WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.040 Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee. 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. 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 00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:25.800 of the minutes from the 14th of April, 2021. 00:00:25.800 --> 00:00:30.680 Do we have a motion? Margie? 00:00:30.680 --> 00:00:33.400 >> Move approval. >> All right. 00:00:33.400 --> 00:00:37.720 I have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second. 00:00:37.720 --> 00:00:39.720 >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. 00:00:39.720 --> 00:00:47.240 All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye. 00:00:47.240 --> 00:00:49.800 >> Aye. >> Any opposed? 00:00:49.800 --> 00:00:52.440 All right. Motion carries unanimously. 00:00:53.080 --> 00:00:56.440 The next item on the agenda is receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:00:56.440 --> 00:01:00.760 give staff direction regarding proposed code amendments related to nonconforming 00:01:00.760 --> 00:01:06.600 site features, accessory dwelling units, and subchapter 7 of the development standards. 00:01:06.600 --> 00:01:09.080 Ron, it's all yours. >> Great. Good afternoon, 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. 00:01:13.560 --> 00:01:20.840 Bring this to the top of the presentation. 00:01:23.720 --> 00:01:25.560 Hopefully, you all can see my presentation. 00:01:25.560 --> 00:01:33.320 As Chair mentioned, we will be talking about the nonconforming site features. 00:01:33.320 --> 00:01:39.880 This was a question or request from our last meeting related to accessory dwelling units 00:01:39.880 --> 00:01:45.320 and parking, so we'll have some discussion on site features, and then continue our discussion 00:01:45.320 --> 00:01:49.480 with the accessory dwelling units related to the number of bedrooms. 00:01:49.480 --> 00:01:54.600 I've prepared an exhaustive list of ADUs that we process. 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. 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 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. 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. 00:02:20.200 --> 00:02:28.600 The first three may not be time consuming. However, when we get into the landscaping, 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 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 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 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, 00:03:03.880 --> 00:03:10.920 what can we do in terms of ensuring that parking was provided for the single-family 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 00:03:19.880 --> 00:03:26.840 any existing residential structure or uses shall not be deemed nonconforming 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, 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 00:03:50.600 --> 00:03:56.680 would remain obviously legal and the additional requirement to have the additional two parking 00:03:56.680 --> 00:04:03.800 spaces would not create nonconformity for that structure, for that single family. So, again, 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, 00:04:10.680 --> 00:04:20.680 that home would remain as is, it would not be nonconforming. That being said, the following 00:04:20.680 --> 00:04:29.080 section also in that subchapter, it relates to nonconforming site features. That home, although 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 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 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 00:04:53.080 --> 00:05:01.400 would have to add on to that site for that additional parking spaces. So, that basically 00:05:01.400 --> 00:05:06.360 is how we would address the parking issue. Again, if there was a single family home 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, 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 00:05:20.680 --> 00:05:27.960 that accessory dwelling unit and not create any lesser parking for that single family home. 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. 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 00:05:46.920 --> 00:05:55.000 garage into a living space. And so, technically now they only have two parking spaces. 00:05:55.000 --> 00:06:02.360 But at the time that home was built, the home only required two spaces. So, 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, 00:06:14.440 --> 00:06:22.760 that parking space requirement changed. And now all of the single family, any new single family 00:06:22.760 --> 00:06:29.960 requires four parking spaces. But again, as we discussed earlier, this home would not be 00:06:30.600 --> 00:06:36.920 a nonconforming use because again, it was legally constructed with the required parking spaces at 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 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 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. 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 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 00:07:15.240 --> 00:07:24.680 if there were any lack of parking, how do we address that with any proposed ADUs? 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 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 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 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 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 00:08:06.360 --> 00:08:14.360 regardless. Well, yeah, we can certainly add that for more clarity. But again, per the sections, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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, 00:09:47.720 --> 00:09:53.880 yeah, totally understand that the need for additional parking would need to be provided. 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 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. 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. 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 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 00:10:28.280 --> 00:10:36.920 their one garage is. Yeah, I can see that. Any other questions, comments on that? 00:10:36.920 --> 00:10:43.560 So we'll add something to the general use specific standard related to 00:10:43.560 --> 00:10:49.560 the two parking spaces at a minimum, plus any additional if they don't have parking. 00:10:49.560 --> 00:10:58.200 And we'll work through that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Chair. Help me understand here 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 00:11:06.840 --> 00:11:14.120 talking about that with that previous structure and the current DDC. But the parking spaces in 00:11:14.120 --> 00:11:23.160 the garage are not counting towards that minimum? For the new construction, they would be counted. 00:11:23.160 --> 00:11:30.920 Yes. Good. What we were discussing is if the ones that were already built pre 2018, 00:11:30.920 --> 00:11:38.520 they can convert those and only were again approved to have only two parking spaces 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 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 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 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 00:12:04.600 --> 00:12:10.920 required four parking spaces plus the additional two parking spaces or however number of parking 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 00:14:26.120 --> 00:14:33.160 just north of town. And what they are proposing or have proposed and have gotten approval 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 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 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 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 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 00:15:11.320 --> 00:15:15.960 parking spaces along the driveway and then additional two parking spaces here if needed. 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, 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 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 00:15:39.720 --> 00:15:45.800 driveway here or this drive approach here. So this serves as that additional parking space. 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. 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 00:16:04.440 --> 00:16:12.280 illustration of where that entrance is. It is a one-story and again a one-bedroom 00:16:12.280 --> 00:16:17.640 ADU that's being proposed as part of this redevelopment or remodeling project. 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 00:17:46.360 --> 00:17:55.640 is add an additional parking space for this ADU proposed structure. How they do that, 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 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 00:18:13.480 --> 00:18:20.440 neighborhood area. This is located at 806 Allen Street. What the applicant is proposing is 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 00:19:23.160 --> 00:19:29.320 almost serving as a studio. In this particular case, because they are showing two separate 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, 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 00:19:47.160 --> 00:19:55.000 two parking spaces or apply two parking spaces, that would not be approvable. Again, in this 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 00:20:04.280 --> 00:20:11.720 submitted has not yet been approved. Based on the requirements of the DDC, two parking spaces, 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. 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 00:20:26.520 --> 00:20:31.480 today is shown here. They would need to provide an additional two parking spaces 00:20:32.280 --> 00:20:42.840 for this proposed ADU. This just talks a little bit about the bedroom count. Technically, 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 00:20:52.280 --> 00:20:59.800 can be located, in which case they would be counted as bedrooms for the parking requirement. 00:21:03.240 --> 00:21:13.000 So those are ones that have existing homes. The next few slides illustrate where a developer 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 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, 00:21:30.520 --> 00:21:38.440 just adjacent to the service center. This property was currently vacant, 818 and 820. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 00:22:41.160 --> 00:22:47.960 a one-bedroom ADU, so that is where that fifth parking space would be required. 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. 00:22:53.480 --> 00:22:59.480 You have the entrance here, the living area, kitchen, bathroom, and then the one bedroom. So 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 00:23:06.760 --> 00:23:13.720 the ADU that's behind the home, and you can see very similar and architecturally compatible 00:23:14.280 --> 00:23:25.560 features to match the main structure. This is some photos of what resulted out of this. 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 00:24:12.360 --> 00:24:18.920 two vacant lots and constructed two single family with two ADUs meeting the requirements, 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 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 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 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, 00:24:50.280 --> 00:24:55.320 and what I'm showing you here is 431, which is one of those lots. 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 00:25:03.640 --> 00:25:06.920 single-family homes that was shown off of Rose Street. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:25:51.480 --> 00:25:59.000 of a property owner developer looking at infill development and looking at, in this case, two 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 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, 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 00:26:28.280 --> 00:26:34.520 property owner and is being developed with multiple lots, a total of nine specifically, and those 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 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 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 00:27:04.520 --> 00:27:11.800 with an ADU. Again, the parking requirements do apply where they would need to provide four 00:27:11.800 --> 00:27:18.840 parking spaces for the main structure, and then however many parking spaces is required for the 00:27:18.840 --> 00:27:26.200 number of bedrooms. In this particular one, two bedrooms are proposed on each of these developments. 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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, 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 00:28:23.240 --> 00:28:30.760 ADU. So again, a different look. This one in particular has two bedrooms proposed. 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, 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, 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. 00:28:52.760 --> 00:29:03.720 This one is 1849, which is in the same location. They have somewhat a similar proposal, 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, 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. 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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 00:30:06.440 --> 00:30:14.200 therefore, two parking spaces in addition to the four would be required. And then just some 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 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, 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, 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 00:30:45.400 --> 00:30:52.280 here on Senna, which looks north towards Crow, currently is undeveloped and will be, and is 00:30:52.280 --> 00:30:57.720 currently being redeveloped or constructed with these types of single family and ADUs. 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, 00:31:10.760 --> 00:31:19.160 2018 I believe, where this is located on Fulton Street. This particular developer developed one 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 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 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 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 00:31:46.840 --> 00:31:52.040 garage. And then again, additional parking spaces in the middle to accommodate for that two parking 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:32:43.720 --> 00:32:55.160 607 Woodland, 1815 Greenwood, you know, 2223 North Locust and 2115 Glenwood. These specifically are 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 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 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 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. 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. 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, 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? 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 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 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. 00:34:11.160 --> 00:34:16.360 You know, you're already having two accessory dwelling units where he puts it at multifamily 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 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 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, 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? 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 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. 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 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, 00:35:08.600 --> 00:35:13.080 but we do have a building height limit. Mr. Chair, if I might? 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 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. 00:35:30.520 --> 00:35:31.800 That's all the questions I have. Thank you. 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 00:35:39.880 --> 00:35:46.600 mezzanine above and was that taller than the main structure? I think that's something we 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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? 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. 00:36:40.600 --> 00:36:47.160 Yeah, the shed, correct. So I know that when our proposal is to add 400. 00:36:47.160 --> 00:36:50.600 Let me just double check that real quick. 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 00:37:10.840 --> 00:37:20.440 over 10,000 square feet. So we do have again, that requirement, unfortunately, 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. 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 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, 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 00:37:52.360 --> 00:37:57.800 bring this forward to the full body of the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council. 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 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 00:38:19.240 --> 00:38:27.080 having a maximum bedroom count of two? Jesse, go ahead. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 00:39:08.920 --> 00:39:21.080 So I don't hear any other questions. I would agree with that. And, you know, 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 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. 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, 00:39:38.040 --> 00:39:41.640 yeah, I'm comfortable with the two-bedroom. 00:39:41.640 --> 00:39:48.520 I am too. The maximum of two-bedrooms. 00:39:48.520 --> 00:39:56.680 So Margie? Yeah, as I said last week too, I was for that as well. 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 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? 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? 00:40:24.760 --> 00:40:28.120 It currently does not have that limitation. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 00:41:36.680 --> 00:41:40.120 ways that they can, they can even sort of divide that property or, you know, 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 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 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. 00:42:04.840 --> 00:42:14.040 Okay, moving on to the discussion about applicability in terms of the development 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 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, 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 00:42:34.600 --> 00:42:42.280 discussion. Now there are two tiers where development standards apply and I will 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 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. 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 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. 00:43:11.080 --> 00:43:19.480 The diamond shape references only the development impact area where that development or that 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 00:43:25.880 --> 00:43:35.000 and you're only doing so much, you would need to comply with the development standards 00:43:35.000 --> 00:43:40.440 with landscaping screening buffer offenses only within that development impact area. 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 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 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 00:44:00.600 --> 00:44:08.360 part of that discussion, parking spaces in the strikethrough language, it currently says that 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 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 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 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 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 00:44:51.240 --> 00:44:57.400 space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguration, reconstructing or other similar 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:46:06.200 --> 00:46:13.880 case of a parking lot that's reconstructing, reconfiguring between 10 to 50% of their number 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 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. 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 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% 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 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, 00:47:10.200 --> 00:47:15.800 Chair Ryan, they would just need to comply with whatever development requirements or standards 00:47:15.800 --> 00:47:20.920 for that parking space, that one parking space, it would not trigger the entire site, 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 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, 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 00:47:45.880 --> 00:47:49.160 comply with all the requirements for the entire site at that point. 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. 00:48:03.800 --> 00:48:11.400 So this is just off of University's Primrose. It's a medical center. 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 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, 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 00:48:34.440 --> 00:48:41.080 concrete. So they're really improving this site. In this particular case, because they are doing 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 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 00:48:55.240 --> 00:49:03.800 business has 22 spaces and then they're reconstructing this site from asphalt to concrete. 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 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 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 00:49:33.160 --> 00:49:40.200 parking pretty much all around. What they have proposed and constructed are additional parking 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. 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 00:49:54.360 --> 00:50:00.360 towards the northwest of the building. So in total count, they were just under 50%, 00:50:00.360 --> 00:50:07.880 is my understanding. And therefore, their landscaping requirements only applied to the areas 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 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 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 00:50:33.000 --> 00:50:42.760 illustrate where that trigger is, where that threshold is in terms of applying to the entire 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 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 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, 00:51:09.800 --> 00:51:15.560 where they had to comply with the development standards. Because they were over 50% in terms 00:51:15.560 --> 00:51:23.480 of their building structure, the landscaping, parking, buffer, screen, all of that had to apply 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, 00:51:30.840 --> 00:51:38.360 they had to comply with the landscaping, the buffering, and the screening requirements. And 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 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, 00:51:49.800 --> 00:51:55.000 and also the screening that you see here. They've actually enhanced it by planting larger 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 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 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 00:52:20.920 --> 00:52:30.120 site looks prior to the redevelopment of that property. So I guess back to the question, 00:52:30.120 --> 00:52:40.600 I'll scroll back up to the proposed code amendment in relationship to parking spaces. 00:52:41.240 --> 00:52:48.600 Tier one, again, we're talking about just the development impact area, is the threshold 10, 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 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. 00:53:04.920 --> 00:53:11.480 But we wanted to go away from the six spaces and really focus on adding percentage 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% 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, 00:53:26.200 --> 00:53:39.240 or that would apply to the entire site. - Any thoughts, comments? 00:53:39.240 --> 00:53:51.400 - I can be in agreement with that. - Yeah, Molly thought on it again, 00:53:51.400 --> 00:53:55.960 kind of goes back to the small lots. What is our requirement for landscaping with 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, 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 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% 00:54:15.640 --> 00:54:22.200 would just need to comply with the landscaping requirements, the screening. I think for the most 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 00:54:27.720 --> 00:54:32.600 those few lots, whatever, I'm sorry, few spaces, whichever the amount is, 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 00:54:40.760 --> 00:54:48.840 of the parking lot must be landscaped? - So that would be part of the landscaping 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 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 00:55:02.440 --> 00:55:10.440 for the landscaping requirements for canopy. You may be asking to remove some landscaping area, 00:55:10.440 --> 00:55:16.200 sorry, concrete if there was any to add additional landscape area or just planting shrubs, again, 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 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, 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, 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, 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 00:55:51.640 --> 00:56:00.680 addressed two or three spaces. - So as an example, if someone 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, 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 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 00:56:22.280 --> 00:56:31.240 for that entire site. - And what happens if, because they now have to add additional landscaping, 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 00:56:39.320 --> 00:56:46.600 for spaces? - There's always an alternative landscape plan that we can consider 00:56:46.600 --> 00:56:56.120 administratively. In the case they can propose certain landscaping proposals that staff can 00:56:56.120 --> 00:57:02.840 review, Richard can consider as the director of planning. So in those situations, there is an 00:57:02.840 --> 00:57:10.040 option to go through that alternative landscape plan. - Okay. Then I'm probably okay with it, 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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, 00:58:31.560 --> 00:58:39.960 Commissioner Nellis, we currently have the requirement that it says six or greater or 50%. 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 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, 00:58:55.560 --> 00:59:04.840 that would automatically trigger a tier one. I'm sorry, tier two in this respect. 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 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 00:59:22.520 --> 00:59:29.240 them to conforming, but to enhance any opportunity we have. However, there are constraints in not 00:59:29.240 --> 00:59:36.520 only landscaping areas, but as I mentioned earlier, there is an alternative landscape 00:59:36.520 --> 00:59:43.160 plan option in these particular cases where they would need to provide alternative options 00:59:43.160 --> 00:59:48.360 or alternative proposals. And if they meet the intent of, again, providing the landscape 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 00:59:53.800 --> 00:59:59.800 there. As mentioned earlier, Richard, Director of Planning, has the opportunity or option 01:00:00.920 --> 01:00:08.120 to review and consider them. Can you give me an example of where 01:00:08.120 --> 01:00:15.080 you would consider something to be resurfacing versus reconstructing? I mean, if, again, that 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 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 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. 01:00:32.760 --> 01:00:37.880 That would probably be looked at as a reconstruct, 01:00:37.880 --> 01:00:44.920 since they're completely changing the surface from a gravel to a poured concrete. 01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:54.520 Sort of both, but more on the, they're completely reconstructing it really. 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 01:01:05.320 --> 01:01:20.360 just trying to upgrade your existing parking. The definitions of those two are resurface, 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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. 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 01:03:20.440 --> 01:03:26.360 looking at what's existing today says the alteration expansion, obviously this is 01:03:26.360 --> 01:03:29.800 something that we're going to have to amend, but when it gets to the number, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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%, 01:04:34.760 --> 01:04:39.000 would that also be something that we want to carry forward? 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 01:05:57.480 --> 01:06:09.000 from gravel to pavers, both are pervious surfaces, it wouldn't come into play. 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. 01:06:25.720 --> 01:06:32.840 Okay. If there's no other comments, questions, we'll move on to the next 01:06:32.840 --> 01:06:37.160 set of topics. And again, these are going to be fairly quick 01:06:37.160 --> 01:06:41.160 discussions, hopefully. And let me go ahead and share my screen again. 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 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 01:07:10.040 --> 01:07:17.400 understandable in terms of the code. Referencing, adding referencing. So I don't have any specific 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, 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 01:07:30.600 --> 01:07:39.160 ensure that any land disturbing activity also follows any water well or onsite sewage facilities 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 01:07:46.520 --> 01:07:57.960 mentioned or covered. This here just to help, again, identify additional plans or permits that 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, 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 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 01:08:20.040 --> 01:08:27.800 those that are looking at land disturbing activities. Jumping on to the next section, 01:08:27.800 --> 01:08:34.760 which is environmentally sensitive areas. This first one, and it has a policy question for the 01:08:34.760 --> 01:08:51.640 DCRC, FEMA often does provide an area where a floodplain is located. However, the addition here 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 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, 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 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 01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:40.520 study on its own studies, that also would apply for the environmental sensitive areas. So just 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, 01:09:48.040 --> 01:09:54.280 that that would be accepted to review against the environmental sensitive area. 01:09:58.600 --> 01:10:05.960 The next slide here just again clarifies parts of the permitted activity, permitted uses 01:10:05.960 --> 01:10:13.400 under environmentally sensitive areas within an undeveloped floodplain. Again, nothing specific 01:10:13.400 --> 01:10:20.680 here that we need from the DCRC. It is just more of providing clarity and clarification. 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 01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:39.240 sensitive. There were not many code amendments there, just again for clarity and reference 01:10:39.240 --> 01:10:45.960 purposes. The next section is landscaping, screening, buffering, and fencing. So this is 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 01:10:53.960 --> 01:11:00.360 certain things that needs more clarity, more understanding, and we want to certainly address 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, 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 01:11:24.200 --> 01:11:32.200 required to be submitted. So what you see here, anything that's again underlined 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, 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 01:11:45.160 --> 01:11:52.040 survey and preservation plan will be required with the preliminary plat or final plat if no 01:11:52.040 --> 01:11:57.880 preliminary plat is required for the following uses. So single-family dwellings, duplex, townhomes, 01:11:57.880 --> 01:12:04.200 triplex, and fourplexes. A tree survey and preservation plan will be required with the 01:12:04.200 --> 01:12:11.800 final plat or zoning compliance for any multi-family or non-residential. So again, 01:12:11.800 --> 01:12:20.600 the two differences here is that the residential components, the single-family, duplex, townhomes, 01:12:20.600 --> 01:12:28.040 triplex, fourplex would be required at preliminary plat while the multi-family and non-residential 01:12:28.040 --> 01:12:35.480 would be required during final plat. Letter C is a tree survey and preservation plan will 01:12:35.480 --> 01:12:42.360 be required with a tree removal permit if no development is occurring. So if someone is 01:12:42.360 --> 01:12:50.360 proposing to remove a tree or several trees through a tree removal permit, 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 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 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 01:13:08.840 --> 01:13:15.720 as letter B. So this is just to provide that additional information for applicants. 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 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 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 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 01:13:56.040 --> 01:14:02.600 been developed. So again just to provide the clarity that a tree survey preservation plan 01:14:02.600 --> 01:14:10.360 does have an expiration date. The policy question here for the DCRC is two years, 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 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. 01:14:22.040 --> 01:14:30.360 Margie? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think there should be an expiration date. 01:14:30.360 --> 01:14:37.720 And two years seems consistent with other expiration dates that we have. So 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:15:49.800 --> 01:16:01.160 a full six months without working on it. That's true. Okay any other comments? 01:16:01.160 --> 01:16:09.320 Okay I'm in agreement with the limitation for two years that sounds good. 01:16:09.320 --> 01:16:17.720 Looks like we can proceed on from there. That's good. 01:16:20.680 --> 01:16:24.760 Okay we'll go on to the next slide here. 01:16:24.760 --> 01:16:38.120 So this particular code amendment here is related to the number of points 01:16:38.120 --> 01:16:48.920 that is required for landscaping specifically for parking. There is a total of 30 points 01:16:49.640 --> 01:16:57.240 that is required percentages in addition to the landscape area and the tree canopy 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:17:57.960 --> 01:18:08.280 for all parking areas we have proposed that 30 points would be applicable for developments 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 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 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 01:18:26.360 --> 01:18:33.960 developments that have come in with parking structures and they still need to meet that 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 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 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 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 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 01:19:21.960 --> 01:19:26.200 I can certainly bring that back or if you all have any questions 01:19:27.400 --> 01:19:38.120 with this or think this is sufficient we can move forward 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:21:04.360 --> 01:21:12.840 on another part of the landscaping screening buffering section is related to street trees 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 01:21:25.640 --> 01:21:32.200 is that the street tree requirements is in is in addition to the following right away 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 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 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 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 01:22:02.360 --> 01:22:10.040 family and another number for another list or another linear feet for non-residential that is 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 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 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 01:22:35.960 --> 01:22:42.520 so this again is just more clarification is what we do now is practice 01:22:42.520 --> 01:22:46.040 we just wanted to make sure it's clearly stated for applicants 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:35.000 or fence for that development all materials include masonry, wrought iron, steel, which is 01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:41.240 again wrought iron, steel, aluminum, or other materials so any of the materials such as steel, 01:24:41.240 --> 01:24:50.280 aluminum, material or other material that is a wrought iron look can be used we eliminated 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 01:26:13.080 --> 01:26:20.520 and they are required to provide a fence and or wall along that right away 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:27:53.160 --> 01:28:02.520 altogether again we're talking about you know perimeter fences in major subdivisions like you 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 01:28:08.440 --> 01:28:17.800 main perimeter of that development any thoughts or comments 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:30:14.680 --> 01:30:21.240 as these new developments come online do we want to have that um 01:30:23.800 --> 01:30:28.360 the brick or stone style is more of what we're actually requiring people to do 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 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 01:30:47.800 --> 01:30:53.240 uh and and limited it essentially to masonry and wrought iron or a combination thereof 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 01:31:00.760 --> 01:31:06.040 accent wood material and include include some of those examples maybe that that that helps 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:32:17.480 --> 01:32:21.720 with the mpc right there that's a different requirement for that particular development 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 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 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 01:32:43.160 --> 01:32:50.520 that wood is still unallowed use for perimeter however pending that discussion where we shared 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:35:19.240 --> 01:35:34.200 particular streets. Oops sorry. So again most of these are um actually additions but in practice 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 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 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 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 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 01:36:20.360 --> 01:36:28.360 responsibility sometimes isn't clear and the proposal here is that perimeter walls and our 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 01:36:40.360 --> 01:36:49.560 a plan or uh maintenance plan that is for maintaining that wall and or fences. 01:36:49.560 --> 01:36:56.120 We also have property owner associations this is for non-residential uses so this applies to 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 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 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 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 01:37:25.320 --> 01:37:28.040 or maintained. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:38:40.760 --> 01:38:48.040 recently approved and also share some exhibits related to what perimeter okay good thanks 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 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 01:39:09.720 --> 01:39:11.880 some direction from the DCRC. So 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 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 01:39:41.240 --> 01:39:50.440 of 50 spaces their maximum they they can exceed 50 so basically it's either 50 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 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 01:40:18.840 --> 01:40:30.120 additional above the 50 has to be in compliance with certain requirements specifically ice swim 01:40:30.120 --> 01:40:41.640 and other standards so the question for the committee is should the existing 125 percent 01:40:41.640 --> 01:40:49.800 maximum be eliminated and any spaces above the minimum be in accordance with ice swim standards 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 01:40:57.320 --> 01:41:04.040 development is required 50 percent that's their minimum and their maximum but they can exceed 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 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 01:41:25.880 --> 01:41:35.240 125 and just anything above 50 spaces would require ice swim so basically eliminating that 125 01:41:35.240 --> 01:41:44.840 and just have the developer or development comply with ice swim standards anything above the minimum 01:41:44.840 --> 01:41:50.280 does that make sense and if i'm not making it clear 01:41:50.280 --> 01:41:56.440 may hopefully maybe richard can help me with this 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:43:38.120 --> 01:43:43.560 those as alternative development plans and so since we removed those alternative development plans 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 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 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 01:44:08.120 --> 01:44:15.720 requesting more than 125 um in in larger developments um such as the shopping center 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 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 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 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 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 01:44:45.160 --> 01:44:52.280 the minimum landscape and all the other tree requirements um with that parking lot yep 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 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 01:45:08.920 --> 01:45:14.920 they needed additional parking and another one was a church and so if they wanted additional 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 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 01:45:25.160 --> 01:45:33.080 stormwater system is protected and you know uh while while providing the parking that they need 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:46:15.880 --> 01:46:21.720 feet that quite honestly didn't have enough parking um to even have their employees park 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 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 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 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 01:46:47.080 --> 01:46:53.720 apply for a variance or you know additional requests to to get their parking to where 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 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 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 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 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 01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:54.120 right because they either have non-overlapping needs so that if there was an office building 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 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 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 01:48:14.840 --> 01:48:20.840 again through a director's approval and actually there will be a review in consideration before 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:49:55.000 --> 01:50:05.400 okay um the next slide we're going to get into the actual parking ratios 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:51:05.480 --> 01:51:12.280 further discussed with the dcrc we'll use townhomes for example in a townhome development 01:51:12.280 --> 01:51:19.720 one space for each bedroom we know that most townhomes have two to three bedrooms 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 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 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 01:51:48.600 --> 01:51:55.960 area i'm sorry within the development there is multiple places where a triplex is located 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:52:54.280 --> 01:53:00.920 wanted to get the committee's input on this proposal for these four uses 01:53:00.920 --> 01:53:10.680 i mean i know that there's probably not too many one bedrooms or efficiencies amongst 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 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 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 01:53:32.600 --> 01:53:36.520 guest parking shall be 10 percent of required number of parking spaces 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 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 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 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 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 01:54:23.880 --> 01:54:27.080 qualify as a multifamily development on one lot 01:54:27.080 --> 01:54:36.520 makes sense so duplex technically is supposed to be on one single lot as defined 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 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 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 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 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 01:55:18.600 --> 01:55:25.480 um in an initial parking spaces for anything above two bedrooms maybe it gets us there 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:58:27.240 --> 01:58:35.880 there may have been one redevelopment off of uh south of town of an existing fourplex 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:59:34.440 --> 01:59:38.520 if everything else was two bedrooms in there they're going to be one per bedroom 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 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 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 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 02:00:11.560 --> 02:00:14.520 more efficiency yeah 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 02:00:26.680 --> 02:00:33.560 what commissioner smith mentioned could apply um in those situations for the additional guest parking 02:00:33.560 --> 02:00:35.880 for or 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 02:00:46.600 --> 02:00:50.600 triplex or one bedroom fourplex 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:02:23.400 --> 02:02:28.200 few slides and again it's still related to parking so we'll continue our discussion 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:03:16.920 --> 02:03:22.600 we can also order lunch monica's like 02:03:22.600 --> 02:03:32.440 all right anything else any other concluding items all right then i will 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