May 05, 2021 Development Code Review Committee on 2021-05-05 11:00 AM

Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee. We do have a quorum present. It is 1108 on Wednesday, May the 5th, 2021. So we'll get started on our items for individual consideration. The first item up is consider approval of the minutes from April 28th, 2021. Tim, go ahead. Make a motion to approve. Okay. We have a motion. Margie? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say, "Hi." Hi. Hi. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Next item is receive, item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding proposed code amendments related to accessory dwelling units and subchapter seven of development standards. Ron, it's all yours. Great. Thank you, Chair. I'll go ahead and start bringing my presentation notice. Hopefully, you all can see the presentation. Go ahead and get started. As Chair Ryan mentioned, we're going to start off with accessory dwelling units and then get into some of our discussions related to development standards, landscaping, and others listed here. The first thing I wanted to bring up with the DCRC is really the accessory dwelling unit relates to the following general requirements. We moved the minimum, I'm sorry, minimum 400 square feet to general, so it applies for both lots that are less than 10,000 and more than 10,000. Any accessory dwelling unit proposed has to be more than 400, 400 or more. I also moved the number of limited bedrooms, the two maximum bedrooms to general. Again, that applies to both the lots 10,000 or less or 10,000 or more, so that again is under general. We also added the letter G to general where any accessory dwelling unit proposed is required to have a minimum of two parking spaces for the principal use. In addition to the required parking space for the accessory dwelling unit itself. For instances, if there is a home that has a garage and a one car driveway and they close off the garage and they only have one parking via the driveway, they will need to add another space for the principal use, the single family, and any parking required for that ADU, so potentially a third parking space for that property. Hopefully, that makes sense. That's to address the minimum of two parking spaces for that dwelling unit. There are instances where there will not be any room to place three at a minimum parking spaces on a property, a single family that we know we have some along Oak, a lot of them are the older lots within the infill area that are smaller in general. What staff is proposing, and this is just, it hasn't been fully flushed out yet, but we were discussing this just earlier this morning about a potential option for those situations where the lots are too small, specifically in the front, to place three car garage and still meet the landscaping requirements. We've put in an option for an SUP and in those instances, those costs are cost related for the development review for those areas that cannot put parking that is required, there is an option for an SUP to see some ways to still meet the intent and not impact the parking situation of that area. So again, G is to address the minimum parking spaces for the principal use to make sure that a minimum of two is part of that ADU proposal. A letter I is related to the height of the accessory dwelling units, I know we spoke about this in our last meeting where there was a question about how tall a structure can be. I mentioned that it would need to follow the minimum, I'm sorry, the maximum building height for that zoning district, but we wanted to make sure that two stories was the max no matter what. If the single family dwelling unit is one story and has a garage and they convert that garage or add to that garage a second floor accessory dwelling unit, they could. But that's the max as two stories. Or say they have a two story bed single family or one story single family and they want to add a two story accessory dwelling units, they could. Again, the max would be two story in that or in those situations. Before I move on, does anybody have any questions on this so we can move on to the next topic? Commissioner Smith. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Ron, I think the two story maximum, I know we talked about it very briefly at the end last meeting, I think that's something we would want to limit and I don't know if maybe it's really what the conversation was, if there's a one story main house or one story primary dwelling unit, that the accessory dwelling unit shouldn't be any more stories than the main residence that's on that property. So I don't know if changing that lingo to being two stories or the same amount of floors as the primary residence, whichever is less. That wording is obviously not very clean, but you know what I'm trying to say there. Yeah, yeah. I guess maybe that's a, I guess we need some direction from the DCRC. Is that what we want or do we want to just set a max, you know, general of two stories or do we want to have a different, other than two max, to where it follows the single family dwelling unit, whatever that story is, then that additional accessory dwelling unit has to match. But again, instances where there's garages, I mean, again, where do you want, where is the DCRC? Yeah, and I guess a follow up question to your point. If they built a, if they took an attic and converted it into another dwelling unit, would that count as an accessory dwelling unit at that point in time? And if that's the case, is it now counted as a two story, even though it's in the attic of a one story home? Does that make sense? I don't know where the delineation is. That becomes two story by converting an attic into a living space as an outcome, two stories overnight. I don't know what the, how that's seen within the code. Yeah. That's a good question. I'm trying to think where we, we've had instances where folks converted, you know, an upper floor. I'm drawing a blank because we don't have a lot of those. Most of the accessory dwelling units have been detached or attached by, you know, on the side, not necessarily above. And I know that, I know the zoning has height requirements, it's going to keep us safe there, but I just would hate to have, I'd hate to have the code be open for a, you know, a neighborhood that is primarily single story to then add on a detached or attached accessory dwelling unit that is then two stories out of nowhere and neighbors without any, without any repercussions or any say whatsoever in it, now have a two story home or two story unit behind them or in front of them that they weren't originally expecting. So I, I personally feel like that if it's a one story home, a detacher or an attached accessory building unit should be limited to the amount of stories the house has. If it's already two stories, then two stories fine, with two stories being the max. That seems, that seems to be safer in the code for me, but I don't know that if we write it that way, if it then limits things like a one story home converting an attic into an accessory dwelling unit, if that would be an issue. Richard, do you want to reply and then we'll go to Commissioner Roselle after that? Yep. Just wanted to provide just some clarification. So we, within the 2019 DDC, we only regulate by feet. So whether or not they would convert it, it wouldn't, really wouldn't matter. But for single family, most of our, I think almost all of our single family districts, it's 40 feet is the max height. Rarely do we have it, but in some instances we do have accessory structures that we do see exceed the primary structure. Sometimes there are, there are RV, you know, garages someone might build for an RV or workshop that sometimes do exceed that height. So just wanted to bring that as well as, you know, in the R1 and even RR we do at times have barns for, you know, new barns under construction, which obviously exceed a one story ranch house that's typically on the site. So just wanted to, just wanted to bring that up. Thank you, Richard. Andrew, did you have something to add? Yeah, my only clarification to Commissioner Smith's point was to regulate it in feet because stories you could have pitched roofs, different heights and stuff like that. So Richard actually clarified it. So I guess looking for direction, ultimately we obviously will need to bring this up and maybe have that discussion with the full P&Z and full city council, but do we want to limit the accessory dwelling units to the height and stories to match the single family or do we just want to set a max of two stories? I think the, I think the height, I think what Commissioner Rosell said is correct. The height is a better way to do it. But if, if in any single family residential zoning that we've got, we have height requirements that yes, pitching can be beneath 40 feet, we could have a two story. I just would, I would really hate it if it's a single family residential home that's on there. That's, that's a single story that's well beneath 40 and then they put someone builds a detached accessory dwelling unit or an attached accessory dwelling unit that is still under 40, but now it's two stories and neighbors around them, that, that, that property owner is able to build that by right. Neighbors around them are, we're not expecting that or they're now harmed by having that being done so. I would, I'd rather see it be 40, 40 feet, not exceeding the amount of stories that the primary residents have. That's the way I'd like to see the code and obviously saying 40 feet isn't needed because that's already in the code. Right. That's, that's loud. I mean, that's pretty, that's, yeah, yeah, I would, I would probably say this might be another, cause you brought up the option of using an SGP on the parking earlier. This might be, you know, cannot exceed the height of the main dwelling, right? Without an SGP. So that way there is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on it because it might be that the way they're going to solve their parking issue is to put, build a two car garage with an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor. And so PNZ and council need to kind of look at that and see, you know, are they now being able to look into the neighbors backyard, you know, do we need to have further setback because, you know, just like we do with taller apartments that they have to set back a certain distance from single family residential, we're limiting it there. I think that's a great idea. And again, the, the costs, you know, we've identified for ADUs we've, we've, we've, we're thinking about grouping it into the smaller or the, the lesser amount of fee associated with an SGP typically an SGP, regular SGP is, is roughly around $8,000. However, with, with certain uses such as infill or anything that we, you know, we're trying to incentivize it's a lesser amount of things around $600. So it's a tremendous amount less than, than what a regular SGP, I guess, would cost. So that could be an option as well. I mean, that's certainly, we can, we can bring that as a potential option to address the height or stories from accessory dwelling units. Margie. Thank you, chair. I think what I just would like to add, I understand this discussion for like densely populated single family residential neighborhoods, but I do question if we want to do that when we get more into rural areas where an accessory dwelling units certainly might exceed the ranch style home that is on an estate size property. So I, I'd want us to give us some careful thoughts that we're not handcuffing those types of properties and putting this type of restriction in. I would definitely agree with that. That's, that's why I thought maybe bringing in that SGP process that they still can do it. They just have to, you know, you know, $600 when you're building that is not that much of a cost added, but it allows us to take a look at it and make sure that there's not something else about it. That's going to cause an issue for the neighborhood. And I guess wouldn't preclude them from doing it then if we could take a look at it, right. Any other comments on that is, Mayor Pro Tem. Just to weigh in in favor, you know, something like ADU won't exceed the height of the primary use structure without an SGP, don't have to worry about counting stories, don't have to worry about what's a garage and what's an apartment. Just if you're going to be taller than the main house, get an SGP. And I like, I like that we're thinking outside the box and trying to give them that lower fee structure. Okay, I appreciate that. I've got this, the information I need to put together some, some of the options or at least a draft for, for us to move forward with with the ADUs. Any other questions? I'll go ahead and pull back my presentation. So we'll go ahead and again, this, this will be actually updated to reflect our discussion and move on to the next topic is related to our applicability table and when tier one areas are required for parking reconfiguration reconstruction or other similar projects identified here in the red is what we have drafted in response to the discussions we've had in the last couple of meetings. I'm going to read it out loud and then try to explain and provide some examples. So for tier one parking space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguring reconstructing or other similar projects that impact 50% or more of the existing parking lots greater than 10 spaces. So any parking lot with 10 spaces would not apply, period. However, if you have 10 or more parking spaces and you are impacting that by either reconfiguring reconstructing or other projects of 50% or more, then the trigger for tier one applies. I hope that makes sense. So if you have a 20 space parking lot and it's over 10, so this applies and you want to reconstruct or add, you know, affecting basically 11 spaces, then you would have to apply tier one requirements to those 11 spaces because it only applies to the development impact area where that reconstruction or reconfiguration is occurring. Does that make sense? Does that need further clarification? Another example, we landed with 10 primarily because when we look at the parking lot requirements for landscaping, 10 was the trigger for adding a parking island tree associated with that. So 10 seemed to be the number that was most suitable for this. And again, wanting to address the smaller businesses, smaller lots, and 10 was again a number that we felt would not be impacted if you were to look at some of the businesses say downtown or in other areas that are smaller in nature, they won't be as impacted as much. Those that have more than 10 or greater typically have the ability in the area to accommodate for the landscaping requirements. So before I move on, I think that was the only clarification. I know there was another one that the chair in the DCRC brought up and that's regarding the reconstruction discussion on use of material from our follow up in discussions with Scott and Richard, any parking lot that is demoed or completely under construction and reconstructed to whatever material that would constitute reconstructing. So that is to clarify the definition. If there is a resurfacing or restriping where they're simply topping it with additional slurry or whatnot and then restriping it, that would not count under this provision. So any major reconstruction would apply. So let me close this so I can see, are there any questions regarding that new recommendation or proposed draft? I don't see any so I'll go ahead and continue with PowerPoint presentation. This was just, just wanted to make sure if we needed to talk about this, but we do not there's not any changes to tier two that we haven't already discussed. This is just to illustrate the 10 spaces where parking lot landscaping was mentioned earlier in my discussion and we've already seen this table. All right, the next item for discussion is, it says landscaping screen buffering fences, but really it's the perimeter walls and fence adjacent to a front public right away. And these are primarily what you see along major arterials or collectors. And before we get into the language, let me just share a slide real quick to illustrate where we are talking, what we're talking about. So the red is the perimeter fence and wall area that we will be discussing in a few minutes. Everything that is not red that potentially has a fence or wall is not adjacent to a right away an arterial or collector, therefore it would not apply. So we're just talking about the red line or red area within a subdivision. And this could be both residential or commercial. So if there's a commercial development and has for whatever reason, a wall or fence, it would be only applicable to those that are along an arterial or collector. So I'll go back up to what is required for those developments, for new developments, that is. I'll go ahead and read A and hopefully, again, if it makes sense, I'll provide some examples and we do have some photos that we can share if we need to. For new development, allowable materials, again, this is for fences and walls adjacent to public right away, include masonry slash concrete, wrought iron, which could be made up of steel, aluminum of other material, elevated and elevated 12 inches minimum masonry concrete and wood. So masonry concrete is one, wrought iron is two, elevated 12 inches minimum masonry and wood is three. Those are your options or you can have a combination of all three or all the materials listed. So let me go ahead and share some examples and we can come back to this just to give you all an idea of what we're talking about. So what I've put together, what I have from a presentation back in April of last year, made this presentation to the city council, I believe during a work session, we were talking about perimeter walls and fences and at that time, the goal was to look at materials, setbacks, as well as maintenance responsibilities. So here's two examples of a residential subdivision. The one to your left is one that does not have an HOA and rather, it is maintained by the homeowners and you can see based on just looking here, they've got three different applications or applications, I guess, maintenance of the wood and they're all at different times. Well the one to the right, Allison Park is under an HOA and they obviously have more of a consistent maintenance and look to their wood fences. Just some examples around town, this is mainly down south of the city, Teasley Trails and Ryan Meadows, you see that the masonry, all masonry right, as well as some landscaping along the front. These are fairly new subdivisions within the last two years. We also see some wrought iron examples that we have in the city, Hunters Ridge and Wind River where obviously they want to take advantage of some of the amenities within their residential neighborhood to provide that view shed but also keep, you know, the openness look. This is along someone's home, again, to provide that breakup of the brick wall or the masonry wall they've added wrought iron to provide that aesthetic look. Here's some examples as it relates to the sidewalk discussion, you know, how far from the sidewalk should a wall or a fence be? I think that we want to see some sort of separation or some distance between. This is a new subdivision, Evers Way along Locusts, where they basically placed the fence along the sidewalk. I don't think there's any gap, maybe one or two feet, where in an area just south of town, Ryan Ranch, they've actually provided a meandering sidewalk with a lot more open area separation between the fence and sidewalk. So just some examples of that particular provision that we have proposed. And last, this is a street view shot of, I don't know, even the subdivision, is this Ryan Ranch? I'm thinking this is part of that development, maybe further north. And what you see here is the elevated masonry with wood. That was one of the materials that we were discussing as an option for perimeter walls that, you know, again, adjacent to a collector or arterial. We say a minimum of 12 inches. We have an example here that could be a possibility as well, where it is above the grade, 12 inches minimum, or it could be a little bit more, or it could be a little bit higher. I mean, higher than what you see here, that is. And it has a combination, again, of masonry and wood. That is what I believe was intended when it was discussed. We just needed to clarify that with the elevated and what we need to do is include what that minimum elevation for masonry is so that it's clear and it's straightforward to the reader and the person installing or developing this does understand what is required. So those are the examples of the types of materials that we are looking for direction as to what would be allowed, again, in those areas that are shown in red, where they are adjacent to an arterial or collector. So again, this is what is proposed. We did also talk about including an exhibit or showing what was approved with the MPC that was approved recently. This is what was approved under the Cole Hunter Ranch MPC. It's a lot more simple in that it only includes two materials, and that is masonry and wrought iron. And that's all they are able to do for new development. What we have on the table for the DCRC is to also include masonry and wrought iron. We've added a couple of clarifications here, but also to identify or discuss if this is something that the DCRC would also like to see as an option for these walls and fences along an arterial or collector that elevated 12 inches of minimum masonry concrete and wood as an option. And I'm going to stop and see if there are any questions, comments, recommendations. Jesse and then Tim. On the one hand, I appreciate that it allows for some visual interest, kind of like we saw in the good example, but I guess I don't remember the name of the development. But, you know, you got kind of a Western look there. It was visually interesting, as opposed to just a blank brick wall all the way up to the monument sign for the subdivision. The issue, though, of course, is the maintenance. I wonder if, without getting too complex, there's an option for you can do your wood on top of mason, elevated wood on masonry if there is an HOA with a maintenance obligation in place. You know, if there's something you can file with the city or an agreement you can file with the city to show that that perimeter fence is going to be maintained, at least as close to perpetuity as we can predict, by an HOA as opposed to homeowner responsibility. If that's too complex, then I don't see, if we're not able to do something like that, then I don't see a need for offering that option, because otherwise we're just going to have the same maintenance issue that you have with all the other board on board fences. Chair, if I can respond real quickly, we do have a requirement, you know, added to our code amendment that an HOA or POA be established when, you know, there are open areas that are maintained, not necessarily owned by private property, but maintained. That is in, it's recorded at the county and it's obviously upkept to make sure that maintenance does happen. But you're right, you know, in instances where there isn't one, or say an HOA defaults, you know, the question is going to be again, who's going to maintain that? And that's always been a, it's still a discussion that we have here in the city in situations where either an HOA existed or didn't exist prior, and now we've got materials that need to be, you know, maintained. And again, wood is one, I mean obviously is one that would definitely be faster to deteriorate, but masonry also requires maintenance as well. So there's a lot of those to discuss as well. Tim, go ahead. I'm along with Jesse on this, that I think that maintenance is kind of the biggest question on this. And I'd hate for, you know, us to put in masonry is a long lasting, still needs maintenance, but it's long lasting. But wrought iron to be put in and the same thing that's happening with wood fences, wrought iron is longer lasting, but eventually if, you know, if a homeowner whose that fencing is backing up to their backyard, they want to replace it, then it's non-matching wrought iron. I think that gives me a lot of concern about how we govern that if there's not an HOA or POA in place. And so, because I think the inconsistency, like what you showed your example picture is that it's not a good look for the city. And I'd like for the code to be able to clean that up, but that's hard to ask for to find a solution. That's not overreaching. The other thing, if you're just looking for feedback, if masonry with wood is a good solution to add in there, if there's three, there's masonry wrought iron and then there's masonry with wood. I'm just thinking from a housing affordability piece, I know we've seen it on PNZ a couple times that whenever we felt like we wanted to put something before the legislation change where we could mandate this, but we wanted to have a development do something that was masonry because of aesthetics as well as privacy to neighbors and privacy to the homeowners and then development masonry is such a higher cost and it then reflects in higher cost of the homes that are being sold in that area. So and wrought iron is less expensive, but it's not nearly as in vogue as wood fencing or masonry fencing is that a masonry wood combo would at least be something that's acceptable from an aesthetic standpoint, but also wouldn't, I don't think, add so much undue cost to the development where you're going to see it add to the home value issue that we're having now in real estate. So I like the masonry wood combo as being a third option that it's not cheap, but it's cheaper than full masonry and it's not see-through like wrought iron. And I would pretty much agree with that as well. Maybe I don't know if this is something that's difficult to write, but could you put something about the wood had to have architectural design to it or not? Just so it's not just pick it on pick it so that there's something that has some interest to it if it's just a little framework to it like we saw on Ryan Ranch. We can certainly look into that and I don't know how I mean obviously we have architectural compatibility, but I mean we'd have to start from somewhere and what is that minimum, but we can certainly work on that and see what we can come up with. Architectural detail to the wood is what you mean. Yeah, that's basically what I'm alluding to, again, just so it's not just straight pick it next to pick it. So what I hear from the DCRC is that we like three options, the three that we've described. I've also heard obviously the maintenance of wood. I mean we definitely want to make sure if we can get an H away in place. That's what we normally require, but again there are situations where maintenance is an issue and if it's the wood I mean we just have to use what we have as far as enforcement and again H away is what we want, but sometimes it never always lasts, but the hope is that they do to maintain those open areas and those common areas that include walls and fences. Any other questions or comments related to the perimeter? Let me go back to my screen here for my PowerPoint. I know we talked about this and I'm going to scroll up real quick back to our-- I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time with it, but I had some illustrations and I just wanted to come back to these two letters B and C where if it's a development that's along the arterial that there would be a setback of 10 feet, again what you saw on Locus versus the one I think it was on Hickory, there was a difference in how the sidewalk felt in terms of where the wall or fence is located and then if it's not a perimeter wall but rather of a lesser classification that number can drop down to five and provide that distance between the sidewalk and the wall or the fence. So that's just to help again explain the couple slides that I shared with you. Okay, so if there's nothing else, we'll work on that portion that you referenced Chair Ryan and include something to that effect and again when we're ready, we'll actually bring this to the full PNZ and City Council and obviously then have a recommendation and ultimately a consideration by City Council. Okay if there is nothing else, I'll go ahead and jump on to the next topic and it's still related to fence so let me go ahead and just go through this and apologize for the fast moving slides, get to the last part of the landscaping discussion. This is again related to fences in terms of material and design and it's that section or that piece of revision where we talk about public view. It's never been clear as to where the public view is so we're clarifying that to be from the public right away and public right away is defined now in our DDC as any designated public street, sidewalk or alley. So any view from these three areas or designations, the structural support shall not be visible. So that's what that full sentence is, it says that the structural support members shall not be visible from the public right away and of course this applies mainly to a wood fence or wall, I guess it would be wood mainly, in terms of that support members. That's a quick clarification, hopefully it makes it more understandable to where that public view or I guess not public view anymore but rather visible from the public right away. Do you all have any questions? Thank you Ron for putting this in. I'll just explain why I asked for this change and that is under the current language it can be interpreted that if you build a fence between you and your neighbor you have to put the pickets on their side and this clarifies that you know if it's between two lots you can put the pickets on your side so you don't have to actually trespass onto their property or get their permission to get on their property to build your fence. Any questions or comments? Margie it looked like you had a question. Yes, so when you say Table 7H in this. Let me go back to you. Yes that's the, again I apologize I don't have that reference on my PowerPoint presentation but it's the list of uses and what is required and not allowed as far as materials for types of uses. It's the name of the table is Fencing Standards for Individual Lots. Right and so I know in another part of the presentation I saw where we've got some protection for existing fence types already. Correct. Does that carry over into this particular part of the code? I believe that only applies to the perimeter walls and fences similar to what we saw as an example where there wasn't an HOA and so the individuals that are say wanting to replace their wood fence would have to meet the same material or higher quality with relationship to an individual lots they're able to replace it with whatever they would like. It's not necessarily limited to the three options because those are not considered along the perimeter. Okay, I guess that was my concern with I don't have Table 7H memorized so we reference it here. So I think Richard's gonna say something. I would say would it be how I could pull it up here really quick if that if that helps. I think I can share my screen. Okay, thanks. Are we able to see the Muni code? Yes. Yes. Okay. I have two screens so I want to make sure I've got the right. So these are fencing standards on individual lots. So this is the single family detached duplex triplex fourplex allowed materials prohibited in the maximum height, both front side yard facing and then interior or rear. So I know we've had this discussion on existing chain link fences before. So I guess what I want to understand is are we saying if somebody changes out or wants to maybe repair or replace then it's going to have to be, it's gonna have to follow this chart then. Is that correct? I believe, Ron, do you want to pull it back up? Let me try to get it right. So I think the question, Margie, correct me if I'm wrong, is if someone wanted to repair it they can certainly repair it with the same material for whatever's listed under, whatever's there today. However, if it's a completely redo or they're completely taking off the fence and maybe reposting, there may be, I believe that the requirement is that they have to follow 7H in whatever material at that point is. So if they were going to replace the chain link fence for, I'm sorry, repairing it, then they could. They could repair it. We're not going to require them to replace the entire chain link fence. However, if they're looking at a completely new chain link fence where they're taking out everything and then restarting, then I think that's a difference between repairing and replacing. Well, I think we're saying then they can't do a chain link fence, correct? Correct. If they're completely redoing the entire fence. Then they would have to completely change the material according to the chart. To whatever that is. It's no longer a repair. So if they have a gate, let's say, on a chain link fence that needs repairing, they can go ahead and repair that without. But if they can't replace it. Yes, that's correct. They can't. And if they do, it has to be with a different material. It would have to be whatever is part of that. And again, it's not as black and white, you say a gate versus the entire length of fence. The gate may be allowed to be replaced with chain link because it's just a small portion of it. What we're looking at is if it's completely being redone. That's a different story than a simple maintenance of that. Or maybe just replacing the gate for whatever reason. I think there's some leeway there for a gate. But for the entire fence, that would be a reconstruction. Provided it's at the front building line, we do allow chain link. It just has to be coated chain link. It can't be galvanized. But if it were to go beyond the front, say that the front line of the house at front building wall, then the coated chain link is not permitted. It would have to be one of the other materials. So I think what Richard is saying is there are certain requirements for location of fence. If it's in the rear of the side versus the front, there are certain material requirements for those locations as well. I think that answered it. Thank you. So if there's nothing else on this, we'll go ahead and move on. I think we have a couple more slides, and I think we're going to go into parking next. So we're leaving landscaping, screening, buffering fences, and going into parking. So we had a discussion about this last time, and there will be some changes. I think there needs to be more discussion on triplex and fourplex. But what I show here is what's currently proposed and what was presented or discussed during our last meeting. So I'll start off with townhomes and duplex and just group those because they have similar requirements on both minimum parking requirements. Currently what is currently required is four parking spaces per dwelling unit. So if you have a townhome or a duplex, a duplex would require eight parking spaces for that duplex. Now again, the two in the garage and the two in the driveway does count for the four. But we are changing that, and we're looking at adding the following for a duplex or townhome, one bedroom townhome or duplex, and/or efficiency unit. They would require two spaces per unit, where there are two or more bedrooms for the unit, one space for each bedroom. So potentially a duplex could have a requirement of potentially four total if they each have one bedroom, which is unlikely, but possibly could happen. Or if say that a duplex has a three bedroom for each unit, then they would require six in that particular case. So that is what is proposed for townhome and duplex. For triplex and fourplex, we added the same; however, we also added the guest parking component to it. And I guess this is one that we probably need further discussion, and I know this was something that the DCRC presented or recommended. But Richard, help me out here in guest parking. Is that something we needed to further discuss, or was there something specific that we wanted to get the DCRC's input on? I think as we look at it and just, again, do we want to promote triplex, fourplex? Just thinking about fourplex, for example, if we've got four two-bedroom units, we're at what, eight, and plus 12 parking spaces is a lot of parking spaces, again, for a unit that in some instances can fit within single-family districts. And so just want to be weary of that and make sure that we're not essentially discouraging this by requiring so much of that land to be dedicated towards parking, and whether or not that guest parking is truly needed for the fourplex. Commissioner Rosell. Yeah, this might not be a big deal, but I wonder if there's a way to clarify or simplify the language just to say one parking spot per bedroom with a two-spot minimum. I think that accomplishes the exact same thing, unless I'm misreading it, but it just seems like that's what we're trying to do is one parking spot per bedroom with two parking minimum. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that seems like a simpler way to say it, but that's just me. I think it's the same, Commissioner Rosell, that they're saying the same thing. I mean, we can certainly entertain that language, but I think what Richard was trying to also gather from the DCRC is really that additional guest parking. Is it something that we want to see for triplexes and fourplexes? I know that Commissioner Smith had mentioned it in his recommendation last week, and something that we just felt that adding that would add a little bit more area for parking than is necessary and maybe one per unit wasn't really what we need or wanted. I would think we should be able to use the same standard as what we do for multifamily, which is 10% and just do it as a straight 10% rather than in multifamilies, if you're over 10 units, you have to add 10%, but with 10%, if you've got a fourplex that's all two bedrooms, you're going to have one extra space. But if they were all three bedrooms, now you're at 12, so 10% is 1.2, so you're going to have to add two extra spaces. Does that seem more in line with ... No, I think we're getting to where we need the guest parking in case there is the need for guest parking, but at the same time, we don't want to overpark the area as well. So having that 10% could be ... I mean, that's a great option, and we're talking about triplexes and fourplexes. Mayor Pro Tem. I guess for me, I'm just a lot less concerned about providing guest parking when we're talking about these neighborhood scale, single-family scale, they've got two, three, four units in them, but they are more of a single-family scale. I don't know, it just seems like we want to make it a little easier to do infill with this kind of structure, and I'm just less concerned about ... For me, it's more like the single-family parking conversation than it is the multifamily parking conversation. I guess that's not exactly providing direction, that's just my mental framework. So I guess I'd say, unless there's a pretty compelling policy argument for it, I'm fine with what Commissioner Rozelle said. I don't know that we need an additional guest parking just because we've upgraded to a duplex or fourplex. Yeah, and unfortunately, I don't see Commissioner Smith on the call, so I ... Yeah, I think he had to go to another meeting at noon. Okay. Yes, Marty. Thank you, Chair. I'll just weigh in slightly. I think the way it's established here is probably a little bit overkill on guest parking. However, I am a proponent of some type of guest parking. When we get into triplexes, fourplexes, it does bring more people in, they will have visitors and guests, and it would be nice to have at least a couple of spaces. So perhaps what Chair said of a percentage, I think I can get on board with that to at least provide something more than one space per bedroom, because I have seen that be an issue. I have seen neighborhood crowding, I have seen illegal parking in front of these types of units. So I think if we can help that even slightly, it helps, and it helps with towing issues as well. Thanks, Jesse. So since we're kind of zeroed in on triplexes and fourplexes, we kind of know what the percentages are going to be, because we know the number of units that we're talking about. What if we just did something as simple as, for a triplex you have one more guest spot, for a fourplex you have two guest spots. Instead of making it a multiple or a factor of the number of units, we know what those are. Just one guest spot for triplex, two for quadplex. That's simple. Just on the base unit, right, one triplex, one plus one for each bedroom. Great. No, I feel like we got that noted as well, and we'll certainly draft that, and I think that accomplish, again, the concerns, or at least the thoughts that I've heard this afternoon. I think that, I know we have a lot more discussions, and let me go ahead and look at my PowerPoint real quick. The next set of couple of slides, I know we've got a lot of parking discussions, but I wanted to have an opportunity to ask the DCRC, rather than go into the next few slides with parking. We did cover a lot today. I don't know if we want to jump into the next set of code memos, and it's specifically related to parking and commercial parkings generally. I would like to ask the DCRC if this is something that we would like to continue at our next meeting or continue it today. Just wanted to provide that opportunity or that option for the DCRC. Yes, Jesse, go ahead. I'm certainly fine with what the group wants to do, but I will tell you, I have a lot of questions on parking, and I think most of my questions might be able to be answered if we had some kind of a, I don't know, maybe a memo or an ISR that told us, all right, we've proposed this change to religious assembly. Here's why. You know, the paragraph. Here's why we need that change. Religious assembly is calculated differently than movie theater or auditorium. Here's why. You know, just why we have minimums in the places that we do, because I think otherwise what I'll find myself doing, I'm just being just for myself and nobody else, but I'll be asking those questions and, you know, take an hour of our time wondering how in the world did we get to this minimum? And it may make all the sense in the world to the planning staff, but I just, I have no good frame of reference yet for why we have certain minimums on certain uses. Mayor Procham, if I can, I guess, respond, would that be something that we can cover in AIS before our next meeting? You mentioned ISR. I wasn't sure if that was an AIS to the DCRC specifically, would that be more appropriate than the ISR? Yeah, I think specifically to the community, but I can tell you, you know, if parking minimums come forward to council and P&Z, those will be in involved conversations also. So it's, I leave it to you all the best way to communicate that, but I know that it's, that's a conversation that will be pretty in depth for both bodies, and you may, similar to the issue that council took up last night, it may be something that you work up even for hopping over this group and going straight to the two other bodies, not because this group wouldn't have helpful input or even helpful conversation, but I expect it to be a robust conversation in both P&Z and council. I know it's a lot of, there's a lot of conversation around parking minimums offline. I know the commissioners and council members hear a lot about parking minimums and unintended consequences, all those sorts of things. So I kind of leave it to you all the best way to handle that and schedule that and communicate the information. I guess my main point is to say that's a pretty intense conversation for May the 5th. Understood. Just to add, I think that was part of the reason even why we were, you know, running a little behind today is kind of going back through looking at some of it. See over the last year, a lot of things have changed, especially the way businesses operate. And so it really caused us on some of our, some of the items that we were even bringing forward that we had looked at, you know, six months, a year ago, kind of causing us to rethink just how we want to truly look at requiring, if at all, some of these, some of these standards or adjusting to more takeout, looking more at drive through again, or even in the, in and around the downtown area. So it's probably warranted, definitely warranted, I shouldn't say probably. So I guess the, the question I guess for the DCRC, we, I mean, certainly I heard from Mayor Bochum and I agree and understand what needs to be put. The presentation was for discussion, but I think a few more background, a lot more background that is to cover the reasons for those recommendations and changes I think are needed and we certainly can and Richard and I will discuss with Scott how we want to present that before our next DCRC. Is it for, for just this group or the whole, you know, full P&Z and full City Council? And we definitely want to make sure we have that information before you all can, you know, provide, you know, input and direction as to each of the code amendments. So I guess back to the initial question is, well, you can certainly end it here. And again, before we get into the next topics, which we already discussed needs more background information. I don't have anything else to share, but a lot of what we needed, we definitely heard from the DCRC in the previous slides. So again, up to the DCRC, if it is to convene or to continue. Sounds like looking at the head nods and what Mayor Pro Tem had to say that we'll wait for the further information and that makes more sense. You can end up talking about something for an hour, whereas a paragraph about it could solve all the answers. Correct. Okay. So, is that the end of what you've? That's, that's, that's where, that's where I like to end my presentation. Yes. Okay. Then we'll go to concluding items. Anyone have any concluding items? Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your service on this committee through many, many years. Now, we are on this committee and the 2019 code owes you a debt of gratitude, the quality of development and building that we're going to have in this city for many years to come owes you a debt of gratitude. So, and don't think we're going to lose your phone number. Yeah. Well, I know he's already got my spreadsheet saved somewhere. Margie. Thank you, Chair. And I would just like to add to that, John. You have brought so much to this committee over the years. I've been on it with you from the beginning and the knowledge you have shared and the preparation that you have come to every meeting with is invaluable, truly. Thank you. I would also like to echo that I just remember our earlier meetings where you came in with your book with tabs on them, ready to talk, spreadsheets, you know, made me look bad. But hey, it was enough to get the work done. So I appreciate your efforts and your hard work and dedication towards the DCRC. It's a team effort. I remember when Scott had you cut the corners off of one of my books and that's why I had to get a yellow sticky note. Just a little, just a little snippet. I echo the same, and it was always interesting, especially in meetings when you would quote a section of the code and it's like, how does he remember that, flipping through the book? Thank you. Well, it's been my pleasure and honor to serve as chair on this committee and I'll continue on and make sure our code is what we really need for the growth of the city. And if there's nothing else, I guess we will adjourn at 12/12 on 5/5. Have a great day, everybody. Bye. Thanks.