1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,520 Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee. 2 00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:11,040 We do have a quorum present. 3 00:00:11,040 --> 00:00:16,240 It is 1108 on Wednesday, May the 5th, 2021. 4 00:00:16,240 --> 00:00:18,320 So we'll get started on our items for individual consideration. 5 00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:24,880 The first item up is consider approval of the minutes from April 28th, 2021. 6 00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:29,420 Tim, go ahead. 7 00:00:29,420 --> 00:00:31,160 Make a motion to approve. 8 00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:32,160 Okay. 9 00:00:32,160 --> 00:00:33,840 We have a motion. 10 00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:34,840 Margie? 11 00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:35,840 Second. 12 00:00:35,840 --> 00:00:37,640 We have a motion and a second. 13 00:00:37,640 --> 00:00:39,960 All those in favor say, "Hi." 14 00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:40,960 Hi. 15 00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:41,960 Hi. 16 00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:42,960 Any opposed? 17 00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:45,640 The motion carries unanimously. 18 00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:51,760 Next item is receive, item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding 19 00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:57,720 proposed code amendments related to accessory dwelling units and subchapter seven of development 20 00:00:57,720 --> 00:00:58,720 standards. 21 00:00:58,720 --> 00:00:59,720 Ron, it's all yours. 22 00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:00,720 Great. 23 00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:01,720 Thank you, Chair. 24 00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:06,960 I'll go ahead and start bringing my presentation notice. 25 00:01:06,960 --> 00:01:14,320 Hopefully, you all can see the presentation. 26 00:01:14,320 --> 00:01:15,720 Go ahead and get started. 27 00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:19,960 As Chair Ryan mentioned, we're going to start off with accessory dwelling units and then 28 00:01:19,960 --> 00:01:27,280 get into some of our discussions related to development standards, landscaping, and others 29 00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:30,160 listed here. 30 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:36,420 The first thing I wanted to bring up with the DCRC is really the accessory dwelling 31 00:01:36,420 --> 00:01:41,000 unit relates to the following general requirements. 32 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:49,640 We moved the minimum, I'm sorry, minimum 400 square feet to general, so it applies for 33 00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:53,840 both lots that are less than 10,000 and more than 10,000. 34 00:01:53,840 --> 00:02:01,040 Any accessory dwelling unit proposed has to be more than 400, 400 or more. 35 00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:08,440 I also moved the number of limited bedrooms, the two maximum bedrooms to general. 36 00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:16,000 Again, that applies to both the lots 10,000 or less or 10,000 or more, so that again is 37 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:18,140 under general. 38 00:02:18,140 --> 00:02:27,080 We also added the letter G to general where any accessory dwelling unit proposed is required 39 00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:33,320 to have a minimum of two parking spaces for the principal use. 40 00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:40,360 In addition to the required parking space for the accessory dwelling unit itself. 41 00:02:40,360 --> 00:02:51,600 For instances, if there is a home that has a garage and a one car driveway and they close 42 00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:58,800 off the garage and they only have one parking via the driveway, they will need to add another 43 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:08,680 space for the principal use, the single family, and any parking required for that ADU, so 44 00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:13,560 potentially a third parking space for that property. 45 00:03:13,560 --> 00:03:15,640 Hopefully, that makes sense. 46 00:03:15,640 --> 00:03:22,820 That's to address the minimum of two parking spaces for that dwelling unit. 47 00:03:22,820 --> 00:03:30,680 There are instances where there will not be any room to place three at a minimum parking 48 00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:37,000 spaces on a property, a single family that we know we have some along Oak, a lot of them 49 00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:44,040 are the older lots within the infill area that are smaller in general. 50 00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:49,640 What staff is proposing, and this is just, it hasn't been fully flushed out yet, but 51 00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:54,160 we were discussing this just earlier this morning about a potential option for those 52 00:03:54,160 --> 00:04:02,300 situations where the lots are too small, specifically in the front, to place three car garage and 53 00:04:02,300 --> 00:04:06,480 still meet the landscaping requirements. 54 00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:13,480 We've put in an option for an SUP and in those instances, those costs are cost related for 55 00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:21,480 the development review for those areas that cannot put parking that is required, there 56 00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:30,440 is an option for an SUP to see some ways to still meet the intent and not impact the parking 57 00:04:30,440 --> 00:04:32,000 situation of that area. 58 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:39,760 So again, G is to address the minimum parking spaces for the principal use to make sure 59 00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:46,640 that a minimum of two is part of that ADU proposal. 60 00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:51,280 A letter I is related to the height of the accessory dwelling units, I know we spoke 61 00:04:51,280 --> 00:04:57,520 about this in our last meeting where there was a question about how tall a structure 62 00:04:57,520 --> 00:04:58,520 can be. 63 00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:04,920 I mentioned that it would need to follow the minimum, I'm sorry, the maximum building height 64 00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:11,760 for that zoning district, but we wanted to make sure that two stories was the max no 65 00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:12,760 matter what. 66 00:05:12,760 --> 00:05:19,600 If the single family dwelling unit is one story and has a garage and they convert that 67 00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:27,360 garage or add to that garage a second floor accessory dwelling unit, they could. 68 00:05:27,360 --> 00:05:30,400 But that's the max as two stories. 69 00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:37,040 Or say they have a two story bed single family or one story single family and they want to 70 00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:40,440 add a two story accessory dwelling units, they could. 71 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:49,600 Again, the max would be two story in that or in those situations. 72 00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:55,960 Before I move on, does anybody have any questions on this so we can move on to the next topic? 73 00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:58,120 Commissioner Smith. 74 00:05:58,120 --> 00:06:00,520 Yeah, thank you, Chair. 75 00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:05,000 Ron, I think the two story maximum, I know we talked about it very briefly at the end 76 00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:10,200 last meeting, I think that's something we would want to limit and I don't know if maybe 77 00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:19,160 it's really what the conversation was, if there's a one story main house or one story 78 00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:24,680 primary dwelling unit, that the accessory dwelling unit shouldn't be any more stories than the 79 00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,160 main residence that's on that property. 80 00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:36,640 So I don't know if changing that lingo to being two stories or the same amount of floors 81 00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,440 as the primary residence, whichever is less. 82 00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:43,240 That wording is obviously not very clean, but you know what I'm trying to say there. 83 00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:44,240 Yeah, yeah. 84 00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:49,800 I guess maybe that's a, I guess we need some direction from the DCRC. 85 00:06:49,800 --> 00:06:55,280 Is that what we want or do we want to just set a max, you know, general of two stories 86 00:06:55,280 --> 00:07:04,360 or do we want to have a different, other than two max, to where it follows the single family 87 00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:10,280 dwelling unit, whatever that story is, then that additional accessory dwelling unit has 88 00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:11,280 to match. 89 00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:16,600 But again, instances where there's garages, I mean, again, where do you want, where is 90 00:07:16,600 --> 00:07:17,600 the DCRC? 91 00:07:17,600 --> 00:07:22,400 Yeah, and I guess a follow up question to your point. 92 00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:27,680 If they built a, if they took an attic and converted it into another dwelling unit, would 93 00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:30,320 that count as an accessory dwelling unit at that point in time? 94 00:07:30,320 --> 00:07:34,200 And if that's the case, is it now counted as a two story, even though it's in the attic 95 00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:35,680 of a one story home? 96 00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:36,840 Does that make sense? 97 00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:39,280 I don't know where the delineation is. 98 00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:44,000 That becomes two story by converting an attic into a living space as an outcome, two stories 99 00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:45,000 overnight. 100 00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,640 I don't know what the, how that's seen within the code. 101 00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:49,640 Yeah. 102 00:07:49,640 --> 00:07:50,640 That's a good question. 103 00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:56,480 I'm trying to think where we, we've had instances where folks converted, you know, an upper 104 00:07:56,480 --> 00:07:59,200 floor. 105 00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:03,040 I'm drawing a blank because we don't have a lot of those. 106 00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:08,520 Most of the accessory dwelling units have been detached or attached by, you know, on the 107 00:08:08,520 --> 00:08:13,080 side, not necessarily above. 108 00:08:13,080 --> 00:08:16,880 And I know that, I know the zoning has height requirements, it's going to keep us safe there, 109 00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:23,880 but I just would hate to have, I'd hate to have the code be open for a, you know, a neighborhood 110 00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:30,600 that is primarily single story to then add on a detached or attached accessory dwelling 111 00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:36,560 unit that is then two stories out of nowhere and neighbors without any, without any repercussions 112 00:08:36,560 --> 00:08:44,200 or any say whatsoever in it, now have a two story home or two story unit behind them or 113 00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:46,880 in front of them that they weren't originally expecting. 114 00:08:46,880 --> 00:08:53,160 So I, I personally feel like that if it's a one story home, a detacher or an attached 115 00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:56,040 accessory building unit should be limited to the amount of stories the house has. 116 00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:59,480 If it's already two stories, then two stories fine, with two stories being the max. 117 00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:05,680 That seems, that seems to be safer in the code for me, but I don't know that if we write 118 00:09:05,680 --> 00:09:10,080 it that way, if it then limits things like a one story home converting an attic into 119 00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:14,960 an accessory dwelling unit, if that would be an issue. 120 00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:21,120 Richard, do you want to reply and then we'll go to Commissioner Roselle after that? 121 00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:22,120 Yep. 122 00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:23,480 Just wanted to provide just some clarification. 123 00:09:23,480 --> 00:09:28,240 So we, within the 2019 DDC, we only regulate by feet. 124 00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:34,880 So whether or not they would convert it, it wouldn't, really wouldn't matter. 125 00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:38,840 But for single family, most of our, I think almost all of our single family districts, 126 00:09:38,840 --> 00:09:45,760 it's 40 feet is the max height. 127 00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:50,640 Rarely do we have it, but in some instances we do have accessory structures that we do 128 00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:54,940 see exceed the primary structure. 129 00:09:54,940 --> 00:10:02,080 Sometimes there are, there are RV, you know, garages someone might build for an RV or workshop 130 00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:03,720 that sometimes do exceed that height. 131 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:10,480 So just wanted to bring that as well as, you know, in the R1 and even RR we do at times 132 00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:15,720 have barns for, you know, new barns under construction, which obviously exceed a one 133 00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:18,080 story ranch house that's typically on the site. 134 00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:21,640 So just wanted to, just wanted to bring that up. 135 00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:24,960 Thank you, Richard. 136 00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:29,960 Andrew, did you have something to add? 137 00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:34,400 Yeah, my only clarification to Commissioner Smith's point was to regulate it in feet because 138 00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:37,280 stories you could have pitched roofs, different heights and stuff like that. 139 00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:41,520 So Richard actually clarified it. 140 00:10:41,520 --> 00:10:46,760 So I guess looking for direction, ultimately we obviously will need to bring this up and 141 00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:52,120 maybe have that discussion with the full P&Z and full city council, but do we want to limit 142 00:10:52,120 --> 00:11:02,280 the accessory dwelling units to the height and stories to match the single family or 143 00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:05,880 do we just want to set a max of two stories? 144 00:11:05,880 --> 00:11:08,880 I think the, I think the height, I think what Commissioner Rosell said is correct. 145 00:11:08,880 --> 00:11:10,840 The height is a better way to do it. 146 00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:16,440 But if, if in any single family residential zoning that we've got, we have height requirements 147 00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:21,400 that yes, pitching can be beneath 40 feet, we could have a two story. 148 00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:26,400 I just would, I would really hate it if it's a single family residential home that's on 149 00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:27,400 there. 150 00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:31,200 That's, that's a single story that's well beneath 40 and then they put someone builds 151 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:35,340 a detached accessory dwelling unit or an attached accessory dwelling unit that is still under 152 00:11:35,340 --> 00:11:40,920 40, but now it's two stories and neighbors around them, that, that, that property owner 153 00:11:40,920 --> 00:11:43,000 is able to build that by right. 154 00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:48,420 Neighbors around them are, we're not expecting that or they're now harmed by having that 155 00:11:48,420 --> 00:11:51,760 being done so. 156 00:11:51,760 --> 00:11:57,200 I would, I'd rather see it be 40, 40 feet, not exceeding the amount of stories that the 157 00:11:57,200 --> 00:11:58,480 primary residents have. 158 00:11:58,480 --> 00:12:01,760 That's the way I'd like to see the code and obviously saying 40 feet isn't needed because 159 00:12:01,760 --> 00:12:02,760 that's already in the code. 160 00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:03,760 Right. 161 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:04,760 That's, that's loud. 162 00:12:04,760 --> 00:12:11,120 I mean, that's pretty, that's, yeah, yeah, I would, I would probably say this might be 163 00:12:11,120 --> 00:12:16,360 another, cause you brought up the option of using an SGP on the parking earlier. 164 00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:23,480 This might be, you know, cannot exceed the height of the main dwelling, right? 165 00:12:23,480 --> 00:12:24,480 Without an SGP. 166 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:28,800 So that way there is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on it because it might 167 00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:32,880 be that the way they're going to solve their parking issue is to put, build a two car garage 168 00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:35,960 with an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor. 169 00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:43,160 And so PNZ and council need to kind of look at that and see, you know, are they now being 170 00:12:43,160 --> 00:12:48,120 able to look into the neighbors backyard, you know, do we need to have further setback 171 00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:52,560 because, you know, just like we do with taller apartments that they have to set back a certain 172 00:12:52,560 --> 00:12:58,040 distance from single family residential, we're limiting it there. 173 00:12:58,040 --> 00:12:59,520 I think that's a great idea. 174 00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:05,880 And again, the, the costs, you know, we've identified for ADUs we've, we've, we've, we're 175 00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:11,400 thinking about grouping it into the smaller or the, the lesser amount of fee associated 176 00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:17,760 with an SGP typically an SGP, regular SGP is, is roughly around $8,000. 177 00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:23,040 However, with, with certain uses such as infill or anything that we, you know, we're trying 178 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:26,480 to incentivize it's a lesser amount of things around $600. 179 00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:34,840 So it's a tremendous amount less than, than what a regular SGP, I guess, would cost. 180 00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:36,160 So that could be an option as well. 181 00:13:36,160 --> 00:13:41,320 I mean, that's certainly, we can, we can bring that as a potential option to address the 182 00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:46,400 height or stories from accessory dwelling units. 183 00:13:46,400 --> 00:13:49,560 Margie. 184 00:13:49,560 --> 00:13:50,560 Thank you, chair. 185 00:13:50,560 --> 00:13:55,000 I think what I just would like to add, I understand this discussion for like densely populated 186 00:13:55,000 --> 00:14:00,880 single family residential neighborhoods, but I do question if we want to do that when we 187 00:14:00,880 --> 00:14:07,640 get more into rural areas where an accessory dwelling units certainly might exceed the 188 00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:10,520 ranch style home that is on an estate size property. 189 00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:17,760 So I, I'd want us to give us some careful thoughts that we're not handcuffing those 190 00:14:17,760 --> 00:14:24,400 types of properties and putting this type of restriction in. 191 00:14:24,400 --> 00:14:25,760 I would definitely agree with that. 192 00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:29,520 That's, that's why I thought maybe bringing in that SGP process that they still can do 193 00:14:29,520 --> 00:14:30,520 it. 194 00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:34,480 They just have to, you know, you know, $600 when you're building that is not that much 195 00:14:34,480 --> 00:14:40,160 of a cost added, but it allows us to take a look at it and make sure that there's not 196 00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:41,680 something else about it. 197 00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:43,760 That's going to cause an issue for the neighborhood. 198 00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:51,880 And I guess wouldn't preclude them from doing it then if we could take a look at it, right. 199 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:57,680 Any other comments on that is, Mayor Pro Tem. 200 00:14:57,680 --> 00:15:02,580 Just to weigh in in favor, you know, something like ADU won't exceed the height of the primary 201 00:15:02,580 --> 00:15:09,440 use structure without an SGP, don't have to worry about counting stories, don't have to 202 00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:12,760 worry about what's a garage and what's an apartment. 203 00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:15,280 Just if you're going to be taller than the main house, get an SGP. 204 00:15:15,280 --> 00:15:19,240 And I like, I like that we're thinking outside the box and trying to give them that lower 205 00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:21,760 fee structure. 206 00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:25,560 Okay, I appreciate that. 207 00:15:25,560 --> 00:15:32,600 I've got this, the information I need to put together some, some of the options or at least 208 00:15:32,600 --> 00:15:41,320 a draft for, for us to move forward with with the ADUs. 209 00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:42,320 Any other questions? 210 00:15:42,320 --> 00:15:50,800 I'll go ahead and pull back my presentation. 211 00:15:50,800 --> 00:15:55,640 So we'll go ahead and again, this, this will be actually updated to reflect our discussion 212 00:15:55,640 --> 00:16:09,680 and move on to the next topic is related to our applicability table and when tier one 213 00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:19,160 areas are required for parking reconfiguration reconstruction or other similar projects identified 214 00:16:19,160 --> 00:16:28,320 here in the red is what we have drafted in response to the discussions we've had in the 215 00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:30,560 last couple of meetings. 216 00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:35,360 I'm going to read it out loud and then try to explain and provide some examples. 217 00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:44,320 So for tier one parking space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguring reconstructing 218 00:16:44,320 --> 00:16:51,660 or other similar projects that impact 50% or more of the existing parking lots greater 219 00:16:51,660 --> 00:16:53,040 than 10 spaces. 220 00:16:53,040 --> 00:17:00,440 So any parking lot with 10 spaces would not apply, period. 221 00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:10,040 However, if you have 10 or more parking spaces and you are impacting that by either reconfiguring 222 00:17:10,040 --> 00:17:18,040 reconstructing or other projects of 50% or more, then the trigger for tier one applies. 223 00:17:18,040 --> 00:17:21,120 I hope that makes sense. 224 00:17:21,120 --> 00:17:29,960 So if you have a 20 space parking lot and it's over 10, so this applies and you want 225 00:17:29,960 --> 00:17:43,360 to reconstruct or add, you know, affecting basically 11 spaces, then you would have to 226 00:17:43,360 --> 00:17:51,160 apply tier one requirements to those 11 spaces because it only applies to the development 227 00:17:51,160 --> 00:17:58,400 impact area where that reconstruction or reconfiguration is occurring. 228 00:17:58,400 --> 00:18:00,720 Does that make sense? 229 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:02,880 Does that need further clarification? 230 00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:11,380 Another example, we landed with 10 primarily because when we look at the parking lot requirements 231 00:18:11,380 --> 00:18:21,560 for landscaping, 10 was the trigger for adding a parking island tree associated with that. 232 00:18:21,560 --> 00:18:28,840 So 10 seemed to be the number that was most suitable for this. 233 00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:36,200 And again, wanting to address the smaller businesses, smaller lots, and 10 was again 234 00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:42,720 a number that we felt would not be impacted if you were to look at some of the businesses 235 00:18:42,720 --> 00:18:49,940 say downtown or in other areas that are smaller in nature, they won't be as impacted as much. 236 00:18:49,940 --> 00:18:56,280 Those that have more than 10 or greater typically have the ability in the area to accommodate 237 00:18:56,280 --> 00:19:04,280 for the landscaping requirements. 238 00:19:04,280 --> 00:19:07,240 So before I move on, I think that was the only clarification. 239 00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:14,560 I know there was another one that the chair in the DCRC brought up and that's regarding 240 00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:23,720 the reconstruction discussion on use of material from our follow up in discussions with Scott 241 00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:34,400 and Richard, any parking lot that is demoed or completely under construction and reconstructed 242 00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:39,560 to whatever material that would constitute reconstructing. 243 00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:44,800 So that is to clarify the definition. 244 00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:51,240 If there is a resurfacing or restriping where they're simply topping it with additional 245 00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:57,540 slurry or whatnot and then restriping it, that would not count under this provision. 246 00:19:57,540 --> 00:20:07,580 So any major reconstruction would apply. 247 00:20:07,580 --> 00:20:17,620 So let me close this so I can see, are there any questions regarding that new recommendation 248 00:20:17,620 --> 00:20:20,620 or proposed draft? 249 00:20:20,620 --> 00:20:33,640 I don't see any so I'll go ahead and continue with PowerPoint presentation. 250 00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:37,560 This was just, just wanted to make sure if we needed to talk about this, but we do not 251 00:20:37,560 --> 00:20:43,160 there's not any changes to tier two that we haven't already discussed. 252 00:20:43,160 --> 00:20:48,400 This is just to illustrate the 10 spaces where parking lot landscaping was mentioned earlier 253 00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:54,880 in my discussion and we've already seen this table. 254 00:20:54,880 --> 00:21:03,160 All right, the next item for discussion is, it says landscaping screen buffering fences, 255 00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:10,280 but really it's the perimeter walls and fence adjacent to a front public right away. 256 00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:17,360 And these are primarily what you see along major arterials or collectors. 257 00:21:17,360 --> 00:21:24,660 And before we get into the language, let me just share a slide real quick to illustrate 258 00:21:24,660 --> 00:21:28,320 where we are talking, what we're talking about. 259 00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:36,880 So the red is the perimeter fence and wall area that we will be discussing in a few minutes. 260 00:21:36,880 --> 00:21:43,360 Everything that is not red that potentially has a fence or wall is not adjacent to a right 261 00:21:43,360 --> 00:21:49,280 away an arterial or collector, therefore it would not apply. 262 00:21:49,280 --> 00:21:54,240 So we're just talking about the red line or red area within a subdivision. 263 00:21:54,240 --> 00:21:57,440 And this could be both residential or commercial. 264 00:21:57,440 --> 00:22:04,200 So if there's a commercial development and has for whatever reason, a wall or fence, 265 00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:10,880 it would be only applicable to those that are along an arterial or collector. 266 00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:18,040 So I'll go back up to what is required for those developments, for new developments, 267 00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:19,040 that is. 268 00:22:19,040 --> 00:22:26,200 I'll go ahead and read A and hopefully, again, if it makes sense, I'll provide some examples 269 00:22:26,200 --> 00:22:30,600 and we do have some photos that we can share if we need to. 270 00:22:30,600 --> 00:22:34,960 For new development, allowable materials, again, this is for fences and walls adjacent 271 00:22:34,960 --> 00:22:42,400 to public right away, include masonry slash concrete, wrought iron, which could be made 272 00:22:42,400 --> 00:22:51,600 up of steel, aluminum of other material, elevated and elevated 12 inches minimum masonry concrete 273 00:22:51,600 --> 00:22:52,820 and wood. 274 00:22:52,820 --> 00:23:01,000 So masonry concrete is one, wrought iron is two, elevated 12 inches minimum masonry and 275 00:23:01,000 --> 00:23:04,000 wood is three. 276 00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:11,880 Those are your options or you can have a combination of all three or all the materials listed. 277 00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:18,540 So let me go ahead and share some examples and we can come back to this just to give 278 00:23:18,540 --> 00:23:21,760 you all an idea of what we're talking about. 279 00:23:21,760 --> 00:23:27,840 So what I've put together, what I have from a presentation back in April of last year, 280 00:23:27,840 --> 00:23:31,800 made this presentation to the city council, I believe during a work session, we were talking 281 00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:39,640 about perimeter walls and fences and at that time, the goal was to look at materials, setbacks, 282 00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:43,980 as well as maintenance responsibilities. 283 00:23:43,980 --> 00:23:49,040 So here's two examples of a residential subdivision. 284 00:23:49,040 --> 00:23:56,800 The one to your left is one that does not have an HOA and rather, it is maintained by 285 00:23:56,800 --> 00:24:02,280 the homeowners and you can see based on just looking here, they've got three different 286 00:24:02,280 --> 00:24:11,880 applications or applications, I guess, maintenance of the wood and they're all at different times. 287 00:24:11,880 --> 00:24:18,120 Well the one to the right, Allison Park is under an HOA and they obviously have more 288 00:24:18,120 --> 00:24:25,120 of a consistent maintenance and look to their wood fences. 289 00:24:25,120 --> 00:24:30,960 Just some examples around town, this is mainly down south of the city, Teasley Trails and 290 00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:38,140 Ryan Meadows, you see that the masonry, all masonry right, as well as some landscaping 291 00:24:38,140 --> 00:24:41,100 along the front. 292 00:24:41,100 --> 00:24:46,320 These are fairly new subdivisions within the last two years. 293 00:24:46,320 --> 00:24:51,880 We also see some wrought iron examples that we have in the city, Hunters Ridge and Wind 294 00:24:51,880 --> 00:24:57,440 River where obviously they want to take advantage of some of the amenities within their residential 295 00:24:57,440 --> 00:25:04,960 neighborhood to provide that view shed but also keep, you know, the openness look. 296 00:25:04,960 --> 00:25:12,560 This is along someone's home, again, to provide that breakup of the brick wall or the masonry 297 00:25:12,560 --> 00:25:18,520 wall they've added wrought iron to provide that aesthetic look. 298 00:25:18,520 --> 00:25:24,280 Here's some examples as it relates to the sidewalk discussion, you know, how far from 299 00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:28,120 the sidewalk should a wall or a fence be? 300 00:25:28,120 --> 00:25:33,240 I think that we want to see some sort of separation or some distance between. 301 00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:39,580 This is a new subdivision, Evers Way along Locusts, where they basically placed the fence 302 00:25:39,580 --> 00:25:41,120 along the sidewalk. 303 00:25:41,120 --> 00:25:47,240 I don't think there's any gap, maybe one or two feet, where in an area just south of town, 304 00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:53,160 Ryan Ranch, they've actually provided a meandering sidewalk with a lot more open area separation 305 00:25:53,160 --> 00:25:55,240 between the fence and sidewalk. 306 00:25:55,240 --> 00:26:03,280 So just some examples of that particular provision that we have proposed. 307 00:26:03,280 --> 00:26:11,560 And last, this is a street view shot of, I don't know, even the subdivision, is this 308 00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:12,560 Ryan Ranch? 309 00:26:12,560 --> 00:26:18,280 I'm thinking this is part of that development, maybe further north. 310 00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:23,920 And what you see here is the elevated masonry with wood. 311 00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:31,160 That was one of the materials that we were discussing as an option for perimeter walls 312 00:26:31,160 --> 00:26:35,160 that, you know, again, adjacent to a collector or arterial. 313 00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:37,560 We say a minimum of 12 inches. 314 00:26:37,560 --> 00:26:46,120 We have an example here that could be a possibility as well, where it is above the grade, 12 inches 315 00:26:46,120 --> 00:26:49,320 minimum, or it could be a little bit more, or it could be a little bit higher. 316 00:26:49,320 --> 00:26:51,800 I mean, higher than what you see here, that is. 317 00:26:51,800 --> 00:26:55,660 And it has a combination, again, of masonry and wood. 318 00:26:55,660 --> 00:27:01,600 That is what I believe was intended when it was discussed. 319 00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:09,360 We just needed to clarify that with the elevated and what we need to do is include what that 320 00:27:09,360 --> 00:27:17,200 minimum elevation for masonry is so that it's clear and it's straightforward to the reader 321 00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:23,920 and the person installing or developing this does understand what is required. 322 00:27:23,920 --> 00:27:33,160 So those are the examples of the types of materials that we are looking for direction 323 00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:40,760 as to what would be allowed, again, in those areas that are shown in red, where they are 324 00:27:40,760 --> 00:27:42,600 adjacent to an arterial or collector. 325 00:27:42,600 --> 00:27:47,800 So again, this is what is proposed. 326 00:27:47,800 --> 00:27:57,100 We did also talk about including an exhibit or showing what was approved with the MPC 327 00:27:57,100 --> 00:28:00,560 that was approved recently. 328 00:28:00,560 --> 00:28:07,120 This is what was approved under the Cole Hunter Ranch MPC. 329 00:28:07,120 --> 00:28:12,960 It's a lot more simple in that it only includes two materials, and that is masonry and wrought 330 00:28:12,960 --> 00:28:13,960 iron. 331 00:28:13,960 --> 00:28:17,680 And that's all they are able to do for new development. 332 00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:26,420 What we have on the table for the DCRC is to also include masonry and wrought iron. 333 00:28:26,420 --> 00:28:33,740 We've added a couple of clarifications here, but also to identify or discuss if this is 334 00:28:33,740 --> 00:28:40,360 something that the DCRC would also like to see as an option for these walls and fences 335 00:28:40,360 --> 00:28:48,120 along an arterial or collector that elevated 12 inches of minimum masonry concrete and 336 00:28:48,120 --> 00:28:52,000 wood as an option. 337 00:28:52,000 --> 00:28:59,040 And I'm going to stop and see if there are any questions, comments, recommendations. 338 00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:03,320 Jesse and then Tim. 339 00:29:03,320 --> 00:29:08,000 On the one hand, I appreciate that it allows for some visual interest, kind of like we 340 00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:14,320 saw in the good example, but I guess I don't remember the name of the development. 341 00:29:14,320 --> 00:29:16,360 But, you know, you got kind of a Western look there. 342 00:29:16,360 --> 00:29:22,080 It was visually interesting, as opposed to just a blank brick wall all the way up to 343 00:29:22,080 --> 00:29:24,680 the monument sign for the subdivision. 344 00:29:24,680 --> 00:29:27,240 The issue, though, of course, is the maintenance. 345 00:29:27,240 --> 00:29:32,360 I wonder if, without getting too complex, there's an option for you can do your wood 346 00:29:32,360 --> 00:29:38,880 on top of mason, elevated wood on masonry if there is an HOA with a maintenance obligation 347 00:29:38,880 --> 00:29:39,880 in place. 348 00:29:39,880 --> 00:29:42,600 You know, if there's something you can file with the city or an agreement you can file 349 00:29:42,600 --> 00:29:48,480 with the city to show that that perimeter fence is going to be maintained, at least 350 00:29:48,480 --> 00:29:56,040 as close to perpetuity as we can predict, by an HOA as opposed to homeowner responsibility. 351 00:29:56,040 --> 00:30:01,120 If that's too complex, then I don't see, if we're not able to do something like that, 352 00:30:01,120 --> 00:30:04,640 then I don't see a need for offering that option, because otherwise we're just going 353 00:30:04,640 --> 00:30:10,360 to have the same maintenance issue that you have with all the other board on board fences. 354 00:30:10,360 --> 00:30:20,000 Chair, if I can respond real quickly, we do have a requirement, you know, added to our 355 00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:27,800 code amendment that an HOA or POA be established when, you know, there are open areas that 356 00:30:27,800 --> 00:30:33,640 are maintained, not necessarily owned by private property, but maintained. 357 00:30:33,640 --> 00:30:40,840 That is in, it's recorded at the county and it's obviously upkept to make sure that maintenance 358 00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:42,480 does happen. 359 00:30:42,480 --> 00:30:48,240 But you're right, you know, in instances where there isn't one, or say an HOA defaults, you 360 00:30:48,240 --> 00:30:51,080 know, the question is going to be again, who's going to maintain that? 361 00:30:51,080 --> 00:30:56,040 And that's always been a, it's still a discussion that we have here in the city in situations 362 00:30:56,040 --> 00:31:02,940 where either an HOA existed or didn't exist prior, and now we've got materials that need 363 00:31:02,940 --> 00:31:07,320 to be, you know, maintained. 364 00:31:07,320 --> 00:31:13,040 And again, wood is one, I mean obviously is one that would definitely be faster to deteriorate, 365 00:31:13,040 --> 00:31:16,280 but masonry also requires maintenance as well. 366 00:31:16,280 --> 00:31:20,160 So there's a lot of those to discuss as well. 367 00:31:20,160 --> 00:31:27,600 Tim, go ahead. 368 00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:33,240 I'm along with Jesse on this, that I think that maintenance is kind of the biggest question 369 00:31:33,240 --> 00:31:34,240 on this. 370 00:31:34,240 --> 00:31:38,280 And I'd hate for, you know, us to put in masonry is a long lasting, still needs maintenance, 371 00:31:38,280 --> 00:31:39,520 but it's long lasting. 372 00:31:39,520 --> 00:31:43,880 But wrought iron to be put in and the same thing that's happening with wood fences, wrought 373 00:31:43,880 --> 00:31:49,840 iron is longer lasting, but eventually if, you know, if a homeowner whose that fencing 374 00:31:49,840 --> 00:31:54,440 is backing up to their backyard, they want to replace it, then it's non-matching wrought 375 00:31:54,440 --> 00:31:55,440 iron. 376 00:31:55,440 --> 00:32:00,280 I think that gives me a lot of concern about how we govern that if there's not an HOA or 377 00:32:00,280 --> 00:32:01,280 POA in place. 378 00:32:01,280 --> 00:32:05,200 And so, because I think the inconsistency, like what you showed your example picture 379 00:32:05,200 --> 00:32:08,200 is that it's not a good look for the city. 380 00:32:08,200 --> 00:32:12,920 And I'd like for the code to be able to clean that up, but that's hard to ask for to find 381 00:32:12,920 --> 00:32:13,920 a solution. 382 00:32:13,920 --> 00:32:14,920 That's not overreaching. 383 00:32:14,920 --> 00:32:20,920 The other thing, if you're just looking for feedback, if masonry with wood is a good solution 384 00:32:20,920 --> 00:32:25,640 to add in there, if there's three, there's masonry wrought iron and then there's masonry 385 00:32:25,640 --> 00:32:26,640 with wood. 386 00:32:26,640 --> 00:32:30,920 I'm just thinking from a housing affordability piece, I know we've seen it on PNZ a couple 387 00:32:30,920 --> 00:32:35,480 times that whenever we felt like we wanted to put something before the legislation change 388 00:32:35,480 --> 00:32:39,640 where we could mandate this, but we wanted to have a development do something that was 389 00:32:39,640 --> 00:32:46,240 masonry because of aesthetics as well as privacy to neighbors and privacy to the homeowners 390 00:32:46,240 --> 00:32:52,320 and then development masonry is such a higher cost and it then reflects in higher cost of 391 00:32:52,320 --> 00:32:54,720 the homes that are being sold in that area. 392 00:32:54,720 --> 00:32:59,800 So and wrought iron is less expensive, but it's not nearly as in vogue as wood fencing 393 00:32:59,800 --> 00:33:06,400 or masonry fencing is that a masonry wood combo would at least be something that's acceptable 394 00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:10,600 from an aesthetic standpoint, but also wouldn't, I don't think, add so much undue cost to the 395 00:33:10,600 --> 00:33:15,660 development where you're going to see it add to the home value issue that we're having 396 00:33:15,660 --> 00:33:16,760 now in real estate. 397 00:33:16,760 --> 00:33:22,440 So I like the masonry wood combo as being a third option that it's not cheap, but it's 398 00:33:22,440 --> 00:33:30,960 cheaper than full masonry and it's not see-through like wrought iron. 399 00:33:30,960 --> 00:33:34,720 And I would pretty much agree with that as well. 400 00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:38,600 Maybe I don't know if this is something that's difficult to write, but could you put something 401 00:33:38,600 --> 00:33:43,160 about the wood had to have architectural design to it or not? 402 00:33:43,160 --> 00:33:49,400 Just so it's not just pick it on pick it so that there's something that has some interest 403 00:33:49,400 --> 00:33:56,200 to it if it's just a little framework to it like we saw on Ryan Ranch. 404 00:33:56,200 --> 00:33:59,840 We can certainly look into that and I don't know how I mean obviously we have architectural 405 00:33:59,840 --> 00:34:07,540 compatibility, but I mean we'd have to start from somewhere and what is that minimum, but 406 00:34:07,540 --> 00:34:12,900 we can certainly work on that and see what we can come up with. 407 00:34:12,900 --> 00:34:14,840 Architectural detail to the wood is what you mean. 408 00:34:14,840 --> 00:34:22,520 Yeah, that's basically what I'm alluding to, again, just so it's not just straight pick 409 00:34:22,520 --> 00:34:25,520 it next to pick it. 410 00:34:25,520 --> 00:34:33,760 So what I hear from the DCRC is that we like three options, the three that we've described. 411 00:34:33,760 --> 00:34:37,920 I've also heard obviously the maintenance of wood. 412 00:34:37,920 --> 00:34:42,600 I mean we definitely want to make sure if we can get an H away in place. 413 00:34:42,600 --> 00:34:49,080 That's what we normally require, but again there are situations where maintenance is 414 00:34:49,080 --> 00:34:59,520 an issue and if it's the wood I mean we just have to use what we have as far as enforcement 415 00:34:59,520 --> 00:35:06,480 and again H away is what we want, but sometimes it never always lasts, but the hope is that 416 00:35:06,480 --> 00:35:20,440 they do to maintain those open areas and those common areas that include walls and fences. 417 00:35:20,440 --> 00:35:25,080 Any other questions or comments related to the perimeter? 418 00:35:25,080 --> 00:35:30,960 Let me go back to my screen here for my PowerPoint. 419 00:35:30,960 --> 00:35:39,200 I know we talked about this and I'm going to scroll up real quick back to our-- I'm 420 00:35:39,200 --> 00:35:45,000 not going to spend a whole lot of time with it, but I had some illustrations and I just 421 00:35:45,000 --> 00:35:53,200 wanted to come back to these two letters B and C where if it's a development that's along 422 00:35:53,200 --> 00:35:59,800 the arterial that there would be a setback of 10 feet, again what you saw on Locus versus 423 00:35:59,800 --> 00:36:07,840 the one I think it was on Hickory, there was a difference in how the sidewalk felt in terms 424 00:36:07,840 --> 00:36:14,360 of where the wall or fence is located and then if it's not a perimeter wall but rather 425 00:36:14,360 --> 00:36:20,760 of a lesser classification that number can drop down to five and provide that distance 426 00:36:20,760 --> 00:36:25,280 between the sidewalk and the wall or the fence. 427 00:36:25,280 --> 00:36:32,080 So that's just to help again explain the couple slides that I shared with you. 428 00:36:32,080 --> 00:36:41,640 Okay, so if there's nothing else, we'll work on that portion that you referenced Chair 429 00:36:41,640 --> 00:36:47,160 Ryan and include something to that effect and again when we're ready, we'll actually 430 00:36:47,160 --> 00:36:52,120 bring this to the full PNZ and City Council and obviously then have a recommendation and 431 00:36:52,120 --> 00:36:59,720 ultimately a consideration by City Council. 432 00:36:59,720 --> 00:37:06,960 Okay if there is nothing else, I'll go ahead and jump on to the next topic and it's still 433 00:37:06,960 --> 00:37:13,240 related to fence so let me go ahead and just go through this and apologize for the fast 434 00:37:13,240 --> 00:37:22,000 moving slides, get to the last part of the landscaping discussion. 435 00:37:22,000 --> 00:37:30,880 This is again related to fences in terms of material and design and it's that section 436 00:37:30,880 --> 00:37:36,680 or that piece of revision where we talk about public view. 437 00:37:36,680 --> 00:37:44,240 It's never been clear as to where the public view is so we're clarifying that to be from 438 00:37:44,240 --> 00:37:52,040 the public right away and public right away is defined now in our DDC as any designated 439 00:37:52,040 --> 00:37:54,900 public street, sidewalk or alley. 440 00:37:54,900 --> 00:38:03,440 So any view from these three areas or designations, the structural support shall not be visible. 441 00:38:03,440 --> 00:38:09,080 So that's what that full sentence is, it says that the structural support members shall 442 00:38:09,080 --> 00:38:16,520 not be visible from the public right away and of course this applies mainly to a wood 443 00:38:16,520 --> 00:38:27,040 fence or wall, I guess it would be wood mainly, in terms of that support members. 444 00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:33,840 That's a quick clarification, hopefully it makes it more understandable to where that 445 00:38:33,840 --> 00:38:39,400 public view or I guess not public view anymore but rather visible from the public right away. 446 00:38:39,400 --> 00:38:47,700 Do you all have any questions? 447 00:38:47,700 --> 00:38:48,700 Thank you Ron for putting this in. 448 00:38:48,700 --> 00:38:55,840 I'll just explain why I asked for this change and that is under the current language it 449 00:38:55,840 --> 00:39:00,640 can be interpreted that if you build a fence between you and your neighbor you have to 450 00:39:00,640 --> 00:39:07,520 put the pickets on their side and this clarifies that you know if it's between two lots you 451 00:39:07,520 --> 00:39:11,320 can put the pickets on your side so you don't have to actually trespass onto their property 452 00:39:11,320 --> 00:39:16,520 or get their permission to get on their property to build your fence. 453 00:39:16,520 --> 00:39:24,320 Any questions or comments? 454 00:39:24,320 --> 00:39:27,480 Margie it looked like you had a question. 455 00:39:27,480 --> 00:39:32,120 Yes, so when you say Table 7H in this. 456 00:39:32,120 --> 00:39:38,460 Let me go back to you. 457 00:39:38,460 --> 00:39:44,960 Yes that's the, again I apologize I don't have that reference on my PowerPoint presentation 458 00:39:44,960 --> 00:39:53,320 but it's the list of uses and what is required and not allowed as far as materials for types 459 00:39:53,320 --> 00:39:57,360 of uses. 460 00:39:57,360 --> 00:40:03,880 It's the name of the table is Fencing Standards for Individual Lots. 461 00:40:03,880 --> 00:40:11,200 Right and so I know in another part of the presentation I saw where we've got some protection 462 00:40:11,200 --> 00:40:15,160 for existing fence types already. 463 00:40:15,160 --> 00:40:16,520 Correct. 464 00:40:16,520 --> 00:40:22,320 Does that carry over into this particular part of the code? 465 00:40:22,320 --> 00:40:30,240 I believe that only applies to the perimeter walls and fences similar to what we saw as 466 00:40:30,240 --> 00:40:37,760 an example where there wasn't an HOA and so the individuals that are say wanting to replace 467 00:40:37,760 --> 00:40:43,840 their wood fence would have to meet the same material or higher quality with relationship 468 00:40:43,840 --> 00:40:51,400 to an individual lots they're able to replace it with whatever they would like. 469 00:40:51,400 --> 00:40:57,680 It's not necessarily limited to the three options because those are not considered along 470 00:40:57,680 --> 00:40:59,960 the perimeter. 471 00:40:59,960 --> 00:41:06,320 Okay, I guess that was my concern with I don't have Table 7H memorized so we reference it 472 00:41:06,320 --> 00:41:08,480 here. 473 00:41:08,480 --> 00:41:11,200 So I think Richard's gonna say something. 474 00:41:11,200 --> 00:41:14,880 I would say would it be how I could pull it up here really quick if that if that helps. 475 00:41:14,880 --> 00:41:22,120 I think I can share my screen. 476 00:41:22,120 --> 00:41:26,000 Okay, thanks. 477 00:41:26,000 --> 00:41:36,360 Are we able to see the Muni code? 478 00:41:36,360 --> 00:41:37,360 Yes. 479 00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:38,360 Yes. 480 00:41:38,360 --> 00:41:39,360 Okay. 481 00:41:39,360 --> 00:41:46,240 I have two screens so I want to make sure I've got the right. 482 00:41:46,240 --> 00:41:49,080 So these are fencing standards on individual lots. 483 00:41:49,080 --> 00:41:54,240 So this is the single family detached duplex triplex fourplex allowed materials prohibited 484 00:41:54,240 --> 00:42:09,120 in the maximum height, both front side yard facing and then interior or rear. 485 00:42:09,120 --> 00:42:16,240 So I know we've had this discussion on existing chain link fences before. 486 00:42:16,240 --> 00:42:26,320 So I guess what I want to understand is are we saying if somebody changes out or wants 487 00:42:26,320 --> 00:42:34,280 to maybe repair or replace then it's going to have to be, it's gonna have to follow this 488 00:42:34,280 --> 00:42:35,280 chart then. 489 00:42:35,280 --> 00:42:36,280 Is that correct? 490 00:42:36,280 --> 00:42:41,120 I believe, Ron, do you want to pull it back up? 491 00:42:41,120 --> 00:43:00,560 Let me try to get it right. 492 00:43:00,560 --> 00:43:04,920 So I think the question, Margie, correct me if I'm wrong, is if someone wanted to repair 493 00:43:04,920 --> 00:43:11,320 it they can certainly repair it with the same material for whatever's listed under, whatever's 494 00:43:11,320 --> 00:43:12,320 there today. 495 00:43:12,320 --> 00:43:19,240 However, if it's a completely redo or they're completely taking off the fence and maybe 496 00:43:19,240 --> 00:43:24,040 reposting, there may be, I believe that the requirement is that they have to follow 7H 497 00:43:24,040 --> 00:43:26,880 in whatever material at that point is. 498 00:43:26,880 --> 00:43:34,280 So if they were going to replace the chain link fence for, I'm sorry, repairing it, then 499 00:43:34,280 --> 00:43:35,280 they could. 500 00:43:35,280 --> 00:43:36,280 They could repair it. 501 00:43:36,280 --> 00:43:39,320 We're not going to require them to replace the entire chain link fence. 502 00:43:39,320 --> 00:43:44,720 However, if they're looking at a completely new chain link fence where they're taking 503 00:43:44,720 --> 00:43:49,000 out everything and then restarting, then I think that's a difference between repairing 504 00:43:49,000 --> 00:43:50,000 and replacing. 505 00:43:50,000 --> 00:43:53,160 Well, I think we're saying then they can't do a chain link fence, correct? 506 00:43:53,160 --> 00:43:54,160 Correct. 507 00:43:54,160 --> 00:43:57,720 If they're completely redoing the entire fence. 508 00:43:57,720 --> 00:44:02,040 Then they would have to completely change the material according to the chart. 509 00:44:02,040 --> 00:44:04,720 To whatever that is. 510 00:44:04,720 --> 00:44:06,040 It's no longer a repair. 511 00:44:06,040 --> 00:44:10,080 So if they have a gate, let's say, on a chain link fence that needs repairing, they can 512 00:44:10,080 --> 00:44:12,080 go ahead and repair that without. 513 00:44:12,080 --> 00:44:15,040 But if they can't replace it. 514 00:44:15,040 --> 00:44:17,320 Yes, that's correct. 515 00:44:17,320 --> 00:44:18,320 They can't. 516 00:44:18,320 --> 00:44:21,760 And if they do, it has to be with a different material. 517 00:44:21,760 --> 00:44:25,880 It would have to be whatever is part of that. 518 00:44:25,880 --> 00:44:35,080 And again, it's not as black and white, you say a gate versus the entire length of fence. 519 00:44:35,080 --> 00:44:39,120 The gate may be allowed to be replaced with chain link because it's just a small portion 520 00:44:39,120 --> 00:44:40,120 of it. 521 00:44:40,120 --> 00:44:43,760 What we're looking at is if it's completely being redone. 522 00:44:43,760 --> 00:44:47,800 That's a different story than a simple maintenance of that. 523 00:44:47,800 --> 00:44:50,080 Or maybe just replacing the gate for whatever reason. 524 00:44:50,080 --> 00:44:52,360 I think there's some leeway there for a gate. 525 00:44:52,360 --> 00:44:57,080 But for the entire fence, that would be a reconstruction. 526 00:44:57,080 --> 00:45:00,680 Provided it's at the front building line, we do allow chain link. 527 00:45:00,680 --> 00:45:03,360 It just has to be coated chain link. 528 00:45:03,360 --> 00:45:06,480 It can't be galvanized. 529 00:45:06,480 --> 00:45:10,280 But if it were to go beyond the front, say that the front line of the house at front 530 00:45:10,280 --> 00:45:14,360 building wall, then the coated chain link is not permitted. 531 00:45:14,360 --> 00:45:18,880 It would have to be one of the other materials. 532 00:45:18,880 --> 00:45:22,800 So I think what Richard is saying is there are certain requirements for location of fence. 533 00:45:22,800 --> 00:45:28,560 If it's in the rear of the side versus the front, there are certain material requirements 534 00:45:28,560 --> 00:45:33,760 for those locations as well. 535 00:45:33,760 --> 00:45:34,760 I think that answered it. 536 00:45:34,760 --> 00:45:42,520 Thank you. 537 00:45:42,520 --> 00:45:47,640 So if there's nothing else on this, we'll go ahead and move on. 538 00:45:47,640 --> 00:45:55,080 I think we have a couple more slides, and I think we're going to go into parking next. 539 00:45:55,080 --> 00:46:05,580 So we're leaving landscaping, screening, buffering fences, and going into parking. 540 00:46:05,580 --> 00:46:13,360 So we had a discussion about this last time, and there will be some changes. 541 00:46:13,360 --> 00:46:20,120 I think there needs to be more discussion on triplex and fourplex. 542 00:46:20,120 --> 00:46:27,560 But what I show here is what's currently proposed and what was presented or discussed during 543 00:46:27,560 --> 00:46:28,560 our last meeting. 544 00:46:28,560 --> 00:46:34,840 So I'll start off with townhomes and duplex and just group those because they have similar 545 00:46:34,840 --> 00:46:40,780 requirements on both minimum parking requirements. 546 00:46:40,780 --> 00:46:46,660 Currently what is currently required is four parking spaces per dwelling unit. 547 00:46:46,660 --> 00:46:56,000 So if you have a townhome or a duplex, a duplex would require eight parking spaces for that 548 00:46:56,000 --> 00:46:57,000 duplex. 549 00:46:57,000 --> 00:47:04,120 Now again, the two in the garage and the two in the driveway does count for the four. 550 00:47:04,120 --> 00:47:12,080 But we are changing that, and we're looking at adding the following for a duplex or townhome, 551 00:47:12,080 --> 00:47:17,040 one bedroom townhome or duplex, and/or efficiency unit. 552 00:47:17,040 --> 00:47:25,580 They would require two spaces per unit, where there are two or more bedrooms for the unit, 553 00:47:25,580 --> 00:47:26,960 one space for each bedroom. 554 00:47:26,960 --> 00:47:35,580 So potentially a duplex could have a requirement of potentially four total if they each have 555 00:47:35,580 --> 00:47:39,400 one bedroom, which is unlikely, but possibly could happen. 556 00:47:39,400 --> 00:47:45,720 Or if say that a duplex has a three bedroom for each unit, then they would require six 557 00:47:45,720 --> 00:47:48,640 in that particular case. 558 00:47:48,640 --> 00:47:53,920 So that is what is proposed for townhome and duplex. 559 00:47:53,920 --> 00:48:01,160 For triplex and fourplex, we added the same; however, we also added the guest parking component 560 00:48:01,160 --> 00:48:02,160 to it. 561 00:48:02,160 --> 00:48:08,940 And I guess this is one that we probably need further discussion, and I know this was something 562 00:48:08,940 --> 00:48:14,520 that the DCRC presented or recommended. 563 00:48:14,520 --> 00:48:18,480 But Richard, help me out here in guest parking. 564 00:48:18,480 --> 00:48:22,980 Is that something we needed to further discuss, or was there something specific that we wanted 565 00:48:22,980 --> 00:48:26,040 to get the DCRC's input on? 566 00:48:26,040 --> 00:48:34,880 I think as we look at it and just, again, do we want to promote triplex, fourplex? 567 00:48:34,880 --> 00:48:42,960 Just thinking about fourplex, for example, if we've got four two-bedroom units, we're 568 00:48:42,960 --> 00:48:53,440 at what, eight, and plus 12 parking spaces is a lot of parking spaces, again, for a unit 569 00:48:53,440 --> 00:48:57,080 that in some instances can fit within single-family districts. 570 00:48:57,080 --> 00:49:05,920 And so just want to be weary of that and make sure that we're not essentially discouraging 571 00:49:05,920 --> 00:49:12,520 this by requiring so much of that land to be dedicated towards parking, and whether 572 00:49:12,520 --> 00:49:17,000 or not that guest parking is truly needed for the fourplex. 573 00:49:17,000 --> 00:49:20,000 Commissioner Rosell. 574 00:49:20,000 --> 00:49:25,200 Yeah, this might not be a big deal, but I wonder if there's a way to clarify or simplify 575 00:49:25,200 --> 00:49:31,920 the language just to say one parking spot per bedroom with a two-spot minimum. 576 00:49:31,920 --> 00:49:37,760 I think that accomplishes the exact same thing, unless I'm misreading it, but it just seems 577 00:49:37,760 --> 00:49:45,640 like that's what we're trying to do is one parking spot per bedroom with two parking 578 00:49:45,640 --> 00:49:46,640 minimum. 579 00:49:46,640 --> 00:49:53,800 Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that seems like a simpler way to say it, but that's just 580 00:49:53,800 --> 00:49:54,800 me. 581 00:49:54,800 --> 00:49:59,920 I think it's the same, Commissioner Rosell, that they're saying the same thing. 582 00:49:59,920 --> 00:50:07,680 I mean, we can certainly entertain that language, but I think what Richard was trying to also 583 00:50:07,680 --> 00:50:11,280 gather from the DCRC is really that additional guest parking. 584 00:50:11,280 --> 00:50:17,600 Is it something that we want to see for triplexes and fourplexes? 585 00:50:17,600 --> 00:50:26,640 I know that Commissioner Smith had mentioned it in his recommendation last week, and something 586 00:50:26,640 --> 00:50:33,320 that we just felt that adding that would add a little bit more area for parking than is 587 00:50:33,320 --> 00:50:46,080 necessary and maybe one per unit wasn't really what we need or wanted. 588 00:50:46,080 --> 00:50:50,200 I would think we should be able to use the same standard as what we do for multifamily, 589 00:50:50,200 --> 00:50:55,200 which is 10% and just do it as a straight 10% rather than in multifamilies, if you're 590 00:50:55,200 --> 00:51:02,320 over 10 units, you have to add 10%, but with 10%, if you've got a fourplex that's all two 591 00:51:02,320 --> 00:51:05,020 bedrooms, you're going to have one extra space. 592 00:51:05,020 --> 00:51:10,120 But if they were all three bedrooms, now you're at 12, so 10% is 1.2, so you're going to have 593 00:51:10,120 --> 00:51:14,480 to add two extra spaces. 594 00:51:14,480 --> 00:51:23,400 Does that seem more in line with ... No, I think we're getting to where we need 595 00:51:23,400 --> 00:51:26,920 the guest parking in case there is the need for guest parking, but at the same time, we 596 00:51:26,920 --> 00:51:30,400 don't want to overpark the area as well. 597 00:51:30,400 --> 00:51:37,160 So having that 10% could be ... I mean, that's a great option, and we're talking about triplexes 598 00:51:37,160 --> 00:51:41,120 and fourplexes. 599 00:51:41,120 --> 00:51:44,600 Mayor Pro Tem. 600 00:51:44,600 --> 00:51:49,680 I guess for me, I'm just a lot less concerned about providing guest parking when we're talking 601 00:51:49,680 --> 00:51:56,560 about these neighborhood scale, single-family scale, they've got two, three, four units 602 00:51:56,560 --> 00:52:00,600 in them, but they are more of a single-family scale. 603 00:52:00,600 --> 00:52:05,480 I don't know, it just seems like we want to make it a little easier to do infill with 604 00:52:05,480 --> 00:52:11,520 this kind of structure, and I'm just less concerned about ... For me, it's more like 605 00:52:11,520 --> 00:52:18,360 the single-family parking conversation than it is the multifamily parking conversation. 606 00:52:18,360 --> 00:52:27,520 I guess that's not exactly providing direction, that's just my mental framework. 607 00:52:27,520 --> 00:52:35,120 So I guess I'd say, unless there's a pretty compelling policy argument for it, I'm fine 608 00:52:35,120 --> 00:52:37,160 with what Commissioner Rozelle said. 609 00:52:37,160 --> 00:52:43,680 I don't know that we need an additional guest parking just because we've upgraded to a duplex 610 00:52:43,680 --> 00:52:44,680 or fourplex. 611 00:52:44,680 --> 00:52:54,080 Yeah, and unfortunately, I don't see Commissioner Smith on the call, so I ... 612 00:52:54,080 --> 00:52:59,960 Yeah, I think he had to go to another meeting at noon. 613 00:52:59,960 --> 00:53:02,000 Okay. 614 00:53:02,000 --> 00:53:05,800 Yes, Marty. 615 00:53:05,800 --> 00:53:06,800 Thank you, Chair. 616 00:53:06,800 --> 00:53:08,000 I'll just weigh in slightly. 617 00:53:08,000 --> 00:53:14,560 I think the way it's established here is probably a little bit overkill on guest parking. 618 00:53:14,560 --> 00:53:18,200 However, I am a proponent of some type of guest parking. 619 00:53:18,200 --> 00:53:24,440 When we get into triplexes, fourplexes, it does bring more people in, they will have 620 00:53:24,440 --> 00:53:29,440 visitors and guests, and it would be nice to have at least a couple of spaces. 621 00:53:29,440 --> 00:53:36,400 So perhaps what Chair said of a percentage, I think I can get on board with that to at 622 00:53:36,400 --> 00:53:43,960 least provide something more than one space per bedroom, because I have seen that be an 623 00:53:43,960 --> 00:53:44,960 issue. 624 00:53:44,960 --> 00:53:51,120 I have seen neighborhood crowding, I have seen illegal parking in front of these types 625 00:53:51,120 --> 00:53:52,120 of units. 626 00:53:52,120 --> 00:54:01,080 So I think if we can help that even slightly, it helps, and it helps with towing issues 627 00:54:01,080 --> 00:54:02,080 as well. 628 00:54:02,080 --> 00:54:03,080 Thanks, Jesse. 629 00:54:03,080 --> 00:54:11,880 So since we're kind of zeroed in on triplexes and fourplexes, we kind of know what the percentages 630 00:54:11,880 --> 00:54:16,640 are going to be, because we know the number of units that we're talking about. 631 00:54:16,640 --> 00:54:21,280 What if we just did something as simple as, for a triplex you have one more guest spot, 632 00:54:21,280 --> 00:54:23,680 for a fourplex you have two guest spots. 633 00:54:23,680 --> 00:54:29,320 Instead of making it a multiple or a factor of the number of units, we know what those 634 00:54:29,320 --> 00:54:30,360 are. 635 00:54:30,360 --> 00:54:36,200 Just one guest spot for triplex, two for quadplex. 636 00:54:36,200 --> 00:54:37,200 That's simple. 637 00:54:37,200 --> 00:54:42,640 Just on the base unit, right, one triplex, one plus one for each bedroom. 638 00:54:42,640 --> 00:54:43,640 Great. 639 00:54:43,640 --> 00:55:05,240 No, I feel like we got that noted as well, and we'll certainly draft that, and I think 640 00:55:05,240 --> 00:55:15,680 that accomplish, again, the concerns, or at least the thoughts that I've heard this afternoon. 641 00:55:15,680 --> 00:55:23,840 I think that, I know we have a lot more discussions, and let me go ahead and look at my PowerPoint 642 00:55:23,840 --> 00:55:26,040 real quick. 643 00:55:26,040 --> 00:55:32,480 The next set of couple of slides, I know we've got a lot of parking discussions, but I wanted 644 00:55:32,480 --> 00:55:48,040 to have an opportunity to ask the DCRC, rather than go into the next few slides with parking. 645 00:55:48,040 --> 00:55:49,280 We did cover a lot today. 646 00:55:49,280 --> 00:55:55,340 I don't know if we want to jump into the next set of code memos, and it's specifically related 647 00:55:55,340 --> 00:55:59,840 to parking and commercial parkings generally. 648 00:55:59,840 --> 00:56:05,800 I would like to ask the DCRC if this is something that we would like to continue at our next 649 00:56:05,800 --> 00:56:10,600 meeting or continue it today. 650 00:56:10,600 --> 00:56:16,800 Just wanted to provide that opportunity or that option for the DCRC. 651 00:56:16,800 --> 00:56:21,560 Yes, Jesse, go ahead. 652 00:56:21,560 --> 00:56:26,320 I'm certainly fine with what the group wants to do, but I will tell you, I have a lot of 653 00:56:26,320 --> 00:56:31,560 questions on parking, and I think most of my questions might be able to be answered 654 00:56:31,560 --> 00:56:38,400 if we had some kind of a, I don't know, maybe a memo or an ISR that told us, all right, 655 00:56:38,400 --> 00:56:41,200 we've proposed this change to religious assembly. 656 00:56:41,200 --> 00:56:42,200 Here's why. 657 00:56:42,200 --> 00:56:43,680 You know, the paragraph. 658 00:56:43,680 --> 00:56:45,280 Here's why we need that change. 659 00:56:45,280 --> 00:56:49,520 Religious assembly is calculated differently than movie theater or auditorium. 660 00:56:49,520 --> 00:56:50,520 Here's why. 661 00:56:50,520 --> 00:56:54,400 You know, just why we have minimums in the places that we do, because I think otherwise 662 00:56:54,400 --> 00:56:59,120 what I'll find myself doing, I'm just being just for myself and nobody else, but I'll 663 00:56:59,120 --> 00:57:04,440 be asking those questions and, you know, take an hour of our time wondering how in the world 664 00:57:04,440 --> 00:57:06,760 did we get to this minimum? 665 00:57:06,760 --> 00:57:11,520 And it may make all the sense in the world to the planning staff, but I just, I have 666 00:57:11,520 --> 00:57:17,640 no good frame of reference yet for why we have certain minimums on certain uses. 667 00:57:17,640 --> 00:57:25,800 Mayor Procham, if I can, I guess, respond, would that be something that we can cover 668 00:57:25,800 --> 00:57:28,760 in AIS before our next meeting? 669 00:57:28,760 --> 00:57:29,760 You mentioned ISR. 670 00:57:29,760 --> 00:57:35,840 I wasn't sure if that was an AIS to the DCRC specifically, would that be more appropriate 671 00:57:35,840 --> 00:57:36,840 than the ISR? 672 00:57:36,840 --> 00:57:41,520 Yeah, I think specifically to the community, but I can tell you, you know, if parking minimums 673 00:57:41,520 --> 00:57:48,000 come forward to council and P&Z, those will be in involved conversations also. 674 00:57:48,000 --> 00:57:55,040 So it's, I leave it to you all the best way to communicate that, but I know that it's, 675 00:57:55,040 --> 00:58:00,600 that's a conversation that will be pretty in depth for both bodies, and you may, similar 676 00:58:00,600 --> 00:58:08,680 to the issue that council took up last night, it may be something that you work up even 677 00:58:08,680 --> 00:58:14,480 for hopping over this group and going straight to the two other bodies, not because this 678 00:58:14,480 --> 00:58:22,160 group wouldn't have helpful input or even helpful conversation, but I expect it to be 679 00:58:22,160 --> 00:58:28,440 a robust conversation in both P&Z and council. 680 00:58:28,440 --> 00:58:32,720 I know it's a lot of, there's a lot of conversation around parking minimums offline. 681 00:58:32,720 --> 00:58:37,920 I know the commissioners and council members hear a lot about parking minimums and unintended 682 00:58:37,920 --> 00:58:39,760 consequences, all those sorts of things. 683 00:58:39,760 --> 00:58:45,120 So I kind of leave it to you all the best way to handle that and schedule that and communicate 684 00:58:45,120 --> 00:58:46,440 the information. 685 00:58:46,440 --> 00:58:53,000 I guess my main point is to say that's a pretty intense conversation for May the 5th. 686 00:58:53,000 --> 00:58:54,000 Understood. 687 00:58:54,000 --> 00:59:01,960 Just to add, I think that was part of the reason even why we were, you know, running 688 00:59:01,960 --> 00:59:06,360 a little behind today is kind of going back through looking at some of it. 689 00:59:06,360 --> 00:59:11,440 See over the last year, a lot of things have changed, especially the way businesses operate. 690 00:59:11,440 --> 00:59:15,080 And so it really caused us on some of our, some of the items that we were even bringing 691 00:59:15,080 --> 00:59:19,120 forward that we had looked at, you know, six months, a year ago, kind of causing us to 692 00:59:19,120 --> 00:59:25,800 rethink just how we want to truly look at requiring, if at all, some of these, some 693 00:59:25,800 --> 00:59:32,760 of these standards or adjusting to more takeout, looking more at drive through again, or even 694 00:59:32,760 --> 00:59:35,080 in the, in and around the downtown area. 695 00:59:35,080 --> 00:59:48,460 So it's probably warranted, definitely warranted, I shouldn't say probably. 696 00:59:48,460 --> 00:59:54,280 So I guess the, the question I guess for the DCRC, we, I mean, certainly I heard from Mayor 697 00:59:54,280 --> 00:59:57,840 Bochum and I agree and understand what needs to be put. 698 00:59:57,840 --> 01:00:02,520 The presentation was for discussion, but I think a few more background, a lot more background 699 01:00:02,520 --> 01:00:08,520 that is to cover the reasons for those recommendations and changes I think are needed and we certainly 700 01:00:08,520 --> 01:00:13,440 can and Richard and I will discuss with Scott how we want to present that before our next 701 01:00:13,440 --> 01:00:14,440 DCRC. 702 01:00:14,440 --> 01:00:21,120 Is it for, for just this group or the whole, you know, full P&Z and full City Council? 703 01:00:21,120 --> 01:00:26,880 And we definitely want to make sure we have that information before you all can, you know, 704 01:00:26,880 --> 01:00:33,100 provide, you know, input and direction as to each of the code amendments. 705 01:00:33,100 --> 01:00:37,240 So I guess back to the initial question is, well, you can certainly end it here. 706 01:00:37,240 --> 01:00:42,280 And again, before we get into the next topics, which we already discussed needs more background 707 01:00:42,280 --> 01:00:43,480 information. 708 01:00:43,480 --> 01:00:50,200 I don't have anything else to share, but a lot of what we needed, we definitely heard 709 01:00:50,200 --> 01:00:55,660 from the DCRC in the previous slides. 710 01:00:55,660 --> 01:01:06,840 So again, up to the DCRC, if it is to convene or to continue. 711 01:01:06,840 --> 01:01:14,000 Sounds like looking at the head nods and what Mayor Pro Tem had to say that we'll wait for 712 01:01:14,000 --> 01:01:18,640 the further information and that makes more sense. 713 01:01:18,640 --> 01:01:24,040 You can end up talking about something for an hour, whereas a paragraph about it could 714 01:01:24,040 --> 01:01:26,040 solve all the answers. 715 01:01:26,040 --> 01:01:27,040 Correct. 716 01:01:27,040 --> 01:01:28,040 Okay. 717 01:01:28,040 --> 01:01:32,640 So, is that the end of what you've? 718 01:01:32,640 --> 01:01:37,280 That's, that's, that's where, that's where I like to end my presentation. 719 01:01:37,280 --> 01:01:38,280 Yes. 720 01:01:38,280 --> 01:01:39,280 Okay. 721 01:01:39,280 --> 01:01:40,280 Then we'll go to concluding items. 722 01:01:40,280 --> 01:01:42,960 Anyone have any concluding items? 723 01:01:42,960 --> 01:01:48,280 Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. 724 01:01:48,280 --> 01:01:53,880 I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your service on this committee through many, many 725 01:01:53,880 --> 01:01:54,880 years. 726 01:01:54,880 --> 01:02:03,560 Now, we are on this committee and the 2019 code owes you a debt of gratitude, the quality 727 01:02:03,560 --> 01:02:07,160 of development and building that we're going to have in this city for many years to come 728 01:02:07,160 --> 01:02:08,440 owes you a debt of gratitude. 729 01:02:08,440 --> 01:02:11,200 So, and don't think we're going to lose your phone number. 730 01:02:11,200 --> 01:02:12,200 Yeah. 731 01:02:12,200 --> 01:02:17,800 Well, I know he's already got my spreadsheet saved somewhere. 732 01:02:17,800 --> 01:02:18,800 Margie. 733 01:02:18,800 --> 01:02:21,480 Thank you, Chair. 734 01:02:21,480 --> 01:02:23,200 And I would just like to add to that, John. 735 01:02:23,200 --> 01:02:25,480 You have brought so much to this committee over the years. 736 01:02:25,480 --> 01:02:30,240 I've been on it with you from the beginning and the knowledge you have shared and the 737 01:02:30,240 --> 01:02:36,240 preparation that you have come to every meeting with is invaluable, truly. 738 01:02:36,240 --> 01:02:38,280 Thank you. 739 01:02:38,280 --> 01:02:47,440 I would also like to echo that I just remember our earlier meetings where you came in with 740 01:02:47,440 --> 01:02:54,080 your book with tabs on them, ready to talk, spreadsheets, you know, made me look bad. 741 01:02:54,080 --> 01:02:56,880 But hey, it was enough to get the work done. 742 01:02:56,880 --> 01:03:04,600 So I appreciate your efforts and your hard work and dedication towards the DCRC. 743 01:03:04,600 --> 01:03:05,600 It's a team effort. 744 01:03:05,600 --> 01:03:09,080 I remember when Scott had you cut the corners off of one of my books and that's why I had 745 01:03:09,080 --> 01:03:10,880 to get a yellow sticky note. 746 01:03:10,880 --> 01:03:16,400 Just a little, just a little snippet. 747 01:03:16,400 --> 01:03:21,720 I echo the same, and it was always interesting, especially in meetings when you would quote 748 01:03:21,720 --> 01:03:29,120 a section of the code and it's like, how does he remember that, flipping through the book? 749 01:03:29,120 --> 01:03:30,120 Thank you. 750 01:03:30,120 --> 01:03:38,560 Well, it's been my pleasure and honor to serve as chair on this committee and I'll continue 751 01:03:38,560 --> 01:03:49,080 on and make sure our code is what we really need for the growth of the city. 752 01:03:49,080 --> 01:03:56,120 And if there's nothing else, I guess we will adjourn at 12/12 on 5/5. 753 01:03:56,120 --> 01:03:59,320 Have a great day, everybody. 754 01:03:59,320 --> 01:04:00,320 Bye. 755 01:04:00,320 --> 01:04:00,320 Thanks.