Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee.
We do have a quorum present, so I'll call the meeting to order at 12.01.
The first item on 12.01, on April 28, 2021, the first item on the agenda is consider approval
of the minutes from the 14th of April, 2021.
Do we have a motion? Margie?
>> Move approval. >> All right.
I have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second.
>> Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye.
>> Aye. >> Any opposed?
All right. Motion carries unanimously.
The next item on the agenda is receive a report, hold a discussion,
give staff direction regarding proposed code amendments related to nonconforming
site features, accessory dwelling units, and subchapter 7 of the development standards.
Ron, it's all yours. >> Great. Good afternoon,
everyone. I'm going to go ahead and start my presentation, and I'm sharing my screen.
Bring this to the top of the presentation.
Hopefully, you all can see my presentation.
As Chair mentioned, we will be talking about the nonconforming site features.
This was a question or request from our last meeting related to accessory dwelling units
and parking, so we'll have some discussion on site features, and then continue our discussion
with the accessory dwelling units related to the number of bedrooms.
I've prepared an exhaustive list of ADUs that we process.
There's a lot, but we don't need to spend a whole lot of time on each one of them.
I just really wanted to showcase how many we've received in the last year since 2019 when the
code was updated and show you the examples of ADUs that we've processed and approved since then.
If there is opportunity, which we hope we will, we'll go ahead and start discussing subchapter 7.
The first three may not be time consuming. However, when we get into the landscaping,
parking, and site and building design, there are a number of recommendations that we want to get
some information from the DCRC. Okay, so the first item for our discussion is related to the
nonconforming site features, and as I understand it, the question from the DCRC was if there was
an existing home that has no parking or limited parking, and if they were to add an ADU,
what can we do in terms of ensuring that parking was provided for the single-family
structure? And what we have currently in our code is this section in subchapter 1 that talks about
any existing residential structure or uses shall not be deemed nonconforming
as a result of the adoption of this DDC. So, for example, if there was a home that had,
I'm just going to throw this out there, two parking spaces and now the code required for that home
would remain obviously legal and the additional requirement to have the additional two parking
spaces would not create nonconformity for that structure, for that single family. So, again,
the home has to have been legally established, so if it was approved with two legally, then again,
that home would remain as is, it would not be nonconforming. That being said, the following
section also in that subchapter, it relates to nonconforming site features. That home, although
may not meet the code of today, may not increase or create a nonconformity, of course, moving
forward. So, if there was a proposal for an ADU and they wanted to use the required parking spaces
for the ADU from an approved parking space for the single family, they would not be able to. They
would have to add on to that site for that additional parking spaces. So, that basically
is how we would address the parking issue. Again, if there was a single family home
that didn't meet the requirements of today, they would still be okay to move forward. However,
if they were to add on an accessory dwelling unit, they would need to add additional parking for
that accessory dwelling unit and not create any lesser parking for that single family home.
I've got an example here that shows a home that's in the Oak Gateway small area plan.
This home was built in 1955. And as you can tell from the photo, they've converted their
garage into a living space. And so, technically now they only have two parking spaces.
But at the time that home was built, the home only required two spaces. So,
the conversion did not create any nonconformity. However, at the time of May 2018, as you all know,
that parking space requirement changed. And now all of the single family, any new single family
requires four parking spaces. But again, as we discussed earlier, this home would not be
a nonconforming use because again, it was legally constructed with the required parking spaces at
the time the home was built. Again, this home, I'm familiar with it just because I had some
development review related comments in the garage. You can tell it's kept. They didn't really change
the face of the garage. However, they did add a door again for access. That's how you can tell.
That garage was converted. Before we go to the next topic, are there any questions about that
question or that comment that we wanted to clarify? I believe it was Chair Ryan that you mentioned
if there were any lack of parking, how do we address that with any proposed ADUs?
Yeah, I guess the concern was if we make them come back up to the full standard of today and
they wanted to add an ADU, they'd have to provide five parking spaces, the four for the main house
and one for an ADU. And in some cases, that's just completely unachievable. If you have that
garage conversion, you might have two and just have to add one more. So I don't know if there's
a way to write it that if you are adding it, it's a minimum two and that you have to add one space
regardless. Well, yeah, we can certainly add that for more clarity. But again, per the sections,
I mean, most of the single family, and again, I say most, right? We don't know for sure, but
most of these homes will have two parking spaces. And if they do not, at least a minimum, like you
said, they would need to retain that two parking spaces and add on any additional parking spaces
for that proposed ADU. And we can certainly add that to the general topic or general standards
for ADUs. Right. Again, because we changed from two in 2018, anybody built prior to that might have
four, but they were only required to have two. Right. So to make them have to upgrade all the
way to four and then do a plus one to get to five because they're putting in an ADU just seems like
overburdened. Right. No, I think that's the intent. I think with the subchapter one where it talks
about, you know, them being legal at the time, that's the number that they would need to comply
with. And then any additional ADU that is any additional parking per the ADU, they would just
need to add on to that two parking spaces. Right. And the concern is for those who have
no parking spaces, and they want to add an ADU that they would have to get to at least three,
two for the main house plus one for the ADU. Right. And in those circumstances, I mean, again,
we don't know many, I don't know where that example, and it may have occurred in how they
were allowed to have no parking spaces. We'd have to research that. But in those situations,
yeah, totally understand that the need for additional parking would need to be provided.
But again, if there is, if they were completely constructed, it may be a little bit different
as a request to get them to install or add another two parking spaces if they were approved.
Likelihood that they were approved with no parking spaces is slim, but there may be those examples.
Right. And I would think it would probably be in some of the pre 1950 areas of town. That could be
a possibility. Where they just have one drive, you know, to their site or to their parking where
their one garage is. Yeah, I can see that. Any other questions, comments on that?
So we'll add something to the general use specific standard related to
the two parking spaces at a minimum, plus any additional if they don't have parking.
And we'll work through that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Chair. Help me understand here
and maybe it's something we've already addressed and I just missed between 2018 that we were just
talking about that with that previous structure and the current DDC. But the parking spaces in
the garage are not counting towards that minimum? For the new construction, they would be counted.
Yes. Good. What we were discussing is if the ones that were already built pre 2018,
they can convert those and only were again approved to have only two parking spaces
again pre 2018. That's what was required. Okay. But the current DDC allows your garage to count
towards your parking minimums. Correct. So the two spaces of the garage inside the garage, as well as
the two approaches towards the four parking spaces. Very good. Just wanted to make sure I was clear
on that. Yes. And you'll see some examples with the ADUs of new construction where there were
required four parking spaces plus the additional two parking spaces or however number of parking
spaces for the ADU. So we'll see some of those in the next upcoming slides. Okay.
So we'll go on to the next topic. ADUs. Specifically, we had some questions or comments
related to should there be a limit of number of bedrooms. So here's the section of the code
that speaks generally. And we have it here that applies to both lots 10,000 square feet less as
well as 10,000 square feet or more. One of the discussion was what we can do is only require it
for the lots that have 10,000 square feet or less, but not have that requirement in those situations
where the lots were over 10,000. So essentially what we would do is just eliminate E and then
just apply it to where, again, the lots were 10,000. Now the question that came out of the
DCRC meeting the last time was what number is one limiting the bedroom count to one? Is that too
restrictive even for lots with 10,000 square feet or less? So I wanted to show some examples to kind
of give the DCRC the context of what we have seen as far as development requests or ADU requests.
I would say most of these homes are not over 10,000. Most of these are within tracks of land
that are less than 10,000 square feet. So I'm going to go ahead and start that part of the
presentation. And please let me know if you have any questions. There are quite a few and I'll try
to go through them as quickly as I can. But I just wanted to show you some of the differences
of ADUs that we've seen in the last year and a half. So this is over in Robinwood Lane,
just north of town. And what they are proposing or have proposed and have gotten approval
is a remodel where they are adding an addition to the home and they are also adding an accessory
dwelling unit to the rear of the property. This happens to be a corner lot. The front of the lot
is Robinwood and then the side street frontage is Greenwood Drive and that is where the access
to the ADU will be from. You can see from this illustration here that they will have the four
parking spaces, again, not required because this home was built prior to 2018, but you have two
parking spaces along the driveway and then additional two parking spaces here if needed.
The bedroom, I'm sorry, the ADU, which is this structure here located on the rear of the property,
you can see we'll have one bedroom, we'll have a living space, a kitchen, and a bathroom. So
they're required to have one parking space and that parking space is served by providing this
driveway here or this drive approach here. So this serves as that additional parking space.
This elevation here that you see on the bottom is the elevation that will be facing the street.
So that's how it's shown and they will be accessing from this entrance here as just to give you some
illustration of where that entrance is. It is a one-story and again a one-bedroom
ADU that's being proposed as part of this redevelopment or remodeling project.
We have another one where there's an existing shed, is what I was told it is, but they're
converting this into an ADU. They are looking to, again, use that existing structure. It's located
at the rear of the property. They don't show where the parking is and I think to Chair's point,
there looks to be just one parking space here and I don't know if they can fit another parking space,
but in order to add this ADU, they would need to add an additional parking space. So based on
what we saw last time, they may be able to access and provide a parking space towards the rear in
this general vicinity. I haven't seen the site plan yet. This is still under review. I know we
have some staff members that is currently reviewing this and they may be able to shed some light on,
no pun intended, on the location of that parking space, but again, they would need to provide
an additional parking space for this proposed ADU and we will need to verify how many parking spaces
this home currently has. It actually shows two. So this is the actual street view of that parking,
of that single-family home and so they show the two parking spaces. So all they would need to do
is add an additional parking space for this ADU proposed structure. How they do that,
again, unfortunately I don't have the site plan that shows that, but that is a requirement that
they will need to provide. We have another ADU. This is in the Sedna area, the southeast end
neighborhood area. This is located at 806 Allen Street. What the applicant is proposing is
constructing an ADU at the rear of the property. This happens to also be on a corner lot.
It shows a separate lot 802, but through DCAD data or information, the owner owns both lots 802 and
806. That ADU that you see here is a taller ADU, not technically two stories. It is an ADU with a
mezzanine above that goes above a little bit to an upper level. Again, it will be located at the
rear of the property. This shows how it is going to be set up. The area that is outlined in red is
the mezzanine area. The stairwell is located in this general vicinity right next to the main entrance.
They show a bed here, a location for a bed. They also show a bed location on the bottom floor,
almost serving as a studio. In this particular case, because they are showing two separate
locations for a place for a bed, they will require two parking spaces for this site. Fortunately,
they have the ability to do that just based on the location. If they were not able to access
two parking spaces or apply two parking spaces, that would not be approvable. Again, in this
particular case, they would be required to provide two parking spaces. Again, the site plan that they
submitted has not yet been approved. Based on the requirements of the DDC, two parking spaces,
in addition to the two parking spaces that they have now, will be required for that ADU.
This is the front of the single-family home. The two parking spaces that they have available
today is shown here. They would need to provide an additional two parking spaces
for this proposed ADU. This just talks a little bit about the bedroom count. Technically,
they are not a bedroom per se, but they are studies or any other area similar where a bed
can be located, in which case they would be counted as bedrooms for the parking requirement.
So those are ones that have existing homes. The next few slides illustrate where a developer
went and either demolished or took an infill lot and developed a single-family home or homes
and added ADUs as part of that development. So what you see here is located on Rose Street,
just adjacent to the service center. This property was currently vacant, 818 and 820.
What the applicant or the owner or developer did was construct a home on one of each of those lots
and added an ADU to each of those lots as well. So what we're going to look at is 820, which is
this northern lot, and you see the floor plan here. I apologize, it's sort of hard to read with all
the different labels, but the front part of the lot, you see they have provided three parking spaces.
Again, this is a single-family home, so as Mayor Pro Tem Davis mentioned, four parking spaces would
be required, or I mentioned that earlier. So this single-family home would need to provide four
parking space per the parking requirements as of May 2018. So you see they have one, two, three in
the front and then four in the rear. The fifth parking space is for the ADU. They are proposing
a one-bedroom ADU, so that is where that fifth parking space would be required.
So here's the floor plan for the ADU that's located at the rear of the property.
You have the entrance here, the living area, kitchen, bathroom, and then the one bedroom. So
one parking space would be required. This is the front of the home that faces Rose Street. This is
the ADU that's behind the home, and you can see very similar and architecturally compatible
features to match the main structure. This is some photos of what resulted out of this.
Now imagine a lot line in the middle of A20 and A18. They share a common driveway, and that is
through a public access easement, so they're able to do that. The home again that we're looking at,
or have looked at, is A20 with the parking spaces here, and then the additional parking spaces in
the back, and you see here this is the home that's in the rear of the property. This is for A20,
and then I shared with you what the other ADU is shown for A18. So this is the other ADU, which is
just to the side of this other ADU. So this is an example of a new construction in which they took
two vacant lots and constructed two single family with two ADUs meeting the requirements,
each with one bedroom. Similarly, this is actually the same property owner, and you can see from the
floor plan or the site plan a very similar design where they were required to provide the additional
parking spaces, and therefore I won't spend too much time on this, but you can see they all are
very similar. Again, this is off of Janey Street, just north of the courthouse, 427 and 431,
and what I'm showing you here is 431, which is one of those lots.
This is the final product, and you can see very similar look as the previous ADU's
single-family homes that was shown off of Rose Street.
Another one, again this is similar, again showing you the extent of what has happened in the last
year and a half, this property owner, similar ones to Rose and to Janey, is also developing a
similar product on Paisley, which is again not too far from the service center, not too far from Rose
Street, and these are just north of McKinney and just east of the railroad tracks. This is still
under construction as opposed to the other two, and again very similar in the design, and I'm
going to go, and as you already have seen, the design is very similar. So again, this is an example
of a property owner developer looking at infill development and looking at, in this case, two
separate lots and conducting and constructing them, and he's done this three times, one off Rose, one
off of Janey, as well as Paisley. So another set of ADU's that we've seen in the last, I guess,
six months in this particular case is located off of Crow and Senna. This property is owned by one
property owner and is being developed with multiple lots, a total of nine specifically, and those
nines are located here, 1845, 49, 41, 39, 31, 35, 09, 1910, and 1904. All are having a similar
development where there's a single family home in front and a single, I'm sorry, an ADU either on
the rear or the side of the main structure. All of these are new construction. All of these are
with an ADU. Again, the parking requirements do apply where they would need to provide four
parking spaces for the main structure, and then however many parking spaces is required for the
number of bedrooms. In this particular one, two bedrooms are proposed on each of these developments.
So 1831, as you see here, what you see on the next slide here is what it looks like from a floor plan
perspective. The bottom floor of the ADU is a two-car garage. The access to the ADU is through the
first floor, of course, heading into the second floor, and in the second floor they have a dining,
living, kitchen, bath, but also have two bedrooms, one in each corner of that side. This happens to
be over a breezeway where the second bedroom is, and so that is a total of two bedrooms.
Going back to where that parking will be, you have the four, again, two in the garage,
two in the driveway for the main structure, and then the breezeway, there are four parking spaces,
or this can be served as a parking space as well, so that would accommodate the two bedrooms for that
ADU. So again, a different look. This one in particular has two bedrooms proposed.
I'm just going to share, sorry, here are some of the elevations. This is the front of the home,
facing the front of the house, the street that is, and then you can see from the side view,
here's the ADU that is in the rear with the garage and the open carport as shown on the side plan.
This one is 1849, which is in the same location. They have somewhat a similar proposal,
however, this one is located on the side of the main house, and that is something that's accepted,
or sorry, allowed, thinking the right word, allowed today. ADUs are allowed on the side of the home.
Again, they have other requirements, but they are allowed to be placed on the side of the room,
and again, a similar setup where the main structure has the two-car garage here, I'm sorry,
yes, two-car garage with the driveway, which has the additional parking, and then for the bedrooms,
in this case again, two bedrooms, they either have this space here or this space over here to be able
to park those two additional parking that is required. This shows sort of the floor plan for
the living, for the second ADU that is. The first floor has the two-car garage, the living and kitchen,
and then when they go up, there are two bedrooms located above that garage/living area, and so
therefore, two parking spaces in addition to the four would be required. And then just some
elevations, very similar to what we've seen in this particular area. The last one in this area
is located on Center Street. You can see again, very similar, I won't spend too much, but again,
all nine of these lots will have the same setup in terms of a single family, two bedroom ADU,
and the required parking space required six for all of these units. So this site that you can see
here on Senna, which looks north towards Crow, currently is undeveloped and will be, and is
currently being redeveloped or constructed with these types of single family and ADUs.
The next one, I think this is second to last, this is one that we approved several years ago,
2018 I believe, where this is located on Fulton Street. This particular developer developed one
single building with, again, very similar to what we saw in Senna, but in this is just a different
location. This shows a craftsman home where they are building a garage in the back with an ADU
in the rear. So the site plan that you see here would accommodate the two parking spaces, I'm
sorry, the four parking spaces with the garage below the two and then the space adjacent to the
garage. And then again, additional parking spaces in the middle to accommodate for that two parking
spaces that would be required for that ADU. This is the home, not yet finished, but you can see
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
1924 square feet for the single family. The additional ADU is about 728. And you can see
they have two bedrooms above the garage. They also have a game room. So again, this particular ADU
would require the additional two parking spaces on top of the four that would be required for
the multi single family. And then I just listed a number of other ones that we've processed in 2019.
607 Woodland, 1815 Greenwood, you know, 2223 North Locust and 2115 Glenwood. These specifically are
existing homes where they've converted some part of their home, either a second story or an addition
to an ADU. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos of this, but again, I just wanted to mention that
we've seen a number of ADUs. Most of them are either one bedroom, but we actually seen two
bedrooms under the new construction to kind of give you some context as to what we're seeing.
We haven't seen anything above two bedrooms, but again, most of these lots are less than 10,000.
So back to our question in the beginning, you know, is setting a one bedroom unit ADU,
what we want to do, or do we want to set it at two at a maximum?
So back to the question and wanted to get input from the committee as to what that maximum should
be. Jim, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Rob, just to your question, I would say I think two is the
maximum. I think past that it should be a multifamily property and should be zoned correctly for that.
You know, you're already having two accessory dwelling units where he puts it at multifamily
level, but that would put it definitely past two, it'd be more than that. A question I was going to
ask during your presentation, is there a limitation in the code currently that has it to wear a limit
of number of stories in the ADU comparative to the primary residence on this on the location,
you know, such as, you know, if it's a single family home, can't be a two story ADU?
We don't currently have that. They would need to just comply with the height requirements. And
that's whatever that zoning district is, most of the residential zoning district is at 40 feet.
So if there's a single family home, where that's one story upfront, they potentially can do a two
story above that single family. So to answer your question, no, we don't have a story limit,
but we do have a building height limit. Mr. Chair, if I might?
Yes. I would also add that we have had some ADUs that have been built as a detached
garage with living above. So again, accommodated for the off street parking, just as a side note.
That's all the questions I have. Thank you.
Yeah. And I had a similar one. I think it was 806 Allen, that was the story or
mezzanine above and was that taller than the main structure? I think that's something we
might want to consider is, can you build an ADU that's taller than your existing structure? Because
part of the thought behind all this is, you know, we're not putting the door cannot be seen from
the right away. So we're kind of trying to hide these a little bit. And if you're going,
you know, two stories with an ADU, I mean, I understand the garage on the first floor and
the second floor being the ADU. So with that thought in mind, I might be okay with it, but
I don't know that that's a good precedent to set. I had a couple of other ones that as you're going
through there, evidently we do not currently have a minimum or do we for square foot of an ADU?
We do not have one, I believe. Okay, that's because at 401 Simmons was 160 square feet.
Yeah, the shed, correct. So I know that when our proposal is to add 400.
Let me just double check that real quick.
Yeah, so 400 is the one we are proposing for the lots that are 10,000, as well as the lots that are
over 10,000 square feet. So we do have again, that requirement, unfortunately,
well, I don't know if it's unfortunate, but the 160 right now doesn't prevent us to do that.
Actually, they meet the building code. That is all that's required for now until a code amendment
that you see here passes. Sorry, let me make this. However, back to the question about the height,
you know, I guess let me back up one more. So I hear two-bedroom max, and we can certainly
bring this forward to the full body of the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council.
So what I hear from the committee is a two-bedroom limit for 10,000. Is that what we want for both
situation 10,000 square feet as less, or do we want to also see it in the 10,000 or more lots
having a maximum bedroom count of two? Jesse, go ahead.
I'm assuming the same definition of bedroom that we talked about, or the same calculation of bedrooms
that we talked about in the parking conversation applies. If that's the case where, you know,
a den that doesn't have a closet is going to also be considered a bedroom, then I think at least two
bedrooms. I tend to agree with Tim that when we start going more than that, then we're in the
multifamily and we're talking about a different kind of project. But if we're going to say that
a bedroom is anywhere where you might conceivably plop down a bed or a pallet and charge somebody to
rent for it, then I think we ought to go from one to two, a two-bedroom maximum.
So I don't hear any other questions. I would agree with that. And, you know,
when you look at apartments, 900 square feet is where we're setting our maximum. In an apartment
setting, that's generally a two-bedroom. Could be up to three, but generally it's a two-bedroom.
400 square foot would be either an efficiency or a one-bedroom, which is our minimum. So,
yeah, I'm comfortable with the two-bedroom.
I am too. The maximum of two-bedrooms.
So Margie? Yeah, as I said last week too, I was for that as well.
Okay, so we'll propose moving forward with the two-bedroom max. Now the question I have to follow
up with that is what do we want to do or what does the DCRC want in terms of that two maximum?
Should that just apply to 10,000 or less or should it apply to 10,000 or more?
It currently does not have that limitation.
Tim, go ahead. I think it should apply to both. I think that no matter what, no matter the size of
the lot, I don't think we're going to have 15,000, 20,000 square foot lots that are really dealing
with a lot of accessory dwelling units. But even then, once again, if it's in a residential area,
it's not possibly zoned for a multifamily even with an SUP. That's a multifamily property. It's
a totally different project at that point in time. So I think two, it doesn't matter the size of the
lot. I would be more apt even for the 10,000 square foot and less for that to be something
that you could even say it could be a maximum of one. But I think two could be very easily
trivia to both sizes. I'm in agreement with that as well. It's limited to both. Yeah,
I would say so too. I'm not sure if when we get into like an already five zoning where it's a
five acre there, I can see something slightly different, but I'm sure there's probably other
ways that they can, they can even sort of divide that property or, you know,
plat it so that it's actually two lots. Of course, then they can't file it and then they
have to rezone as well. So that's not going to work. We'll go ahead and draft that to apply
for both and we can move on to the next topic if there are any other questions.
Okay, moving on to the discussion about applicability in terms of the development
standards in sub chapter seven. Sorry, let me increase my screen here. We had a lot of
discussion. I think for the most part, we were okay with the changes to one through three,
it was more the parking spaces and the committee wanted us to bring back some examples and
discussion. Now there are two tiers where development standards apply and I will
share with you on those tiers, what those tiers apply to. Let me scroll down to that
slide real quick and we'll come back to these. I apologize for that. So here are the two tiers.
We have tier one and tier two. So if you're in tier one, any check boxes or all development
where you see that all of these development standards to the left will apply to tier one.
The diamond shape references only the development impact area where that development or that
construction work is being done. That's where that would apply. So for example, if you're in tier one
and you're only doing so much, you would need to comply with the development standards
with landscaping screening buffer offenses only within that development impact area.
However, if you are bumped to a tier two, you would need to apply all of those screening landscape
buffer and fencing requirements to the entire site. So just to kind of give you a context of
what tier one and tier two and what would apply in those situations. So going back to the first
part of that discussion, parking spaces in the strikethrough language, it currently says that
you are a tier one if you are greater than six or 50%. So basically, if you're less than six
and less than 50% of the number of parking spaces, you would not need to do anything
to comply with the development code requirements. We feel that it should be changed a little bit
in order to differentiate between tier one and tier two. This doesn't really work in our
particular case as of today. So what staff is proposing is shown here underlined is any parking
space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguration, reconstructing or other similar
projects that impact 10, sorry, between 10 and less than 50% of the existing number of spaces. So
that should be 10%, between 10 and 50% of the number of parking spaces, you will be considered
tier one. Anything above 50%, this is tier two, you would be required to comply with the development
standards for the entire site. So this is something I added as a result of my analysis in relationship
to this particular item. I know that there was a comment from the committee related to what will
10%, if there's a 10 space parking lot, one or two spaces where it's reconfigured, reconstructed would
be tier one. And I guess our recommendation is that would be okay. I mean, all they would need
to comply with is the section of the code that again, for that development impact area in the
case of a parking lot that's reconstructing, reconfiguring between 10 to 50% of their number
of parking spaces. Is 10 and or 50 appropriate? And this is a question for the DCRC. What do you
all think about those numbers? Again, between 10 and 50% tier one, anything above 50% tier two.
And I've got examples if you want me to go through them as well. I wanted to get your
feedback. Yeah, I think the examples might help because as I understand it, that should be 10%
and 50%. That's correct. That should be awarded 10% between 10 to 50%. Yeah, that goes back to
if you've got a dentist office with six spaces, one space is more than 10%. And to that point,
Chair Ryan, they would just need to comply with whatever development requirements or standards
for that parking space, that one parking space, it would not trigger the entire site,
because they would be only within tier one. Okay, so tier one only applies to the development
impact area in terms of landscaping, screening and whatnot. So may not be a big impact to them,
but anything above 50%. So if they have six and they do four spaces, then they would have to
comply with all the requirements for the entire site at that point.
But let me share some examples and kind of give you some ones that we processed recently.
So this is just off of University's Primrose. It's a medical center.
I may be wrong, but what they're proposing or have proposed is a reconstruction of this entire
site that you see here. The aerial shows how many parking spaces they have. That includes the front,
the side and the rear. They're proposing to remove the existing parking lots, asphalt and poor
concrete. So they're really improving this site. In this particular case, because they are doing
all 22, they would need to comply with all the standards for the entire site. Again, this is
just one that we've seen that has come up recently. And so that's an example. So this particular
business has 22 spaces and then they're reconstructing this site from asphalt to concrete.
This is another one. We haven't had a lot of just parking lot applications, but this is for a church
off of Audre and Lattimore Street. What they've done is they've expanded their parking lot area
to close to 50%. I believe they were just under 50%. You see the existing here where they have
parking pretty much all around. What they have proposed and constructed are additional parking
spaces where they've added in this general vicinity as well as this set of parking area.
We also see a couple here to the east of the building and then a number of them here
towards the northwest of the building. So in total count, they were just under 50%,
is my understanding. And therefore, their landscaping requirements only applied to the areas
that were constructed from their permit. So if they were over 50%, they would have to comply with
every code requirement in terms of landscaping, screening, and buffering. So that's why you don't
see any of this area changed because again, the count was just under 50%. So that's just to
illustrate where that trigger is, where that threshold is in terms of applying to the entire
site or just the development impact area. This was just to show what it looks like in comparison to
the landscape plan. Another one, and this is not necessarily a parking lot permit, but one that
shows where the expansion of a building, and this could have been the expansion of a parking lot,
where they had to comply with the development standards. Because they were over 50% in terms
of their building structure, the landscaping, parking, buffer, screen, all of that had to apply
to the entire site. And so you see the before where it was just, you know, see parking spaces,
they had to comply with the landscaping, the buffering, and the screening requirements. And
so this is what you see as a result. They've obviously added more landscaping, they've added
more of the parking lot. You can see here landscaping that's required for the parking lot,
and also the screening that you see here. They've actually enhanced it by planting larger
or screening trees along the perimeter of the property. So just to show you what can result
from a proposed development that exceeds either the building by 50% or if 50% is the number of
parking spaces, this is what would result from that. This just shows an existing of what that
site looks prior to the redevelopment of that property. So I guess back to the question,
I'll scroll back up to the proposed code amendment in relationship to parking spaces.
Tier one, again, we're talking about just the development impact area, is the threshold 10,
between 10 and 50 appropriate for tier one? Which again, if 50 changes, then tier two would need to
be changed. But before this code or what's existing today, it's 50%. And so that's where we kept it.
But we wanted to go away from the six spaces and really focus on adding percentage
to this and remove the spaces versus percentage. So what staff is proposing is between 10 to 50%
would be tier one. And then again, of course, anything above 50% would be a tier two,
or that would apply to the entire site. - Any thoughts, comments?
- I can be in agreement with that. - Yeah, Molly thought on it again,
kind of goes back to the small lots. What is our requirement for landscaping with
in the parking lot? - So if, I mean, to be honest with a small lot, if there was,
I know there was a couple on Elm Street where they were just changing a few, it would be landscaping
along the right of way if it was placed along the right of way. And again, anything less than 50%
would just need to comply with the landscaping requirements, the screening. I think for the most
part, that's pretty much it. It would only impact the development impact area. It would just be
those few lots, whatever, I'm sorry, few spaces, whichever the amount is,
would just need to comply in that particular area. - Okay, so we don't have a requirement of X amount
of the parking lot must be landscaped? - So that would be part of the landscaping
that, again, because it's only affecting the development impact area, we'd have to pay more
greater detail on how we would accomplish that. It may be adding another tree so that it would provide
for the landscaping requirements for canopy. You may be asking to remove some landscaping area,
sorry, concrete if there was any to add additional landscape area or just planting shrubs, again,
for that particular development impact area. I wish I had a good example other than the church
of Audra where they only applied the standards, but that was a larger parking lot. Chair Ryan,
I don't have an example of a small lot and how that would apply. Obviously, with a larger lot,
you have a little bit more way of meeting the code or meeting the requirements. With a small lot,
it's difficult. I wish I had a good example, which I don't, where they only compacted or
addressed two or three spaces. - So as an example, if someone
has a gravel lot right now and it's got six spaces in it and they want to take the gravel out,
put concrete in? - It would be a reconstruction that would trigger the landscaping. And if it's
six and six is the over 50%, then they would have to comply with the landscaping requirements
for that entire site. - And what happens if, because they now have to add additional landscaping,
they can't get enough spaces in that area to handle what their business is required to have
for spaces? - There's always an alternative landscape plan that we can consider
administratively. In the case they can propose certain landscaping proposals that staff can
review, Richard can consider as the director of planning. So in those situations, there is an
option to go through that alternative landscape plan. - Okay. Then I'm probably okay with it,
or I am okay with it. - Yeah. Okay. So we'll stick with, I'm sorry, I didn't hear from the
entire DCRC, so I, going with- - It's Tim. Yes, I'm fine with that as well.
- All right. - Here's Margie. - Thanks, Chair. I'll just weigh in here. I don't know if we need to
have some protection in there for the smaller lots, maybe that they don't jump into a tier two. I
mean, anytime we deal in percentages, you can see with the church, they had a whole lot of area
and didn't trigger over 50%. So they only had to deal with the development impact area.
That smaller guy, as the example that Chair just gave, I mean, they have a much higher percentage
of triggering themselves into a tier two and having to infect their entire site. So I don't
know if thought needs to be given to a certain number of spots, and I'm not exactly sure what
that would be, maybe under 10 spaces or something like that, that they would remain in tier one and
only the development area would have to be complied. I don't know. To me, that gives me just a little
bit of pause. - Right. - What we just discussed. - And just to care for what you were just saying,
Commissioner Nellis, we currently have the requirement that it says six or greater or 50%.
So greater of six, that is, or 50%, so whichever is greater. So that small lot, say it's a six
space lot or let's say 10 space lot, if they were to reconstruct, reconfigure five of that,
that would automatically trigger a tier one. I'm sorry, tier two in this respect.
So yeah, I hear what you all are saying, what you guys, the DCRC, is saying in terms of those
smaller parking lots. I know that part of the effort here is trying to not necessarily bring
them to conforming, but to enhance any opportunity we have. However, there are constraints in not
only landscaping areas, but as I mentioned earlier, there is an alternative landscape
plan option in these particular cases where they would need to provide alternative options
or alternative proposals. And if they meet the intent of, again, providing the landscape
requirements, it may not be the required that is in the code, but there are other ways of getting
there. As mentioned earlier, Richard, Director of Planning, has the opportunity or option
to review and consider them. Can you give me an example of where
you would consider something to be resurfacing versus reconstructing? I mean, if, again, that
where I was talking about the gravel parking lot, if you're just going to take the gravel out and
pour concrete in, is that a resurface or is that a reconstruct? I don't know if Scott's back on
color. If someone's on, I'm not able to be able to answer that question. I'm not 100% myself.
That would probably be looked at as a reconstruct,
since they're completely changing the surface from a gravel to a poured concrete.
Sort of both, but more on the, they're completely reconstructing it really.
Okay. Yeah, I guess that's kind of where my heartburn comes from, is if you're basically
just trying to upgrade your existing parking. The definitions of those two are resurface,
when we think of we resurface a road, we're taking off that top layer of asphalt and putting new
asphalt down or, you know, we're not getting into the base of it as much when we're resurfacing.
And I don't know how many actually come and get permits for that on flat work.
We typically don't see much of that. Part of it is also once they go to that paved surface
or concrete surface, then storm, you know, a number of storm water standards kick in as well.
So it just might be a little more difficult fitting, depending again on the size of the lot,
fitting drainage in and the like going from a gravel to a hard surface such as concrete.
And Chair, if I may, the other thing I wanted to add on the last, I think to Margie's question,
and Ron, maybe that's something we can look at where we have 10 or greater, maybe it's 11 or
greater. And the reason I say that, we have had some instances where if you look at the landscape
standards for parking lots, you're required to have the sort of an end cap or those medians,
you can't have more than 10 spaces in a row. And that's a lot of times where on these small lots,
where we have done those deviations, because they just physically can't fit it in. And so
that might be something we can take a look at on that exemption for those small lots, if that's okay.
We can, let me see if I can go back to that. One more. So what I think I'm hearing is that
looking at what's existing today says the alteration expansion, obviously this is
something that we're going to have to amend, but when it gets to the number,
it says by the greater of six spaces. Richard, are we suggesting that this or recommending that
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
maybe come back for the next meeting, just take a look at, I'm trying, I can't think offhand of the
site that we had this issue come up on. Okay. I know it's been at least two, maybe three times
in the last couple of months. Oh, okay. Okay. So yeah. Okay. So we'll look into that, I guess.
And then the 50%, again, that's another thing too. If the lot is say 10 spaces, let's say
like 20 space, if they do 10 or more, then it triggers the entire site. Is that something that
the DCRC, again, 50% is the number there. Is that outside of the number spaces, but 50%,
would that also be something that we want to carry forward?
Thoughts on that? And then it may be something that we can talk about, you know, when we look at
the sites that we want to show you. Again, Richard mentioned a number of those. And maybe
that would shed some light as far as why that 50% or if that even something that the DCRC wants to
consider. So we can bring that as part of the next meeting. Okay. Yeah. And I don't know if there's
a way to weave in there or not. If you're with that thought of resurfacing versus reconstruction,
if you're keeping the exact same footprint and you're staying with pervious or non-pervious,
you're using that same type that wouldn't affect drainage based on the way that it was that could
be weaved in there to kind of put some clarity on there as far as what the difference is between those
two. Again, if you're going from gravel to concrete, yeah, that's going to count. But if you're going
from gravel to pavers, both are pervious surfaces, it wouldn't come into play.
And we will research a little bit more and try to get that back to you all, to the DCRC.
Okay. If there's no other comments, questions, we'll move on to the next
set of topics. And again, these are going to be fairly quick
discussions, hopefully. And let me go ahead and share my screen again.
So go through these. So the next few slides relate to the sections of the code of the subchapter
seven, part of the code. Really, these are more clarity, more, you know, additions to make it more
understandable in terms of the code. Referencing, adding referencing. So I don't have any specific
policy questions. And when we do, I'll make sure to ask of the DCRC. So land disturbing activity,
I think we have two slides. We're just clarifying a couple of things and adding some references to
ensure that any land disturbing activity also follows any water well or onsite sewage facilities
is being taken care of and referenced the section of the code and the municipal code where those are
mentioned or covered. This here just to help, again, identify additional plans or permits that
the city may deny if they're not compliant to the number of different requirements. So again,
just to list it out, not something that we have added is just something that we do now in practice
is just that it's not in the code and we want to make sure that it is presented in the code for
those that are looking at land disturbing activities. Jumping on to the next section,
which is environmentally sensitive areas. This first one, and it has a policy question for the
DCRC, FEMA often does provide an area where a floodplain is located. However, the addition here
is if the city has a study where it shows that same area for floodplain, that also should apply
in the case of our environmentally sensitive areas as well. So it's not just FEMA studies,
it's also city studies. So if that makes sense. So again, FEMA has provided their areas of where
the floodplain, 1% annual chance of floodplain is located. However, if the city finds and does a
study on its own studies, that also would apply for the environmental sensitive areas. So just
adding that in there to make sure that if there is studies done or a study done by the city,
that that would be accepted to review against the environmental sensitive area.
The next slide here just again clarifies parts of the permitted activity, permitted uses
under environmentally sensitive areas within an undeveloped floodplain. Again, nothing specific
here that we need from the DCRC. It is just more of providing clarity and clarification.
Okay, the next section as you can see, we kind of went through the land disturbing and environmental
sensitive. There were not many code amendments there, just again for clarity and reference
purposes. The next section is landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing. So this is
another area that we have been working on as well in applying the code. We find that there are
certain things that needs more clarity, more understanding, and we want to certainly address
those for our development and citizens that use the code for proposing. So this first one here,
section 774E1 refers to when a tree survey and preservation plan is required and when it is
required to be submitted. So what you see here, anything that's again underlined
is the ones that we're adding and we're not deleting anything. I think the last one here,
the last letter D, is really just to be consistent with the first three that we're adding. So a tree
survey and preservation plan will be required with the preliminary plat or final plat if no
preliminary plat is required for the following uses. So single-family dwellings, duplex, townhomes,
triplex, and fourplexes. A tree survey and preservation plan will be required with the
final plat or zoning compliance for any multi-family or non-residential. So again,
the two differences here is that the residential components, the single-family, duplex, townhomes,
triplex, fourplex would be required at preliminary plat while the multi-family and non-residential
would be required during final plat. Letter C is a tree survey and preservation plan will
be required with a tree removal permit if no development is occurring. So if someone is
proposing to remove a tree or several trees through a tree removal permit,
they will need to provide a tree survey and preservation plan as part of that tree removal
permit. And then the last one is just again to clear up what we've already identified in terms
of preliminary plat and site plan. These are already are mentioned in letter A and as well
as letter B. So this is just to provide that additional information for applicants.
The next slide here is an expiration, setting an expiration date for a tree survey and preservation
plan. Right now there is not a expiration date. We would like to recommend that any approved tree
survey or preservation plan be, I guess, be approved for up to two years. Any time after
that they would need to resubmit for a new tree survey if the subject property has not already
been developed. So again just to provide the clarity that a tree survey preservation plan
does have an expiration date. The policy question here for the DCRC is two years,
one should there be an expiration date and two is two years the appropriate time frame. And
I would like to at least get some input from the DCRC as we move this forward.
Margie? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think there should be an expiration date.
And two years seems consistent with other expiration dates that we have. So
I'm in agreement with how it's proposed. Yeah, I guess my only question would be if you are in
other permitting process and your tree survey hits that two-year mark while you're doing this,
do you now have to go get a new one or are you kind of vested once your permits are
are being applied for or gone through by the city? Though I understand let me see if I can pull up
this and I may have missed that part. It should still be as long as you're in that continuous
process. So if you're in for building permit and it was related to the plat and it's
two years or even three years that as long as it's tied to that process or permit that you're in
for not that if everything's expired then then yes it would expire. Okay yeah because it's kind of
like on a building permit that expires after six months of no work well you can go in there every
fifth month and do some work on the project it's continuous you know as long as you don't go for
a full six months without working on it. That's true. Okay any other comments?
Okay I'm in agreement with the limitation for two years that sounds good.
Looks like we can proceed on from there. That's good.
Okay we'll go on to the next slide here.
So this particular code amendment here is related to the number of points
that is required for landscaping specifically for parking. There is a total of 30 points
that is required percentages in addition to the landscape area and the tree canopy
requirements. So what we've been dealing with is where the development does not have a surface
parking lot it has a parking structure and most of the times or all the time those parking structures
are not able to meet the 30 points or get to 30 points because the points that are required
and let me see if I have that in my next slide here you see here right away landscaping elements
sorry that's not it let me that's right away I apologize I don't have that that table but
the table has a number of different landscaping options and to get to 30 points it is just
difficult to do that with a parking structure so what we are proposing is that instead of 30 points
for all parking areas we have proposed that 30 points would be applicable for developments
that have a surface parking lot where they can easily get to 30 points not easily but have the
opportunity to get to 30 points and at least 20 points for developments without a surface parking
lot and those are the parking lot structures that we're talking about so we've seen a number of
developments that have come in with parking structures and they still need to meet that
30 points however because of the options that's available there's not enough to get to 30 points
so we are proposing a 20 point requirement for those again that do not have a surface parking lot
where they can at least get to 20 points so the question for the DCRC is the 20 points is that
is that okay for non-surface parking lots and again I apologize I don't have that list of
options to get to the points that you see here and I can certainly make sure that if we need to
I can certainly bring that back or if you all have any questions
with this or think this is sufficient we can move forward
Tim go ahead thank you chair is the 20 point number does that come is that coming from experience
of doing this in the past Ron or where is that 20 point number coming from that that one third
reduction for non-surface parking structures that's a great question what we've seen is if we were to
look at that table again I don't have that table in my presentation we apply that if we can apply
that to a parking structure 20 points is achievable while still meeting the intent of that landscaping
requirement okay I have no problem with keeping it that way I would certainly like to see the
see the chart but not to not to belabor the committee I think that I think that the 20 points
is plenty and then and just to add to that I appreciate that and just to add to that when
um I bring this to the full PNZ and city council I'll make sure that that chart is available that
works yeah I think I'm good with that too I'm I've pulled up the list and it does make sense
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
on another part of the landscaping screening buffering section is related to street trees
we require street trees for certain developments and what we are also asking or asking the DCRC
is that the street tree requirements is in is in addition to the following right away
elements the land the landscaping point system so this is just a part of that chart I think that
chair Ryan has pulled up or has seen what we are looking for is a certain amount of points for
right away elements that is to say that in addition to this point system where they're
required to provide the street tree requirement again one per I believe is 50 feet for single
family and another number for another list or another linear feet for non-residential that is
in addition to so we are requiring we are simply stating that both street tree requirements are
required in table that in in the section where it talks about street trees in addition the applicant
is also required to provide the point system required under this table 7e that's shown here
so this again is just more clarification is what we do now is practice
we just wanted to make sure it's clearly stated for applicants
okay okay now we are moving into a section that we've had a number of discussions prior with the
DCRC and this is related to fencing or walls on under the development standards in the development
code what I've or what we've provided here is additional information to address some of the
questions that we've had related to this I know we had a lot of discussions with the DCRC prior
in terms of what qualifies as a perimeter wall and so I'll go through that here and and again
get some input on some of the aspects as to if the committee is okay with this so again the first
section or the section that I'm referring to is section 778 c1 referring to perimeter it
initially sets fence initially says fences but I went ahead and add walls and fences because it does
also apply to walls such as masonry walls that fronts a public right away so any development
that has a fence or a perimeter adjacency to a public right away is required to provide a wall
or fence for that development all materials include masonry, wrought iron, steel, which is
again wrought iron, steel, aluminum, or other materials so any of the materials such as steel,
aluminum, material or other material that is a wrought iron look can be used we eliminated
or struck elevated it was really difficult to explain elevated I know and we'll most likely
discuss it here elevated to some folks maybe where is above a certain height we didn't have
that specified so we just eliminated and and just kept the the material if it is wood that
it just be sealed there is also the option of having a combination of all three masonry wrought
iron and or wood as part of that required fencing along the perimeter so any any questions on on
what's being proposed I think it's really just to clarify what what wrought iron could be steel,
aluminum, or other material and also to eliminate the term elevated and just simply allow for a
wood fence around a perimeter just as long as it is sealed and protected again for durability purposes
so I like to get some input from the committee in terms of that first letter first requirement
and again this is for developments that have a perimeter adjacent to a front or right away
and they are required to provide a fence and or wall along that right away
comments a couple of us were on for the last discussion we had a lot to say about this item
I think my concern on this and because I'm the one that brought up the the elevated wood and I
brought an example of that but I don't think that we want to allow just wood so is there a way to
word it that says wood in combination with one of the above yes you'd have brick columns just
something to kind of keep them from just putting up a uh what wood picket fence um
I mean we can we can certainly discuss that I mean there's there's um a
a suggestion that that that'd be placed I can certainly draft something we can draft something
to dress not just wood that there be a masonry pillar um either that or yeah potentially just
taking wood out for because we're talking about perimeter fences we're not talking about yard
fences that's yeah I think that was that was some of what we were discussing last time and I think
that the time that we met and that was something that wasn't brought forward but if removing wood
altogether again we're talking about you know perimeter fences in major subdivisions like you
said Chair Ryan it's not for you know the rear properties or within the subdivision it's just the
main perimeter of that development any thoughts or comments
wood would actually hide their whole thing wouldn't it would that not be a like something
like the rod iron or something would that be a more mess of an eye uh more appealing site
no that yes the rod iron obviously will be able you would be able to see through um
in in some cases that that you know may make sense for an area that that has maybe not backing up
into a house uh or maybe a more open space so that might be a suitable uh but you know that
comment is correct I mean it would be um what would actually hide certain areas uh but again
I think the main discussion here is you know our main um I guess question or reason and Chair Ryan
correct me if I'm wrong here but it's it's just the durability and the the wood and not lasting
as long as uh say the other materials correct and it's it when you say wood it just kind of opens
it up to a lot of different fencing style I mean what I had in mind was for anybody that's familiar
with Ryan Ranch Estates where they've got basically masonry but then they've got pockets in there that
are you know five foot wide that they've got a stained and sealed wood panel and that's elevated
about two feet off the ground and it looked good for that development that is that when you open
it up to all wood then you're going to have what we've got along teesley that is people change out
their fences it's not you you've got the whole different color scheme now obviously this is only
for new development this isn't going to affect anybody you know in the existing developments but
as these new developments come online do we want to have that um
the brick or stone style is more of what we're actually requiring people to do
yes chair if I may um if you recall I had to just quickly pull up if when we updated the mpcs the
hunter and coal um those mpcs we did make some adjustments to perimeter fences for new development
uh and and limited it essentially to masonry and wrought iron or a combination thereof
um I mean that's something we could look at and and maybe even include or or accent um you know
accent wood material and include include some of those examples maybe that that that helps
to further at least describe when and how that wood could be could be applied or used in that
circumstance but we can also um maybe for the next meeting just pull that code language so um
kind of refreshes everybody's uh mind what we what we did with those mpcs and we we also tweaked it
with respect to um again that was either fronting or adjacent to and then um fences up excuse me
fences on individual lots and I think it was in addition if if you had any existing development
they were allowed essentially to replace what they had um existing or or to a greater or or
more durable material so we could maybe we can pull that together for the for the next um for
the next meeting so I think it's going to be probably a discussion for for both bodies as to
whether we include wood or don't include wood. Right and and for Richard's comment um you know
with the mpc right there that's a different requirement for that particular development
however you know is is that what we want to see for the uh entire city you know for new development
you know as as sure mentioned moving forward so we we can bring that language and see that language
how that language fits um or um needs to be modified but again what we're showing here is
that wood is still unallowed use for perimeter however pending that discussion where we shared
some of the mpc language uh that may change the uh the committee's um or help inform the committee's
decision. Okay and if I remember right when we did this discussion the last time we had a couple of
examples of what is considered perimeter and what's not we can yes grab a couple of those
slides and toss them back in to especially for the newer members. Okay we can do that.
Right um going back to this slide we do have a couple other um additions to the the fence um
in in terms of new development um where it's along an arterial um the code does not really
provide a setback um area uh for for placing where that fence or wall is located um so what
we're proposing is that if it is an arterial or collector street the minimum setback from the back
of sidewalk or edge of right away um is 10 feet so again the higher the classification of the street
we want to be able to set back that that fence to allow for either landscaping or just a safer way
for people that are walking on the sidewalk uh to to um to walk along that perimeter and not feel
like the wall and the street is um you know adjacent to them as as you know close as it could.
So setting a setback of 10 uh from an arterial or collector street uh is B. C is for if there were
um any uh streets um residential streets that those would be set back five and I think five
is um typical I know we've seen some that have been you know less than five and walking along
those uh sidewalks with a with a fence can be really challenging especially uh if the street
is right next to it so we wanted to establish some setback requirements between the sidewalk and back
the sidewalk which is essentially uh maybe the street or parkway and the fence location for these
particular streets. Oops sorry. So again most of these are um actually additions but in practice
this is what we've seen in developments that we've uh reviewed recently so that's how we came up with
these numbers. Moving on to the next slide um with regards to the the walls and the fences we also
wanted to add some maintenance uh responsibility uh kind of goes back to what was discussed in the
previous uh meetings with the DCRC as relates as it relates to walls and fences. We know that the
walls even masonry walls or more durable walls uh do um you know weather and therefore uh
responsibility sometimes isn't clear and the proposal here is that perimeter walls and our
fences uh fronting a public right of way that that HOA um for that subdivision has to uh provide
a plan or uh maintenance plan that is for maintaining that wall and or fences.
We also have property owner associations this is for non-residential uses so this applies to
commercial uses as well and again making sure that these fences and these walls that are adjacent to
our public right of way that are visible are kept up to maintenance um to make sure that they're
they're um they look good you know from from the public right of way. So uh this is to be added as
part of uh the code amendments again to make sure that these proposed walls and fences are up kept
or maintained.
Um we're gonna jump into the next section which is parking um and unless anybody have any other
questions or comments related to um the landscaping uh section of the code I'm gonna stop showing my
screen any questions that you have that that you would like to discuss and or maybe stuff that we
haven't discussed that you would like us to bring back in terms of the sections that we've already
discussed. And just a quick question for Mac before we continue on it looks like Tim has dropped off
so we have lost corn oh he is there okay just wanted to make sure you were somewhere in the
background I needed to use the restroom so so we're back to corn we're good so questions or comments
Margie yeah thanks um I think we're just bringing back the still the fence discussion right yes
that will be where we will talk we'll bring back some of the language from the one of the NPCs
recently approved and also share some exhibits related to what perimeter okay good thanks
okay um we'll go ahead and jump into the next section um which is parking and this is probably
gonna surpass our time but I want to at least get into that discussion and hopefully we can get
some direction from the DCRC. So
so right now in the development code we have both a minimum and a maximum parking requirements
based on a ratio for types of uses so for example if the commercial development is required a minimum
of 50 spaces their maximum they they can exceed 50 so basically it's either 50
spaces as a minimum but they can also increase that to 100 up to 125 percent of that 50 so another
15 or so roughly 12.5 parking spaces can be added that is what we have today and again that 12.5
additional above the 50 has to be in compliance with certain requirements specifically ice swim
and other standards so the question for the committee is should the existing 125 percent
maximum be eliminated and any spaces above the minimum be in accordance with ice swim standards
so again I'm gonna restate this so it hopefully makes it makes more sense if a requirement if a
development is required 50 percent that's their minimum and their maximum but they can exceed
that 50 to 125 additional total that is total parking spaces but between 50 and 62.5 or 63
they would need to comply with ice swim standards what staffs were proposing is that we remove that
125 and just anything above 50 spaces would require ice swim so basically eliminating that 125
and just have the developer or development comply with ice swim standards anything above the minimum
does that make sense and if i'm not making it clear
may hopefully maybe richard can help me with this
yeah i just don't see any time whenever we're gonna have i just don't see why any any builder
would put want to put more parking spaces on land that they could end up using it developing into
their building or their property and if the ice swim standards is there i think that that's that's
plenty enough um guidelines for parking minimums and maximums and it for it just seems more like
it's a redundancy that 125 is a redundancy that's in the code that eliminating it would just clean
it up really is the only way i see it i don't really see it hurting or helping in any way but
i'm more willing to hear from you ron from richard if that 125 that originally got put into the code
for 2019 if that number came from somewhere that was a case study that was something that we we
needed to have that 125 in there or if that was just kind of more of a protection to make sure that
somebody who's doing a new development isn't building a whole lot of parking spaces i don't
see the whole lot of logic in somebody building way more parking spaces than they truly need
and using up land that doesn't it doesn't seem like that's something they would do in the first
place but right and and they would also need to comply with you know the landscaping requirements
so there's a balance there right but trying to answer your question and richard may also
know a little bit more but prior to 2019 the parking requirement was a min max basically
you're required to provide this much you can exceed or below go below if you want to go below
you need a zoning you need a variance if you need if you propose something above we often process
those as alternative development plans and so since we removed those alternative development plans
we felt that uh adding that 25 above the the minimum was was uh what we saw adp's requesting
and so that's how i think we got we got to 25 but what we're seeing now is that um you know
that 125 may not even be necessary um but to your point tim you know we do see some developments
requesting more than 125 um in in larger developments um such as the shopping center
and that and the like but those are those situations um and i and i some would catch that
and i think we'll catch yeah the 125 and if we remove the 125 then they would also catch
anything above uh the minimum yeah i think it just i think it just seems like it's a redundancy and
confusing language in the code that minimums x if you want to go more than that comply by this one
as well as all the other regulations there's like landscaping so right they would still have to have
the minimum landscape and all the other tree requirements um with that parking lot yep
yeah i'm i'm in agreement with that as well of the two cases i know of where it was
you know major issue one was an association uh out of the 380 that when they'd have their meetings
they needed additional parking and another one was a church and so if they wanted additional
parking and they followed the ice swim you know it shouldn't shouldn't be as many hoops that they
have to jump through right i think it still meets the the intent of you know making sure that our
stormwater system is protected and you know uh while while providing the parking that they need
richard was there anything that you can think of that that may help no i i that's kind of what i
recall and i think we also looked at cities that had kind of best practices that still had that
maximum and that tend that 125 kind of tended to be the uh what a lot of other cities were using but
again with with what's being proposed i think it takes takes care of that in addition
we are up you know modifying some of our uh parking standards to begin with the ratios
and so i think this along with updating those standards um will resolve a lot of the issues
we had we had some offices where very small offices you know four or five thousand square
feet that quite honestly didn't have enough parking um to even have their employees park
and so it was kicking them into a whole other category and so this will correct that
right yeah and we'll get into some of the uh some of the other corrections with regards to the
parking ratios in the next few slides um so hopefully that between that and in in the ice
wind requirements i think uh we we can get to where uh development would would not need to
apply for a variance or you know additional requests to to get their parking to where
they need to be so i go ahead and get um the next slide up so we discussed this
uh another thing that we want to add is for mixed use developments um currently the way the mixed
use works now is it only applies to an infill area of the city what we're proposing is that
we have a standard mixed use development parking option or incentive that is probably a better word
where the director can reduce the total parking spaces by 25 percent because of the mixed use
right because they either have non-overlapping needs so that if there was an office building
you know are in use during the day and then restaurant or other uses during the night
that parking space can be reduced where they would you know not have to have a number of uses so and
this would be the opposite in terms of extending the maximum this is something that we would allow
again through a director's approval and actually there will be a review in consideration before
that so the policy question to the dcrc is should there be a reduction for minimum parking
requirements for mixed use developments up to 25 percent and again um this would be for citywide
any i would be in agreement with it i mean it's at the director's discretion we're
we're starting to see that less and less vehicles i mean if you um i know for for us parking at the
apartments used to be you know every space was full and now you know it's about a half filled lot
because so many students aren't aren't driving cars and it's we're just moving to a different
modes of transportation type society whether it's uber or you know or buses or biking or what have you
right and and just to just add to that chair um you know again with the mixed use you know
that's something that as far as the the not the need but rather you know some of the developments
that we're seeing across the metroplex you know that it's something that if we continue in that
trend we will see more the mixed use development so not just in the infill area but outside of
that infill area so that this is where this is going to apply to okay any other comments
okay um the next slide we're going to get into the actual parking ratios
so we we agree to remove the maximum 125 uh and and have ice women deal or be the the tool in
order to review against and then add some mixed use or add a mixed use incentives for areas within
the city all right so the next few slides are are going to be related to the parking ratio
the minimum parking ratio that is for off-street parking and it's by use and this first one is for
the uses that you see here townhome duplex triplex fourplex what we currently have is shown here
struck through and what staff is proposing and again this is something that probably needs to be
further discussed with the dcrc we'll use townhomes for example in a townhome development
one space for each bedroom we know that most townhomes have two to three bedrooms
so we're just looking to provide a parking space for each bedroom the same for duplexes
we see duplexes as two to three bedrooms so again the parking space would be related to
the number of bedrooms for triplex where there is a little bit more involved as far as what's in the
area i'm sorry within the development there is multiple places where a triplex is located
it's one space for each bedroom plus one guest parking this one we probably need to talk through
a little bit more because with a triplex and a fourplex those are individual lots so there may
not be the 10 spaces again for fourplex and triplex so i think overall what we're trying to get to is
that the parking spaces for these uses would be more suited if they were one space for each bedroom
again right now i don't know if this will work as far as the 10 spaces because we won't be able to
get to 10 spaces unless you know a triplex has three bedrooms four bedrooms whatever it may be
if all three had four bedrooms that would be over 10 and they may need to add one spaces but
something to discuss and maybe one or two guest parking isn't going to make a difference but
wanted to get the committee's input on this proposal for these four uses
i mean i know that there's probably not too many one bedrooms or efficiencies amongst
these types of of units now you might have more on the fourplex or triplex but i would say what
we currently use for multifamily as far as their requirements which is a one bedroom or efficiency
is 1.25 spaces and for two bedrooms or more it's one per bedroom developments with more than 10 units
guest parking shall be 10 percent of required number of parking spaces
so and i think that that just helps with the we have one bedroom units that might have two
people living there you're adding that extra quarter that's the reason that we went with that
on the multifamily that just kind of groups it all together because you can have multiple duplexes on
on a single lot if i'm correct um technically it should be on a lot itself one duplex should be on
one lot if there were multiple duplexes say five or you know three or four duplexes that would
qualify as a multifamily development on one lot
makes sense so duplex technically is supposed to be on one single lot as defined
but but i see your point as far as say the triplexes and fourplex you know if there were
if it was 1.25 per bedroom for one bedrooms um if they were to develop yeah the likelihood though
i mean you could probably won't you probably won't see a one bedroom for duplex or townhome
but for triplex and fourplex you might see it um and maybe because of it being one
and multiple people living there maybe 1.25 or we set a minimum of two so minimum of two with
um in an initial parking spaces for anything above two bedrooms maybe it gets us there
tim go ahead or the uh the ron the uh or the the assumptions for bedrooms and those triplexes and
fourplexes that you guys were using to configure that was it two bedroom i mean three bedroom
triplexes and three bedroom quadplexes don't really uh i don't really think we see many of those if
any of them doesn't seem like it does exist but um so the ones i i've seen have been minimum two
um uh i mean we can certainly look at the stock that we have but the most of the triplex and
fourplex that we have in the city have been older developments um i don't think we've seen any new
ones uh recently to to give you uh i think i think something along the lines of um of one one spot per
uh per bedroom and then a one one guest spot per dwelling unit seems kind of closer to to something
i would i would think would be enough where you have that's where you're not you know that seems
like more than enough to me but i'd be interested to see what our stock is of our triplexes and
quadplexes and what that looks like um just getting seeing if there have been proposals or projects or
if that's even feasible for someone to do a bunch of three bedroom uh three bedroom triplexes or
three bedroom quadplexes like that that then you start getting into the weight and to a lot of
parking but i think one one unit one parking spot per for bedroom and then one one guest parking
spot per unit seems like more than enough to me so so when you say per unit for for a triplex that
would be three yes okay and then even and then even putting in a um well it wouldn't even make
sense to be redundant at that point yeah so three three guest spots per dwelling unit with no minimum
because if it's a triplex or quadplex it would be then it'll be three or four so right so for the for
those two uses as far as a townhome and duplex what are your thoughts there i think the way i think
the way you guys are proposing it seems perfectly fine to me okay our comments um yeah because prior
to 2019 that a triplex or fourplex would have fallen under multi-family anyhow because we didn't
have those in our codes and right it's where work kind of made sense to just use that multi-family
standard right and i see your point there chair however you know we haven't seen a lot of those
triplexes fourplex i mean we had you know they were defaulted to multi-family but truly uh ones
that are triplexes fourplex by definition i don't think we've seen any we can certainly uh i can get
that information in or you know pull up ones that we've uh have developed in in the last
years i i don't know of any um in the last two years of a triplex or fourplex that have developed
there may have been one redevelopment off of uh south of town of an existing fourplex
due to a fire but none that i saw that are are new developments okay well i know that there's some
garden style homes that are kind of a duplexed type thing that are going to be ones and one and
two bedrooms that will be developed before too long i would think that that you'll end up with
those one bedroom situations so in that okay so what we're what we're saying is if it was a one
bedroom um are we saying 1.25 um and then anything and then anything above one bedroom would be one
per bedroom correct yeah and so i would i would think that we would have to round up so if you had
you ended up with one one bedroom on there they're actually going to end up needing two spaces
if everything else was two bedrooms in there they're going to be one per bedroom
so so maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's two space for a one bedroom a minimum of two spaces
because you're going to round up anyways and then anything above to one additional parking space
i think that's what we have for duplexes in the prior code yeah two yeah two bedrooms or more
would be one space per bedroom okay and if there's one it'd be two yeah one or an efficiency
more efficiency yeah
so so we have that um for duplexes and um town homes and then for triplexes and fourplexes
what commissioner smith mentioned could apply um in those situations for the additional guest parking
for or
i don't i don't see unless we want to add the instances where there is a one bedroom
triplex or one bedroom fourplex
but again what i understand from i think even i think even then ron started to cut you off is
that if it was a one bedroom triplex one better quadplex it'd be the same thing as
as what um councilman ryan is saying is that it still technically means a one bedroom triplex
would be two spaces per unit which would be the same thing as one space per bed per bedroom and
then one space per dwelling unit for guest parking so kind of kind of six and one and a half dozen
the other okay so i can um let me draft the i i hear what you all were saying what the dcrc is
saying um with regards to the one bedroom and maybe apply that to all four of the uses but with
the triplex and fourplex specifically add the guest parking per unit one per unit does that make sense
does okay and if it doesn't i'll bring it back and you can actually see it because i know it's kind
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
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
o'clock and i know that was a lot of information i appreciate the input that you all have provided
um i've got a couple things that we will be bringing forward but um we'll hold off the next
few slides and again it's still related to parking so we'll continue our discussion
as it as it relates to parking but i know that we have a couple items we want to run by
um the committee committee before we convene this meeting so um that that concludes at least this
portion of the agenda john if you want to head on to the next item yeah the next item is concluding
items and uh one of our members has said that they have to leave at one o'clock each each day
so we're wondering if an 11 to one would meeting on wednesdays would work better for for anyone or
work worse for anyone yes party i i can do that okay if we need to do that if that's better okay
and i'm fine with it also okay and that way when if we do start meeting in person again
we can also order lunch monica's like
all right anything else any other concluding items all right then i will
adjourn this meeting at 205 pm on april 28th thank you everybody see you all see you soon