1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,040
 Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee.

2
00:00:09,040 --> 00:00:13,440
 We do have a quorum present, so I'll call the meeting to order at 12.01.

3
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:22,160
 The first item on 12.01, on April 28, 2021, the first item on the agenda is consider approval

4
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:25,800
 of the minutes from the 14th of April, 2021.

5
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:30,680
 Do we have a motion? Margie?

6
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:33,400
 >> Move approval. >> All right.

7
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:37,720
 I have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second.

8
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:39,720
 >> Okay. We have a motion and a second.

9
00:00:39,720 --> 00:00:47,240
 All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye.

10
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:49,800
 >> Aye. >> Any opposed?

11
00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:52,440
 All right. Motion carries unanimously.

12
00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:56,440
 The next item on the agenda is receive a report, hold a discussion,

13
00:00:56,440 --> 00:01:00,760
 give staff direction regarding proposed code amendments related to nonconforming

14
00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:06,600
 site features, accessory dwelling units, and subchapter 7 of the development standards.

15
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:09,080
 Ron, it's all yours. >> Great. Good afternoon,

16
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,560
 everyone. I'm going to go ahead and start my presentation, and I'm sharing my screen.

17
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:20,840
 Bring this to the top of the presentation.

18
00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:25,560
 Hopefully, you all can see my presentation.

19
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:33,320
 As Chair mentioned, we will be talking about the nonconforming site features.

20
00:01:33,320 --> 00:01:39,880
 This was a question or request from our last meeting related to accessory dwelling units

21
00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:45,320
 and parking, so we'll have some discussion on site features, and then continue our discussion

22
00:01:45,320 --> 00:01:49,480
 with the accessory dwelling units related to the number of bedrooms.

23
00:01:49,480 --> 00:01:54,600
 I've prepared an exhaustive list of ADUs that we process.

24
00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:59,400
 There's a lot, but we don't need to spend a whole lot of time on each one of them.

25
00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:06,520
 I just really wanted to showcase how many we've received in the last year since 2019 when the

26
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:13,160
 code was updated and show you the examples of ADUs that we've processed and approved since then.

27
00:02:13,960 --> 00:02:20,200
 If there is opportunity, which we hope we will, we'll go ahead and start discussing subchapter 7.

28
00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:28,600
 The first three may not be time consuming. However, when we get into the landscaping,

29
00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:35,720
 parking, and site and building design, there are a number of recommendations that we want to get

30
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:47,160
 some information from the DCRC. Okay, so the first item for our discussion is related to the

31
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:55,480
 nonconforming site features, and as I understand it, the question from the DCRC was if there was

32
00:02:55,480 --> 00:03:03,240
 an existing home that has no parking or limited parking, and if they were to add an ADU,

33
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:10,920
 what can we do in terms of ensuring that parking was provided for the single-family

34
00:03:10,920 --> 00:03:19,880
 structure? And what we have currently in our code is this section in subchapter 1 that talks about

35
00:03:19,880 --> 00:03:26,840
 any existing residential structure or uses shall not be deemed nonconforming

36
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:40,120
 as a result of the adoption of this DDC. So, for example, if there was a home that had,

37
00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:50,600
 I'm just going to throw this out there, two parking spaces and now the code required for that home

38
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:56,680
 would remain obviously legal and the additional requirement to have the additional two parking

39
00:03:56,680 --> 00:04:03,800
 spaces would not create nonconformity for that structure, for that single family. So, again,

40
00:04:03,800 --> 00:04:10,680
 the home has to have been legally established, so if it was approved with two legally, then again,

41
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:20,680
 that home would remain as is, it would not be nonconforming. That being said, the following

42
00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:29,080
 section also in that subchapter, it relates to nonconforming site features. That home, although

43
00:04:29,080 --> 00:04:37,720
 may not meet the code of today, may not increase or create a nonconformity, of course, moving

44
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:46,040
 forward. So, if there was a proposal for an ADU and they wanted to use the required parking spaces

45
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:53,080
 for the ADU from an approved parking space for the single family, they would not be able to. They

46
00:04:53,080 --> 00:05:01,400
 would have to add on to that site for that additional parking spaces. So, that basically

47
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:06,360
 is how we would address the parking issue. Again, if there was a single family home

48
00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:13,480
 that didn't meet the requirements of today, they would still be okay to move forward. However,

49
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:20,680
 if they were to add on an accessory dwelling unit, they would need to add additional parking for

50
00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:27,960
 that accessory dwelling unit and not create any lesser parking for that single family home.

51
00:05:27,960 --> 00:05:39,000
 I've got an example here that shows a home that's in the Oak Gateway small area plan.

52
00:05:40,120 --> 00:05:46,920
 This home was built in 1955. And as you can tell from the photo, they've converted their

53
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:55,000
 garage into a living space. And so, technically now they only have two parking spaces.

54
00:05:55,000 --> 00:06:02,360
 But at the time that home was built, the home only required two spaces. So,

55
00:06:03,560 --> 00:06:14,440
 the conversion did not create any nonconformity. However, at the time of May 2018, as you all know,

56
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:22,760
 that parking space requirement changed. And now all of the single family, any new single family

57
00:06:22,760 --> 00:06:29,960
 requires four parking spaces. But again, as we discussed earlier, this home would not be

58
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:36,920
 a nonconforming use because again, it was legally constructed with the required parking spaces at

59
00:06:36,920 --> 00:06:44,680
 the time the home was built. Again, this home, I'm familiar with it just because I had some

60
00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:52,920
 development review related comments in the garage. You can tell it's kept. They didn't really change

61
00:06:52,920 --> 00:07:00,520
 the face of the garage. However, they did add a door again for access. That's how you can tell.

62
00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:09,080
 That garage was converted. Before we go to the next topic, are there any questions about that

63
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:15,240
 question or that comment that we wanted to clarify? I believe it was Chair Ryan that you mentioned

64
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:24,680
 if there were any lack of parking, how do we address that with any proposed ADUs?

65
00:07:27,240 --> 00:07:32,760
 Yeah, I guess the concern was if we make them come back up to the full standard of today and

66
00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:39,080
 they wanted to add an ADU, they'd have to provide five parking spaces, the four for the main house

67
00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:48,200
 and one for an ADU. And in some cases, that's just completely unachievable. If you have that

68
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:53,960
 garage conversion, you might have two and just have to add one more. So I don't know if there's

69
00:07:53,960 --> 00:08:06,360
 a way to write it that if you are adding it, it's a minimum two and that you have to add one space

70
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:14,360
 regardless. Well, yeah, we can certainly add that for more clarity. But again, per the sections,

71
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:19,240
 I mean, most of the single family, and again, I say most, right? We don't know for sure, but

72
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:26,600
 most of these homes will have two parking spaces. And if they do not, at least a minimum, like you

73
00:08:26,600 --> 00:08:33,240
 said, they would need to retain that two parking spaces and add on any additional parking spaces

74
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:41,160
 for that proposed ADU. And we can certainly add that to the general topic or general standards

75
00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:50,440
 for ADUs. Right. Again, because we changed from two in 2018, anybody built prior to that might have

76
00:08:50,440 --> 00:08:55,960
 four, but they were only required to have two. Right. So to make them have to upgrade all the

77
00:08:55,960 --> 00:09:01,160
 way to four and then do a plus one to get to five because they're putting in an ADU just seems like

78
00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:08,680
 overburdened. Right. No, I think that's the intent. I think with the subchapter one where it talks

79
00:09:08,680 --> 00:09:13,320
 about, you know, them being legal at the time, that's the number that they would need to comply

80
00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:19,640
 with. And then any additional ADU that is any additional parking per the ADU, they would just

81
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:24,840
 need to add on to that two parking spaces. Right. And the concern is for those who have

82
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:31,080
 no parking spaces, and they want to add an ADU that they would have to get to at least three,

83
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:36,120
 two for the main house plus one for the ADU. Right. And in those circumstances, I mean, again,

84
00:09:36,840 --> 00:09:42,680
 we don't know many, I don't know where that example, and it may have occurred in how they

85
00:09:42,680 --> 00:09:47,720
 were allowed to have no parking spaces. We'd have to research that. But in those situations,

86
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:53,880
 yeah, totally understand that the need for additional parking would need to be provided.

87
00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:59,560
 But again, if there is, if they were completely constructed, it may be a little bit different

88
00:09:59,560 --> 00:10:06,600
 as a request to get them to install or add another two parking spaces if they were approved.

89
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:14,520
 Likelihood that they were approved with no parking spaces is slim, but there may be those examples.

90
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:22,360
 Right. And I would think it would probably be in some of the pre 1950 areas of town. That could be

91
00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:28,280
 a possibility. Where they just have one drive, you know, to their site or to their parking where

92
00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:36,920
 their one garage is. Yeah, I can see that. Any other questions, comments on that?

93
00:10:36,920 --> 00:10:43,560
 So we'll add something to the general use specific standard related to

94
00:10:43,560 --> 00:10:49,560
 the two parking spaces at a minimum, plus any additional if they don't have parking.

95
00:10:49,560 --> 00:10:58,200
 And we'll work through that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Chair. Help me understand here

96
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:06,840
 and maybe it's something we've already addressed and I just missed between 2018 that we were just

97
00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:14,120
 talking about that with that previous structure and the current DDC. But the parking spaces in

98
00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:23,160
 the garage are not counting towards that minimum? For the new construction, they would be counted.

99
00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:30,920
 Yes. Good. What we were discussing is if the ones that were already built pre 2018,

100
00:11:30,920 --> 00:11:38,520
 they can convert those and only were again approved to have only two parking spaces

101
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:45,880
 again pre 2018. That's what was required. Okay. But the current DDC allows your garage to count

102
00:11:45,880 --> 00:11:52,440
 towards your parking minimums. Correct. So the two spaces of the garage inside the garage, as well as

103
00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:58,040
 the two approaches towards the four parking spaces. Very good. Just wanted to make sure I was clear

104
00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:04,600
 on that. Yes. And you'll see some examples with the ADUs of new construction where there were

105
00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:10,920
 required four parking spaces plus the additional two parking spaces or however number of parking

106
00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:18,200
 spaces for the ADU. So we'll see some of those in the next upcoming slides. Okay.

107
00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:33,160
 So we'll go on to the next topic. ADUs. Specifically, we had some questions or comments

108
00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:40,520
 related to should there be a limit of number of bedrooms. So here's the section of the code

109
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:49,560
 that speaks generally. And we have it here that applies to both lots 10,000 square feet less as

110
00:12:49,560 --> 00:12:59,400
 well as 10,000 square feet or more. One of the discussion was what we can do is only require it

111
00:12:59,400 --> 00:13:09,560
 for the lots that have 10,000 square feet or less, but not have that requirement in those situations

112
00:13:09,560 --> 00:13:17,320
 where the lots were over 10,000. So essentially what we would do is just eliminate E and then

113
00:13:17,320 --> 00:13:24,120
 just apply it to where, again, the lots were 10,000. Now the question that came out of the

114
00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:32,680
 DCRC meeting the last time was what number is one limiting the bedroom count to one? Is that too

115
00:13:32,680 --> 00:13:43,720
 restrictive even for lots with 10,000 square feet or less? So I wanted to show some examples to kind

116
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:53,960
 of give the DCRC the context of what we have seen as far as development requests or ADU requests.

117
00:13:53,960 --> 00:14:00,520
 I would say most of these homes are not over 10,000. Most of these are within tracks of land

118
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:05,960
 that are less than 10,000 square feet. So I'm going to go ahead and start that part of the

119
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:10,520
 presentation. And please let me know if you have any questions. There are quite a few and I'll try

120
00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:15,240
 to go through them as quickly as I can. But I just wanted to show you some of the differences

121
00:14:15,240 --> 00:14:26,120
 of ADUs that we've seen in the last year and a half. So this is over in Robinwood Lane,

122
00:14:26,120 --> 00:14:33,160
 just north of town. And what they are proposing or have proposed and have gotten approval

123
00:14:33,160 --> 00:14:40,520
 is a remodel where they are adding an addition to the home and they are also adding an accessory

124
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:46,920
 dwelling unit to the rear of the property. This happens to be a corner lot. The front of the lot

125
00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:54,200
 is Robinwood and then the side street frontage is Greenwood Drive and that is where the access

126
00:14:54,200 --> 00:15:03,320
 to the ADU will be from. You can see from this illustration here that they will have the four

127
00:15:03,320 --> 00:15:11,320
 parking spaces, again, not required because this home was built prior to 2018, but you have two

128
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:15,960
 parking spaces along the driveway and then additional two parking spaces here if needed.

129
00:15:16,680 --> 00:15:24,520
 The bedroom, I'm sorry, the ADU, which is this structure here located on the rear of the property,

130
00:15:24,520 --> 00:15:31,960
 you can see we'll have one bedroom, we'll have a living space, a kitchen, and a bathroom. So

131
00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:39,720
 they're required to have one parking space and that parking space is served by providing this

132
00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:45,800
 driveway here or this drive approach here. So this serves as that additional parking space.

133
00:15:47,160 --> 00:15:53,640
 This elevation here that you see on the bottom is the elevation that will be facing the street.

134
00:15:53,640 --> 00:16:04,440
 So that's how it's shown and they will be accessing from this entrance here as just to give you some

135
00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:12,280
 illustration of where that entrance is. It is a one-story and again a one-bedroom

136
00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:17,640
 ADU that's being proposed as part of this redevelopment or remodeling project.

137
00:16:17,640 --> 00:16:27,080
 We have another one where there's an existing shed, is what I was told it is, but they're

138
00:16:27,080 --> 00:16:35,000
 converting this into an ADU. They are looking to, again, use that existing structure. It's located

139
00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:44,680
 at the rear of the property. They don't show where the parking is and I think to Chair's point,

140
00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:51,000
 there looks to be just one parking space here and I don't know if they can fit another parking space,

141
00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:58,040
 but in order to add this ADU, they would need to add an additional parking space. So based on

142
00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:05,240
 what we saw last time, they may be able to access and provide a parking space towards the rear in

143
00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:11,400
 this general vicinity. I haven't seen the site plan yet. This is still under review. I know we

144
00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:17,160
 have some staff members that is currently reviewing this and they may be able to shed some light on,

145
00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:24,360
 no pun intended, on the location of that parking space, but again, they would need to provide

146
00:17:24,360 --> 00:17:31,640
 an additional parking space for this proposed ADU and we will need to verify how many parking spaces

147
00:17:31,640 --> 00:17:41,240
 this home currently has. It actually shows two. So this is the actual street view of that parking,

148
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:46,360
 of that single-family home and so they show the two parking spaces. So all they would need to do

149
00:17:46,360 --> 00:17:55,640
 is add an additional parking space for this ADU proposed structure. How they do that,

150
00:17:56,200 --> 00:18:02,760
 again, unfortunately I don't have the site plan that shows that, but that is a requirement that

151
00:18:02,760 --> 00:18:13,480
 they will need to provide. We have another ADU. This is in the Sedna area, the southeast end

152
00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:20,440
 neighborhood area. This is located at 806 Allen Street. What the applicant is proposing is

153
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:26,760
 constructing an ADU at the rear of the property. This happens to also be on a corner lot.

154
00:18:26,760 --> 00:18:37,720
 It shows a separate lot 802, but through DCAD data or information, the owner owns both lots 802 and

155
00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:48,280
 806. That ADU that you see here is a taller ADU, not technically two stories. It is an ADU with a

156
00:18:48,280 --> 00:18:56,680
 mezzanine above that goes above a little bit to an upper level. Again, it will be located at the

157
00:18:56,680 --> 00:19:05,960
 rear of the property. This shows how it is going to be set up. The area that is outlined in red is

158
00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:14,040
 the mezzanine area. The stairwell is located in this general vicinity right next to the main entrance.

159
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:23,160
 They show a bed here, a location for a bed. They also show a bed location on the bottom floor,

160
00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:29,320
 almost serving as a studio. In this particular case, because they are showing two separate

161
00:19:29,320 --> 00:19:40,040
 locations for a place for a bed, they will require two parking spaces for this site. Fortunately,

162
00:19:40,040 --> 00:19:47,160
 they have the ability to do that just based on the location. If they were not able to access

163
00:19:47,160 --> 00:19:55,000
 two parking spaces or apply two parking spaces, that would not be approvable. Again, in this

164
00:19:55,000 --> 00:20:04,280
 particular case, they would be required to provide two parking spaces. Again, the site plan that they

165
00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:11,720
 submitted has not yet been approved. Based on the requirements of the DDC, two parking spaces,

166
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:18,840
 in addition to the two parking spaces that they have now, will be required for that ADU.

167
00:20:18,840 --> 00:20:26,520
 This is the front of the single-family home. The two parking spaces that they have available

168
00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:31,480
 today is shown here. They would need to provide an additional two parking spaces

169
00:20:32,280 --> 00:20:42,840
 for this proposed ADU. This just talks a little bit about the bedroom count. Technically,

170
00:20:42,840 --> 00:20:52,280
 they are not a bedroom per se, but they are studies or any other area similar where a bed

171
00:20:52,280 --> 00:20:59,800
 can be located, in which case they would be counted as bedrooms for the parking requirement.

172
00:21:03,240 --> 00:21:13,000
 So those are ones that have existing homes. The next few slides illustrate where a developer

173
00:21:13,000 --> 00:21:22,600
 went and either demolished or took an infill lot and developed a single-family home or homes

174
00:21:22,600 --> 00:21:30,520
 and added ADUs as part of that development. So what you see here is located on Rose Street,

175
00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:38,440
 just adjacent to the service center. This property was currently vacant, 818 and 820.

176
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:47,560
 What the applicant or the owner or developer did was construct a home on one of each of those lots

177
00:21:47,560 --> 00:21:55,080
 and added an ADU to each of those lots as well. So what we're going to look at is 820, which is

178
00:21:55,080 --> 00:22:02,520
 this northern lot, and you see the floor plan here. I apologize, it's sort of hard to read with all

179
00:22:02,520 --> 00:22:10,520
 the different labels, but the front part of the lot, you see they have provided three parking spaces.

180
00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:20,200
 Again, this is a single-family home, so as Mayor Pro Tem Davis mentioned, four parking spaces would

181
00:22:20,200 --> 00:22:25,880
 be required, or I mentioned that earlier. So this single-family home would need to provide four

182
00:22:25,880 --> 00:22:33,320
 parking space per the parking requirements as of May 2018. So you see they have one, two, three in

183
00:22:33,320 --> 00:22:41,160
 the front and then four in the rear. The fifth parking space is for the ADU. They are proposing

184
00:22:41,160 --> 00:22:47,960
 a one-bedroom ADU, so that is where that fifth parking space would be required.

185
00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:53,480
 So here's the floor plan for the ADU that's located at the rear of the property.

186
00:22:53,480 --> 00:22:59,480
 You have the entrance here, the living area, kitchen, bathroom, and then the one bedroom. So

187
00:22:59,480 --> 00:23:06,760
 one parking space would be required. This is the front of the home that faces Rose Street. This is

188
00:23:06,760 --> 00:23:13,720
 the ADU that's behind the home, and you can see very similar and architecturally compatible

189
00:23:14,280 --> 00:23:25,560
 features to match the main structure. This is some photos of what resulted out of this.

190
00:23:25,560 --> 00:23:33,240
 Now imagine a lot line in the middle of A20 and A18. They share a common driveway, and that is

191
00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:39,080
 through a public access easement, so they're able to do that. The home again that we're looking at,

192
00:23:39,080 --> 00:23:45,320
 or have looked at, is A20 with the parking spaces here, and then the additional parking spaces in

193
00:23:45,320 --> 00:23:53,800
 the back, and you see here this is the home that's in the rear of the property. This is for A20,

194
00:23:53,800 --> 00:24:03,480
 and then I shared with you what the other ADU is shown for A18. So this is the other ADU, which is

195
00:24:03,480 --> 00:24:12,360
 just to the side of this other ADU. So this is an example of a new construction in which they took

196
00:24:12,360 --> 00:24:18,920
 two vacant lots and constructed two single family with two ADUs meeting the requirements,

197
00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:29,480
 each with one bedroom. Similarly, this is actually the same property owner, and you can see from the

198
00:24:29,480 --> 00:24:36,120
 floor plan or the site plan a very similar design where they were required to provide the additional

199
00:24:36,120 --> 00:24:43,560
 parking spaces, and therefore I won't spend too much time on this, but you can see they all are

200
00:24:43,560 --> 00:24:50,280
 very similar. Again, this is off of Janey Street, just north of the courthouse, 427 and 431,

201
00:24:50,280 --> 00:24:55,320
 and what I'm showing you here is 431, which is one of those lots.

202
00:24:57,640 --> 00:25:03,640
 This is the final product, and you can see very similar look as the previous ADU's

203
00:25:03,640 --> 00:25:06,920
 single-family homes that was shown off of Rose Street.

204
00:25:06,920 --> 00:25:16,760
 Another one, again this is similar, again showing you the extent of what has happened in the last

205
00:25:16,760 --> 00:25:23,560
 year and a half, this property owner, similar ones to Rose and to Janey, is also developing a

206
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:29,080
 similar product on Paisley, which is again not too far from the service center, not too far from Rose

207
00:25:29,080 --> 00:25:36,680
 Street, and these are just north of McKinney and just east of the railroad tracks. This is still

208
00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:42,920
 under construction as opposed to the other two, and again very similar in the design, and I'm

209
00:25:42,920 --> 00:25:51,480
 going to go, and as you already have seen, the design is very similar. So again, this is an example

210
00:25:51,480 --> 00:25:59,000
 of a property owner developer looking at infill development and looking at, in this case, two

211
00:25:59,000 --> 00:26:06,680
 separate lots and conducting and constructing them, and he's done this three times, one off Rose, one

212
00:26:06,680 --> 00:26:18,120
 off of Janey, as well as Paisley. So another set of ADU's that we've seen in the last, I guess,

213
00:26:18,120 --> 00:26:28,280
 six months in this particular case is located off of Crow and Senna. This property is owned by one

214
00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:34,520
 property owner and is being developed with multiple lots, a total of nine specifically, and those

215
00:26:34,520 --> 00:26:51,000
 nines are located here, 1845, 49, 41, 39, 31, 35, 09, 1910, and 1904. All are having a similar

216
00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:57,560
 development where there's a single family home in front and a single, I'm sorry, an ADU either on

217
00:26:57,560 --> 00:27:04,520
 the rear or the side of the main structure. All of these are new construction. All of these are

218
00:27:04,520 --> 00:27:11,800
 with an ADU. Again, the parking requirements do apply where they would need to provide four

219
00:27:11,800 --> 00:27:18,840
 parking spaces for the main structure, and then however many parking spaces is required for the

220
00:27:18,840 --> 00:27:26,200
 number of bedrooms. In this particular one, two bedrooms are proposed on each of these developments.

221
00:27:26,200 --> 00:27:36,520
 So 1831, as you see here, what you see on the next slide here is what it looks like from a floor plan

222
00:27:36,520 --> 00:27:44,360
 perspective. The bottom floor of the ADU is a two-car garage. The access to the ADU is through the

223
00:27:44,360 --> 00:27:49,800
 first floor, of course, heading into the second floor, and in the second floor they have a dining,

224
00:27:49,800 --> 00:27:56,520
 living, kitchen, bath, but also have two bedrooms, one in each corner of that side. This happens to

225
00:27:56,520 --> 00:28:04,120
 be over a breezeway where the second bedroom is, and so that is a total of two bedrooms.

226
00:28:04,120 --> 00:28:11,000
 Going back to where that parking will be, you have the four, again, two in the garage,

227
00:28:11,000 --> 00:28:16,520
 two in the driveway for the main structure, and then the breezeway, there are four parking spaces,

228
00:28:16,520 --> 00:28:23,240
 or this can be served as a parking space as well, so that would accommodate the two bedrooms for that

229
00:28:23,240 --> 00:28:30,760
 ADU. So again, a different look. This one in particular has two bedrooms proposed.

230
00:28:30,760 --> 00:28:38,200
 I'm just going to share, sorry, here are some of the elevations. This is the front of the home,

231
00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:44,920
 facing the front of the house, the street that is, and then you can see from the side view,

232
00:28:44,920 --> 00:28:52,760
 here's the ADU that is in the rear with the garage and the open carport as shown on the side plan.

233
00:28:52,760 --> 00:29:03,720
 This one is 1849, which is in the same location. They have somewhat a similar proposal,

234
00:29:03,720 --> 00:29:08,760
 however, this one is located on the side of the main house, and that is something that's accepted,

235
00:29:09,640 --> 00:29:18,360
 or sorry, allowed, thinking the right word, allowed today. ADUs are allowed on the side of the home.

236
00:29:18,360 --> 00:29:24,920
 Again, they have other requirements, but they are allowed to be placed on the side of the room,

237
00:29:24,920 --> 00:29:32,120
 and again, a similar setup where the main structure has the two-car garage here, I'm sorry,

238
00:29:32,120 --> 00:29:37,080
 yes, two-car garage with the driveway, which has the additional parking, and then for the bedrooms,

239
00:29:37,880 --> 00:29:43,800
 in this case again, two bedrooms, they either have this space here or this space over here to be able

240
00:29:43,800 --> 00:29:51,320
 to park those two additional parking that is required. This shows sort of the floor plan for

241
00:29:51,320 --> 00:29:59,800
 the living, for the second ADU that is. The first floor has the two-car garage, the living and kitchen,

242
00:29:59,800 --> 00:30:06,440
 and then when they go up, there are two bedrooms located above that garage/living area, and so

243
00:30:06,440 --> 00:30:14,200
 therefore, two parking spaces in addition to the four would be required. And then just some

244
00:30:14,200 --> 00:30:22,760
 elevations, very similar to what we've seen in this particular area. The last one in this area

245
00:30:22,760 --> 00:30:28,680
 is located on Center Street. You can see again, very similar, I won't spend too much, but again,

246
00:30:28,680 --> 00:30:38,520
 all nine of these lots will have the same setup in terms of a single family, two bedroom ADU,

247
00:30:38,520 --> 00:30:45,400
 and the required parking space required six for all of these units. So this site that you can see

248
00:30:45,400 --> 00:30:52,280
 here on Senna, which looks north towards Crow, currently is undeveloped and will be, and is

249
00:30:52,280 --> 00:30:57,720
 currently being redeveloped or constructed with these types of single family and ADUs.

250
00:30:58,680 --> 00:31:10,760
 The next one, I think this is second to last, this is one that we approved several years ago,

251
00:31:10,760 --> 00:31:19,160
 2018 I believe, where this is located on Fulton Street. This particular developer developed one

252
00:31:19,160 --> 00:31:25,240
 single building with, again, very similar to what we saw in Senna, but in this is just a different

253
00:31:25,240 --> 00:31:34,440
 location. This shows a craftsman home where they are building a garage in the back with an ADU

254
00:31:34,440 --> 00:31:41,560
 in the rear. So the site plan that you see here would accommodate the two parking spaces, I'm

255
00:31:41,560 --> 00:31:46,840
 sorry, the four parking spaces with the garage below the two and then the space adjacent to the

256
00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:52,040
 garage. And then again, additional parking spaces in the middle to accommodate for that two parking

257
00:31:52,040 --> 00:32:00,680
 spaces that would be required for that ADU. This is the home, not yet finished, but you can see

258
00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:09,320
 that it has a nice look to it. And from the front, it does not look as big as it is shown. It's about

259
00:32:09,320 --> 00:32:18,520
 1924 square feet for the single family. The additional ADU is about 728. And you can see

260
00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:25,480
 they have two bedrooms above the garage. They also have a game room. So again, this particular ADU

261
00:32:25,480 --> 00:32:32,440
 would require the additional two parking spaces on top of the four that would be required for

262
00:32:32,440 --> 00:32:42,600
 the multi single family. And then I just listed a number of other ones that we've processed in 2019.

263
00:32:43,720 --> 00:32:55,160
 607 Woodland, 1815 Greenwood, you know, 2223 North Locust and 2115 Glenwood. These specifically are

264
00:32:55,160 --> 00:33:03,800
 existing homes where they've converted some part of their home, either a second story or an addition

265
00:33:03,800 --> 00:33:10,760
 to an ADU. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos of this, but again, I just wanted to mention that

266
00:33:10,760 --> 00:33:16,760
 we've seen a number of ADUs. Most of them are either one bedroom, but we actually seen two

267
00:33:16,760 --> 00:33:22,600
 bedrooms under the new construction to kind of give you some context as to what we're seeing.

268
00:33:22,600 --> 00:33:30,440
 We haven't seen anything above two bedrooms, but again, most of these lots are less than 10,000.

269
00:33:30,440 --> 00:33:38,520
 So back to our question in the beginning, you know, is setting a one bedroom unit ADU,

270
00:33:39,720 --> 00:33:46,600
 what we want to do, or do we want to set it at two at a maximum?

271
00:33:46,600 --> 00:33:58,280
 So back to the question and wanted to get input from the committee as to what that maximum should

272
00:33:58,280 --> 00:34:06,120
 be. Jim, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Rob, just to your question, I would say I think two is the

273
00:34:06,120 --> 00:34:11,160
 maximum. I think past that it should be a multifamily property and should be zoned correctly for that.

274
00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:16,360
 You know, you're already having two accessory dwelling units where he puts it at multifamily

275
00:34:16,360 --> 00:34:21,400
 level, but that would put it definitely past two, it'd be more than that. A question I was going to

276
00:34:21,400 --> 00:34:30,760
 ask during your presentation, is there a limitation in the code currently that has it to wear a limit

277
00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:37,160
 of number of stories in the ADU comparative to the primary residence on this on the location,

278
00:34:37,160 --> 00:34:41,560
 you know, such as, you know, if it's a single family home, can't be a two story ADU?

279
00:34:41,560 --> 00:34:47,640
 We don't currently have that. They would need to just comply with the height requirements. And

280
00:34:47,640 --> 00:34:54,280
 that's whatever that zoning district is, most of the residential zoning district is at 40 feet.

281
00:34:54,280 --> 00:35:00,120
 So if there's a single family home, where that's one story upfront, they potentially can do a two

282
00:35:00,120 --> 00:35:08,600
 story above that single family. So to answer your question, no, we don't have a story limit,

283
00:35:08,600 --> 00:35:13,080
 but we do have a building height limit. Mr. Chair, if I might?

284
00:35:13,080 --> 00:35:21,720
 Yes. I would also add that we have had some ADUs that have been built as a detached

285
00:35:21,720 --> 00:35:27,480
 garage with living above. So again, accommodated for the off street parking, just as a side note.

286
00:35:30,520 --> 00:35:31,800
 That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

287
00:35:31,800 --> 00:35:39,880
 Yeah. And I had a similar one. I think it was 806 Allen, that was the story or

288
00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:46,600
 mezzanine above and was that taller than the main structure? I think that's something we

289
00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:51,960
 might want to consider is, can you build an ADU that's taller than your existing structure? Because

290
00:35:51,960 --> 00:35:57,640
 part of the thought behind all this is, you know, we're not putting the door cannot be seen from

291
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:03,480
 the right away. So we're kind of trying to hide these a little bit. And if you're going,

292
00:36:03,480 --> 00:36:09,560
 you know, two stories with an ADU, I mean, I understand the garage on the first floor and

293
00:36:09,560 --> 00:36:16,920
 the second floor being the ADU. So with that thought in mind, I might be okay with it, but

294
00:36:16,920 --> 00:36:24,200
 I don't know that that's a good precedent to set. I had a couple of other ones that as you're going

295
00:36:24,200 --> 00:36:30,520
 through there, evidently we do not currently have a minimum or do we for square foot of an ADU?

296
00:36:30,520 --> 00:36:40,600
 We do not have one, I believe. Okay, that's because at 401 Simmons was 160 square feet.

297
00:36:40,600 --> 00:36:47,160
 Yeah, the shed, correct. So I know that when our proposal is to add 400.

298
00:36:47,160 --> 00:36:50,600
 Let me just double check that real quick.

299
00:36:54,920 --> 00:37:10,840
 Yeah, so 400 is the one we are proposing for the lots that are 10,000, as well as the lots that are

300
00:37:10,840 --> 00:37:20,440
 over 10,000 square feet. So we do have again, that requirement, unfortunately,

301
00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:29,240
 well, I don't know if it's unfortunate, but the 160 right now doesn't prevent us to do that.

302
00:37:29,240 --> 00:37:34,440
 Actually, they meet the building code. That is all that's required for now until a code amendment

303
00:37:34,440 --> 00:37:44,360
 that you see here passes. Sorry, let me make this. However, back to the question about the height,

304
00:37:44,360 --> 00:37:52,360
 you know, I guess let me back up one more. So I hear two-bedroom max, and we can certainly

305
00:37:52,360 --> 00:37:57,800
 bring this forward to the full body of the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council.

306
00:37:57,800 --> 00:38:09,400
 So what I hear from the committee is a two-bedroom limit for 10,000. Is that what we want for both

307
00:38:09,400 --> 00:38:19,240
 situation 10,000 square feet as less, or do we want to also see it in the 10,000 or more lots

308
00:38:19,240 --> 00:38:27,080
 having a maximum bedroom count of two? Jesse, go ahead.

309
00:38:27,080 --> 00:38:35,160
 I'm assuming the same definition of bedroom that we talked about, or the same calculation of bedrooms

310
00:38:35,160 --> 00:38:39,720
 that we talked about in the parking conversation applies. If that's the case where, you know,

311
00:38:39,720 --> 00:38:47,080
 a den that doesn't have a closet is going to also be considered a bedroom, then I think at least two

312
00:38:47,080 --> 00:38:52,200
 bedrooms. I tend to agree with Tim that when we start going more than that, then we're in the

313
00:38:52,200 --> 00:38:57,160
 multifamily and we're talking about a different kind of project. But if we're going to say that

314
00:38:57,160 --> 00:39:02,920
 a bedroom is anywhere where you might conceivably plop down a bed or a pallet and charge somebody to

315
00:39:02,920 --> 00:39:08,920
 rent for it, then I think we ought to go from one to two, a two-bedroom maximum.

316
00:39:08,920 --> 00:39:21,080
 So I don't hear any other questions. I would agree with that. And, you know,

317
00:39:21,080 --> 00:39:26,760
 when you look at apartments, 900 square feet is where we're setting our maximum. In an apartment

318
00:39:26,760 --> 00:39:32,120
 setting, that's generally a two-bedroom. Could be up to three, but generally it's a two-bedroom.

319
00:39:32,920 --> 00:39:38,040
 400 square foot would be either an efficiency or a one-bedroom, which is our minimum. So,

320
00:39:38,040 --> 00:39:41,640
 yeah, I'm comfortable with the two-bedroom.

321
00:39:41,640 --> 00:39:48,520
 I am too. The maximum of two-bedrooms.

322
00:39:48,520 --> 00:39:56,680
 So Margie? Yeah, as I said last week too, I was for that as well.

323
00:39:58,120 --> 00:40:05,880
 Okay, so we'll propose moving forward with the two-bedroom max. Now the question I have to follow

324
00:40:05,880 --> 00:40:15,720
 up with that is what do we want to do or what does the DCRC want in terms of that two maximum?

325
00:40:15,720 --> 00:40:24,760
 Should that just apply to 10,000 or less or should it apply to 10,000 or more?

326
00:40:24,760 --> 00:40:28,120
 It currently does not have that limitation.

327
00:40:28,120 --> 00:40:36,440
 Tim, go ahead. I think it should apply to both. I think that no matter what, no matter the size of

328
00:40:36,440 --> 00:40:40,680
 the lot, I don't think we're going to have 15,000, 20,000 square foot lots that are really dealing

329
00:40:40,680 --> 00:40:44,920
 with a lot of accessory dwelling units. But even then, once again, if it's in a residential area,

330
00:40:44,920 --> 00:40:51,800
 it's not possibly zoned for a multifamily even with an SUP. That's a multifamily property. It's

331
00:40:51,800 --> 00:40:56,760
 a totally different project at that point in time. So I think two, it doesn't matter the size of the

332
00:40:56,760 --> 00:41:02,280
 lot. I would be more apt even for the 10,000 square foot and less for that to be something

333
00:41:02,280 --> 00:41:07,080
 that you could even say it could be a maximum of one. But I think two could be very easily

334
00:41:07,080 --> 00:41:22,280
 trivia to both sizes. I'm in agreement with that as well. It's limited to both. Yeah,

335
00:41:22,280 --> 00:41:30,920
 I would say so too. I'm not sure if when we get into like an already five zoning where it's a

336
00:41:30,920 --> 00:41:35,800
 five acre there, I can see something slightly different, but I'm sure there's probably other

337
00:41:36,680 --> 00:41:40,120
 ways that they can, they can even sort of divide that property or, you know,

338
00:41:40,120 --> 00:41:46,200
 plat it so that it's actually two lots. Of course, then they can't file it and then they

339
00:41:46,200 --> 00:41:55,560
 have to rezone as well. So that's not going to work. We'll go ahead and draft that to apply

340
00:41:55,560 --> 00:42:02,200
 for both and we can move on to the next topic if there are any other questions.

341
00:42:04,840 --> 00:42:14,040
 Okay, moving on to the discussion about applicability in terms of the development

342
00:42:14,040 --> 00:42:22,600
 standards in sub chapter seven. Sorry, let me increase my screen here. We had a lot of

343
00:42:22,600 --> 00:42:28,760
 discussion. I think for the most part, we were okay with the changes to one through three,

344
00:42:28,760 --> 00:42:34,600
 it was more the parking spaces and the committee wanted us to bring back some examples and

345
00:42:34,600 --> 00:42:42,280
 discussion. Now there are two tiers where development standards apply and I will

346
00:42:42,280 --> 00:42:49,080
 share with you on those tiers, what those tiers apply to. Let me scroll down to that

347
00:42:49,080 --> 00:42:54,600
 slide real quick and we'll come back to these. I apologize for that. So here are the two tiers.

348
00:42:54,600 --> 00:43:05,320
 We have tier one and tier two. So if you're in tier one, any check boxes or all development

349
00:43:05,320 --> 00:43:11,080
 where you see that all of these development standards to the left will apply to tier one.

350
00:43:11,080 --> 00:43:19,480
 The diamond shape references only the development impact area where that development or that

351
00:43:19,480 --> 00:43:25,880
 construction work is being done. That's where that would apply. So for example, if you're in tier one

352
00:43:25,880 --> 00:43:35,000
 and you're only doing so much, you would need to comply with the development standards

353
00:43:35,000 --> 00:43:40,440
 with landscaping screening buffer offenses only within that development impact area.

354
00:43:40,440 --> 00:43:47,320
 However, if you are bumped to a tier two, you would need to apply all of those screening landscape

355
00:43:47,320 --> 00:43:52,440
 buffer and fencing requirements to the entire site. So just to kind of give you a context of

356
00:43:52,440 --> 00:44:00,600
 what tier one and tier two and what would apply in those situations. So going back to the first

357
00:44:00,600 --> 00:44:08,360
 part of that discussion, parking spaces in the strikethrough language, it currently says that

358
00:44:09,240 --> 00:44:19,960
 you are a tier one if you are greater than six or 50%. So basically, if you're less than six

359
00:44:19,960 --> 00:44:25,880
 and less than 50% of the number of parking spaces, you would not need to do anything

360
00:44:25,880 --> 00:44:34,840
 to comply with the development code requirements. We feel that it should be changed a little bit

361
00:44:35,400 --> 00:44:42,920
 in order to differentiate between tier one and tier two. This doesn't really work in our

362
00:44:42,920 --> 00:44:51,240
 particular case as of today. So what staff is proposing is shown here underlined is any parking

363
00:44:51,240 --> 00:44:57,400
 space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguration, reconstructing or other similar

364
00:44:57,400 --> 00:45:06,920
 projects that impact 10, sorry, between 10 and less than 50% of the existing number of spaces. So

365
00:45:06,920 --> 00:45:13,880
 that should be 10%, between 10 and 50% of the number of parking spaces, you will be considered

366
00:45:13,880 --> 00:45:24,280
 tier one. Anything above 50%, this is tier two, you would be required to comply with the development

367
00:45:24,280 --> 00:45:32,120
 standards for the entire site. So this is something I added as a result of my analysis in relationship

368
00:45:32,120 --> 00:45:41,080
 to this particular item. I know that there was a comment from the committee related to what will

369
00:45:41,080 --> 00:45:48,680
 10%, if there's a 10 space parking lot, one or two spaces where it's reconfigured, reconstructed would

370
00:45:48,680 --> 00:45:58,120
 be tier one. And I guess our recommendation is that would be okay. I mean, all they would need

371
00:45:58,120 --> 00:46:06,200
 to comply with is the section of the code that again, for that development impact area in the

372
00:46:06,200 --> 00:46:13,880
 case of a parking lot that's reconstructing, reconfiguring between 10 to 50% of their number

373
00:46:13,880 --> 00:46:25,160
 of parking spaces. Is 10 and or 50 appropriate? And this is a question for the DCRC. What do you

374
00:46:25,160 --> 00:46:33,160
 all think about those numbers? Again, between 10 and 50% tier one, anything above 50% tier two.

375
00:46:40,920 --> 00:46:46,520
 And I've got examples if you want me to go through them as well. I wanted to get your

376
00:46:46,520 --> 00:46:55,080
 feedback. Yeah, I think the examples might help because as I understand it, that should be 10%

377
00:46:55,080 --> 00:47:02,040
 and 50%. That's correct. That should be awarded 10% between 10 to 50%. Yeah, that goes back to

378
00:47:02,040 --> 00:47:10,200
 if you've got a dentist office with six spaces, one space is more than 10%. And to that point,

379
00:47:10,200 --> 00:47:15,800
 Chair Ryan, they would just need to comply with whatever development requirements or standards

380
00:47:15,800 --> 00:47:20,920
 for that parking space, that one parking space, it would not trigger the entire site,

381
00:47:20,920 --> 00:47:32,120
 because they would be only within tier one. Okay, so tier one only applies to the development

382
00:47:32,120 --> 00:47:39,320
 impact area in terms of landscaping, screening and whatnot. So may not be a big impact to them,

383
00:47:39,960 --> 00:47:45,880
 but anything above 50%. So if they have six and they do four spaces, then they would have to

384
00:47:45,880 --> 00:47:49,160
 comply with all the requirements for the entire site at that point.

385
00:47:49,160 --> 00:47:56,360
 But let me share some examples and kind of give you some ones that we processed recently.

386
00:48:03,800 --> 00:48:11,400
 So this is just off of University's Primrose. It's a medical center.

387
00:48:11,400 --> 00:48:20,040
 I may be wrong, but what they're proposing or have proposed is a reconstruction of this entire

388
00:48:20,040 --> 00:48:27,960
 site that you see here. The aerial shows how many parking spaces they have. That includes the front,

389
00:48:27,960 --> 00:48:34,440
 the side and the rear. They're proposing to remove the existing parking lots, asphalt and poor

390
00:48:34,440 --> 00:48:41,080
 concrete. So they're really improving this site. In this particular case, because they are doing

391
00:48:41,080 --> 00:48:48,680
 all 22, they would need to comply with all the standards for the entire site. Again, this is

392
00:48:48,680 --> 00:48:54,680
 just one that we've seen that has come up recently. And so that's an example. So this particular

393
00:48:55,240 --> 00:49:03,800
 business has 22 spaces and then they're reconstructing this site from asphalt to concrete.

394
00:49:03,800 --> 00:49:13,880
 This is another one. We haven't had a lot of just parking lot applications, but this is for a church

395
00:49:13,880 --> 00:49:22,360
 off of Audre and Lattimore Street. What they've done is they've expanded their parking lot area

396
00:49:23,400 --> 00:49:33,160
 to close to 50%. I believe they were just under 50%. You see the existing here where they have

397
00:49:33,160 --> 00:49:40,200
 parking pretty much all around. What they have proposed and constructed are additional parking

398
00:49:40,200 --> 00:49:46,520
 spaces where they've added in this general vicinity as well as this set of parking area.

399
00:49:47,480 --> 00:49:54,360
 We also see a couple here to the east of the building and then a number of them here

400
00:49:54,360 --> 00:50:00,360
 towards the northwest of the building. So in total count, they were just under 50%,

401
00:50:00,360 --> 00:50:07,880
 is my understanding. And therefore, their landscaping requirements only applied to the areas

402
00:50:07,880 --> 00:50:19,080
 that were constructed from their permit. So if they were over 50%, they would have to comply with

403
00:50:19,080 --> 00:50:26,520
 every code requirement in terms of landscaping, screening, and buffering. So that's why you don't

404
00:50:26,520 --> 00:50:33,000
 see any of this area changed because again, the count was just under 50%. So that's just to

405
00:50:33,000 --> 00:50:42,760
 illustrate where that trigger is, where that threshold is in terms of applying to the entire

406
00:50:42,760 --> 00:50:52,920
 site or just the development impact area. This was just to show what it looks like in comparison to

407
00:50:52,920 --> 00:51:03,000
 the landscape plan. Another one, and this is not necessarily a parking lot permit, but one that

408
00:51:03,000 --> 00:51:09,800
 shows where the expansion of a building, and this could have been the expansion of a parking lot,

409
00:51:09,800 --> 00:51:15,560
 where they had to comply with the development standards. Because they were over 50% in terms

410
00:51:15,560 --> 00:51:23,480
 of their building structure, the landscaping, parking, buffer, screen, all of that had to apply

411
00:51:23,480 --> 00:51:30,840
 to the entire site. And so you see the before where it was just, you know, see parking spaces,

412
00:51:30,840 --> 00:51:38,360
 they had to comply with the landscaping, the buffering, and the screening requirements. And

413
00:51:38,360 --> 00:51:44,520
 so this is what you see as a result. They've obviously added more landscaping, they've added

414
00:51:44,520 --> 00:51:49,800
 more of the parking lot. You can see here landscaping that's required for the parking lot,

415
00:51:49,800 --> 00:51:55,000
 and also the screening that you see here. They've actually enhanced it by planting larger

416
00:51:55,000 --> 00:52:02,840
 or screening trees along the perimeter of the property. So just to show you what can result

417
00:52:02,840 --> 00:52:11,640
 from a proposed development that exceeds either the building by 50% or if 50% is the number of

418
00:52:11,640 --> 00:52:20,920
 parking spaces, this is what would result from that. This just shows an existing of what that

419
00:52:20,920 --> 00:52:30,120
 site looks prior to the redevelopment of that property. So I guess back to the question,

420
00:52:30,120 --> 00:52:40,600
 I'll scroll back up to the proposed code amendment in relationship to parking spaces.

421
00:52:41,240 --> 00:52:48,600
 Tier one, again, we're talking about just the development impact area, is the threshold 10,

422
00:52:48,600 --> 00:52:57,000
 between 10 and 50 appropriate for tier one? Which again, if 50 changes, then tier two would need to

423
00:52:57,000 --> 00:53:04,920
 be changed. But before this code or what's existing today, it's 50%. And so that's where we kept it.

424
00:53:04,920 --> 00:53:11,480
 But we wanted to go away from the six spaces and really focus on adding percentage

425
00:53:11,480 --> 00:53:19,560
 to this and remove the spaces versus percentage. So what staff is proposing is between 10 to 50%

426
00:53:19,560 --> 00:53:26,200
 would be tier one. And then again, of course, anything above 50% would be a tier two,

427
00:53:26,200 --> 00:53:39,240
 or that would apply to the entire site. - Any thoughts, comments?

428
00:53:39,240 --> 00:53:51,400
 - I can be in agreement with that. - Yeah, Molly thought on it again,

429
00:53:51,400 --> 00:53:55,960
 kind of goes back to the small lots. What is our requirement for landscaping with

430
00:53:55,960 --> 00:54:04,040
 in the parking lot? - So if, I mean, to be honest with a small lot, if there was,

431
00:54:04,040 --> 00:54:10,120
 I know there was a couple on Elm Street where they were just changing a few, it would be landscaping

432
00:54:10,120 --> 00:54:15,640
 along the right of way if it was placed along the right of way. And again, anything less than 50%

433
00:54:15,640 --> 00:54:22,200
 would just need to comply with the landscaping requirements, the screening. I think for the most

434
00:54:22,200 --> 00:54:27,720
 part, that's pretty much it. It would only impact the development impact area. It would just be

435
00:54:27,720 --> 00:54:32,600
 those few lots, whatever, I'm sorry, few spaces, whichever the amount is,

436
00:54:32,600 --> 00:54:40,760
 would just need to comply in that particular area. - Okay, so we don't have a requirement of X amount

437
00:54:40,760 --> 00:54:48,840
 of the parking lot must be landscaped? - So that would be part of the landscaping

438
00:54:48,840 --> 00:54:54,680
 that, again, because it's only affecting the development impact area, we'd have to pay more

439
00:54:54,680 --> 00:55:02,440
 greater detail on how we would accomplish that. It may be adding another tree so that it would provide

440
00:55:02,440 --> 00:55:10,440
 for the landscaping requirements for canopy. You may be asking to remove some landscaping area,

441
00:55:10,440 --> 00:55:16,200
 sorry, concrete if there was any to add additional landscape area or just planting shrubs, again,

442
00:55:16,200 --> 00:55:25,080
 for that particular development impact area. I wish I had a good example other than the church

443
00:55:25,080 --> 00:55:34,600
 of Audra where they only applied the standards, but that was a larger parking lot. Chair Ryan,

444
00:55:34,600 --> 00:55:38,600
 I don't have an example of a small lot and how that would apply. Obviously, with a larger lot,

445
00:55:38,600 --> 00:55:44,360
 you have a little bit more way of meeting the code or meeting the requirements. With a small lot,

446
00:55:44,360 --> 00:55:51,640
 it's difficult. I wish I had a good example, which I don't, where they only compacted or

447
00:55:51,640 --> 00:56:00,680
 addressed two or three spaces. - So as an example, if someone

448
00:56:00,680 --> 00:56:08,040
 has a gravel lot right now and it's got six spaces in it and they want to take the gravel out,

449
00:56:08,040 --> 00:56:16,360
 put concrete in? - It would be a reconstruction that would trigger the landscaping. And if it's

450
00:56:16,360 --> 00:56:22,280
 six and six is the over 50%, then they would have to comply with the landscaping requirements

451
00:56:22,280 --> 00:56:31,240
 for that entire site. - And what happens if, because they now have to add additional landscaping,

452
00:56:31,880 --> 00:56:39,320
 they can't get enough spaces in that area to handle what their business is required to have

453
00:56:39,320 --> 00:56:46,600
 for spaces? - There's always an alternative landscape plan that we can consider

454
00:56:46,600 --> 00:56:56,120
 administratively. In the case they can propose certain landscaping proposals that staff can

455
00:56:56,120 --> 00:57:02,840
 review, Richard can consider as the director of planning. So in those situations, there is an

456
00:57:02,840 --> 00:57:10,040
 option to go through that alternative landscape plan. - Okay. Then I'm probably okay with it,

457
00:57:10,040 --> 00:57:19,000
 or I am okay with it. - Yeah. Okay. So we'll stick with, I'm sorry, I didn't hear from the

458
00:57:19,000 --> 00:57:26,360
 entire DCRC, so I, going with- - It's Tim. Yes, I'm fine with that as well.

459
00:57:26,360 --> 00:57:35,400
 - All right. - Here's Margie. - Thanks, Chair. I'll just weigh in here. I don't know if we need to

460
00:57:35,400 --> 00:57:40,280
 have some protection in there for the smaller lots, maybe that they don't jump into a tier two. I

461
00:57:40,280 --> 00:57:45,400
 mean, anytime we deal in percentages, you can see with the church, they had a whole lot of area

462
00:57:45,960 --> 00:57:51,240
 and didn't trigger over 50%. So they only had to deal with the development impact area.

463
00:57:51,240 --> 00:57:58,360
 That smaller guy, as the example that Chair just gave, I mean, they have a much higher percentage

464
00:57:58,360 --> 00:58:02,520
 of triggering themselves into a tier two and having to infect their entire site. So I don't

465
00:58:02,520 --> 00:58:09,320
 know if thought needs to be given to a certain number of spots, and I'm not exactly sure what

466
00:58:09,320 --> 00:58:15,560
 that would be, maybe under 10 spaces or something like that, that they would remain in tier one and

467
00:58:15,560 --> 00:58:22,680
 only the development area would have to be complied. I don't know. To me, that gives me just a little

468
00:58:22,680 --> 00:58:31,560
 bit of pause. - Right. - What we just discussed. - And just to care for what you were just saying,

469
00:58:31,560 --> 00:58:39,960
 Commissioner Nellis, we currently have the requirement that it says six or greater or 50%.

470
00:58:41,000 --> 00:58:47,800
 So greater of six, that is, or 50%, so whichever is greater. So that small lot, say it's a six

471
00:58:47,800 --> 00:58:55,560
 space lot or let's say 10 space lot, if they were to reconstruct, reconfigure five of that,

472
00:58:55,560 --> 00:59:04,840
 that would automatically trigger a tier one. I'm sorry, tier two in this respect.

473
00:59:06,920 --> 00:59:14,440
 So yeah, I hear what you all are saying, what you guys, the DCRC, is saying in terms of those

474
00:59:14,440 --> 00:59:22,520
 smaller parking lots. I know that part of the effort here is trying to not necessarily bring

475
00:59:22,520 --> 00:59:29,240
 them to conforming, but to enhance any opportunity we have. However, there are constraints in not

476
00:59:29,240 --> 00:59:36,520
 only landscaping areas, but as I mentioned earlier, there is an alternative landscape

477
00:59:36,520 --> 00:59:43,160
 plan option in these particular cases where they would need to provide alternative options

478
00:59:43,160 --> 00:59:48,360
 or alternative proposals. And if they meet the intent of, again, providing the landscape

479
00:59:48,360 --> 00:59:53,800
 requirements, it may not be the required that is in the code, but there are other ways of getting

480
00:59:53,800 --> 00:59:59,800
 there. As mentioned earlier, Richard, Director of Planning, has the opportunity or option

481
01:00:00,920 --> 01:00:08,120
 to review and consider them. Can you give me an example of where

482
01:00:08,120 --> 01:00:15,080
 you would consider something to be resurfacing versus reconstructing? I mean, if, again, that

483
01:00:15,080 --> 01:00:19,160
 where I was talking about the gravel parking lot, if you're just going to take the gravel out and

484
01:00:19,160 --> 01:00:26,840
 pour concrete in, is that a resurface or is that a reconstruct? I don't know if Scott's back on

485
01:00:26,840 --> 01:00:32,760
 color. If someone's on, I'm not able to be able to answer that question. I'm not 100% myself.

486
01:00:32,760 --> 01:00:37,880
 That would probably be looked at as a reconstruct,

487
01:00:37,880 --> 01:00:44,920
 since they're completely changing the surface from a gravel to a poured concrete.

488
01:00:44,920 --> 01:00:54,520
 Sort of both, but more on the, they're completely reconstructing it really.

489
01:00:57,240 --> 01:01:05,320
 Okay. Yeah, I guess that's kind of where my heartburn comes from, is if you're basically

490
01:01:05,320 --> 01:01:20,360
 just trying to upgrade your existing parking. The definitions of those two are resurface,

491
01:01:20,360 --> 01:01:25,880
 when we think of we resurface a road, we're taking off that top layer of asphalt and putting new

492
01:01:25,880 --> 01:01:37,720
 asphalt down or, you know, we're not getting into the base of it as much when we're resurfacing.

493
01:01:37,720 --> 01:01:47,480
 And I don't know how many actually come and get permits for that on flat work.

494
01:01:50,120 --> 01:01:56,360
 We typically don't see much of that. Part of it is also once they go to that paved surface

495
01:01:56,360 --> 01:02:04,680
 or concrete surface, then storm, you know, a number of storm water standards kick in as well.

496
01:02:04,680 --> 01:02:10,360
 So it just might be a little more difficult fitting, depending again on the size of the lot,

497
01:02:10,360 --> 01:02:16,440
 fitting drainage in and the like going from a gravel to a hard surface such as concrete.

498
01:02:20,760 --> 01:02:26,360
 And Chair, if I may, the other thing I wanted to add on the last, I think to Margie's question,

499
01:02:26,360 --> 01:02:31,720
 and Ron, maybe that's something we can look at where we have 10 or greater, maybe it's 11 or

500
01:02:31,720 --> 01:02:37,160
 greater. And the reason I say that, we have had some instances where if you look at the landscape

501
01:02:37,160 --> 01:02:41,720
 standards for parking lots, you're required to have the sort of an end cap or those medians,

502
01:02:41,720 --> 01:02:46,440
 you can't have more than 10 spaces in a row. And that's a lot of times where on these small lots,

503
01:02:46,440 --> 01:02:51,960
 where we have done those deviations, because they just physically can't fit it in. And so

504
01:02:51,960 --> 01:02:57,560
 that might be something we can take a look at on that exemption for those small lots, if that's okay.

505
01:03:06,520 --> 01:03:20,440
 We can, let me see if I can go back to that. One more. So what I think I'm hearing is that

506
01:03:20,440 --> 01:03:26,360
 looking at what's existing today says the alteration expansion, obviously this is

507
01:03:26,360 --> 01:03:29,800
 something that we're going to have to amend, but when it gets to the number,

508
01:03:30,440 --> 01:03:39,640
 it says by the greater of six spaces. Richard, are we suggesting that this or recommending that

509
01:03:39,640 --> 01:03:45,800
 this may be 10 or 11 spaces? We might want to look at that, but it'd be 10 or 11. I just want to

510
01:03:45,800 --> 01:03:51,000
 maybe come back for the next meeting, just take a look at, I'm trying, I can't think offhand of the

511
01:03:51,000 --> 01:03:56,120
 site that we had this issue come up on. Okay. I know it's been at least two, maybe three times

512
01:03:56,120 --> 01:04:04,840
 in the last couple of months. Oh, okay. Okay. So yeah. Okay. So we'll look into that, I guess.

513
01:04:04,840 --> 01:04:16,360
 And then the 50%, again, that's another thing too. If the lot is say 10 spaces, let's say

514
01:04:16,360 --> 01:04:25,160
 like 20 space, if they do 10 or more, then it triggers the entire site. Is that something that

515
01:04:25,160 --> 01:04:34,760
 the DCRC, again, 50% is the number there. Is that outside of the number spaces, but 50%,

516
01:04:34,760 --> 01:04:39,000
 would that also be something that we want to carry forward?

517
01:04:47,320 --> 01:04:58,280
 Thoughts on that? And then it may be something that we can talk about, you know, when we look at

518
01:04:58,280 --> 01:05:07,000
 the sites that we want to show you. Again, Richard mentioned a number of those. And maybe

519
01:05:07,000 --> 01:05:13,000
 that would shed some light as far as why that 50% or if that even something that the DCRC wants to

520
01:05:13,000 --> 01:05:23,080
 consider. So we can bring that as part of the next meeting. Okay. Yeah. And I don't know if there's

521
01:05:23,080 --> 01:05:32,040
 a way to weave in there or not. If you're with that thought of resurfacing versus reconstruction,

522
01:05:32,040 --> 01:05:38,920
 if you're keeping the exact same footprint and you're staying with pervious or non-pervious,

523
01:05:38,920 --> 01:05:46,440
 you're using that same type that wouldn't affect drainage based on the way that it was that could

524
01:05:46,440 --> 01:05:51,560
 be weaved in there to kind of put some clarity on there as far as what the difference is between those

525
01:05:51,560 --> 01:05:57,480
 two. Again, if you're going from gravel to concrete, yeah, that's going to count. But if you're going

526
01:05:57,480 --> 01:06:09,000
 from gravel to pavers, both are pervious surfaces, it wouldn't come into play.

527
01:06:09,000 --> 01:06:23,480
 And we will research a little bit more and try to get that back to you all, to the DCRC.

528
01:06:25,720 --> 01:06:32,840
 Okay. If there's no other comments, questions, we'll move on to the next

529
01:06:32,840 --> 01:06:37,160
 set of topics. And again, these are going to be fairly quick

530
01:06:37,160 --> 01:06:41,160
 discussions, hopefully. And let me go ahead and share my screen again.

531
01:06:47,960 --> 01:06:59,960
 So go through these. So the next few slides relate to the sections of the code of the subchapter

532
01:06:59,960 --> 01:07:10,040
 seven, part of the code. Really, these are more clarity, more, you know, additions to make it more

533
01:07:10,040 --> 01:07:17,400
 understandable in terms of the code. Referencing, adding referencing. So I don't have any specific

534
01:07:17,400 --> 01:07:24,200
 policy questions. And when we do, I'll make sure to ask of the DCRC. So land disturbing activity,

535
01:07:24,200 --> 01:07:30,600
 I think we have two slides. We're just clarifying a couple of things and adding some references to

536
01:07:30,600 --> 01:07:39,160
 ensure that any land disturbing activity also follows any water well or onsite sewage facilities

537
01:07:39,160 --> 01:07:46,520
 is being taken care of and referenced the section of the code and the municipal code where those are

538
01:07:46,520 --> 01:07:57,960
 mentioned or covered. This here just to help, again, identify additional plans or permits that

539
01:07:57,960 --> 01:08:05,560
 the city may deny if they're not compliant to the number of different requirements. So again,

540
01:08:05,560 --> 01:08:13,240
 just to list it out, not something that we have added is just something that we do now in practice

541
01:08:13,240 --> 01:08:20,040
 is just that it's not in the code and we want to make sure that it is presented in the code for

542
01:08:20,040 --> 01:08:27,800
 those that are looking at land disturbing activities. Jumping on to the next section,

543
01:08:27,800 --> 01:08:34,760
 which is environmentally sensitive areas. This first one, and it has a policy question for the

544
01:08:34,760 --> 01:08:51,640
 DCRC, FEMA often does provide an area where a floodplain is located. However, the addition here

545
01:08:51,640 --> 01:09:04,600
 is if the city has a study where it shows that same area for floodplain, that also should apply

546
01:09:04,600 --> 01:09:10,520
 in the case of our environmentally sensitive areas as well. So it's not just FEMA studies,

547
01:09:10,520 --> 01:09:20,440
 it's also city studies. So if that makes sense. So again, FEMA has provided their areas of where

548
01:09:20,440 --> 01:09:29,000
 the floodplain, 1% annual chance of floodplain is located. However, if the city finds and does a

549
01:09:29,000 --> 01:09:40,520
 study on its own studies, that also would apply for the environmental sensitive areas. So just

550
01:09:40,520 --> 01:09:48,040
 adding that in there to make sure that if there is studies done or a study done by the city,

551
01:09:48,040 --> 01:09:54,280
 that that would be accepted to review against the environmental sensitive area.

552
01:09:58,600 --> 01:10:05,960
 The next slide here just again clarifies parts of the permitted activity, permitted uses

553
01:10:05,960 --> 01:10:13,400
 under environmentally sensitive areas within an undeveloped floodplain. Again, nothing specific

554
01:10:13,400 --> 01:10:20,680
 here that we need from the DCRC. It is just more of providing clarity and clarification.

555
01:10:25,000 --> 01:10:33,000
 Okay, the next section as you can see, we kind of went through the land disturbing and environmental

556
01:10:33,000 --> 01:10:39,240
 sensitive. There were not many code amendments there, just again for clarity and reference

557
01:10:39,240 --> 01:10:45,960
 purposes. The next section is landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing. So this is

558
01:10:45,960 --> 01:10:53,960
 another area that we have been working on as well in applying the code. We find that there are

559
01:10:53,960 --> 01:11:00,360
 certain things that needs more clarity, more understanding, and we want to certainly address

560
01:11:00,360 --> 01:11:12,440
 those for our development and citizens that use the code for proposing. So this first one here,

561
01:11:13,480 --> 01:11:24,200
 section 774E1 refers to when a tree survey and preservation plan is required and when it is

562
01:11:24,200 --> 01:11:32,200
 required to be submitted. So what you see here, anything that's again underlined

563
01:11:32,200 --> 01:11:37,800
 is the ones that we're adding and we're not deleting anything. I think the last one here,

564
01:11:37,800 --> 01:11:45,160
 the last letter D, is really just to be consistent with the first three that we're adding. So a tree

565
01:11:45,160 --> 01:11:52,040
 survey and preservation plan will be required with the preliminary plat or final plat if no

566
01:11:52,040 --> 01:11:57,880
 preliminary plat is required for the following uses. So single-family dwellings, duplex, townhomes,

567
01:11:57,880 --> 01:12:04,200
 triplex, and fourplexes. A tree survey and preservation plan will be required with the

568
01:12:04,200 --> 01:12:11,800
 final plat or zoning compliance for any multi-family or non-residential. So again,

569
01:12:11,800 --> 01:12:20,600
 the two differences here is that the residential components, the single-family, duplex, townhomes,

570
01:12:20,600 --> 01:12:28,040
 triplex, fourplex would be required at preliminary plat while the multi-family and non-residential

571
01:12:28,040 --> 01:12:35,480
 would be required during final plat. Letter C is a tree survey and preservation plan will

572
01:12:35,480 --> 01:12:42,360
 be required with a tree removal permit if no development is occurring. So if someone is

573
01:12:42,360 --> 01:12:50,360
 proposing to remove a tree or several trees through a tree removal permit,

574
01:12:50,360 --> 01:12:56,120
 they will need to provide a tree survey and preservation plan as part of that tree removal

575
01:12:56,120 --> 01:13:04,040
 permit. And then the last one is just again to clear up what we've already identified in terms

576
01:13:04,040 --> 01:13:08,840
 of preliminary plat and site plan. These are already are mentioned in letter A and as well

577
01:13:08,840 --> 01:13:15,720
 as letter B. So this is just to provide that additional information for applicants.

578
01:13:19,480 --> 01:13:26,680
 The next slide here is an expiration, setting an expiration date for a tree survey and preservation

579
01:13:26,680 --> 01:13:35,320
 plan. Right now there is not a expiration date. We would like to recommend that any approved tree

580
01:13:35,320 --> 01:13:46,920
 survey or preservation plan be, I guess, be approved for up to two years. Any time after

581
01:13:46,920 --> 01:13:56,040
 that they would need to resubmit for a new tree survey if the subject property has not already

582
01:13:56,040 --> 01:14:02,600
 been developed. So again just to provide the clarity that a tree survey preservation plan

583
01:14:02,600 --> 01:14:10,360
 does have an expiration date. The policy question here for the DCRC is two years,

584
01:14:10,360 --> 01:14:17,240
 one should there be an expiration date and two is two years the appropriate time frame. And

585
01:14:17,240 --> 01:14:22,040
 I would like to at least get some input from the DCRC as we move this forward.

586
01:14:22,040 --> 01:14:30,360
 Margie? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think there should be an expiration date.

587
01:14:30,360 --> 01:14:37,720
 And two years seems consistent with other expiration dates that we have. So

588
01:14:39,080 --> 01:14:47,560
 I'm in agreement with how it's proposed. Yeah, I guess my only question would be if you are in

589
01:14:47,560 --> 01:14:54,840
 other permitting process and your tree survey hits that two-year mark while you're doing this,

590
01:14:54,840 --> 01:15:03,160
 do you now have to go get a new one or are you kind of vested once your permits are

591
01:15:03,960 --> 01:15:11,880
 are being applied for or gone through by the city? Though I understand let me see if I can pull up

592
01:15:11,880 --> 01:15:18,760
 this and I may have missed that part. It should still be as long as you're in that continuous

593
01:15:18,760 --> 01:15:23,560
 process. So if you're in for building permit and it was related to the plat and it's

594
01:15:23,560 --> 01:15:30,280
 two years or even three years that as long as it's tied to that process or permit that you're in

595
01:15:30,280 --> 01:15:36,440
 for not that if everything's expired then then yes it would expire. Okay yeah because it's kind of

596
01:15:36,440 --> 01:15:43,160
 like on a building permit that expires after six months of no work well you can go in there every

597
01:15:43,160 --> 01:15:49,800
 fifth month and do some work on the project it's continuous you know as long as you don't go for

598
01:15:49,800 --> 01:16:01,160
 a full six months without working on it. That's true. Okay any other comments?

599
01:16:01,160 --> 01:16:09,320
 Okay I'm in agreement with the limitation for two years that sounds good.

600
01:16:09,320 --> 01:16:17,720
 Looks like we can proceed on from there. That's good.

601
01:16:20,680 --> 01:16:24,760
 Okay we'll go on to the next slide here.

602
01:16:24,760 --> 01:16:38,120
 So this particular code amendment here is related to the number of points

603
01:16:38,120 --> 01:16:48,920
 that is required for landscaping specifically for parking. There is a total of 30 points

604
01:16:49,640 --> 01:16:57,240
 that is required percentages in addition to the landscape area and the tree canopy

605
01:16:57,240 --> 01:17:07,240
 requirements. So what we've been dealing with is where the development does not have a surface

606
01:17:07,240 --> 01:17:15,240
 parking lot it has a parking structure and most of the times or all the time those parking structures

607
01:17:15,240 --> 01:17:22,120
 are not able to meet the 30 points or get to 30 points because the points that are required

608
01:17:22,120 --> 01:17:32,840
 and let me see if I have that in my next slide here you see here right away landscaping elements

609
01:17:32,840 --> 01:17:40,840
 sorry that's not it let me that's right away I apologize I don't have that that table but

610
01:17:40,840 --> 01:17:49,320
 the table has a number of different landscaping options and to get to 30 points it is just

611
01:17:49,320 --> 01:17:57,960
 difficult to do that with a parking structure so what we are proposing is that instead of 30 points

612
01:17:57,960 --> 01:18:08,280
 for all parking areas we have proposed that 30 points would be applicable for developments

613
01:18:08,280 --> 01:18:12,840
 that have a surface parking lot where they can easily get to 30 points not easily but have the

614
01:18:12,840 --> 01:18:19,640
 opportunity to get to 30 points and at least 20 points for developments without a surface parking

615
01:18:19,640 --> 01:18:26,360
 lot and those are the parking lot structures that we're talking about so we've seen a number of

616
01:18:26,360 --> 01:18:33,960
 developments that have come in with parking structures and they still need to meet that

617
01:18:34,760 --> 01:18:41,320
 30 points however because of the options that's available there's not enough to get to 30 points

618
01:18:41,320 --> 01:18:50,520
 so we are proposing a 20 point requirement for those again that do not have a surface parking lot

619
01:18:50,520 --> 01:19:03,320
 where they can at least get to 20 points so the question for the DCRC is the 20 points is that

620
01:19:05,720 --> 01:19:13,960
 is that okay for non-surface parking lots and again I apologize I don't have that list of

621
01:19:13,960 --> 01:19:21,960
 options to get to the points that you see here and I can certainly make sure that if we need to

622
01:19:21,960 --> 01:19:26,200
 I can certainly bring that back or if you all have any questions

623
01:19:27,400 --> 01:19:38,120
 with this or think this is sufficient we can move forward

624
01:19:38,120 --> 01:19:50,120
 Tim go ahead thank you chair is the 20 point number does that come is that coming from experience

625
01:19:50,120 --> 01:19:54,040
 of doing this in the past Ron or where is that 20 point number coming from that that one third

626
01:19:54,040 --> 01:20:00,760
 reduction for non-surface parking structures that's a great question what we've seen is if we were to

627
01:20:00,760 --> 01:20:07,880
 look at that table again I don't have that table in my presentation we apply that if we can apply

628
01:20:07,880 --> 01:20:15,000
 that to a parking structure 20 points is achievable while still meeting the intent of that landscaping

629
01:20:15,000 --> 01:20:21,560
 requirement okay I have no problem with keeping it that way I would certainly like to see the

630
01:20:21,560 --> 01:20:28,280
 see the chart but not to not to belabor the committee I think that I think that the 20 points

631
01:20:28,280 --> 01:20:33,480
 is plenty and then and just to add to that I appreciate that and just to add to that when

632
01:20:33,480 --> 01:20:39,000
 um I bring this to the full PNZ and city council I'll make sure that that chart is available that

633
01:20:39,000 --> 01:20:52,360
 works yeah I think I'm good with that too I'm I've pulled up the list and it does make sense

634
01:20:52,360 --> 01:21:04,360
 that a lot of these would be very hard to achieve okay we'll move on if I don't hear okay we'll move

635
01:21:04,360 --> 01:21:12,840
 on another part of the landscaping screening buffering section is related to street trees

636
01:21:12,840 --> 01:21:25,640
 we require street trees for certain developments and what we are also asking or asking the DCRC

637
01:21:25,640 --> 01:21:32,200
 is that the street tree requirements is in is in addition to the following right away

638
01:21:33,000 --> 01:21:38,280
 elements the land the landscaping point system so this is just a part of that chart I think that

639
01:21:38,280 --> 01:21:45,320
 chair Ryan has pulled up or has seen what we are looking for is a certain amount of points for

640
01:21:45,320 --> 01:21:53,480
 right away elements that is to say that in addition to this point system where they're

641
01:21:53,480 --> 01:22:02,360
 required to provide the street tree requirement again one per I believe is 50 feet for single

642
01:22:02,360 --> 01:22:10,040
 family and another number for another list or another linear feet for non-residential that is

643
01:22:10,040 --> 01:22:18,520
 in addition to so we are requiring we are simply stating that both street tree requirements are

644
01:22:18,520 --> 01:22:27,880
 required in table that in in the section where it talks about street trees in addition the applicant

645
01:22:27,880 --> 01:22:35,960
 is also required to provide the point system required under this table 7e that's shown here

646
01:22:35,960 --> 01:22:42,520
 so this again is just more clarification is what we do now is practice

647
01:22:42,520 --> 01:22:46,040
 we just wanted to make sure it's clearly stated for applicants

648
01:22:52,680 --> 01:23:01,240
 okay okay now we are moving into a section that we've had a number of discussions prior with the

649
01:23:01,240 --> 01:23:10,680
 DCRC and this is related to fencing or walls on under the development standards in the development

650
01:23:10,680 --> 01:23:19,160
 code what I've or what we've provided here is additional information to address some of the

651
01:23:19,160 --> 01:23:27,480
 questions that we've had related to this I know we had a lot of discussions with the DCRC prior

652
01:23:27,480 --> 01:23:36,680
 in terms of what qualifies as a perimeter wall and so I'll go through that here and and again

653
01:23:36,680 --> 01:23:47,560
 get some input on some of the aspects as to if the committee is okay with this so again the first

654
01:23:47,560 --> 01:23:55,240
 section or the section that I'm referring to is section 778 c1 referring to perimeter it

655
01:23:55,240 --> 01:24:00,760
 initially sets fence initially says fences but I went ahead and add walls and fences because it does

656
01:24:00,760 --> 01:24:13,080
 also apply to walls such as masonry walls that fronts a public right away so any development

657
01:24:13,080 --> 01:24:23,000
 that has a fence or a perimeter adjacency to a public right away is required to provide a wall

658
01:24:23,000 --> 01:24:35,000
 or fence for that development all materials include masonry, wrought iron, steel, which is

659
01:24:35,000 --> 01:24:41,240
 again wrought iron, steel, aluminum, or other materials so any of the materials such as steel,

660
01:24:41,240 --> 01:24:50,280
 aluminum, material or other material that is a wrought iron look can be used we eliminated

661
01:24:50,280 --> 01:24:57,400
 or struck elevated it was really difficult to explain elevated I know and we'll most likely

662
01:24:57,400 --> 01:25:06,280
 discuss it here elevated to some folks maybe where is above a certain height we didn't have

663
01:25:06,280 --> 01:25:15,640
 that specified so we just eliminated and and just kept the the material if it is wood that

664
01:25:15,640 --> 01:25:22,760
 it just be sealed there is also the option of having a combination of all three masonry wrought

665
01:25:22,760 --> 01:25:34,600
 iron and or wood as part of that required fencing along the perimeter so any any questions on on

666
01:25:34,600 --> 01:25:41,240
 what's being proposed I think it's really just to clarify what what wrought iron could be steel,

667
01:25:41,240 --> 01:25:50,600
 aluminum, or other material and also to eliminate the term elevated and just simply allow for a

668
01:25:50,600 --> 01:25:59,080
 wood fence around a perimeter just as long as it is sealed and protected again for durability purposes

669
01:26:00,920 --> 01:26:07,400
 so I like to get some input from the committee in terms of that first letter first requirement

670
01:26:07,400 --> 01:26:13,080
 and again this is for developments that have a perimeter adjacent to a front or right away

671
01:26:13,080 --> 01:26:20,520
 and they are required to provide a fence and or wall along that right away

672
01:26:25,560 --> 01:26:32,600
 comments a couple of us were on for the last discussion we had a lot to say about this item

673
01:26:32,600 --> 01:26:41,400
 I think my concern on this and because I'm the one that brought up the the elevated wood and I

674
01:26:41,400 --> 01:26:49,560
 brought an example of that but I don't think that we want to allow just wood so is there a way to

675
01:26:49,560 --> 01:26:57,640
 word it that says wood in combination with one of the above yes you'd have brick columns just

676
01:26:57,640 --> 01:27:08,040
 something to kind of keep them from just putting up a uh what wood picket fence um

677
01:27:08,040 --> 01:27:14,520
 I mean we can we can certainly discuss that I mean there's there's um a

678
01:27:17,400 --> 01:27:24,280
 a suggestion that that that'd be placed I can certainly draft something we can draft something

679
01:27:24,280 --> 01:27:34,760
 to dress not just wood that there be a masonry pillar um either that or yeah potentially just

680
01:27:34,760 --> 01:27:38,840
 taking wood out for because we're talking about perimeter fences we're not talking about yard

681
01:27:38,840 --> 01:27:45,160
 fences that's yeah I think that was that was some of what we were discussing last time and I think

682
01:27:45,160 --> 01:27:53,160
 that the time that we met and that was something that wasn't brought forward but if removing wood

683
01:27:53,160 --> 01:28:02,520
 altogether again we're talking about you know perimeter fences in major subdivisions like you

684
01:28:02,520 --> 01:28:08,440
 said Chair Ryan it's not for you know the rear properties or within the subdivision it's just the

685
01:28:08,440 --> 01:28:17,800
 main perimeter of that development any thoughts or comments

686
01:28:17,800 --> 01:28:31,560
 wood would actually hide their whole thing wouldn't it would that not be a like something

687
01:28:31,560 --> 01:28:38,760
 like the rod iron or something would that be a more mess of an eye uh more appealing site

688
01:28:38,760 --> 01:28:50,200
 no that yes the rod iron obviously will be able you would be able to see through um

689
01:28:50,200 --> 01:28:58,120
 in in some cases that that you know may make sense for an area that that has maybe not backing up

690
01:28:58,120 --> 01:29:05,640
 into a house uh or maybe a more open space so that might be a suitable uh but you know that

691
01:29:05,640 --> 01:29:12,040
 comment is correct I mean it would be um what would actually hide certain areas uh but again

692
01:29:12,040 --> 01:29:19,240
 I think the main discussion here is you know our main um I guess question or reason and Chair Ryan

693
01:29:19,240 --> 01:29:24,520
 correct me if I'm wrong here but it's it's just the durability and the the wood and not lasting

694
01:29:24,520 --> 01:29:32,120
 as long as uh say the other materials correct and it's it when you say wood it just kind of opens

695
01:29:32,120 --> 01:29:40,280
 it up to a lot of different fencing style I mean what I had in mind was for anybody that's familiar

696
01:29:40,280 --> 01:29:46,120
 with Ryan Ranch Estates where they've got basically masonry but then they've got pockets in there that

697
01:29:46,120 --> 01:29:52,840
 are you know five foot wide that they've got a stained and sealed wood panel and that's elevated

698
01:29:52,840 --> 01:29:58,600
 about two feet off the ground and it looked good for that development that is that when you open

699
01:29:58,600 --> 01:30:03,800
 it up to all wood then you're going to have what we've got along teesley that is people change out

700
01:30:03,800 --> 01:30:10,040
 their fences it's not you you've got the whole different color scheme now obviously this is only

701
01:30:10,040 --> 01:30:14,680
 for new development this isn't going to affect anybody you know in the existing developments but

702
01:30:14,680 --> 01:30:21,240
 as these new developments come online do we want to have that um

703
01:30:23,800 --> 01:30:28,360
 the brick or stone style is more of what we're actually requiring people to do

704
01:30:28,360 --> 01:30:39,320
 yes chair if I may um if you recall I had to just quickly pull up if when we updated the mpcs the

705
01:30:39,320 --> 01:30:47,240
 hunter and coal um those mpcs we did make some adjustments to perimeter fences for new development

706
01:30:47,800 --> 01:30:53,240
 uh and and limited it essentially to masonry and wrought iron or a combination thereof

707
01:30:53,240 --> 01:31:00,760
 um I mean that's something we could look at and and maybe even include or or accent um you know

708
01:31:00,760 --> 01:31:06,040
 accent wood material and include include some of those examples maybe that that that helps

709
01:31:06,040 --> 01:31:11,480
 to further at least describe when and how that wood could be could be applied or used in that

710
01:31:11,480 --> 01:31:18,680
 circumstance but we can also um maybe for the next meeting just pull that code language so um

711
01:31:18,680 --> 01:31:24,760
 kind of refreshes everybody's uh mind what we what we did with those mpcs and we we also tweaked it

712
01:31:24,760 --> 01:31:33,000
 with respect to um again that was either fronting or adjacent to and then um fences up excuse me

713
01:31:33,000 --> 01:31:38,600
 fences on individual lots and I think it was in addition if if you had any existing development

714
01:31:38,600 --> 01:31:44,520
 they were allowed essentially to replace what they had um existing or or to a greater or or

715
01:31:44,520 --> 01:31:49,160
 more durable material so we could maybe we can pull that together for the for the next um for

716
01:31:49,160 --> 01:32:07,400
 the next meeting so I think it's going to be probably a discussion for for both bodies as to

717
01:32:07,400 --> 01:32:17,480
 whether we include wood or don't include wood. Right and and for Richard's comment um you know

718
01:32:17,480 --> 01:32:21,720
 with the mpc right there that's a different requirement for that particular development

719
01:32:21,720 --> 01:32:27,640
 however you know is is that what we want to see for the uh entire city you know for new development

720
01:32:27,640 --> 01:32:35,960
 you know as as sure mentioned moving forward so we we can bring that language and see that language

721
01:32:35,960 --> 01:32:43,160
 how that language fits um or um needs to be modified but again what we're showing here is

722
01:32:43,160 --> 01:32:50,520
 that wood is still unallowed use for perimeter however pending that discussion where we shared

723
01:32:50,520 --> 01:32:58,600
 some of the mpc language uh that may change the uh the committee's um or help inform the committee's

724
01:32:58,600 --> 01:33:04,440
 decision. Okay and if I remember right when we did this discussion the last time we had a couple of

725
01:33:04,440 --> 01:33:09,400
 examples of what is considered perimeter and what's not we can yes grab a couple of those

726
01:33:09,400 --> 01:33:18,840
 slides and toss them back in to especially for the newer members. Okay we can do that.

727
01:33:18,840 --> 01:33:34,200
 Right um going back to this slide we do have a couple other um additions to the the fence um

728
01:33:35,080 --> 01:33:45,800
 in in terms of new development um where it's along an arterial um the code does not really

729
01:33:45,800 --> 01:33:57,160
 provide a setback um area uh for for placing where that fence or wall is located um so what

730
01:33:57,160 --> 01:34:05,480
 we're proposing is that if it is an arterial or collector street the minimum setback from the back

731
01:34:05,480 --> 01:34:13,960
 of sidewalk or edge of right away um is 10 feet so again the higher the classification of the street

732
01:34:13,960 --> 01:34:21,560
 we want to be able to set back that that fence to allow for either landscaping or just a safer way

733
01:34:21,560 --> 01:34:28,280
 for people that are walking on the sidewalk uh to to um to walk along that perimeter and not feel

734
01:34:28,280 --> 01:34:35,720
 like the wall and the street is um you know adjacent to them as as you know close as it could.

735
01:34:35,720 --> 01:34:45,960
 So setting a setback of 10 uh from an arterial or collector street uh is B. C is for if there were

736
01:34:45,960 --> 01:34:53,080
 um any uh streets um residential streets that those would be set back five and I think five

737
01:34:53,080 --> 01:34:59,560
 is um typical I know we've seen some that have been you know less than five and walking along

738
01:34:59,560 --> 01:35:06,120
 those uh sidewalks with a with a fence can be really challenging especially uh if the street

739
01:35:06,120 --> 01:35:11,880
 is right next to it so we wanted to establish some setback requirements between the sidewalk and back

740
01:35:11,880 --> 01:35:19,240
 the sidewalk which is essentially uh maybe the street or parkway and the fence location for these

741
01:35:19,240 --> 01:35:34,200
 particular streets. Oops sorry. So again most of these are um actually additions but in practice

742
01:35:34,200 --> 01:35:40,520
 this is what we've seen in developments that we've uh reviewed recently so that's how we came up with

743
01:35:40,520 --> 01:35:55,560
 these numbers. Moving on to the next slide um with regards to the the walls and the fences we also

744
01:35:55,560 --> 01:36:03,400
 wanted to add some maintenance uh responsibility uh kind of goes back to what was discussed in the

745
01:36:03,400 --> 01:36:11,560
 previous uh meetings with the DCRC as relates as it relates to walls and fences. We know that the

746
01:36:11,560 --> 01:36:20,360
 walls even masonry walls or more durable walls uh do um you know weather and therefore uh

747
01:36:20,360 --> 01:36:28,360
 responsibility sometimes isn't clear and the proposal here is that perimeter walls and our

748
01:36:28,360 --> 01:36:40,360
 fences uh fronting a public right of way that that HOA um for that subdivision has to uh provide

749
01:36:40,360 --> 01:36:49,560
 a plan or uh maintenance plan that is for maintaining that wall and or fences.

750
01:36:49,560 --> 01:36:56,120
 We also have property owner associations this is for non-residential uses so this applies to

751
01:36:56,120 --> 01:37:02,280
 commercial uses as well and again making sure that these fences and these walls that are adjacent to

752
01:37:02,280 --> 01:37:09,720
 our public right of way that are visible are kept up to maintenance um to make sure that they're

753
01:37:09,720 --> 01:37:16,120
 they're um they look good you know from from the public right of way. So uh this is to be added as

754
01:37:16,120 --> 01:37:23,480
 part of uh the code amendments again to make sure that these proposed walls and fences are up kept

755
01:37:25,320 --> 01:37:28,040
 or maintained.

756
01:37:28,040 --> 01:37:37,480
 Um we're gonna jump into the next section which is parking um and unless anybody have any other

757
01:37:37,480 --> 01:37:47,640
 questions or comments related to um the landscaping uh section of the code I'm gonna stop showing my

758
01:37:47,640 --> 01:37:56,200
 screen any questions that you have that that you would like to discuss and or maybe stuff that we

759
01:37:56,200 --> 01:38:01,560
 haven't discussed that you would like us to bring back in terms of the sections that we've already

760
01:38:01,560 --> 01:38:10,040
 discussed. And just a quick question for Mac before we continue on it looks like Tim has dropped off

761
01:38:10,040 --> 01:38:15,720
 so we have lost corn oh he is there okay just wanted to make sure you were somewhere in the

762
01:38:15,720 --> 01:38:27,080
 background I needed to use the restroom so so we're back to corn we're good so questions or comments

763
01:38:27,080 --> 01:38:35,080
 Margie yeah thanks um I think we're just bringing back the still the fence discussion right yes

764
01:38:35,080 --> 01:38:40,760
 that will be where we will talk we'll bring back some of the language from the one of the NPCs

765
01:38:40,760 --> 01:38:48,040
 recently approved and also share some exhibits related to what perimeter okay good thanks

766
01:38:48,040 --> 01:39:02,120
 okay um we'll go ahead and jump into the next section um which is parking and this is probably

767
01:39:02,120 --> 01:39:09,720
 gonna surpass our time but I want to at least get into that discussion and hopefully we can get

768
01:39:09,720 --> 01:39:11,880
 some direction from the DCRC. So

769
01:39:11,880 --> 01:39:30,120
 so right now in the development code we have both a minimum and a maximum parking requirements

770
01:39:30,120 --> 01:39:41,240
 based on a ratio for types of uses so for example if the commercial development is required a minimum

771
01:39:41,240 --> 01:39:50,440
 of 50 spaces their maximum they they can exceed 50 so basically it's either 50

772
01:39:52,360 --> 01:40:04,840
 spaces as a minimum but they can also increase that to 100 up to 125 percent of that 50 so another

773
01:40:04,840 --> 01:40:18,840
 15 or so roughly 12.5 parking spaces can be added that is what we have today and again that 12.5

774
01:40:18,840 --> 01:40:30,120
 additional above the 50 has to be in compliance with certain requirements specifically ice swim

775
01:40:30,120 --> 01:40:41,640
 and other standards so the question for the committee is should the existing 125 percent

776
01:40:41,640 --> 01:40:49,800
 maximum be eliminated and any spaces above the minimum be in accordance with ice swim standards

777
01:40:49,800 --> 01:40:57,320
 so again I'm gonna restate this so it hopefully makes it makes more sense if a requirement if a

778
01:40:57,320 --> 01:41:04,040
 development is required 50 percent that's their minimum and their maximum but they can exceed

779
01:41:04,040 --> 01:41:17,880
 that 50 to 125 additional total that is total parking spaces but between 50 and 62.5 or 63

780
01:41:17,880 --> 01:41:25,880
 they would need to comply with ice swim standards what staffs were proposing is that we remove that

781
01:41:25,880 --> 01:41:35,240
 125 and just anything above 50 spaces would require ice swim so basically eliminating that 125

782
01:41:35,240 --> 01:41:44,840
 and just have the developer or development comply with ice swim standards anything above the minimum

783
01:41:44,840 --> 01:41:50,280
 does that make sense and if i'm not making it clear

784
01:41:50,280 --> 01:41:56,440
 may hopefully maybe richard can help me with this

785
01:41:56,440 --> 01:42:04,920
 yeah i just don't see any time whenever we're gonna have i just don't see why any any builder

786
01:42:04,920 --> 01:42:10,120
 would put want to put more parking spaces on land that they could end up using it developing into

787
01:42:10,120 --> 01:42:17,800
 their building or their property and if the ice swim standards is there i think that that's that's

788
01:42:17,800 --> 01:42:25,160
 plenty enough um guidelines for parking minimums and maximums and it for it just seems more like

789
01:42:25,160 --> 01:42:32,280
 it's a redundancy that 125 is a redundancy that's in the code that eliminating it would just clean

790
01:42:32,280 --> 01:42:36,920
 it up really is the only way i see it i don't really see it hurting or helping in any way but

791
01:42:36,920 --> 01:42:42,760
 i'm more willing to hear from you ron from richard if that 125 that originally got put into the code

792
01:42:42,760 --> 01:42:49,080
 for 2019 if that number came from somewhere that was a case study that was something that we we

793
01:42:49,080 --> 01:42:54,120
 needed to have that 125 in there or if that was just kind of more of a protection to make sure that

794
01:42:54,120 --> 01:42:59,560
 somebody who's doing a new development isn't building a whole lot of parking spaces i don't

795
01:42:59,560 --> 01:43:04,360
 see the whole lot of logic in somebody building way more parking spaces than they truly need

796
01:43:04,360 --> 01:43:08,760
 and using up land that doesn't it doesn't seem like that's something they would do in the first

797
01:43:08,760 --> 01:43:14,120
 place but right and and they would also need to comply with you know the landscaping requirements

798
01:43:14,120 --> 01:43:19,560
 so there's a balance there right but trying to answer your question and richard may also

799
01:43:19,560 --> 01:43:27,080
 know a little bit more but prior to 2019 the parking requirement was a min max basically

800
01:43:27,080 --> 01:43:32,680
 you're required to provide this much you can exceed or below go below if you want to go below

801
01:43:32,680 --> 01:43:38,120
 you need a zoning you need a variance if you need if you propose something above we often process

802
01:43:38,120 --> 01:43:43,560
 those as alternative development plans and so since we removed those alternative development plans

803
01:43:43,560 --> 01:43:53,160
 we felt that uh adding that 25 above the the minimum was was uh what we saw adp's requesting

804
01:43:53,160 --> 01:43:59,320
 and so that's how i think we got we got to 25 but what we're seeing now is that um you know

805
01:43:59,320 --> 01:44:07,720
 that 125 may not even be necessary um but to your point tim you know we do see some developments

806
01:44:08,120 --> 01:44:15,720
 requesting more than 125 um in in larger developments um such as the shopping center

807
01:44:15,720 --> 01:44:22,760
 and that and the like but those are those situations um and i and i some would catch that

808
01:44:22,760 --> 01:44:28,760
 and i think we'll catch yeah the 125 and if we remove the 125 then they would also catch

809
01:44:28,760 --> 01:44:34,120
 anything above uh the minimum yeah i think it just i think it just seems like it's a redundancy and

810
01:44:34,120 --> 01:44:40,600
 confusing language in the code that minimums x if you want to go more than that comply by this one

811
01:44:40,600 --> 01:44:45,160
 as well as all the other regulations there's like landscaping so right they would still have to have

812
01:44:45,160 --> 01:44:52,280
 the minimum landscape and all the other tree requirements um with that parking lot yep

813
01:44:52,280 --> 01:45:00,440
 yeah i'm i'm in agreement with that as well of the two cases i know of where it was

814
01:45:01,720 --> 01:45:08,920
 you know major issue one was an association uh out of the 380 that when they'd have their meetings

815
01:45:08,920 --> 01:45:14,920
 they needed additional parking and another one was a church and so if they wanted additional

816
01:45:14,920 --> 01:45:19,320
 parking and they followed the ice swim you know it shouldn't shouldn't be as many hoops that they

817
01:45:19,320 --> 01:45:25,160
 have to jump through right i think it still meets the the intent of you know making sure that our

818
01:45:25,160 --> 01:45:33,080
 stormwater system is protected and you know uh while while providing the parking that they need

819
01:45:33,080 --> 01:45:43,880
 richard was there anything that you can think of that that may help no i i that's kind of what i

820
01:45:43,880 --> 01:45:48,440
 recall and i think we also looked at cities that had kind of best practices that still had that

821
01:45:48,440 --> 01:45:54,440
 maximum and that tend that 125 kind of tended to be the uh what a lot of other cities were using but

822
01:45:55,240 --> 01:45:59,320
 again with with what's being proposed i think it takes takes care of that in addition

823
01:45:59,320 --> 01:46:05,720
 we are up you know modifying some of our uh parking standards to begin with the ratios

824
01:46:05,720 --> 01:46:11,400
 and so i think this along with updating those standards um will resolve a lot of the issues

825
01:46:11,400 --> 01:46:15,880
 we had we had some offices where very small offices you know four or five thousand square

826
01:46:15,880 --> 01:46:21,720
 feet that quite honestly didn't have enough parking um to even have their employees park

827
01:46:22,360 --> 01:46:27,000
 and so it was kicking them into a whole other category and so this will correct that

828
01:46:27,000 --> 01:46:34,680
 right yeah and we'll get into some of the uh some of the other corrections with regards to the

829
01:46:34,680 --> 01:46:40,920
 parking ratios in the next few slides um so hopefully that between that and in in the ice

830
01:46:40,920 --> 01:46:47,080
 wind requirements i think uh we we can get to where uh development would would not need to

831
01:46:47,080 --> 01:46:53,720
 apply for a variance or you know additional requests to to get their parking to where

832
01:46:53,720 --> 01:47:03,640
 they need to be so i go ahead and get um the next slide up so we discussed this

833
01:47:03,640 --> 01:47:16,600
 uh another thing that we want to add is for mixed use developments um currently the way the mixed

834
01:47:16,600 --> 01:47:25,240
 use works now is it only applies to an infill area of the city what we're proposing is that

835
01:47:25,240 --> 01:47:36,840
 we have a standard mixed use development parking option or incentive that is probably a better word

836
01:47:37,560 --> 01:47:47,000
 where the director can reduce the total parking spaces by 25 percent because of the mixed use

837
01:47:47,000 --> 01:47:54,120
 right because they either have non-overlapping needs so that if there was an office building

838
01:47:54,120 --> 01:47:59,240
 you know are in use during the day and then restaurant or other uses during the night

839
01:47:59,880 --> 01:48:08,440
 that parking space can be reduced where they would you know not have to have a number of uses so and

840
01:48:08,440 --> 01:48:14,840
 this would be the opposite in terms of extending the maximum this is something that we would allow

841
01:48:14,840 --> 01:48:20,840
 again through a director's approval and actually there will be a review in consideration before

842
01:48:20,840 --> 01:48:27,640
 that so the policy question to the dcrc is should there be a reduction for minimum parking

843
01:48:27,640 --> 01:48:41,480
 requirements for mixed use developments up to 25 percent and again um this would be for citywide

844
01:48:41,480 --> 01:48:52,920
 any i would be in agreement with it i mean it's at the director's discretion we're

845
01:48:53,720 --> 01:49:02,920
 we're starting to see that less and less vehicles i mean if you um i know for for us parking at the

846
01:49:02,920 --> 01:49:09,960
 apartments used to be you know every space was full and now you know it's about a half filled lot

847
01:49:09,960 --> 01:49:14,840
 because so many students aren't aren't driving cars and it's we're just moving to a different

848
01:49:14,840 --> 01:49:23,240
 modes of transportation type society whether it's uber or you know or buses or biking or what have you

849
01:49:24,600 --> 01:49:29,320
 right and and just to just add to that chair um you know again with the mixed use you know

850
01:49:29,320 --> 01:49:35,640
 that's something that as far as the the not the need but rather you know some of the developments

851
01:49:35,640 --> 01:49:40,600
 that we're seeing across the metroplex you know that it's something that if we continue in that

852
01:49:40,600 --> 01:49:45,960
 trend we will see more the mixed use development so not just in the infill area but outside of

853
01:49:45,960 --> 01:49:55,000
 that infill area so that this is where this is going to apply to okay any other comments

854
01:49:55,000 --> 01:50:05,400
 okay um the next slide we're going to get into the actual parking ratios

855
01:50:08,040 --> 01:50:17,640
 so we we agree to remove the maximum 125 uh and and have ice women deal or be the the tool in

856
01:50:17,640 --> 01:50:25,160
 order to review against and then add some mixed use or add a mixed use incentives for areas within

857
01:50:25,160 --> 01:50:33,320
 the city all right so the next few slides are are going to be related to the parking ratio

858
01:50:34,520 --> 01:50:44,520
 the minimum parking ratio that is for off-street parking and it's by use and this first one is for

859
01:50:44,520 --> 01:50:55,640
 the uses that you see here townhome duplex triplex fourplex what we currently have is shown here

860
01:50:55,640 --> 01:51:05,480
 struck through and what staff is proposing and again this is something that probably needs to be

861
01:51:05,480 --> 01:51:12,280
 further discussed with the dcrc we'll use townhomes for example in a townhome development

862
01:51:12,280 --> 01:51:19,720
 one space for each bedroom we know that most townhomes have two to three bedrooms

863
01:51:20,920 --> 01:51:30,040
 so we're just looking to provide a parking space for each bedroom the same for duplexes

864
01:51:30,040 --> 01:51:38,120
 we see duplexes as two to three bedrooms so again the parking space would be related to

865
01:51:38,120 --> 01:51:48,600
 the number of bedrooms for triplex where there is a little bit more involved as far as what's in the

866
01:51:48,600 --> 01:51:55,960
 area i'm sorry within the development there is multiple places where a triplex is located

867
01:51:55,960 --> 01:52:01,560
 it's one space for each bedroom plus one guest parking this one we probably need to talk through

868
01:52:01,560 --> 01:52:08,920
 a little bit more because with a triplex and a fourplex those are individual lots so there may

869
01:52:08,920 --> 01:52:17,400
 not be the 10 spaces again for fourplex and triplex so i think overall what we're trying to get to is

870
01:52:18,120 --> 01:52:25,720
 that the parking spaces for these uses would be more suited if they were one space for each bedroom

871
01:52:25,720 --> 01:52:33,320
 again right now i don't know if this will work as far as the 10 spaces because we won't be able to

872
01:52:33,320 --> 01:52:39,960
 get to 10 spaces unless you know a triplex has three bedrooms four bedrooms whatever it may be

873
01:52:39,960 --> 01:52:47,640
 if all three had four bedrooms that would be over 10 and they may need to add one spaces but

874
01:52:48,120 --> 01:52:54,280
 something to discuss and maybe one or two guest parking isn't going to make a difference but

875
01:52:54,280 --> 01:53:00,920
 wanted to get the committee's input on this proposal for these four uses

876
01:53:00,920 --> 01:53:10,680
 i mean i know that there's probably not too many one bedrooms or efficiencies amongst

877
01:53:10,680 --> 01:53:17,560
 these types of of units now you might have more on the fourplex or triplex but i would say what

878
01:53:17,560 --> 01:53:25,560
 we currently use for multifamily as far as their requirements which is a one bedroom or efficiency

879
01:53:25,560 --> 01:53:32,600
 is 1.25 spaces and for two bedrooms or more it's one per bedroom developments with more than 10 units

880
01:53:32,600 --> 01:53:36,520
 guest parking shall be 10 percent of required number of parking spaces

881
01:53:36,520 --> 01:53:47,080
 so and i think that that just helps with the we have one bedroom units that might have two

882
01:53:47,080 --> 01:53:50,520
 people living there you're adding that extra quarter that's the reason that we went with that

883
01:53:50,520 --> 01:53:59,640
 on the multifamily that just kind of groups it all together because you can have multiple duplexes on

884
01:53:59,640 --> 01:54:11,800
 on a single lot if i'm correct um technically it should be on a lot itself one duplex should be on

885
01:54:11,800 --> 01:54:23,880
 one lot if there were multiple duplexes say five or you know three or four duplexes that would

886
01:54:23,880 --> 01:54:27,080
 qualify as a multifamily development on one lot

887
01:54:27,080 --> 01:54:36,520
 makes sense so duplex technically is supposed to be on one single lot as defined

888
01:54:39,240 --> 01:54:43,960
 but but i see your point as far as say the triplexes and fourplex you know if there were

889
01:54:43,960 --> 01:54:51,240
 if it was 1.25 per bedroom for one bedrooms um if they were to develop yeah the likelihood though

890
01:54:51,240 --> 01:54:57,960
 i mean you could probably won't you probably won't see a one bedroom for duplex or townhome

891
01:54:57,960 --> 01:55:07,400
 but for triplex and fourplex you might see it um and maybe because of it being one

892
01:55:08,040 --> 01:55:18,600
 and multiple people living there maybe 1.25 or we set a minimum of two so minimum of two with

893
01:55:18,600 --> 01:55:25,480
 um in an initial parking spaces for anything above two bedrooms maybe it gets us there

894
01:55:25,480 --> 01:55:35,240
 tim go ahead or the uh the ron the uh or the the assumptions for bedrooms and those triplexes and

895
01:55:35,240 --> 01:55:40,680
 fourplexes that you guys were using to configure that was it two bedroom i mean three bedroom

896
01:55:40,680 --> 01:55:47,880
 triplexes and three bedroom quadplexes don't really uh i don't really think we see many of those if

897
01:55:47,880 --> 01:55:56,200
 any of them doesn't seem like it does exist but um so the ones i i've seen have been minimum two

898
01:55:56,200 --> 01:56:01,960
 um uh i mean we can certainly look at the stock that we have but the most of the triplex and

899
01:56:01,960 --> 01:56:08,440
 fourplex that we have in the city have been older developments um i don't think we've seen any new

900
01:56:08,440 --> 01:56:18,840
 ones uh recently to to give you uh i think i think something along the lines of um of one one spot per

901
01:56:18,840 --> 01:56:26,680
 uh per bedroom and then a one one guest spot per dwelling unit seems kind of closer to to something

902
01:56:26,680 --> 01:56:32,280
 i would i would think would be enough where you have that's where you're not you know that seems

903
01:56:32,280 --> 01:56:36,600
 like more than enough to me but i'd be interested to see what our stock is of our triplexes and

904
01:56:36,600 --> 01:56:43,960
 quadplexes and what that looks like um just getting seeing if there have been proposals or projects or

905
01:56:43,960 --> 01:56:49,240
 if that's even feasible for someone to do a bunch of three bedroom uh three bedroom triplexes or

906
01:56:49,240 --> 01:56:53,800
 three bedroom quadplexes like that that then you start getting into the weight and to a lot of

907
01:56:53,800 --> 01:57:00,440
 parking but i think one one unit one parking spot per for bedroom and then one one guest parking

908
01:57:00,440 --> 01:57:07,240
 spot per unit seems like more than enough to me so so when you say per unit for for a triplex that

909
01:57:07,240 --> 01:57:13,240
 would be three yes okay and then even and then even putting in a um well it wouldn't even make

910
01:57:13,240 --> 01:57:18,440
 sense to be redundant at that point yeah so three three guest spots per dwelling unit with no minimum

911
01:57:18,440 --> 01:57:24,040
 because if it's a triplex or quadplex it would be then it'll be three or four so right so for the for

912
01:57:24,040 --> 01:57:29,240
 those two uses as far as a townhome and duplex what are your thoughts there i think the way i think

913
01:57:29,240 --> 01:57:40,120
 the way you guys are proposing it seems perfectly fine to me okay our comments um yeah because prior

914
01:57:40,120 --> 01:57:44,840
 to 2019 that a triplex or fourplex would have fallen under multi-family anyhow because we didn't

915
01:57:44,840 --> 01:57:50,520
 have those in our codes and right it's where work kind of made sense to just use that multi-family

916
01:57:50,520 --> 01:58:00,360
 standard right and i see your point there chair however you know we haven't seen a lot of those

917
01:58:00,360 --> 01:58:06,360
 triplexes fourplex i mean we had you know they were defaulted to multi-family but truly uh ones

918
01:58:06,360 --> 01:58:13,160
 that are triplexes fourplex by definition i don't think we've seen any we can certainly uh i can get

919
01:58:13,160 --> 01:58:20,280
 that information in or you know pull up ones that we've uh have developed in in the last

920
01:58:20,280 --> 01:58:27,240
 years i i don't know of any um in the last two years of a triplex or fourplex that have developed

921
01:58:27,240 --> 01:58:35,880
 there may have been one redevelopment off of uh south of town of an existing fourplex

922
01:58:35,880 --> 01:58:46,680
 due to a fire but none that i saw that are are new developments okay well i know that there's some

923
01:58:46,680 --> 01:58:53,240
 garden style homes that are kind of a duplexed type thing that are going to be ones and one and

924
01:58:53,240 --> 01:59:00,680
 two bedrooms that will be developed before too long i would think that that you'll end up with

925
01:59:00,680 --> 01:59:11,080
 those one bedroom situations so in that okay so what we're what we're saying is if it was a one

926
01:59:11,080 --> 01:59:20,520
 bedroom um are we saying 1.25 um and then anything and then anything above one bedroom would be one

927
01:59:20,520 --> 01:59:28,840
 per bedroom correct yeah and so i would i would think that we would have to round up so if you had

928
01:59:30,120 --> 01:59:34,440
 you ended up with one one bedroom on there they're actually going to end up needing two spaces

929
01:59:34,440 --> 01:59:38,520
 if everything else was two bedrooms in there they're going to be one per bedroom

930
01:59:38,520 --> 01:59:45,720
 so so maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's two space for a one bedroom a minimum of two spaces

931
01:59:45,720 --> 01:59:52,680
 because you're going to round up anyways and then anything above to one additional parking space

932
01:59:52,680 --> 01:59:59,160
 i think that's what we have for duplexes in the prior code yeah two yeah two bedrooms or more

933
01:59:59,160 --> 02:00:11,560
 would be one space per bedroom okay and if there's one it'd be two yeah one or an efficiency

934
02:00:11,560 --> 02:00:14,520
 more efficiency yeah

935
02:00:14,520 --> 02:00:26,040
 so so we have that um for duplexes and um town homes and then for triplexes and fourplexes

936
02:00:26,680 --> 02:00:33,560
 what commissioner smith mentioned could apply um in those situations for the additional guest parking

937
02:00:33,560 --> 02:00:35,880
 for or

938
02:00:35,880 --> 02:00:46,600
 i don't i don't see unless we want to add the instances where there is a one bedroom

939
02:00:46,600 --> 02:00:50,600
 triplex or one bedroom fourplex

940
02:00:52,760 --> 02:00:56,920
 but again what i understand from i think even i think even then ron started to cut you off is

941
02:00:56,920 --> 02:01:00,120
 that if it was a one bedroom triplex one better quadplex it'd be the same thing as

942
02:01:00,120 --> 02:01:08,120
 as what um councilman ryan is saying is that it still technically means a one bedroom triplex

943
02:01:08,120 --> 02:01:14,600
 would be two spaces per unit which would be the same thing as one space per bed per bedroom and

944
02:01:14,600 --> 02:01:21,160
 then one space per dwelling unit for guest parking so kind of kind of six and one and a half dozen

945
02:01:21,160 --> 02:01:29,560
 the other okay so i can um let me draft the i i hear what you all were saying what the dcrc is

946
02:01:29,560 --> 02:01:37,880
 saying um with regards to the one bedroom and maybe apply that to all four of the uses but with

947
02:01:37,880 --> 02:01:46,360
 the triplex and fourplex specifically add the guest parking per unit one per unit does that make sense

948
02:01:47,720 --> 02:01:55,400
 does okay and if it doesn't i'll bring it back and you can actually see it because i know it's kind

949
02:01:55,400 --> 02:02:00,680
 of hard to see and i'm jotting it down and i want to put it on paper as well and when we have that

950
02:02:00,680 --> 02:02:11,000
 uh we'll we'll look at this again is i guess what i'm saying um i think we've we've gone to our two

951
02:02:11,000 --> 02:02:15,800
 o'clock and i know that was a lot of information i appreciate the input that you all have provided

952
02:02:15,800 --> 02:02:23,400
 um i've got a couple things that we will be bringing forward but um we'll hold off the next

953
02:02:23,400 --> 02:02:28,200
 few slides and again it's still related to parking so we'll continue our discussion

954
02:02:28,200 --> 02:02:34,200
 as it as it relates to parking but i know that we have a couple items we want to run by

955
02:02:34,200 --> 02:02:42,360
 um the committee committee before we convene this meeting so um that that concludes at least this

956
02:02:42,360 --> 02:02:47,720
 portion of the agenda john if you want to head on to the next item yeah the next item is concluding

957
02:02:47,720 --> 02:02:54,600
 items and uh one of our members has said that they have to leave at one o'clock each each day

958
02:02:54,600 --> 02:03:01,080
 so we're wondering if an 11 to one would meeting on wednesdays would work better for for anyone or

959
02:03:01,080 --> 02:03:10,520
 work worse for anyone yes party i i can do that okay if we need to do that if that's better okay

960
02:03:11,160 --> 02:03:16,920
 and i'm fine with it also okay and that way when if we do start meeting in person again

961
02:03:16,920 --> 02:03:22,600
 we can also order lunch monica's like

962
02:03:22,600 --> 02:03:32,440
 all right anything else any other concluding items all right then i will

963
02:03:33,320 --> 02:03:44,040
 adjourn this meeting at 205 pm on april 28th thank you everybody see you all see you soon