WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.520 Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Development Code Review Committee. 00:00:09.520 --> 00:00:11.040 We do have a quorum present. 00:00:11.040 --> 00:00:16.240 It is 1108 on Wednesday, May the 5th, 2021. 00:00:16.240 --> 00:00:18.320 So we'll get started on our items for individual consideration. 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:24.880 The first item up is consider approval of the minutes from April 28th, 2021. 00:00:24.880 --> 00:00:29.420 Tim, go ahead. 00:00:29.420 --> 00:00:31.160 Make a motion to approve. 00:00:31.160 --> 00:00:32.160 Okay. 00:00:32.160 --> 00:00:33.840 We have a motion. 00:00:33.840 --> 00:00:34.840 Margie? 00:00:34.840 --> 00:00:35.840 Second. 00:00:35.840 --> 00:00:37.640 We have a motion and a second. 00:00:37.640 --> 00:00:39.960 All those in favor say, "Hi." 00:00:39.960 --> 00:00:40.960 Hi. 00:00:40.960 --> 00:00:41.960 Hi. 00:00:41.960 --> 00:00:42.960 Any opposed? 00:00:42.960 --> 00:00:45.640 The motion carries unanimously. 00:00:45.640 --> 00:00:51.760 Next item is receive, item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding 00:00:51.760 --> 00:00:57.720 proposed code amendments related to accessory dwelling units and subchapter seven of development 00:00:57.720 --> 00:00:58.720 standards. 00:00:58.720 --> 00:00:59.720 Ron, it's all yours. 00:00:59.720 --> 00:01:00.720 Great. 00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:01.720 Thank you, Chair. 00:01:01.720 --> 00:01:06.960 I'll go ahead and start bringing my presentation notice. 00:01:06.960 --> 00:01:14.320 Hopefully, you all can see the presentation. 00:01:14.320 --> 00:01:15.720 Go ahead and get started. 00:01:15.720 --> 00:01:19.960 As Chair Ryan mentioned, we're going to start off with accessory dwelling units and then 00:01:19.960 --> 00:01:27.280 get into some of our discussions related to development standards, landscaping, and others 00:01:27.280 --> 00:01:30.160 listed here. 00:01:30.160 --> 00:01:36.420 The first thing I wanted to bring up with the DCRC is really the accessory dwelling 00:01:36.420 --> 00:01:41.000 unit relates to the following general requirements. 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 00:01:49.640 --> 00:01:53.840 both lots that are less than 10,000 and more than 10,000. 00:01:53.840 --> 00:02:01.040 Any accessory dwelling unit proposed has to be more than 400, 400 or more. 00:02:01.040 --> 00:02:08.440 I also moved the number of limited bedrooms, the two maximum bedrooms to general. 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 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:18.140 under general. 00:02:18.140 --> 00:02:27.080 We also added the letter G to general where any accessory dwelling unit proposed is required 00:02:27.080 --> 00:02:33.320 to have a minimum of two parking spaces for the principal use. 00:02:33.320 --> 00:02:40.360 In addition to the required parking space for the accessory dwelling unit itself. 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 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 00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:08.680 space for the principal use, the single family, and any parking required for that ADU, so 00:03:08.680 --> 00:03:13.560 potentially a third parking space for that property. 00:03:13.560 --> 00:03:15.640 Hopefully, that makes sense. 00:03:15.640 --> 00:03:22.820 That's to address the minimum of two parking spaces for that dwelling unit. 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 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 00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:44.040 are the older lots within the infill area that are smaller in general. 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 00:03:49.640 --> 00:03:54.160 we were discussing this just earlier this morning about a potential option for those 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 00:04:02.300 --> 00:04:06.480 still meet the landscaping requirements. 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 00:04:13.480 --> 00:04:21.480 the development review for those areas that cannot put parking that is required, there 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 00:04:30.440 --> 00:04:32.000 situation of that area. 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 00:04:39.760 --> 00:04:46.640 that a minimum of two is part of that ADU proposal. 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 00:04:51.280 --> 00:04:57.520 about this in our last meeting where there was a question about how tall a structure 00:04:57.520 --> 00:04:58.520 can be. 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 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 00:05:11.760 --> 00:05:12.760 matter what. 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 00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:27.360 garage or add to that garage a second floor accessory dwelling unit, they could. 00:05:27.360 --> 00:05:30.400 But that's the max as two stories. 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 00:05:37.040 --> 00:05:40.440 add a two story accessory dwelling units, they could. 00:05:40.440 --> 00:05:49.600 Again, the max would be two story in that or in those situations. 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? 00:05:55.960 --> 00:05:58.120 Commissioner Smith. 00:05:58.120 --> 00:06:00.520 Yeah, thank you, Chair. 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 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 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 00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:24.680 primary dwelling unit, that the accessory dwelling unit shouldn't be any more stories than the 00:06:24.680 --> 00:06:28.160 main residence that's on that property. 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 00:06:36.640 --> 00:06:39.440 as the primary residence, whichever is less. 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. 00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:44.240 Yeah, yeah. 00:06:44.240 --> 00:06:49.800 I guess maybe that's a, I guess we need some direction from the DCRC. 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 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 00:07:04.360 --> 00:07:10.280 dwelling unit, whatever that story is, then that additional accessory dwelling unit has 00:07:10.280 --> 00:07:11.280 to match. 00:07:11.280 --> 00:07:16.600 But again, instances where there's garages, I mean, again, where do you want, where is 00:07:16.600 --> 00:07:17.600 the DCRC? 00:07:17.600 --> 00:07:22.400 Yeah, and I guess a follow up question to your point. 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 00:07:27.680 --> 00:07:30.320 that count as an accessory dwelling unit at that point in time? 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 00:07:34.200 --> 00:07:35.680 of a one story home? 00:07:35.680 --> 00:07:36.840 Does that make sense? 00:07:36.840 --> 00:07:39.280 I don't know where the delineation is. 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 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:45.000 overnight. 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:48.640 I don't know what the, how that's seen within the code. 00:07:48.640 --> 00:07:49.640 Yeah. 00:07:49.640 --> 00:07:50.640 That's a good question. 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 00:07:56.480 --> 00:07:59.200 floor. 00:07:59.200 --> 00:08:03.040 I'm drawing a blank because we don't have a lot of those. 00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:08.520 Most of the accessory dwelling units have been detached or attached by, you know, on the 00:08:08.520 --> 00:08:13.080 side, not necessarily above. 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, 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 00:08:23.880 --> 00:08:30.600 that is primarily single story to then add on a detached or attached accessory dwelling 00:08:30.600 --> 00:08:36.560 unit that is then two stories out of nowhere and neighbors without any, without any repercussions 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 00:08:44.200 --> 00:08:46.880 in front of them that they weren't originally expecting. 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 00:08:53.160 --> 00:08:56.040 accessory building unit should be limited to the amount of stories the house has. 00:08:56.040 --> 00:08:59.480 If it's already two stories, then two stories fine, with two stories being the max. 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 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 00:09:10.080 --> 00:09:14.960 an accessory dwelling unit, if that would be an issue. 00:09:14.960 --> 00:09:21.120 Richard, do you want to reply and then we'll go to Commissioner Roselle after that? 00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:22.120 Yep. 00:09:22.120 --> 00:09:23.480 Just wanted to provide just some clarification. 00:09:23.480 --> 00:09:28.240 So we, within the 2019 DDC, we only regulate by feet. 00:09:28.240 --> 00:09:34.880 So whether or not they would convert it, it wouldn't, really wouldn't matter. 00:09:34.880 --> 00:09:38.840 But for single family, most of our, I think almost all of our single family districts, 00:09:38.840 --> 00:09:45.760 it's 40 feet is the max height. 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 00:09:50.640 --> 00:09:54.940 see exceed the primary structure. 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 00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:03.720 that sometimes do exceed that height. 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 00:10:10.480 --> 00:10:15.720 have barns for, you know, new barns under construction, which obviously exceed a one 00:10:15.720 --> 00:10:18.080 story ranch house that's typically on the site. 00:10:18.080 --> 00:10:21.640 So just wanted to, just wanted to bring that up. 00:10:21.640 --> 00:10:24.960 Thank you, Richard. 00:10:24.960 --> 00:10:29.960 Andrew, did you have something to add? 00:10:29.960 --> 00:10:34.400 Yeah, my only clarification to Commissioner Smith's point was to regulate it in feet because 00:10:34.400 --> 00:10:37.280 stories you could have pitched roofs, different heights and stuff like that. 00:10:37.280 --> 00:10:41.520 So Richard actually clarified it. 00:10:41.520 --> 00:10:46.760 So I guess looking for direction, ultimately we obviously will need to bring this up and 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 00:10:52.120 --> 00:11:02.280 the accessory dwelling units to the height and stories to match the single family or 00:11:02.280 --> 00:11:05.880 do we just want to set a max of two stories? 00:11:05.880 --> 00:11:08.880 I think the, I think the height, I think what Commissioner Rosell said is correct. 00:11:08.880 --> 00:11:10.840 The height is a better way to do it. 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 00:11:16.440 --> 00:11:21.400 that yes, pitching can be beneath 40 feet, we could have a two story. 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 00:11:26.400 --> 00:11:27.400 there. 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 00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:35.340 a detached accessory dwelling unit or an attached accessory dwelling unit that is still under 00:11:35.340 --> 00:11:40.920 40, but now it's two stories and neighbors around them, that, that, that property owner 00:11:40.920 --> 00:11:43.000 is able to build that by right. 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 00:11:48.420 --> 00:11:51.760 being done so. 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 00:11:57.200 --> 00:11:58.480 primary residents have. 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 00:12:01.760 --> 00:12:02.760 that's already in the code. 00:12:02.760 --> 00:12:03.760 Right. 00:12:03.760 --> 00:12:04.760 That's, that's loud. 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 00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:16.360 another, cause you brought up the option of using an SGP on the parking earlier. 00:12:16.360 --> 00:12:23.480 This might be, you know, cannot exceed the height of the main dwelling, right? 00:12:23.480 --> 00:12:24.480 Without an SGP. 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 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 00:12:32.880 --> 00:12:35.960 with an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor. 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 00:12:43.160 --> 00:12:48.120 able to look into the neighbors backyard, you know, do we need to have further setback 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 00:12:52.560 --> 00:12:58.040 distance from single family residential, we're limiting it there. 00:12:58.040 --> 00:12:59.520 I think that's a great idea. 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 00:13:05.880 --> 00:13:11.400 thinking about grouping it into the smaller or the, the lesser amount of fee associated 00:13:11.400 --> 00:13:17.760 with an SGP typically an SGP, regular SGP is, is roughly around $8,000. 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 00:13:23.040 --> 00:13:26.480 to incentivize it's a lesser amount of things around $600. 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. 00:13:34.840 --> 00:13:36.160 So that could be an option as well. 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 00:13:41.320 --> 00:13:46.400 height or stories from accessory dwelling units. 00:13:46.400 --> 00:13:49.560 Margie. 00:13:49.560 --> 00:13:50.560 Thank you, chair. 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 00:13:55.000 --> 00:14:00.880 single family residential neighborhoods, but I do question if we want to do that when we 00:14:00.880 --> 00:14:07.640 get more into rural areas where an accessory dwelling units certainly might exceed the 00:14:07.640 --> 00:14:10.520 ranch style home that is on an estate size property. 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 00:14:17.760 --> 00:14:24.400 types of properties and putting this type of restriction in. 00:14:24.400 --> 00:14:25.760 I would definitely agree with that. 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 00:14:29.520 --> 00:14:30.520 it. 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 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 00:14:40.160 --> 00:14:41.680 something else about it. 00:14:41.680 --> 00:14:43.760 That's going to cause an issue for the neighborhood. 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. 00:14:51.880 --> 00:14:57.680 Any other comments on that is, Mayor Pro Tem. 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 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 00:15:09.440 --> 00:15:12.760 worry about what's a garage and what's an apartment. 00:15:12.760 --> 00:15:15.280 Just if you're going to be taller than the main house, get an SGP. 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 00:15:19.240 --> 00:15:21.760 fee structure. 00:15:21.760 --> 00:15:25.560 Okay, I appreciate that. 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 00:15:32.600 --> 00:15:41.320 a draft for, for us to move forward with with the ADUs. 00:15:41.320 --> 00:15:42.320 Any other questions? 00:15:42.320 --> 00:15:50.800 I'll go ahead and pull back my presentation. 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 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 00:16:09.680 --> 00:16:19.160 areas are required for parking reconfiguration reconstruction or other similar projects identified 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 00:16:28.320 --> 00:16:30.560 last couple of meetings. 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. 00:16:35.360 --> 00:16:44.320 So for tier one parking space improvements or expansions, including reconfiguring reconstructing 00:16:44.320 --> 00:16:51.660 or other similar projects that impact 50% or more of the existing parking lots greater 00:16:51.660 --> 00:16:53.040 than 10 spaces. 00:16:53.040 --> 00:17:00.440 So any parking lot with 10 spaces would not apply, period. 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 00:17:10.040 --> 00:17:18.040 reconstructing or other projects of 50% or more, then the trigger for tier one applies. 00:17:18.040 --> 00:17:21.120 I hope that makes sense. 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 00:17:29.960 --> 00:17:43.360 to reconstruct or add, you know, affecting basically 11 spaces, then you would have to 00:17:43.360 --> 00:17:51.160 apply tier one requirements to those 11 spaces because it only applies to the development 00:17:51.160 --> 00:17:58.400 impact area where that reconstruction or reconfiguration is occurring. 00:17:58.400 --> 00:18:00.720 Does that make sense? 00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:02.880 Does that need further clarification? 00:18:02.880 --> 00:18:11.380 Another example, we landed with 10 primarily because when we look at the parking lot requirements 00:18:11.380 --> 00:18:21.560 for landscaping, 10 was the trigger for adding a parking island tree associated with that. 00:18:21.560 --> 00:18:28.840 So 10 seemed to be the number that was most suitable for this. 00:18:28.840 --> 00:18:36.200 And again, wanting to address the smaller businesses, smaller lots, and 10 was again 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 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. 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 00:18:56.280 --> 00:19:04.280 for the landscaping requirements. 00:19:04.280 --> 00:19:07.240 So before I move on, I think that was the only clarification. 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 00:19:14.560 --> 00:19:23.720 the reconstruction discussion on use of material from our follow up in discussions with Scott 00:19:23.720 --> 00:19:34.400 and Richard, any parking lot that is demoed or completely under construction and reconstructed 00:19:34.400 --> 00:19:39.560 to whatever material that would constitute reconstructing. 00:19:39.560 --> 00:19:44.800 So that is to clarify the definition. 00:19:44.800 --> 00:19:51.240 If there is a resurfacing or restriping where they're simply topping it with additional 00:19:51.240 --> 00:19:57.540 slurry or whatnot and then restriping it, that would not count under this provision. 00:19:57.540 --> 00:20:07.580 So any major reconstruction would apply. 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 00:20:17.620 --> 00:20:20.620 or proposed draft? 00:20:20.620 --> 00:20:33.640 I don't see any so I'll go ahead and continue with PowerPoint presentation. 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 00:20:37.560 --> 00:20:43.160 there's not any changes to tier two that we haven't already discussed. 00:20:43.160 --> 00:20:48.400 This is just to illustrate the 10 spaces where parking lot landscaping was mentioned earlier 00:20:48.400 --> 00:20:54.880 in my discussion and we've already seen this table. 00:20:54.880 --> 00:21:03.160 All right, the next item for discussion is, it says landscaping screen buffering fences, 00:21:03.160 --> 00:21:10.280 but really it's the perimeter walls and fence adjacent to a front public right away. 00:21:10.280 --> 00:21:17.360 And these are primarily what you see along major arterials or collectors. 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 00:21:24.660 --> 00:21:28.320 where we are talking, what we're talking about. 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. 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 00:21:43.360 --> 00:21:49.280 away an arterial or collector, therefore it would not apply. 00:21:49.280 --> 00:21:54.240 So we're just talking about the red line or red area within a subdivision. 00:21:54.240 --> 00:21:57.440 And this could be both residential or commercial. 00:21:57.440 --> 00:22:04.200 So if there's a commercial development and has for whatever reason, a wall or fence, 00:22:04.200 --> 00:22:10.880 it would be only applicable to those that are along an arterial or collector. 00:22:10.880 --> 00:22:18.040 So I'll go back up to what is required for those developments, for new developments, 00:22:18.040 --> 00:22:19.040 that is. 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 00:22:26.200 --> 00:22:30.600 and we do have some photos that we can share if we need to. 00:22:30.600 --> 00:22:34.960 For new development, allowable materials, again, this is for fences and walls adjacent 00:22:34.960 --> 00:22:42.400 to public right away, include masonry slash concrete, wrought iron, which could be made 00:22:42.400 --> 00:22:51.600 up of steel, aluminum of other material, elevated and elevated 12 inches minimum masonry concrete 00:22:51.600 --> 00:22:52.820 and wood. 00:22:52.820 --> 00:23:01.000 So masonry concrete is one, wrought iron is two, elevated 12 inches minimum masonry and 00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:04.000 wood is three. 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. 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 00:23:18.540 --> 00:23:21.760 you all an idea of what we're talking about. 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, 00:23:27.840 --> 00:23:31.800 made this presentation to the city council, I believe during a work session, we were talking 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, 00:23:39.640 --> 00:23:43.980 as well as maintenance responsibilities. 00:23:43.980 --> 00:23:49.040 So here's two examples of a residential subdivision. 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 00:23:56.800 --> 00:24:02.280 the homeowners and you can see based on just looking here, they've got three different 00:24:02.280 --> 00:24:11.880 applications or applications, I guess, maintenance of the wood and they're all at different times. 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 00:24:18.120 --> 00:24:25.120 of a consistent maintenance and look to their wood fences. 00:24:25.120 --> 00:24:30.960 Just some examples around town, this is mainly down south of the city, Teasley Trails and 00:24:30.960 --> 00:24:38.140 Ryan Meadows, you see that the masonry, all masonry right, as well as some landscaping 00:24:38.140 --> 00:24:41.100 along the front. 00:24:41.100 --> 00:24:46.320 These are fairly new subdivisions within the last two years. 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 00:24:51.880 --> 00:24:57.440 River where obviously they want to take advantage of some of the amenities within their residential 00:24:57.440 --> 00:25:04.960 neighborhood to provide that view shed but also keep, you know, the openness look. 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 00:25:12.560 --> 00:25:18.520 wall they've added wrought iron to provide that aesthetic look. 00:25:18.520 --> 00:25:24.280 Here's some examples as it relates to the sidewalk discussion, you know, how far from 00:25:24.280 --> 00:25:28.120 the sidewalk should a wall or a fence be? 00:25:28.120 --> 00:25:33.240 I think that we want to see some sort of separation or some distance between. 00:25:33.240 --> 00:25:39.580 This is a new subdivision, Evers Way along Locusts, where they basically placed the fence 00:25:39.580 --> 00:25:41.120 along the sidewalk. 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, 00:25:47.240 --> 00:25:53.160 Ryan Ranch, they've actually provided a meandering sidewalk with a lot more open area separation 00:25:53.160 --> 00:25:55.240 between the fence and sidewalk. 00:25:55.240 --> 00:26:03.280 So just some examples of that particular provision that we have proposed. 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 00:26:11.560 --> 00:26:12.560 Ryan Ranch? 00:26:12.560 --> 00:26:18.280 I'm thinking this is part of that development, maybe further north. 00:26:18.280 --> 00:26:23.920 And what you see here is the elevated masonry with wood. 00:26:23.920 --> 00:26:31.160 That was one of the materials that we were discussing as an option for perimeter walls 00:26:31.160 --> 00:26:35.160 that, you know, again, adjacent to a collector or arterial. 00:26:35.160 --> 00:26:37.560 We say a minimum of 12 inches. 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 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. 00:26:49.320 --> 00:26:51.800 I mean, higher than what you see here, that is. 00:26:51.800 --> 00:26:55.660 And it has a combination, again, of masonry and wood. 00:26:55.660 --> 00:27:01.600 That is what I believe was intended when it was discussed. 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 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 00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:23.920 and the person installing or developing this does understand what is required. 00:27:23.920 --> 00:27:33.160 So those are the examples of the types of materials that we are looking for direction 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 00:27:40.760 --> 00:27:42.600 adjacent to an arterial or collector. 00:27:42.600 --> 00:27:47.800 So again, this is what is proposed. 00:27:47.800 --> 00:27:57.100 We did also talk about including an exhibit or showing what was approved with the MPC 00:27:57.100 --> 00:28:00.560 that was approved recently. 00:28:00.560 --> 00:28:07.120 This is what was approved under the Cole Hunter Ranch MPC. 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 00:28:12.960 --> 00:28:13.960 iron. 00:28:13.960 --> 00:28:17.680 And that's all they are able to do for new development. 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. 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 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 00:28:40.360 --> 00:28:48.120 along an arterial or collector that elevated 12 inches of minimum masonry concrete and 00:28:48.120 --> 00:28:52.000 wood as an option. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:59.040 And I'm going to stop and see if there are any questions, comments, recommendations. 00:28:59.040 --> 00:29:03.320 Jesse and then Tim. 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 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. 00:29:14.320 --> 00:29:16.360 But, you know, you got kind of a Western look there. 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 00:29:22.080 --> 00:29:24.680 the monument sign for the subdivision. 00:29:24.680 --> 00:29:27.240 The issue, though, of course, is the maintenance. 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 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 00:29:38.880 --> 00:29:39.880 in place. 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 00:29:42.600 --> 00:29:48.480 with the city to show that that perimeter fence is going to be maintained, at least 00:29:48.480 --> 00:29:56.040 as close to perpetuity as we can predict, by an HOA as opposed to homeowner responsibility. 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, 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 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. 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 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 00:30:27.800 --> 00:30:33.640 are maintained, not necessarily owned by private property, but maintained. 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 00:30:40.840 --> 00:30:42.480 does happen. 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 00:30:48.240 --> 00:30:51.080 know, the question is going to be again, who's going to maintain that? 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 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 00:31:02.940 --> 00:31:07.320 to be, you know, maintained. 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, 00:31:13.040 --> 00:31:16.280 but masonry also requires maintenance as well. 00:31:16.280 --> 00:31:20.160 So there's a lot of those to discuss as well. 00:31:20.160 --> 00:31:27.600 Tim, go ahead. 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 00:31:33.240 --> 00:31:34.240 on this. 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, 00:31:38.280 --> 00:31:39.520 but it's long lasting. 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 00:31:43.880 --> 00:31:49.840 iron is longer lasting, but eventually if, you know, if a homeowner whose that fencing 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 00:31:54.440 --> 00:31:55.440 iron. 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 00:32:00.280 --> 00:32:01.280 POA in place. 00:32:01.280 --> 00:32:05.200 And so, because I think the inconsistency, like what you showed your example picture 00:32:05.200 --> 00:32:08.200 is that it's not a good look for the city. 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 00:32:12.920 --> 00:32:13.920 a solution. 00:32:13.920 --> 00:32:14.920 That's not overreaching. 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 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 00:32:25.640 --> 00:32:26.640 with wood. 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 00:32:30.920 --> 00:32:35.480 times that whenever we felt like we wanted to put something before the legislation change 00:32:35.480 --> 00:32:39.640 where we could mandate this, but we wanted to have a development do something that was 00:32:39.640 --> 00:32:46.240 masonry because of aesthetics as well as privacy to neighbors and privacy to the homeowners 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 00:32:52.320 --> 00:32:54.720 the homes that are being sold in that area. 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 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 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 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 00:33:15.660 --> 00:33:16.760 now in real estate. 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 00:33:22.440 --> 00:33:30.960 cheaper than full masonry and it's not see-through like wrought iron. 00:33:30.960 --> 00:33:34.720 And I would pretty much agree with that as well. 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 00:33:38.600 --> 00:33:43.160 about the wood had to have architectural design to it or not? 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 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. 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 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 00:34:07.540 --> 00:34:12.900 we can certainly work on that and see what we can come up with. 00:34:12.900 --> 00:34:14.840 Architectural detail to the wood is what you mean. 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 00:34:22.520 --> 00:34:25.520 it next to pick it. 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. 00:34:33.760 --> 00:34:37.920 I've also heard obviously the maintenance of wood. 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. 00:34:42.600 --> 00:34:49.080 That's what we normally require, but again there are situations where maintenance is 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 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 00:35:06.480 --> 00:35:20.440 they do to maintain those open areas and those common areas that include walls and fences. 00:35:20.440 --> 00:35:25.080 Any other questions or comments related to the perimeter? 00:35:25.080 --> 00:35:30.960 Let me go back to my screen here for my PowerPoint. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:14.360 --> 00:36:20.760 of a lesser classification that number can drop down to five and provide that distance 00:36:20.760 --> 00:36:25.280 between the sidewalk and the wall or the fence. 00:36:25.280 --> 00:36:32.080 So that's just to help again explain the couple slides that I shared with you. 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 00:36:41.640 --> 00:36:47.160 Ryan and include something to that effect and again when we're ready, we'll actually 00:36:47.160 --> 00:36:52.120 bring this to the full PNZ and City Council and obviously then have a recommendation and 00:36:52.120 --> 00:36:59.720 ultimately a consideration by City Council. 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 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 00:37:13.240 --> 00:37:22.000 moving slides, get to the last part of the landscaping discussion. 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 00:37:30.880 --> 00:37:36.680 or that piece of revision where we talk about public view. 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 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 00:37:52.040 --> 00:37:54.900 public street, sidewalk or alley. 00:37:54.900 --> 00:38:03.440 So any view from these three areas or designations, the structural support shall not be visible. 00:38:03.440 --> 00:38:09.080 So that's what that full sentence is, it says that the structural support members shall 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 00:38:16.520 --> 00:38:27.040 fence or wall, I guess it would be wood mainly, in terms of that support members. 00:38:27.040 --> 00:38:33.840 That's a quick clarification, hopefully it makes it more understandable to where that 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. 00:38:39.400 --> 00:38:47.700 Do you all have any questions? 00:38:47.700 --> 00:38:48.700 Thank you Ron for putting this in. 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 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 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 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 00:39:11.320 --> 00:39:16.520 or get their permission to get on their property to build your fence. 00:39:16.520 --> 00:39:24.320 Any questions or comments? 00:39:24.320 --> 00:39:27.480 Margie it looked like you had a question. 00:39:27.480 --> 00:39:32.120 Yes, so when you say Table 7H in this. 00:39:32.120 --> 00:39:38.460 Let me go back to you. 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 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 00:39:53.320 --> 00:39:57.360 of uses. 00:39:57.360 --> 00:40:03.880 It's the name of the table is Fencing Standards for Individual Lots. 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 00:40:11.200 --> 00:40:15.160 for existing fence types already. 00:40:15.160 --> 00:40:16.520 Correct. 00:40:16.520 --> 00:40:22.320 Does that carry over into this particular part of the code? 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 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 00:40:37.760 --> 00:40:43.840 their wood fence would have to meet the same material or higher quality with relationship 00:40:43.840 --> 00:40:51.400 to an individual lots they're able to replace it with whatever they would like. 00:40:51.400 --> 00:40:57.680 It's not necessarily limited to the three options because those are not considered along 00:40:57.680 --> 00:40:59.960 the perimeter. 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 00:41:06.320 --> 00:41:08.480 here. 00:41:08.480 --> 00:41:11.200 So I think Richard's gonna say something. 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. 00:41:14.880 --> 00:41:22.120 I think I can share my screen. 00:41:22.120 --> 00:41:26.000 Okay, thanks. 00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:36.360 Are we able to see the Muni code? 00:41:36.360 --> 00:41:37.360 Yes. 00:41:37.360 --> 00:41:38.360 Yes. 00:41:38.360 --> 00:41:39.360 Okay. 00:41:39.360 --> 00:41:46.240 I have two screens so I want to make sure I've got the right. 00:41:46.240 --> 00:41:49.080 So these are fencing standards on individual lots. 00:41:49.080 --> 00:41:54.240 So this is the single family detached duplex triplex fourplex allowed materials prohibited 00:41:54.240 --> 00:42:09.120 in the maximum height, both front side yard facing and then interior or rear. 00:42:09.120 --> 00:42:16.240 So I know we've had this discussion on existing chain link fences before. 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 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 00:42:34.280 --> 00:42:35.280 chart then. 00:42:35.280 --> 00:42:36.280 Is that correct? 00:42:36.280 --> 00:42:41.120 I believe, Ron, do you want to pull it back up? 00:42:41.120 --> 00:43:00.560 Let me try to get it right. 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 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 00:43:11.320 --> 00:43:12.320 there today. 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 00:43:19.240 --> 00:43:24.040 reposting, there may be, I believe that the requirement is that they have to follow 7H 00:43:24.040 --> 00:43:26.880 in whatever material at that point is. 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 00:43:34.280 --> 00:43:35.280 they could. 00:43:35.280 --> 00:43:36.280 They could repair it. 00:43:36.280 --> 00:43:39.320 We're not going to require them to replace the entire chain link fence. 00:43:39.320 --> 00:43:44.720 However, if they're looking at a completely new chain link fence where they're taking 00:43:44.720 --> 00:43:49.000 out everything and then restarting, then I think that's a difference between repairing 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:50.000 and replacing. 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:53.160 Well, I think we're saying then they can't do a chain link fence, correct? 00:43:53.160 --> 00:43:54.160 Correct. 00:43:54.160 --> 00:43:57.720 If they're completely redoing the entire fence. 00:43:57.720 --> 00:44:02.040 Then they would have to completely change the material according to the chart. 00:44:02.040 --> 00:44:04.720 To whatever that is. 00:44:04.720 --> 00:44:06.040 It's no longer a repair. 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 00:44:10.080 --> 00:44:12.080 go ahead and repair that without. 00:44:12.080 --> 00:44:15.040 But if they can't replace it. 00:44:15.040 --> 00:44:17.320 Yes, that's correct. 00:44:17.320 --> 00:44:18.320 They can't. 00:44:18.320 --> 00:44:21.760 And if they do, it has to be with a different material. 00:44:21.760 --> 00:44:25.880 It would have to be whatever is part of that. 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. 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 00:44:39.120 --> 00:44:40.120 of it. 00:44:40.120 --> 00:44:43.760 What we're looking at is if it's completely being redone. 00:44:43.760 --> 00:44:47.800 That's a different story than a simple maintenance of that. 00:44:47.800 --> 00:44:50.080 Or maybe just replacing the gate for whatever reason. 00:44:50.080 --> 00:44:52.360 I think there's some leeway there for a gate. 00:44:52.360 --> 00:44:57.080 But for the entire fence, that would be a reconstruction. 00:44:57.080 --> 00:45:00.680 Provided it's at the front building line, we do allow chain link. 00:45:00.680 --> 00:45:03.360 It just has to be coated chain link. 00:45:03.360 --> 00:45:06.480 It can't be galvanized. 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 00:45:10.280 --> 00:45:14.360 building wall, then the coated chain link is not permitted. 00:45:14.360 --> 00:45:18.880 It would have to be one of the other materials. 00:45:18.880 --> 00:45:22.800 So I think what Richard is saying is there are certain requirements for location of fence. 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 00:45:28.560 --> 00:45:33.760 for those locations as well. 00:45:33.760 --> 00:45:34.760 I think that answered it. 00:45:34.760 --> 00:45:42.520 Thank you. 00:45:42.520 --> 00:45:47.640 So if there's nothing else on this, we'll go ahead and move on. 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. 00:45:55.080 --> 00:46:05.580 So we're leaving landscaping, screening, buffering fences, and going into parking. 00:46:05.580 --> 00:46:13.360 So we had a discussion about this last time, and there will be some changes. 00:46:13.360 --> 00:46:20.120 I think there needs to be more discussion on triplex and fourplex. 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 00:46:27.560 --> 00:46:28.560 our last meeting. 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 00:46:34.840 --> 00:46:40.780 requirements on both minimum parking requirements. 00:46:40.780 --> 00:46:46.660 Currently what is currently required is four parking spaces per dwelling unit. 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 00:46:56.000 --> 00:46:57.000 duplex. 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. 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, 00:47:12.080 --> 00:47:17.040 one bedroom townhome or duplex, and/or efficiency unit. 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, 00:47:25.580 --> 00:47:26.960 one space for each bedroom. 00:47:26.960 --> 00:47:35.580 So potentially a duplex could have a requirement of potentially four total if they each have 00:47:35.580 --> 00:47:39.400 one bedroom, which is unlikely, but possibly could happen. 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 00:47:45.720 --> 00:47:48.640 in that particular case. 00:47:48.640 --> 00:47:53.920 So that is what is proposed for townhome and duplex. 00:47:53.920 --> 00:48:01.160 For triplex and fourplex, we added the same; however, we also added the guest parking component 00:48:01.160 --> 00:48:02.160 to it. 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 00:48:08.940 --> 00:48:14.520 that the DCRC presented or recommended. 00:48:14.520 --> 00:48:18.480 But Richard, help me out here in guest parking. 00:48:18.480 --> 00:48:22.980 Is that something we needed to further discuss, or was there something specific that we wanted 00:48:22.980 --> 00:48:26.040 to get the DCRC's input on? 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? 00:48:34.880 --> 00:48:42.960 Just thinking about fourplex, for example, if we've got four two-bedroom units, we're 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 00:48:53.440 --> 00:48:57.080 that in some instances can fit within single-family districts. 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 00:49:05.920 --> 00:49:12.520 this by requiring so much of that land to be dedicated towards parking, and whether 00:49:12.520 --> 00:49:17.000 or not that guest parking is truly needed for the fourplex. 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:20.000 Commissioner Rosell. 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 00:49:25.200 --> 00:49:31.920 the language just to say one parking spot per bedroom with a two-spot minimum. 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 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 00:49:45.640 --> 00:49:46.640 minimum. 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 00:49:53.800 --> 00:49:54.800 me. 00:49:54.800 --> 00:49:59.920 I think it's the same, Commissioner Rosell, that they're saying the same thing. 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 00:50:07.680 --> 00:50:11.280 gather from the DCRC is really that additional guest parking. 00:50:11.280 --> 00:50:17.600 Is it something that we want to see for triplexes and fourplexes? 00:50:17.600 --> 00:50:26.640 I know that Commissioner Smith had mentioned it in his recommendation last week, and something 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 00:50:33.320 --> 00:50:46.080 necessary and maybe one per unit wasn't really what we need or wanted. 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, 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 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 00:51:02.320 --> 00:51:05.020 bedrooms, you're going to have one extra space. 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 00:51:10.120 --> 00:51:14.480 to add two extra spaces. 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 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 00:51:26.920 --> 00:51:30.400 don't want to overpark the area as well. 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 00:51:37.160 --> 00:51:41.120 and fourplexes. 00:51:41.120 --> 00:51:44.600 Mayor Pro Tem. 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 00:51:49.680 --> 00:51:56.560 about these neighborhood scale, single-family scale, they've got two, three, four units 00:51:56.560 --> 00:52:00.600 in them, but they are more of a single-family scale. 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 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 00:52:11.520 --> 00:52:18.360 the single-family parking conversation than it is the multifamily parking conversation. 00:52:18.360 --> 00:52:27.520 I guess that's not exactly providing direction, that's just my mental framework. 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 00:52:35.120 --> 00:52:37.160 with what Commissioner Rozelle said. 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 00:52:43.680 --> 00:52:44.680 or fourplex. 00:52:44.680 --> 00:52:54.080 Yeah, and unfortunately, I don't see Commissioner Smith on the call, so I ... 00:52:54.080 --> 00:52:59.960 Yeah, I think he had to go to another meeting at noon. 00:52:59.960 --> 00:53:02.000 Okay. 00:53:02.000 --> 00:53:05.800 Yes, Marty. 00:53:05.800 --> 00:53:06.800 Thank you, Chair. 00:53:06.800 --> 00:53:08.000 I'll just weigh in slightly. 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. 00:53:14.560 --> 00:53:18.200 However, I am a proponent of some type of guest parking. 00:53:18.200 --> 00:53:24.440 When we get into triplexes, fourplexes, it does bring more people in, they will have 00:53:24.440 --> 00:53:29.440 visitors and guests, and it would be nice to have at least a couple of spaces. 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 00:53:36.400 --> 00:53:43.960 least provide something more than one space per bedroom, because I have seen that be an 00:53:43.960 --> 00:53:44.960 issue. 00:53:44.960 --> 00:53:51.120 I have seen neighborhood crowding, I have seen illegal parking in front of these types 00:53:51.120 --> 00:53:52.120 of units. 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 00:54:01.080 --> 00:54:02.080 as well. 00:54:02.080 --> 00:54:03.080 Thanks, Jesse. 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 00:54:11.880 --> 00:54:16.640 are going to be, because we know the number of units that we're talking about. 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, 00:54:21.280 --> 00:54:23.680 for a fourplex you have two guest spots. 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 00:54:29.320 --> 00:54:30.360 are. 00:54:30.360 --> 00:54:36.200 Just one guest spot for triplex, two for quadplex. 00:54:36.200 --> 00:54:37.200 That's simple. 00:54:37.200 --> 00:54:42.640 Just on the base unit, right, one triplex, one plus one for each bedroom. 00:54:42.640 --> 00:54:43.640 Great. 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 00:55:05.240 --> 00:55:15.680 that accomplish, again, the concerns, or at least the thoughts that I've heard this afternoon. 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 00:55:23.840 --> 00:55:26.040 real quick. 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 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. 00:55:48.040 --> 00:55:49.280 We did cover a lot today. 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 00:55:55.340 --> 00:55:59.840 to parking and commercial parkings generally. 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 00:56:05.800 --> 00:56:10.600 meeting or continue it today. 00:56:10.600 --> 00:56:16.800 Just wanted to provide that opportunity or that option for the DCRC. 00:56:16.800 --> 00:56:21.560 Yes, Jesse, go ahead. 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 00:56:26.320 --> 00:56:31.560 questions on parking, and I think most of my questions might be able to be answered 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, 00:56:38.400 --> 00:56:41.200 we've proposed this change to religious assembly. 00:56:41.200 --> 00:56:42.200 Here's why. 00:56:42.200 --> 00:56:43.680 You know, the paragraph. 00:56:43.680 --> 00:56:45.280 Here's why we need that change. 00:56:45.280 --> 00:56:49.520 Religious assembly is calculated differently than movie theater or auditorium. 00:56:49.520 --> 00:56:50.520 Here's why. 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 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 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 00:57:04.440 --> 00:57:06.760 did we get to this minimum? 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 00:57:11.520 --> 00:57:17.640 no good frame of reference yet for why we have certain minimums on certain uses. 00:57:17.640 --> 00:57:25.800 Mayor Procham, if I can, I guess, respond, would that be something that we can cover 00:57:25.800 --> 00:57:28.760 in AIS before our next meeting? 00:57:28.760 --> 00:57:29.760 You mentioned ISR. 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 00:57:35.840 --> 00:57:36.840 than the ISR? 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 00:57:41.520 --> 00:57:48.000 come forward to council and P&Z, those will be in involved conversations also. 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, 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 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 00:58:08.680 --> 00:58:14.480 for hopping over this group and going straight to the two other bodies, not because this 00:58:14.480 --> 00:58:22.160 group wouldn't have helpful input or even helpful conversation, but I expect it to be 00:58:22.160 --> 00:58:28.440 a robust conversation in both P&Z and council. 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. 00:58:32.720 --> 00:58:37.920 I know the commissioners and council members hear a lot about parking minimums and unintended 00:58:37.920 --> 00:58:39.760 consequences, all those sorts of things. 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 00:58:45.120 --> 00:58:46.440 the information. 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. 00:58:53.000 --> 00:58:54.000 Understood. 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 00:59:01.960 --> 00:59:06.360 a little behind today is kind of going back through looking at some of it. 00:59:06.360 --> 00:59:11.440 See over the last year, a lot of things have changed, especially the way businesses operate. 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 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 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 00:59:25.800 --> 00:59:32.760 of these standards or adjusting to more takeout, looking more at drive through again, or even 00:59:32.760 --> 00:59:35.080 in the, in and around the downtown area. 00:59:35.080 --> 00:59:48.460 So it's probably warranted, definitely warranted, I shouldn't say probably. 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 00:59:54.280 --> 00:59:57.840 Bochum and I agree and understand what needs to be put. 00:59:57.840 --> 01:00:02.520 The presentation was for discussion, but I think a few more background, a lot more background 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 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 01:00:13.440 --> 01:00:14.440 DCRC. 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? 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, 01:00:26.880 --> 01:00:33.100 provide, you know, input and direction as to each of the code amendments. 01:00:33.100 --> 01:00:37.240 So I guess back to the initial question is, well, you can certainly end it here. 01:00:37.240 --> 01:00:42.280 And again, before we get into the next topics, which we already discussed needs more background 01:00:42.280 --> 01:00:43.480 information. 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 01:00:50.200 --> 01:00:55.660 from the DCRC in the previous slides. 01:00:55.660 --> 01:01:06.840 So again, up to the DCRC, if it is to convene or to continue. 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 01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.640 the further information and that makes more sense. 01:01:18.640 --> 01:01:24.040 You can end up talking about something for an hour, whereas a paragraph about it could 01:01:24.040 --> 01:01:26.040 solve all the answers. 01:01:26.040 --> 01:01:27.040 Correct. 01:01:27.040 --> 01:01:28.040 Okay. 01:01:28.040 --> 01:01:32.640 So, is that the end of what you've? 01:01:32.640 --> 01:01:37.280 That's, that's, that's where, that's where I like to end my presentation. 01:01:37.280 --> 01:01:38.280 Yes. 01:01:38.280 --> 01:01:39.280 Okay. 01:01:39.280 --> 01:01:40.280 Then we'll go to concluding items. 01:01:40.280 --> 01:01:42.960 Anyone have any concluding items? 01:01:42.960 --> 01:01:48.280 Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. 01:01:48.280 --> 01:01:53.880 I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your service on this committee through many, many 01:01:53.880 --> 01:01:54.880 years. 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 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 01:02:07.160 --> 01:02:08.440 owes you a debt of gratitude. 01:02:08.440 --> 01:02:11.200 So, and don't think we're going to lose your phone number. 01:02:11.200 --> 01:02:12.200 Yeah. 01:02:12.200 --> 01:02:17.800 Well, I know he's already got my spreadsheet saved somewhere. 01:02:17.800 --> 01:02:18.800 Margie. 01:02:18.800 --> 01:02:21.480 Thank you, Chair. 01:02:21.480 --> 01:02:23.200 And I would just like to add to that, John. 01:02:23.200 --> 01:02:25.480 You have brought so much to this committee over the years. 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 01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:36.240 preparation that you have come to every meeting with is invaluable, truly. 01:02:36.240 --> 01:02:38.280 Thank you. 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 01:02:47.440 --> 01:02:54.080 your book with tabs on them, ready to talk, spreadsheets, you know, made me look bad. 01:02:54.080 --> 01:02:56.880 But hey, it was enough to get the work done. 01:02:56.880 --> 01:03:04.600 So I appreciate your efforts and your hard work and dedication towards the DCRC. 01:03:04.600 --> 01:03:05.600 It's a team effort. 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 01:03:09.080 --> 01:03:10.880 to get a yellow sticky note. 01:03:10.880 --> 01:03:16.400 Just a little, just a little snippet. 01:03:16.400 --> 01:03:21.720 I echo the same, and it was always interesting, especially in meetings when you would quote 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? 01:03:29.120 --> 01:03:30.120 Thank you. 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 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. 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. 01:03:56.120 --> 01:03:59.320 Have a great day, everybody. 01:03:59.320 --> 01:04:00.320 Bye. 01:04:00.320 --> 01:04:00.320 Thanks.