 01:09:24.480 means, but then obviously everybody thinks differently, so it's a good discussion. You 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 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 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 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 01:09:50.400 --> 01:09:55.480 making sure that those expansions then improve either the whole site or, depending what they're 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 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 01:10:08.480 --> 01:10:26.280 what that lot development means. >> Any other questions or comments? All right. 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 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 01:10:49.680 --> 01:10:57.100 here that's listed. We've added parking space improvements or expansions. This is including 01:10:57.100 --> 01:11:04.760 reconfigurations, reconstructing, or similar projects that impact greater than 10% of the 01:11:04.760 --> 01:11:11.000 existing -- of the existing number of spaces. That does not include the resurfacing where 01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:20.120 they're re-asphalting or re-striping or they're just repainting those parking spaces. Again, 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 01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:37.800 adding anything additional parking space or reconstructing an area that's less than 10%, 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 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 01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:05.520 is, the requirement was anything greater than six spaces or 50%. We discussed this internally 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 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 01:12:30.640 --> 01:12:37.920 it to comply for that -- for those standards. So then again, the question -- policy question 01:12:37.920 --> 01:12:49.240 for the DCRC is, should parking lot improvement expansion be a maximum percentage or number? 01:12:49.240 --> 01:13:01.720 And we feel that staff feels that 10% is the appropriate percentage. 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 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 01:13:22.160 --> 01:13:26.320 triggers it. >> And that would only be tier one, and that 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 01:13:35.680 --> 01:13:43.080 is only that development area that's being affected. Is that -- 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 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 01:13:51.600 --> 01:13:56.040 than the 10%. >> Right. And if I can share the screen again, 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 01:14:04.020 --> 01:14:11.680 greater than 10, you would need to comply with the standards for that developed impact 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 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 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 01:14:39.680 --> 01:14:52.280 impact area for that particular lot or particular space. 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, 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 01:15:05.720 --> 01:15:12.200 of the downtown, obviously, there's larger parking lots. 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, 01:15:19.480 --> 01:15:25.200 10% or three or four spaces, so that you're not automatically catching anybody with a 01:15:25.200 --> 01:15:27.760 small parking lot. >> Okay. 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 -- 01:15:32.720 --> 01:15:38.120 >> Right. >> Two or three hundred spaces, well, that 01:15:38.120 --> 01:15:44.920 10% is 20 spaces. So they could do something without triggering that a lot easier than 01:15:44.920 --> 01:15:52.120 somebody who's got a dentist's office and only has seven spaces. 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. 01:15:59.840 --> 01:16:08.680 Parking space improvements or expansions for lots over X, including reconfiguring, blah, 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 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 01:16:24.040 --> 01:16:33.640 number? Is 25 my number? I guess I'm asking the entirety of the committee. 01:16:33.640 --> 01:16:41.600 >> Andrew. >> Yeah, I think it's a valid question, Scott, 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, 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, 01:16:55.440 --> 01:17:01.520 you know, landscaping or that could actually start impacting things. But if it's really 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 01:17:07.440 --> 01:17:15.000 is. I'd say when you threw out 20, that kind of felt more appropriate. 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 01:17:21.360 --> 01:17:27.200 this perspective, and maybe today we just offer up parking space improvements or expansions 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 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. 01:17:42.080 --> 01:17:46.840 That sounds a lot better. >> Okay. No, I think that was valid. Thank 01:17:46.840 --> 01:17:54.320 you very much. >> Great question. I know we're approaching 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 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 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. 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 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 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 01:18:49.320 --> 01:18:57.240 tier 1. We also included in this particular section 01:18:57.240 --> 01:19:05.120 some additional language to address electric substations and switch stations, that is, 01:19:05.120 --> 01:19:13.040 and then also exemptions. So again, to your point, Councilman Ryan, exemption number 1, 01:19:13.040 --> 01:19:17.180 expansions of a single-family detached dwelling duplex townhome within the permitted building 01:19:17.180 --> 01:19:22.560 coverage. So if they comply with permitted building 01:19:22.560 --> 01:19:28.840 coverage, then the expansion or the table that we referenced earlier would be exempted 01:19:28.840 --> 01:19:35.880 for the single-family detached dwelling. There's also number 2, cumulative expansion or enlargement 01:19:35.880 --> 01:19:41.320 of a multifamily development or nonresidential, I guess basically everything else, less than 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 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 01:19:52.120 --> 01:19:58.040 nonresidential structure, use where no site improvement are required, assuming that a 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 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 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 01:20:17.840 --> 01:20:25.640 feel that should not apply in terms of the tier 1 and tier 2. 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 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 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 01:20:47.720 --> 01:20:57.200 already noted as part of this discussion. Our next meeting is not next week. We have 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 01:21:04.880 --> 01:21:09.680 opportunity to bring forward these discussions with you guys. 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 01:21:19.440 --> 01:21:25.400 to provide a brief update on a couple of items that were coming forward. 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 01:21:30.320 --> 01:21:37.480 regarding platting, and this has to do with preliminary platting in the ETJ. So we had 01:21:37.480 --> 01:21:43.440 actually processed a city-initiated text amendment to the DDC, part of the challenge that we 01:21:43.440 --> 01:21:49.240 have while we're working through the update of our interlocal agreement with Denton County, 01:21:49.240 --> 01:21:55.120 sort of an unintended consequence, and just a number of layers of issues that came up, 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. 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, 01:22:11.400 --> 01:22:18.400 what that has caused is large, large subdivisions. We have one in particular over 500, almost 01:22:18.400 --> 01:22:26.160 600 units that is developing under the city standard as required. However, those roads 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. 01:22:30.800 --> 01:22:36.800 The first is dedication. Once they're constructed, there's an acceptance of those improvements. 01:22:36.800 --> 01:22:43.160 These roadways, internal roadways, for all intents and purposes, should be accepted by 01:22:43.160 --> 01:22:49.420 Denton County. Denton County has indicated they do not want to accept those roads. This 01:22:49.420 --> 01:22:54.120 is part of what prompted the update to the interlocal, because they don't maintain curb 01:22:54.120 --> 01:23:01.960 and gutter. We also have now had a number of others, subdivisions, looking to develop 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 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, 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 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 01:23:27.640 --> 01:23:33.840 improvements. The one in particular I'm referencing is a three-phase development. And so this 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 01:23:38.720 --> 01:23:44.760 in the ETJ. Again, there were a number of changes, both from the statutory, from the 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:29.840 working through some of those technical issues between us and Denton County. But we think 01:24:29.840 --> 01:24:37.380 we have a solution. And then there are some other bills that were just recently filed 01:24:37.380 --> 01:24:42.520 that caused some concern also with annexation that we're watching closely. So we just want 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 01:25:40.240 --> 01:25:44.800 because I'm looking forward through here, kind of discussed a little bit with Ron before 01:25:44.800 --> 01:25:54.200 the meeting. And that is to look at non detached single family parking standards, residential 01:25:54.200 --> 01:26:03.600 parking standards. And because we're requiring a duplex to have eight parking spaces, and 01:26:03.600 --> 01:26:08.680 there's probably some other options to look at there. And that's mainly just bringing 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 01:26:14.160 --> 01:26:19.240 our previous code. So they would have been under the multifamily standards. And I'm just 01:26:19.240 --> 01:26:25.640 thinking that maybe all of the attached, whether you're looking at a townhome, duplex, etc, 01:26:25.640 --> 01:26:31.040 would possibly fall underneath that multifamily standard of one per bedroom or one and a quarter 01:26:31.040 --> 01:26:40.400 per single bedroom unit. We can we can add that to the parking discussion 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 01:26:49.200 --> 01:26:54.160 at two oh four. Great. Thank you.