Welcome, everyone. We do have a quorum present for the Development Code Review Committee.
It is 1237 on April 14, 2021. I'll call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda
is consider approval of the January 14, 2021 minutes. So, entertain a motion. And just
as a reminder to everybody, we are now all voting members. So, anyone can make motions
and seconds. Council Member Davis. I'll move approval. All right. And Margie? I'll second.
All right. We have a motion and a second. Pull through here. Council Member Davis. I'll
say you. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. I say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. I'll say you. Aye.
And the chair is an aye. So, that motion carries forward to zero. The next item up is election
of a chair and vice chair. So, who that's not here, are we going to make the vice chair?
Teach them to not show up. I think I'd like to recommend that we have a vice chair from
the PNC so that we've got... Yeah, I was just looking through the new document, the resolution,
it requires that the chair and vice chair both be council members. Oh, okay. Okay. That's
correct. All right. Commissioner Ellis? How about I nominate Council Member Ryan as chair
and Council Member Davis as vice chair? Voted differently or separately. Yeah, well, I think
we can vote as a block. Okay. We have a motion. Commissioner Rossell. I'll second. Okay. We
have a motion and a second. Commissioner Ellis, I'll say you. Aye. Commissioner Rossell. Aye.
Mayor Pro Tem. Aye. And the chair is an aye as well. So, that carries forward to zero.
Thank you for your confidence in me to continue on. And so, we will move to item C, which
is consider approval of the 2021 meeting calendar. So, I have a presentation and let me share
my screen real quick to help in this discussion. I know that the calendar was sent out on Friday
and there was an update to that. So, just want to make sure that we have that. Scroll
up real quick. And hopefully you all see the screen on here. So, these are the dates that
we have remaining until August 31st. And these are the Wednesdays that the DCRC mentioned
would work. And again, the calendar dates that you see here also reflect the availability
of this work session room and DTV. So, these are the dates that we have placed in, are
asking for your consideration. Any questions or comments on the dates? Commissioner
Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just curious, Ron, is this
the timeframe, 1230? That's 12 to 2 is what we've set. And so, sometimes it starts at
1230 because there's a meeting in the morning. If we can get started at 12, that's what we're
going to shoot for. But around 12 to 2 in the afternoon on Wednesdays is what we've
identified as the times. Thanks. Any other questions? Comments? Motion? Commissioner
Rossell? I move to accept the calendar as presented. Commissioner Ellis? Second. All
right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. We will take
the roll. Commissioner Rossell? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem? Aye. Council Member
Johnson? Aye. And the Chair is an aye. So, that motion carries unanimously. Moving on
to item D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding proposed code
amendment related to replat procedures, plan development procedures, accessory dwelling
units and subchapter 7 development standards. Great. Thank you, Chair. I will start my presentation
here. Hopefully you all can see the agenda for this afternoon. Just really quickly, just
to talk about, number one, to recap, the code amendments that we've processed or discussed
already. The last time we've seen these were back in November of 2020. So, I just want
to give the DCRC, as well as the viewing public, a recap of what we've already discussed. Number
two, just to touch a little bit more on the replat procedure, I wanted to spend a little
bit more time on that one specifically. Number three is to go over our PD procedure or rezone
to a PD development district procedure. There's a discussion that I would like for us to have.
And then number four is the follow up to our discussion on accessory dwelling units. We
had a question we wanted to address and bring that back in relationships to the number of
maximum bedrooms. And if we have time this afternoon, we can start our review and consideration
of some of the development standards under subchapter seven. So, next slide here is really
to show what we've discussed. I won't read through all of them. You can see that we have
not forwarded the first two. We are pending on the number three through five relationships
to three-way agreements and contracts. So, that will be forthcoming in the future. We've
put a hold on unity of title and declaration of lieu of union title. So, that one is to
be determined and not currently on our schedule. We did a lot with subchapter two, specifically
the table, table 2.2-A. And all that you see here listed are reflected code amendments,
proposed code amendments, that is, on that specific table. I won't read the list. As
you can see, we're adding a number of application types, not necessarily new to the development
review process, but just new to the table. As we started to apply the development code,
there were some questions and requests to include these application types in that table.
So, we've added these as well as references to that table. This here slide illustrates
what I'm referring to that table that you see here. The items in green are what we're
adding as far as application types. And you can see that some of them are new. Some of
them are currently what we're processing today. For example, traffic impact analysis and real
estate applications are applications that we've had and we're just putting it in this
table. Regarding the tree survey and preservation replacement plan, we have those. It wasn't
in the table and we felt that to provide a reference in this table was helpful for applicants
to know where to go in terms of applying for those application types.
We continued our discussion on subchapter 2 and added a number of code amendments related
to procedures. Again, I'm not going to read all of them, but you can see that there's
a number of sections of the code that we added clarification, added language to help explain
the procedures and the role of each of these commission and boards. Again, continuing with
that subchapter 2, again, very lengthy chapter. It deals with administration and procedures.
So, we had a number of code amendments, nothing that were complex. They were just there to
help explain and clarify things that after we applied the code, it just needed a little
bit more direction. You can see number 18 and number 19 are ones that we're going to
be touching later in this presentation. Moving from subchapter 2, we went to subchapter 3
and 5 related to dimensional standards and to the table of allowed uses. We had some
updates to setbacks and building height in subchapter 3 for dimensional standards that
you see there. And then number 26 is where we looked at specific land uses, medical office,
central preparation facilities, general personal services, parking lot as a principal use,
and elderly housing. Now, these are not new uses. We just adjusted the zoning districts
where they were permitted as well as added a number of use specific standards related
to these uses. And then we got into a little bit more into the use specific standards as
you all recall. We talked a lot about accessory uses and structures, short-term rentals, and
then accessory dwelling units. Again, we will be discussing later in this presentation accessory
dwelling units as it relates to the one bedroom maximum. And staff has a proposal that we'd
like for the DCRC to consider. So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and jump into the replat
procedure. Again, we had discussed this, but I feel like we need to spend a little bit
more time on this since there is a house bill tied to the replat procedure. So, with this
first slide, you can see that the addition of these steps have been added or is being
proposed to be added to that section of replat procedures to give a little bit more of an
idea of how the process works. Anything that isn't read is new language or new text. And
you can see that there's a lot being added. And now they're not meant to add more regulations
or standards. It's really to help clarify and give the reader, the applicant, an idea
or what is expected when it comes to replat. One of the things or a couple of the things
that I want to highlight is that what we're adding is also reflecting the house bill 3167
as it relates to replat procedures. A lot of the references that you see here, you can
see references to 12 of the Texas local government code. So again, we're being consistent and
we're referencing those sections accordingly. And number three, as far as step three, it's
there and is being provided again to provide that additional information for applicants.
3A is related to replats that can be administered and approved by staff, while B provides a
little bit more direction on those that are referred to the Planning, Zoning Commission.
So I just want to highlight that that is what we're proposing to add to the replat procedure.
We're also adding step four and step five. Again, anything in red and most of all of
this is red. So these are being added specifically to that procedure. Again, not anything that
would add regulations or standards, but more to provide that clarity that our applicants
and citizens would like. Specifically, I want to mention that the replats, if they require
a variance, that requires a public hearing and notification. However, replats that do
not need a variance can simply be placed on the Planning, Zoning Commission agenda and
considered as part of an item for individual consideration. So this right here provides
that explanation. The step six, specifically to replat procedures, post decision actions.
The one that I want to highlight here is really the notification. When a replat does not require
a variance, it does not need to be advertised or notified in advance of the meeting. What
it does say is that after the consideration by the Planning, Zoning Commission, that
notification will be sent out after the meeting. So 15 days after the date the replat was considered.
The last slide for the replat procedure is the approval criteria. And I included this
because, again, anything that's in red or underlined is new to the code being proposed,
that is to be included in the code. And we felt that it was important to provide a more
specific criteria for replat applications. So these are the six that we've included or
proposed to include. Moving on to rezone to a plan development district. This is where
we have a policy question for the DCRC, specifically to the first part of this types of plan development.
What we're referring to as overlay PD. What we would like to propose is an overlay PD
is different from your standard PD, standard PD being the larger PDs that you're used to.
Ropes and ranch is just the one that comes up to mind immediately. That's your standard
PD. While an overlay PD is a little bit less complex, less comprehensive or cumbersome,
it specifically is where the applicant, if they're not able to meet a zoning district
requirement, they potentially can use an overlay PD to still accomplish what they're proposing.
So the question for the DCRC is, should the overlay PD be restricted to subchapter five
only in terms of restricting the types of uses allowed in that particular development
as well as applying more restrictive specific standards? So I'm going to pull this down
and see if there are any questions or any discussions related to this specific question.
Any questions? I'm not seeing any Rob.
So the other option that we've placed there, and I'm going to share my screen again, is
that in addition to subchapter five, the other items that could be included in overlay district
is to address setbacks, which is in subchapter three, landscaping, screening and buffering
requirements, which is in subchapter seven. So does the DCRC feel that this overlay district
can provide more restrictive requirements, including setbacks, landscaping, screening,
and buffering, or just keep it within subchapter five, which again, deals with the uses and
use specific standards. If you all are okay with this, then we can move forward with this
code amendment. And again, it would include these other requirements that are not in subchapter
five. I'd hate to move on. Richard, do you have maybe an example or maybe clarify this
a little bit more for the committee to understand why we're proposing this overlay PD? Because
I know we've had submittals in the past, which deals primarily with just these types of applications.
Yeah. And really, a lot of this comes up to do with, if you recall in the old DDC, we
had that mixed use overlay protection zone. The new DDC, we removed that, but then there
was some language in there. And I think based upon some guidance that we had from legal
at the, shortly thereafter, that while staff can impose or ask that an overlay restriction
be, those overlay restrictions be put in place, primarily it had to do with the uses where
someone might be asking for R6 or R4 or even MN, but there were some other uses that maybe
weren't necessarily appropriate. And so there were these overlay restrictions or overlay
districts that we would put in place. And so now they, it just comes to P and Z kind
of clunky. They ask for it on the spot. And so this would really kind of step in the shoes
of that. And really most of the time it's use related, but whether or not we want to
extend that to put further restrictions with respect to landscape or buffer and the like
is really kind of where we're at and wanted to open that discussion.
Margie. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I know, you know,
we had many situations where we included those types of items, you know, back in the day
when we put an overlay on a zoning request change. So that makes sense to me to be able
to include that in this. I assume that's where you were going with that, right?
Right. We wanted to make sure that we didn't overreach on what can be placed on an overlay
PD or keep it just to sub chapter five, where we often see most of those issues address
where someone limits the number or the uses to maybe one or two and that's all they needed
to do. Yeah. And I guess that's, I guess we have
to just decide where we're going with this. You know, I mean, if it is being like the
old days and the old overlays, because I do remember discussing screening before and putting
that as part of the overlay. I do remember discussing buffering before in the past. So
I guess if that's the direction we're going here, it makes sense.
Yeah, just to clarify too, the intent would be to make it more restrictive, not necessarily
where someone's going the regular PD route where they may ask for relief on something
where it may be less restrictive in exchange for something else. The intent here is really
to make something more restrictive in the case of whether it's a use next to a residential
that maybe we want to make sure there's a larger buffer that something just comes to
comes to mind. That helps. Right. Councilmember Johnson. Well, I think that makes sense as
well to go ahead and just include it and just go ahead and the buffers and everything. It's
that way we'll know exactly. This is my opinion. Yes. And again, to restate what Richard said,
the way it's stated here, it's more restrictive, increased setback, increased landscaping,
increased screening, increased buffering. So it's to provide that additional protection,
I guess. So that's how it's worded. Okay. We'll move on to the next. I think we've got
a couple of slides here and I won't spend too much time on these next few slides. Other
than to let you know that we are also expanding the rezone to PD district procedure by including
more information, as you can see in red or underline, gives a little bit more clarity
on what is required or what is expected to be included in their application. And again,
this is for a standard PD, one that you would want to see more specific information. So
we have that included. We also have, again, what should be part of a PD development plan,
what happens during a phasing development. Again, all of these would be new to the Development
Code. Last, and I think this is second to the last, is the amendment process. We've
made sure that, you know, we want to make sure that any amendment follows the procedure
of the DDC, the current DDC. So this is what's being added to this section. And then similar
to the rezoning, I'm sorry, the replat, we've added approval criteria so that it gives the
staff and the commission and council a little bit more of some findings in order to make
their decision. So again, this is added to the, will be added with our code amendment.
All right. Our next topic for discussion is the accessory dwelling unit code amendment.
And when we spoke about this last, there was a question about limiting the number of bedrooms
to one. And it's currently shown here under the general section of accessory dwelling units.
We discussed that there might be opportunities for say a larger property to have more than
one bedroom and why limiting it to one. What was the reason? The response from staff was
we wanted to ensure that the neighborhood was protected where a person that provided
or proposed an accessory dwelling unit would not be creating a second unit in that it may
affect the character of the neighborhood. So limiting it to one was the attempt to protect
that neighborhood. What staff is proposing is that we've broken up the size of the lots
where an ADU is proposed. So any lots that are smaller than 10,000 would have that one
bedroom max where any lot that's above 10,000 square feet would only comply by requiring
them to have an ADU that's 50% of the square footage in the principal dwelling unit. So
if that particular lot that has 10,000 has let's say 6,000 square feet and they're proposing
a 3,000 square feet accessory dwelling unit, they can and they can have as many bedrooms
as they would like since that provision is not included in this particular scenario.
So again, the policy question here is should ADUs be limited to one bedroom for ADUs on
lots smaller than 10,000? Again, anything above, we don't have a provision. But for
the ones that are 10,000 or less, what is the discussion or consideration by the DCRC?
And let me, oops. Chair. Yes. I don't know if you can see me. Go ahead, Andrew. All right.
Thank you. Two questions real fast. Ron, are we not worried about a minimum on lots that
have bigger than 10,000 square feet? You can put a 250 square foot ADU into the rationale
behind taking away the minimum. And the other question I have is what's the, has there been
a problem of having two people stay or two bedrooms in an ADU on a small lot or maybe
some context of what we're trying to solve here? Yeah. I know that the ones that we've
seen recently applications-wise, they have proposed two to three. And what that does
is again, not forcing, but what it does, it's creating another unit on a lot that's similar
to the principal structure by having two to three. We went back and forth between one
or two. In the end, we felt that the intent of an accessory dwelling unit was really to
provide for that elderly parent or adult child in one bedroom was the number that we came
up with. So again, the issue here is we're seeing more than two bedrooms and we would
like to keep the character of the neighborhood. Rod, if I might be able to add a little something,
when we discussed this in the past, ultimately we did get direction from the previous committee
as well as even from council, there was concern with, especially in established neighborhoods
that they were going to turn into rentals, really defeating the purpose and the original
intent and that was for aging parents or for kids trying to get out on their own. And to
Ron's point, when the 2019 code went into effect, we saw any number of accessory dwelling
units that were multiples. So, and it was just that, that it is a rental opportunity.
So it was really trying to limit. And then a second piece to that, which I think Ron
will be getting into is really the parking to help address what that room or bedroom
count might look like in relation to parking. So, and I have no doubt that when we get before
the full bodies on both commission and council, that this will be a highly, highly debated
topic. Thank you, Scott, for that input. I've already gotten several emails about this,
but the context of renting and parking certainly makes sense. Ron, can we circle back around
to the minimum? Are we going to put a minimum in for larger lots or why not a minimum for
larger lots? Let's pull this up real quick. I want to make sure I reference this. So we
do have for the dwelling units, I'm sorry, the lots that are above, I'm sorry, smaller
than 10,000 square feet. We do have a minimum size. I'm trying to remember why the intent
would be now the intent would be that there'd be nothing. It was the consistency of a tiny
home versus an ADU in that 400 square feet would apply to both. So if that language hasn't
been proposed as of yet on there, that was the intent. Okay. Thanks, Scott. So, yes.
So then, then we would, you know, and then it's a great point, Commissioner Rossell is
that we would add that provision, the minimum square feet to the ADUs, which have lots 10,000
or larger. But as far as the one bedroom, I guess that's where we are still, you know,
discussing and if it is what you see here, acceptable or something that we want to bring
forward to the full PNZ and City Council, we certainly can. By adding it the way you
see it here, we'll certainly eliminate this here because that this would not be necessary
at this point. And we would just keep it the way you see here under the lots that are smaller
than 10,000. Ron, I would think that the bedroom might not be needed because when you limit
it to no more than 900 square feet, then that's going to be at most a two bedroom. 400 is
going to be a small one bedroom over efficiency. So the 900 would take care of the size of
it. Yeah, you're not going to have you could end up with two bedrooms at 900 square feet.
That's probably the average two bedroom size is 900 square feet. Okay. Council member Ryan,
just kind of a note, just from what we've experienced already is they'll they'll stack
them pretty tight. So ultimately 900 square feet, you can put a nine by nine, you know,
bedroom, and you're taking up 81 square feet, right, and you can put in multiple bedrooms.
Maybe a limit of two bedrooms, but I think of in terms of let's say it is a family member
going through an issue of a mother and child that just need to stay at the parents house
and you want to build this for them to stay in. You know, when you have a parent child
situation and the grandparents live in the main house, now you're going to want separation
for for the two. So I'm probably okay with limiting to no more than two bedroom. I think
there are situations where this where two bedroom might be a preferred unit size for
family member type situation like the the intended use of a ad. That's good. I mean,
then certainly that's what we want to be able to at least have that good conversation and
the beauty to having members from both PNC and Council in the different perspectives
is that that'll help us to carry this forward. So thank you. So for clarification, do we
need is the full full DCRC okay with two or are we just still it's discussing one bedroom.
You've proposed as such that you have one. It's it's restricted to one bedroom. You have
one person that's indicating that we should have multiple so then I think it's just the
other committee members to. Right. Yeah, Marty, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think
you bring up a good point. Councilman Ryan about it, perhaps needing more than one. I
do probably agree that it doesn't need to be more than two. I think we have to be really
careful because of the college town that we're in. So this doesn't get into a rental and
parking problem that that certainly is already happening. So I would be okay with changing
that to no more than two bedroom. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson or Commissioner
Roselle any comments. I can say both points because if you do two bedrooms and you never
know with families and children and yes that's understandable but if it's just meant to be
just for a parent home but if I was a parent going to live with my children I would need
two bedrooms not one because of the baggage that I bring with me and then the parking
would be a problem because we start parking on the streets and taking up all the parking
areas. So I guess I would be okay with two but I understand the concept of one because
it's sometimes it changes the dynamics and it becomes more of rental property as they
say more rental property and more people you add the more vehicles you add. Commissioner
Roselle. Yeah, I'm a little hesitant to support to just for the sake of if you put two bedrooms
on there you're gonna get four college kids that's four cars on the street and so my thought
is you leave it at one bedroom and then if it's a parent child configuration you leave
out a closet in one of the rooms right you make it make it an office and put a wardrobe
in there. I just yeah I mean obviously this is gonna go beyond this this committee but
my first thought is I mean two bedrooms is a lot of college kids and if the intent is
to worry about parking and rentals I think that that potentially opens you up. I understand
the intent from Councilmember Ryan. I just I think if the intent of what we're trying
to do with ADUs is to limit that I would I think the one bedroom is is is probably the
most pointed way to do that. Richard. Sure. Just to add a little more context regarding
the two bedroom discussion and where we've where this is really come into it hasn't been
a number of times but it has come up where especially in and around the university we
we have a lot of older stock housing many of those are two bedrooms and so it gets into
a you know how do you discern between a duplex versus a you know a two you know we have a
two bedroom house versus a two bedroom accessory dwelling for the most part it almost functions
really like like a duplex whether or not there's some flexibility where you know if you have
a two bedroom you're limited to one again just just throwing throwing some other options
or ideas out there. One of the question I would have on on are these required to be
detached structures so they are going to have to be a certain distance from the main house
and you know for fire code issues and see if I can answer that let me pull up the presentation
because I recall if I recall correct correctly they they were allowed to be connected ultimately
you couldn't renovate space i.e. a garage to do that oh you have the language thank
you so so yes Scott is correct it's both attached or detached units. And just for the committee
just want to make mention that there is a provision already in the development code
that requires one parking off street for each adu bedroom we're adding this language here
bringing it up to where the adu language is so that it's clear but currently any adu that's
being proposed would need to provide one off street parking which means they have they
have a dedicated parking space on site for each bedroom. And that again that was another
attempt in order to address the change in the character or the impact to the neighborhood.
So I hear a mix of one or two yeah I mean as said earlier you can just put it down as
being an office space and not have a closet in there and so it's not classified as a bedroom
and it's gonna operate the same you just put an armoire in there and keep on going. Yes
it's those people that make those applications just to make our life challenging. Well and
I did see on there that it is limited to one per lot correct one adu per lot. My thought
on it is it if we did the limit that it had to be a detached that we didn't allow attached
because it's really a separate dwelling unit you know you it's an attached and you're really
getting as we said a duplex. I think in that in the conversation it was you know whether
someone would want to have a aging parent and be able to be connected via a wall that
they could go in and help take care of her you know kitchen space or whatever it might
be. I think that dialogue was going back and forth it was a it was a lively conversation
and I think it's going to be even that much more now with just the changes in the environment
in which we live and more talk about alternative housing. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair
yeah but if it's attached it isn't that just an addition to the property and not an accessory
dwelling unit. I that seems strange especially if it's just a wall and not like a breezeway
or something it that that does seem strange. I mean when is it called something else. Yeah
and I and I don't recall the specifics on the conversation but it was it was discussed
with with both PNZ and council at the time and I think it was that you know because we
were if we required it to be detached it might be a barrier to people being able to use it
as they would and almost to Richard's point on the duplex piece that how it is that it
transitions from a single family to a duplex by virtue of having two same size units. Of
course the intent of this is is that it is 50 percent less than the primary structure
and you know that it that it really functions like an accessory dwelling and not like anything
else. It's just unfortunate for us is is the reality of what we've seen is people just
capitalizing on the ability to put in another building that they can ultimately rent because
we can't get into ownership we can't get into family we can't get any of that. So ultimately
if you've got a thousand square foot house you can put a 500 square foot accessory dwelling
unit and how many people can you stick in each. Any other comments? I mean from the
last slide you put up there when we if we do limit it to one where you talked about
adding a parking space off-street parking space. Yes as I mentioned earlier chair we
do have that already in the parking section of the code. So that's already required in
that language is essentially the same that you see here in that one additional off-street
parking. So if we if we kept it at one they would need to add a dedicated parking space
in addition to the required parking that that home wouldn't have. So they would have to
find a location on site. If they have already any paved concrete areas that they can dedicate
that does not impede maneuverability then that certainly can count as parking space
but they have to provide a space for that ADU on site. I think that kind of helps with
the the parking issue that was brought up earlier as to whether you went to allowing
two bedrooms and then have to add two parking spaces off-street. Right if this was to be
removed or we change this to two that parking requirement would again apply in the fact
that if two bedrooms were proposed they would need to provide two parking spaces again in
addition to what is required. And I'll go back to maybe some of my memory Mr. Chair
is that you know so where it is that we may have had garages the single car garage is
converted into living space some years ago. Ultimately some of those homes may have only
one parking space one off-street parking space which could be you know a single individual
living in that home or it could be a family living in that home. So you may have one vehicle
two vehicle three vehicle and then we're going to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be
constructed behind that structure and then so it has one parking space we're going to
say you're going to have to accommodate for another parking space or fundamentally three
well if they couldn't do three then there you are but that was that other just point
of conversation and I don't know if you recall just with the it was the parking and I think
primarily around the university and the older neighborhoods. My thought is if you converted
your garage and you want to add an ADU you got to bring your home up to code as well
so you're actually going to have to find five parking spaces four for the main unit and
then one for the accessory dwelling unit. We're going to assume that they got to permit back
in the day to do it. Well it doesn't mean that you no longer need to have off-street
parking. Sure sure. I mean if you're adding an additional structure you would be required
to I would think to bring that portion up to code. And and we weren't we were we weren't
and we did not propose to do that meaning that today it's required to have four off-street
parking. If somebody is putting in an accessory dwelling unit it doesn't require the primary
residents to come into compliance with the current zoning ordinance. That may be something
that we need to discuss at some point. Now is the time now is the time to get it out
there so all right thoughts. Richard did you have something as well? Yeah the only thing
I wanted to add it is just as a reminder we we did add a provision in the landscape code
requiring single-family that 30 percent of the front yard be maintained as as landscaping.
Part of that concern was if we were adding requiring additional parking and adding additional
parking with ADUs we wanted to avoid the entire front yard being being paved. We have had
that come up a couple times where folks have just put gravel down in their entire front
yard and had some code enforcement action. So just want to remind just that that we have
a provision in place now that would that would at least protect the way the neighborhood
looks so we don't have the entire front yard paved with with parking. And I guess my bigger
concern is not necessarily that they have to get up to the four but if there's probably
some out there that don't have any except for on street and now they add accessory dwelling
unit they only have to add one parking space. So I think we need something to bring them
back up whether that's saying that they needed a minimum of two for their main dwelling unit
and so they would have to come up with three spaces in order to be in compliance.
So see a head nod looking for a little bit a little bit of some comments here. Yeah need
a little help so we better understand what what direction that we need to start working
and of course we can bring this item back with some recommendations that are at least
in black and white or green and white or red and white. Yes orange. Thank you chair. So
currently if somebody wants to convert their garage what do they have to do? Convert regard
to parking. So they cannot convert their garage currently. Well if you've got if you've got
an existing off-street parking you're suggesting that you're going to lose off-street parking.
So they've got a driveway so that would count right if they have two spaces in their drive
they can convert their garage that's currently. So if somebody right now already has a converted
garage wants to put in an ADU does not have a driveway. Yeah I think we need something
that says yeah you can't do the ADU unless you change something. Okay that helps. Yeah.
I sure as hell. That was my Johnson on Margie can get more comments. Sorry yeah thanks chair.
Going back to the two-bedroom thing I think with the provision that we have in there currently
with parking I'm still okay with it being a minimum or a maximum of two-bedroom because
I think with the parking provision in there the the off-street parking one space per bedroom
I think that helps to eliminate concern about that. So let me ask a question. And again
I'm going to probably oversimplify this but but the reality is is if we have an existing
single-family residential they have some sort of parking i.e. a parking space or two or
more and they're proposing to put in an accessory dwelling unit that we would require them to
have no less than what's present plus the bedroom count or would we be saying they'd
have to have a minimum of two before they could ever consider adding an accessory dwelling
unit and the additional parking space. I heard two things there so that's why I'm somewhat
proposing if that's what I heard. I see so you're saying there are non-compliant houses
in this area of concern with regard to ADU correct? Yes there are some there are some
homes that have absolutely no off-street parking. Got it that's true and it's not due to a garage
conversion it's due to just not existing. And I hate to say it but it depends too. Going
back to sub chapter seven we have this minor tier one and major tier one and for some of
those there's exceptions for single-family but I think in some cases they're obviously
not expanding the you know if they're converting the roger obviously not expanding it but there
are certain provisions about you know adding the number of dwelling units so it gets it
gets a little complicated and maybe it's something that depending the direction we get on with
respect to the square footed bedrooms related to the ADUs let us take a look at that so
it kind of makes sure everything's consistent with respect to sub chapter seven but then
the other provisions in sub chapter one where any existing you know legal single-family
home is considered conforming under these standards so I just want to make sure we've
got all of those since there's multiple multiple sections maybe that's something we bring back
for the next meeting. No and I would agree that Richard that was it was that was the
piece of of just at least trying to understand what we might be hearing is if it wasn't that
they have to bring the previous home up to code unless they're proposing an expansion
so that would be the triggering event not necessarily the single family if I understood
it correctly. Yeah in terms of direction I think the off street parking requirement makes
me feel better about the the bedroom requirement just because yeah I think that could be a
mitigating factor to help out with putting in two or three bedrooms if there's an associated
off-street parking for each so that makes me in terms of my hesitancy on a two-bedroom
feel a little bit better. All right Roner you need any more guidance on this particular
topic because I think we really kind of need to bring this one back. No I've got some notes
here um I think we need to follow up on a topic that may not necessarily be related
to an ADU but really the non-conformity and the garage conversion I think that's something
else we need to address as part of this discussion because I think we heard that the ADU a two
bedroom is a possibility with the parking requirements it's just when we started to
talk about the conversion of garages that changed and went to a different direction.
Yeah and I think we can bring all of that back I think we just need to we need to work
through that at a staff level and then bring them back what recommendations would be there
instead of certainly not trying to make the sausage today. Sure sure okay and I would
say my thought on it is that if you have no off-street parking you need to get to at least
two off-street and then you add on to that for for whatever number of bedrooms you have
just that way we're actually curing one of the parking issues in the area so if you don't
have enough property to get that many parking spaces there then you can't build the ADU.
And that's what I thought I heard thank you. One last one last on this would it be helpful
if we brought some of the examples of of what we've approved recently just so you kind of
see the with that I mean because we've had some where there are new homes built with
with a you know accessory dwelling with the on top of a garage in the back which actually
looks looks great and we've had others where they've added on so maybe or maybe we can
just pull a couple examples so actually see how it what it actually looks like in various
situations. Yeah that would be helpful we can do that. Sure okay. Bring back my presentation
hopefully you all can see it. There was one additional discussion on the ADUs when it
was related to the visible view of entry doors. What you see here in letter A3 is that entry
doors shall not be visible from the front public right away. The question that arose
during the DCRC meeting was what if it's a corner lot can it face that street and I believe
the answer to that is yes as long as that there's no two front entry doors facing the
same direction. Does that make sense? So that's this is what we are proposing to address that
discussion and again the idea here is we didn't want to have a duplex look where two entries
were facing you know the street but understandably if it's a corner lot it's it makes it a lot
less you know impactful since it's on a separate street. All right so moving on to we're now
in sub chapter 7. We wanted to bring forward some code amendments related to this and when
you all were talking about you know what is required you know for development this has
some relationship to it. What sub chapter 7 is or contains are standards development
standards that you see here listed under this left column. It does include dimensional standards
but most of 7 starts from here down and you can see it discusses all of the following
including parking. When you all were discussing parking you know if there is a new construction
of course the tier this this check box here identifies that all of the parking requirements
apply. If it's a tier one where it only affects a certain percentage then only the development
impact area applies. So going back to what we were discussing earlier if it's just accessory
dwelling unit and it doesn't exceed that percentage then only that ADU would apply. However that
being said we definitely need to take this on as a separate item when it comes to say
the conversion and making sure again I've listed what we want is a minimum two at minimum
and then address ADUs. But I just want to illustrate that this table here is for that
purpose again is to see where these standards all these standards would apply in situations
where it's a new construction or there's expansions or additions or any of those types of development.
What you see here is just really corrections they were mislabeled so we're just correcting
in this particular section of the code. What we do have is code amendments related to that
percentage where it differentiates between tier one and tier two. The language that you
see in green or underlined and striked through are what staff is proposing and you can see
all of tier one would apply if you meet any of the five following. So the policy question
here for the DCRC is related to what counts as far as the expansion enlargement alteration
or modification. Prior or currently it only applies to structures existing structures.
We added lot development where it also counts if there is an expansion enlargement alteration
or modification to the lot itself. So that's the big difference that's being proposed is
not only talking about structures but also lot development. And we see a lot of this
type happening and we want to be clear that any lot development is included in that percentage
that we've established of 50%. So any of those expansions alterations or modifications less
than 50% fall under the tier one. Any above 50% goes to the tier two and those standards
under that chart shown earlier would apply. I'll use an example for the DCRC. Landscaping
for example, if you are proposing a development or addition alteration that's less than 50%
of the structure or a lot, then you would only be applying the landscaping screening
and buffering fencing only to the development impact area only. Not the entire site, just
that development impact area. However, if your development increases by altering the
site by more than 50%, you would be pushed to the tier two area or district and you would
need to comply with all of the landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing for the
entire site. So back to this, it's just really to add not just structures but also lot development
in this analysis or in this requirement. >> Ron, can you give an example of what lot
development versus structure would be? >> Yeah. So structures are typically, obviously,
we think of another building or another accessory structure that falls into that area. Lot development
would be if there were someone proposing an amenity area or something that develops that
site, that improves that site. So we're seeing not necessarily a structure but a non, I guess,
non-structure development. Amenity could be play, you know, ground or something to that
effect. That would, you know, they're developing that site. There's other amenities that can
be included. And that's just one example that I can think of. Storage area, I think a storage
area would be another thing that I can think of as far as, you know, increasing the development
of that site would be another example. Again, not necessarily a structure. >> Perdita, did
you have a question? >> So something like maybe adding a pool, is
that part of -- I'm not just sure what lot development. >> Yeah. Now it's just pulling
up the definition of development. >> It could be any outdoor use. So it may
be storage. It may be -- it may not be a structure. So to your point, a pool. And again, not necessarily
on one and two family dwellings. This would be more in terms on others. But yeah, it could
be outdoor storage. Could be parking. Could be any of those types of things. So where
it is that we were really kind of just stuck by that floor area of an existing structure,
this takes into account, truly, if it's developed. And Ron, I think, has that definition.
>> Right. Definition, as I read it here right from the codes, is any manmade change to improve
real estate, including but not limited to -- and it talks about buildings, paving, drainage,
including -- development activities include parking, fencing pools, signage, use -- temporary
uses in other facilities. So again, any improvement to that site would be included in that percentage.
And again, to make sure that those standards apply accordingly. And I'll bring back the
standards so you can all see that it is the majority of subchapter seven is all of these
standards from site design to landscaping to lighting and others. So this table here
helps us apply which standards would, you know, be required for a type of development
in terms of its area or intensity. So again. >> I guess the question I would have is, based
on what you said is lot development, if we are looking at -- because it doesn't say,
except for residential, if we are looking at somebody adds a pizza oven in their backyard,
that's lot development. Well, you don't really necessarily, to the best of my knowledge,
have to get a permit for something like that. So how would we -- you know, how would they
be required to bring those things up to date? >> In most instances, if I follow that example,
those homes would need to -- we would not necessarily revisit any of this, but obviously
they would have the landscape already in place. They would have the parking. They would have
all of these standards in place. And again, keeping with that idea, that area would be
such a small area that it would only impact that development impact area. I don't think
they are going to exceed that area percentage-wise if they were just adding that example that
you provided, Councilman Wright. >> There's a couple pieces to that, Ron.
That's specifically exempt. So that's exempt through our code that you wouldn't be required
to obtain the permit. And then the other piece is any time there's an exemption in the code,
the applicants or the individual -- and we're talking about homeowners -- would be required
to comply with zoning ordinance. This section is really geared towards commercial development.
It really doesn't have anything to do with single family. That's why I made the statement,
yes, pools, but really not single family. This is more about those larger developments
where we're going to impact with the impervious area, parking, circulation. Just when we think
of development, single family is for the most part exempt from a large portion of what we
do and what we talk about when it relates to development. It's that subdivision that
is the development, but single family is different. >> I get concerned of down the road when this
code is still in place, but we have different people up there reading it and how it gets
interpreted. I always want to make sure that we have it in writing in such a way that anybody
new coming in will understand what the intent was. >> If I can just add a little more context
and this is -- it's actually a good discussion because sometimes we think we know what it
means, but then obviously everybody thinks differently, so it's a good discussion. You
probably need to tighten it a little bit, but it's really, as Scott indicated, to capture
those commercial uses. Think of an auto dealership or an RV or type development that may have
a very small structure or their sales office, but they have a number of -- obviously a sale
or leasing area. We've had some where they're just not up to code to begin with and just
making sure that those expansions then improve either the whole site or, depending what they're
doing, should it apply to all. So other than just the back portion having to comply. That's
really kind of the brunt of this, but we can refine it a little better and maybe just define
what that lot development means. >> Any other questions or comments? All right.
We'll go back to the presentation here. There was one last policy question. We also looked
at the parking in terms of what triggers, again, tier one or tier two. It's number four
here that's listed. We've added parking space improvements or expansions. This is including
reconfigurations, reconstructing, or similar projects that impact greater than 10% of the
existing -- of the existing number of spaces. That does not include the resurfacing where
they're re-asphalting or re-striping or they're just repainting those parking spaces. Again,
anything that is done to a parking lot greater than 10% would be tier one. If they're just
adding anything additional parking space or reconstructing an area that's less than 10%,
they would not need to comply with any of the standards. Again, that 10% is what pushes
them over and needs to comply with that table. In the previous or in the current code, that
is, the requirement was anything greater than six spaces or 50%. We discussed this internally
and really questioned the number six on how that came about. And then 50% of a large parking
lot is a lot of area. So we came down to the 10% as a proposed, again, trigger point for
it to comply for that -- for those standards. So then again, the question -- policy question
for the DCRC is, should parking lot improvement expansion be a maximum percentage or number?
And we feel that staff feels that 10% is the appropriate percentage.
>> My only concern there is if you've got 10 spaces or less, 10% is one space. So no
matter what, if you do anything, you've got 10 spaces or less, you do anything, it automatically
triggers it. >> And that would only be tier one, and that
would be just for that single parking space. It's covered under tier one. So tier one again
is only that development area that's being affected. Is that --
>> Well, it would push you into tier two, though, because if you've got -- let's say
you've got nine, so you're going to mess with one space, that's more than -- that's greater
than the 10%. >> Right. And if I can share the screen again,
let me help see if I can clarify this. This here applies for tier one only. So anything
greater than 10, you would need to comply with the standards for that developed impact
area. If I can advance my slide, this does not apply to tier two. It does not fall under
tier two. And again, what we're saying is if there's -- yeah, 10 spaces, yes, if there
was one that would trigger a tier one compliance, but then that would only apply for that development
impact area for that particular lot or particular space.
And maybe that's the question. I mean, that's a great question, Councillor Ryan. I mean,
10 lots, we do have 10 lots in the city. Not, say, more towards the downtown, but outside
of the downtown, obviously, there's larger parking lots.
>> I'm thinking that we need a small number in there. Maybe it's three or four spaces,
10% or three or four spaces, so that you're not automatically catching anybody with a
small parking lot. >> Okay.
>> We're thinking in terms of, you know, you've got a big box store that's got --
>> Right. >> Two or three hundred spaces, well, that
10% is 20 spaces. So they could do something without triggering that a lot easier than
somebody who's got a dentist's office and only has seven spaces.
>> So Mr. Chair, if I might, the -- looking at that, I think that's a very valid point.
Parking space improvements or expansions for lots over X, including reconfiguring, blah,
blah, blah. So then it's really the question of what is that threshold? If I've got 20
parking spaces and I add, you know, over 10% or two spots, is that my number? Is 10 my
number? Is 25 my number? I guess I'm asking the entirety of the committee.
>> Andrew. >> Yeah, I think it's a valid question, Scott,
and I think Councilman Ryan brings up a good point. I would think this is just feel, obviously,
that adding two to 20 sounds like that would be a good trigger because that could reshape,
you know, landscaping or that could actually start impacting things. But if it's really
tiny, I kind of tend to agree with Councilmember Ryan. So I don't know where that exact number
is. I'd say when you threw out 20, that kind of felt more appropriate.
>> Mr. Chair, if we could do a little bit more research, at least looking at it from
this perspective, and maybe today we just offer up parking space improvements or expansions
exceeding any parking lot of 20 spaces or more, and then the rest of the language stay
the same. We'll validate that and then bring that back by if that makes sense to the committee.
That sounds a lot better. >> Okay. No, I think that was valid. Thank
you very much. >> Great question. I know we're approaching
our 2 o'clock here, and I want to be respectful of your time. I wanted to make sure what we
have as far as additional slides here. I think we can cover tier 2 and then conclude the
meeting. Tier 2, again, is just to again clarify that lot development is included in the calculation.
We also address or made sure that what's in tier 2 reflects what is over as far as percentages
in tier 1 to make sure that they make sense. And so tier 2, there's not much different
than the discussion that we had in the initial slide or the first slide where we talked about
tier 1. We also included in this particular section
some additional language to address electric substations and switch stations, that is,
and then also exemptions. So again, to your point, Councilman Ryan, exemption number 1,
expansions of a single-family detached dwelling duplex townhome within the permitted building
coverage. So if they comply with permitted building
coverage, then the expansion or the table that we referenced earlier would be exempted
for the single-family detached dwelling. There's also number 2, cumulative expansion or enlargement
of a multifamily development or nonresidential, I guess basically everything else, less than
1,000 square feet. So if they're doing something small, they would not need to -- they would
not fall under any of the tier 1 or tier 2. Conversion of a residential structure to a
nonresidential structure, use where no site improvement are required, assuming that a
lot of the work is more of an interior remodeling or alteration than the tier 1 and tier 2 application
would not apply. So those are the three exemptions that we've identified. Again, to help address
some of those comments that we heard earlier, but also to address some of those that we
feel that should not apply in terms of the tier 1 and tier 2.
So that's it on the first one under number -- or subchapter 7. Again, I want to be respectful
earlier time before we jump into another section. I think we can conclude here and bring back
rest of the amendments to you at our next meeting, in addition to the ones that we've
already noted as part of this discussion. Our next meeting is not next week. We have
the 28th as a date, and if we do have quorum, hopefully we do, and we will have another
opportunity to bring forward these discussions with you guys.
We'll go on to concluding items then. Scott? Mr. Chair, I didn't know if Richard had one
to provide a brief update on a couple of items that were coming forward.
Just quickly, we did end up having to pull one item that we had on the list to discuss
regarding platting, and this has to do with preliminary platting in the ETJ. So we had
actually processed a city-initiated text amendment to the DDC, part of the challenge that we
have while we're working through the update of our interlocal agreement with Denton County,
sort of an unintended consequence, and just a number of layers of issues that came up,
one with the ability of us to no longer require annexation if we're extending water and sewer.
But in the 2019 DDC, what we did was we allowed preliminary plats as an option. And in turn,
what that has caused is large, large subdivisions. We have one in particular over 500, almost
600 units that is developing under the city standard as required. However, those roads
would be dedicated. They're dedicated to the public, and it's sort of a two-step process.
The first is dedication. Once they're constructed, there's an acceptance of those improvements.
These roadways, internal roadways, for all intents and purposes, should be accepted by
Denton County. Denton County has indicated they do not want to accept those roads. This
is part of what prompted the update to the interlocal, because they don't maintain curb
and gutter. We also have now had a number of others, subdivisions, looking to develop
in the ETJ. So again, using the city's roads, we get no collection of impact fees related
to that other than water and sewer. But looking at the size of some of these subdivisions,
if they were to develop in one phase, it would be highly unlikely that that would come in
as a full -- they're not going to final plat one phase and have to install all those public
improvements. The one in particular I'm referencing is a three-phase development. And so this
is something where, you know, in the past, the old EDC did not allow for plonard platting
in the ETJ. Again, there were a number of changes, both from the statutory, from the
state level, that now we're seeing this sort of unintended consequence. And so one, we'd
like to stop it, because it's going to cause a number of issues in the future. If no one
accepts those roads, it ultimately, we think, will become a city issue when we have a number
of those residents want to annex into the city. And the fear is then annexing that area
and having to put new roads in an entire new subdivision where we've collected no impact
fees and have no tax generated from that area. And so it was one to curb that immediately.
And then we'll be coming back with an update to the ILA within the next month or so, just
working through some of those technical issues between us and Denton County. But we think
we have a solution. And then there are some other bills that were just recently filed
that caused some concern also with annexation that we're watching closely. So we just want
to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for long term issues, but want to make
sure that it is addressed at those roadways, whether if you want to use the city, ultimately,
if you want to use the city standard, you should annex into the city. And so that's
kind of what we're looking to do with the ILA. But we wanted to at least bring this
forward immediately to curb any so we don't have any other issues and have to deal with
a number of subdivisions in our ETJ that no one essentially owns the roads. So that'll
be coming to PNZ next week. And then we have it on city council for May 4th.
Anything else? And we will move on to concluding items. Anyone have anything? I've got one
because I'm looking forward through here, kind of discussed a little bit with Ron before
the meeting. And that is to look at non detached single family parking standards, residential
parking standards. And because we're requiring a duplex to have eight parking spaces, and
there's probably some other options to look at there. And that's mainly just bringing
what used to be because it used to be a triplex or fourplex was considered multifamily under
our previous code. So they would have been under the multifamily standards. And I'm just
thinking that maybe all of the attached, whether you're looking at a townhome, duplex, etc,
would possibly fall underneath that multifamily standard of one per bedroom or one and a quarter
per single bedroom unit. We can we can add that to the parking discussion
when we get to that point in our discussions. Anything else? Then we will adjourn this meeting
at two oh four. Great. Thank you.