Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Come

present. Commissioner Banks here and Commissioner Hunt here. Great. Um, do we have approval of the agenda? I will move to approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? I I And we have the approval of the minutes for December. Did anyone have any corrections or comments to the minutes of December? You weren't here. I will abstain. Yep. Looks good. No comments from David or Jennifer on the minutes. Okay. May I have a a motion to approve the minutes? So moved.

Second. Great. Roll call. We don't need a roll call. I All in favor? I. All in favor say I. I. I think it's worth I think Commissioner Bangs was saying he abstained. I'm not sure we we heard that. But did did you abstain? Just want to make sure that's noted. Yep. Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is public comment for items not on the agenda. Do we have anyone online? Nope.

Okay, great. So, I will now um open the public hearing on a request for accessory dwelling code unit amendment resolution 2 series of 2026. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there will be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we will have a presentation and testimony by the applicant. In this case, there's not an applicant, followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card, use the raise hand function if participating by computer, or star9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people pres present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve approved with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing

object to the procedure I have described? No objections. Do we have proper notification? Yes. Thank you. Do any planning commission members have disclosures? Nobody's building an ADU tomorrow? Nope. All right. Uh staff presentation. Will staff please make its presentation? We have a tech glitch. Okay. Okay. We're having trouble tonight with printers and the screens. Um, not a good sign.

I guess I I can move I can do a presentation without the slides, but I want to make sure that our Okay, Commissioner Bangs and Commissioner Hunt are able to see. Okay. Okay. Well, I'll just go off um basically off of the staff report here. So, um, this is a request to amend the zoning code to address a state law compliance issue with our accessory dwelling unit ordinance. If you recall last year around May, uh, city council approved the rules that allows ADU citywide. Um, basically what happened was that in the flurry of amendments leading up to the city council hearing, one of the key provisions that we needed to have in there was taken out sort of inadvertently. And so as part of a state evaluation, the state called our attention to the fact that there's one gap in our ordinance, which is basically that um under a limited number of scenarios um we could potentially require an ADU uh to be less than so basically we have to in our ordinance require a minimum 750T ADU in all cases except for if the main unit is less than 750 ft. So in the scenario in our ordinance basically where the issue is is that we say that the ADU cannot be more than 75% of the size of the primary unit. And so if you apply that strictly and you have the primary unit as really small, so 1,000 ft or less, you could actually mandate an ADU that's less than 750 ft. That is in violation of the state law. Um, so essentially what this ordinance does is correct that with a very targeted amendment that says that explicitly by right one is allowed to have a 750 ft ADU um unless the primary unit is 750 ft or less and it can be smaller than that. So it's a very targeted, very specific amendment that is strictly to comply with the state law. Um, and that's basically it as far as the proposal. Uh, it's pretty straightforward but happy to answer any questions.

Commissioners have questions of staff. Thanks, Jeff. Um, just to be clear, I'll I'm going to vote yes for this or but I also have a few questions and would like to push a little bit and see if we can move this a little bit more. So, I'm curious, we approved the ordinance initially over the summer. Is that right? Yeah. May of last year. May of last year. And do you know offh hand? I'm looking at our like the permit website how many permits we've appi have people applied for ADUs since we've adopted the code. I don't have a precise number. My understanding it's about five right now. It's not a big number. Yeah.

Yeah. Um and we also have I guess the direction I'm trying to go just to be clear is um I understand kind of the zoning rationale for why we have maximum sizes and that they need to be incidental and subordinate to the primary unit. But I also just want to say, you know, Lewisville was the last community in Boulder County that allowed ADUs. We have a demonstrated housing shortage. Adus are inherently more affordable. um probably one of the most accessible ways that we can add housing stock to the city. And so I'm just wondering, do we need a maximum size? Can we add a lot more flexibility to this ordinance? So I just kind of want to throw that out there. Again, happy to vote yes on the ordinance as drafted to get us in compliance with state law. But if planning commission is interested, I would love to poke around here a little bit more. So last question, please. Commissioner Banks, did you want to comment?

Yes. Uh, can you hear me? It's hard to hear you. Can you speak louder? Oh, can we turn on the uh Okay. Can you hear me now? Is that better? Not really. I don't know if we can if Ryan can hear us. If we could turn the volume up potentially on I think the issues on our end. I think it's a system volume issue. Yeah. Okay. Can you test test? Can you hear me now? We're getting there. One sec. We're getting technical assistance. Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead and try something, Commissioner Banks. Okay. Much better. Thank you, Ryan.

Thanks. Okay. Um, so yes, I think I share some of the same concerns uh as Commissioner Richie in terms of I think I spoke to this pretty extensively when we had the hearing certainly I understand the recommendation on the someone who's chosen not to expand their 800 square foot old town home is restricted to with this. Well, let's say it's a 700 foot old town home. They have to have an ADU smaller than their home. Their neighbor added 2,000 square ft can have a 1,00t ADU. Is that essentially how I read this?

So, it gets nuanced um in that scenario. So if you have a 700 square foot existing house or 800 ft² whatever it is and you wanted to add an additional unit the the ADU and primary unit can flip. So whatever size is the greater size unit becomes the primary unit. This this just explicitly says that 750 ft is allowed in all cases except for if the primary unit is less than 750 ft. So, the maximum allowed is 1,00 ft.

The maximum for an attached ADU is 1,000 square ft and a detached is 800 square ft. Correct. Okay. And if Okay. So, anyone regardless of current dwelling on a plot can build up to 800 square ft. can build up to an 800 ft detached ADU. Is that true? I thought it was still a minimum of 750 under before we amend the ordinance. Yeah.

So, okay. So, so the scenario is the existing house. So, you can build an 80 800 foot a detached ADU in all cases. This is just basically addresses the scenario if the primary unit is less than 1,000 square ft. So if the primary unit is 800 square ft, you could build an 801 ft additional unit and that would become the primary unit and the existing unit would become the ADU in that scenario. For example, unless you're in Oldtown, which requires the ADU to be in the rear, are there? No. Am I not I'm not remembering that right. Are there any locations where the ADU must be behind the principal structure

outside of Oldtown? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, the the the purpose of the the ordinance is certainly not to open up any new discussions about size limitations. The same size limit. This would allow more size for an ADU essentially in the scenario where the primary unit is smaller than 1,000 square feet is really what it does. Jonathan and

and reading the the ordinance it it didn't sound if I was understanding the state law correctly from the reference it doesn't sound like there's much wiggle room. It sounds like as written that is essentially required to become in compliant. It doesn't it doesn't sound like we are doing more than being just compliant. Is that true or is there some wiggle room here? So, I mean, this is strictly really just about compliance. Yeah, we're not opening up any of the sort of policy discussions or anything like that. Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Hunt has a question, but I might come back with another question. Thanks.

I did I just want to I think we're getting This is a little confusing because of all the different numbers, but we're really just addressing the the 75% thing that we had put in before. Am I right? That's really the reason why. Yeah. Yeah. And I got a little disorganized here without the slides um being able to pull up, but essentially what this does is override that 75% cap. So um where it says pre currently you can only be 75% of the size of the primary unit, this provision explicitly overrides that in the case of if the primary unit is smaller. So I think that helps to sort of put it in context. We're just really addressing that 75%

um that we before. Um, which makes this I think less confusing. But, um, what I hear maybe Commissioner Richie saying is, do we want to talk about whether we want the the 800 or 1,000 square foot limits at all? And it's probably worthy of discussion, but maybe not for this ordinance. This seems like a technical or you technical fix you're trying to make right now, but that larger policy discussion might require more looking into. Yeah, I mean we we certainly had a very deep policy discussion with council over multiple meetings. This is almost a year now, but um so we weren't planning to revisit that. We would have really to go back to council and confirm the direction any sort of science change. Um I will reiterate too that we are updating our development code comprehensively as a reminder starting here middle part of this year and so this basically all these types of things are on the table for that. I'll just add I I while I appreciate that and if you know again if the rest of the commission I think isn't interested in kind of opening up this box I'll certainly back down but we've had four or five you know in the last 6 months I don't think this is at risk of fundamentally changing the character of our city. I think we're probably realistically a year or two probably closer to two years away from adopting a new zoning code where we might revisit this again. So, um I would propose removing some of these limitations related to size and if again happy to offer specific language if if you all would like to go there.

I'm certainly interested in hearing what you would propose. Sure. Because yeah, I share similar concerns. I think Commissioner Richie, would you like to expand? Um yes. So, I need to reread the language here. Um I would actually propose um again because I think we have limitations related to setbacks. We have limitations related to lot coverage. We have they still have to fill out the fixture count form for ADUs. Do you know if that remained in place? The water tap fee has been waved for adus but at wastewater we would they would still have to do the form as I understand.

Right. And so I feel like we still have a lot of other parameters that are going to incentivize these being smaller. So um I would propose even just removing the 75% language and just say accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the square footage of the principal single family dwelling unit. Um, and then even I would go so far as removing the maximum size for attached um, and maybe keeping a detached accessory maximum size, but increasing that to 1,000 ft 1,200 ft. So again, don't have a specific proposal, but um, I just think we should add flexibility here um, in order to if someone wants to build it, we have a lot of other limitations. So your your logic being the lot coverage requirements will limit the amount of structures on a lot.

Yeah. Do you exceed the size of the current principal dwelling?

Exactly. We have, you know, if a single family, if a single unit can be that big on a lot, I don't know why we would care necessarily if it's one unit or two within that same bulk and mass that is allowed. Well, I I would motion that's the difference between a single family lot and a multif family. And so, while I appreciate where you're coming from in regards to affordable housing, I'm I'm not inclined to agree removing the language for the same reasons we we discussed at length. And I think it was was it May? It was a while ago. And so, you know, I remember a lengthy discussion there. So, um, you know, I would not be in favor of I'm in favor of the the ordinance as written, but I would not be in favor of removing the limits for the the purpose of of the zoning discussion that we had, which which sounds like we're going to be revisiting anyway. So, for now, I would I would I would say yes to the current language, but I would not be in favor of of removing the limits.

Do we have any other comments, Commissioner Hunt? Anything from you? I think I I mean I'm kind of wondering asking this Jeff if I mean are we getting a lot of push back from citizens wanting to build larger ADUs?

I mean I I haven't heard any I mean there there's only a handful that have been built you know I think in the less than five range. Um, so we don't have a good sort of data set there, but um, I personally not heard any issues with the size limitations and they are generally aligned with surrounding communities. Not that that makes it right, but it was a really deep discussion with council in terms of what's the tipping point to your point uh, of this becoming a duplex zone district versus an ADU provision. So, and I will say further, I mean, we we go further than the state law in a lot of cases. Um, for, you know, for example, we allow them with attached dwelling units, which is a pretty aggressive move. Um so with a town home you can have an attached ADU for example under this ordinance. So um we have a pretty liberal ADU ordinance but the size limitations that definitely was like a very deep kind of focused discussion. So it would be reopening that into the sort of duplex territory argument but um happy to relay this or however planning commission wants to do this relay relay this to the council if you'd like. Uh it sounds like we will have an opportunity to revisit this when some reviews come up in the not too distant future. Correct.

Correct. Yeah, it it it'll be several months if not maybe a year, but it will that will be on the table as a discussion point.

Yeah, I do I understand Commissioner Haley's concerns about Yeah. kind of duplex like lots occurring uh if if we don't have a limitation of this nature but I'm conflicted because it does seem constrictive to some lots with some principal dwelling sizes of today but yeah I'm generally in support of the ordinance recommendation given the extensive debate we had before and the comments today

and to be clear. It makes it this would make it less restrictive. We're just complying with state law strictly, but there's a whole host of things that we didn't propose doing because it's so fresh. Well, uh, Jeff, I think it would be good if you can convey to council to set the stage for future discussion on this that there was suggestion and discussion of modifying the ordinance to make it to allow for larger size units. So, if you would try not to lose that, that would be great. Oops.

Oh. Um, yes. So, I'm going to see if there's any public comment at this point. Thank you, Jeff. Mr. Johnson, were you here to talk on ADU? Okay. Would you please come to the podium? Um, I will now open the public comment portion of the public hearing. Can I um have a motion to add written public comments or other tangible evidence to the record and please limit yourself to three minutes? Clearly state your full name and city of residence.

Okay. My name is Andy Johnson. Uh I'm a Louisville resident, also a business owner. Um also local architect uh with a very keen interest in the AD ordinance. Um, I, you know, it this is a no-brainer to pass what staff is bringing before you or to pass it on as a recommendation to council. Um, it it's less restrictive. It complies with the state. You have to do it. Um, we have uh four, if there are five permits, we have four of those ADUs, three under construction of various states. One of them is complete. Um, we have completed dozens of these types of uh structures over the time that I've been working here in the last 26 years. Um, not all of them uh have been ADUs, of course. Uh, some of them are guest houses. Um, under the current or the previous versions of our municipal code. Um, your confusion is exactly what I watch with my clients when I have to explain the mess of heavily amended codes. It is super frustrating to be able to or to not be able to do like a really straightforward presentation on an ADU. You guys, this is lowhanging fruit. These are ADUs. what we're complying with in the state, like what what just took that long a time, this is just complying with the state for a super nichy circumstance in Oldtown. I have been in Lewisville a very long time. Long enough to know that we tend to overthink a lot of things and we spend a lot of time very intelligently arguing for things that really don't

matter in the grand scheme of things. We have such bigger fish to fry. This is not one of them. I said this to a council member one time. We have the best ADU ordinance in the state. Put anything else up against it. And our ADU ordinance is so good. And I'm super proud of staff's effort. I'm really proud of um uh public involvement with making it great. Um let's keep it that way. Let's keep it less restrictive. Let's make it even better. Let's not worry about nichy circumstances in Oldtown. Let's allow ADUs to provide housing for circumstances that don't get the opportunity within, you know, restrictive small lots, whatever. Who cares if the ADU is up front or in the back? Like, literally ask yourself, who cares? Really, I I'm realizing I'm running out of three minutes. May I ask for more time? Steve Brown I uh Chair Brownise offered that the last time.

I think that would be possible this even.

Okay. Thank you. I'm I'm assuming maybe I'm the only one. Um and this is your only agenda item. So um and thank you for resetting that. Um this is this is an opportunity for us to create a housing type that is is dearly needed. It is an incremental growth. This isn't a oneanddone big development, right? We get to talk about those and those require a lot of time to figure out if they're a good fit. Size limitations on ADUs. Fine. The state or the state bill did a great job of outlining that. And I think it's a really good ordinance for us to nitpick, literally nitpick, um, with all due respect, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anybody, but if we nitpick this with size limitations, we are just wasting our time. Duplex development is fundamentally different. You will almost always have on a single family lot for example like where an ADU would go you will almost always have some kind of fee simple scenario right right down the middle you split it and you have that kind of ownership. We need to talk about that. We need to talk about what duplex zoning use like a by right duplex uh opportunity would be for single family homes. But that is not the ADU discussion. These are ADUs. And don't forget, these are not all rentals. These are not all used the same way during their lifetime. Duplexes are attached single family homes. These are ADUs. These are offices. These are temporary homes for an aging parent, a kid coming home, extra space. Um, these

have dynamic uses. I do not want you guys to lose sight of the importance of an ADU as a fundamentally distinct different building type and use than a than a duplex. I don't care if it looks like a duplex. I don't I don't care if it's in front or in the back. It doesn't matter. It's an ADU. So, um, I will have the same thing to say at council, but seriously, folks, we have way bigger fish to fry. Let it go. You're going to pass this tonight because you have to, but let's not let's not burn any more um of our uh time or political collateral, wasting uh time on an incredibly strong and good ordinance um that's going to bring good opportunities to to Lewisville. if our um if our general public can really latch on and and take advantage of it. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Does staff have a response or a closing statement?

No, nothing to add other than uh reiterate we do plan to revisit this more holistically, the code update. Okay, I will now close the public hearing and the planning commission will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? All right, all I'm going to make one last pitch. So I would propose that um we leave the 75% distinction in um in an effort to differentiate the the kind of primary and in single or the principal and accessory but we remove the overall maximum caps recognizing we have um all these other limitations in place and acknowledging that in a year when we rewrite the development code if all of a sudden we are not happy with the type of applications we get in that year we have the opportunity to revisit So, I'm going to flip that that revisit for another reason. I'm going to just throw that out. Then my last pitch,

Commissioner Mali.

Sure. I mean, I I'm still where I am. Um I I fundamentally disagree that it's nitpicking to talk about size limitations. Um, I agree that there are certain issues that certain people don't care about front or back, but you know, this is get, you know, we'd be opening up a loophole around single family zoning, which is worth discussing. Um, I agree that we need to pass it as written. You know, we need to be in compliance. So, I would be in support of that, but I would not be in support of removing language for for maximum at this time based on the in-depth discussion we had at length with with the with the you know, I think we had full full attendance in May at the time. Um, and then the subsequent discussion with council thereafter.

Commissioner Hunt or Bang, would you like to weigh in now? Sure, happy to. I'm sorry about my voice. Um, and you're probably all glad I'm not there. Thank you.

Um, uh, I tend to agree with Commissioner Mley on this, although I think I'm not opposed to the idea of revisiting this. I think that it might be better done in a more holistic review of our zoning. And I don't see I don't see a big rush to get rid of these right now. And I think um, very happy with this amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense to comply with state law. It makes sense as a practical matter as well. And I'm also heartened to there's people out there that think that the ordinance as it stands now is good. Um and so um I' um I'd be in favor of the ordinance as they've written it and making sure though to not lose sight of this idea of getting rid of the limits together so we can have a more holistic conversation there.

Thank you, Commissioner Bang.

Yes. Um appreciate Mr. Johnson's forthright commentary. Uh, helpful. Uh, I'm going to be in support of the ordinance as written and recommended by staff, but probably not the last we will hear of this topic. Um, so not to kick the can down the road, and yes, we do have bigger fish to pro, but I think that the overall size uh is still going to be or the caps is going to be um something that will come up in the future. But as written, I'll I'll support Thank you. Well, it's time for a motion. Who would like to make that motion?

Sure. Let me motion to approve uh resolution 2 series 2026 recommending the city council approve an ordinance amending title 17 of Lewisville Municipal Code. Do we have a second? I'll second. Y Um, can we have a roll call vote, please? Um, Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Uh, Commissioner Basket, yes. And Commissioner Richie, yes.

Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Uh before opening the public hearing on the second item on the agenda regarding inclusionary zoning, staff has requested that the commission table the inclusionary housing ordinance update indefinitely because the item will not be considered this evening. The public hearing will not be open. Is there a motion? Move to table this item. Second. Second. All in favor? I I I

All right. Um that concludes the business of the meeting other than our planning commission comments. Are there any planning commission comments? Not seeing any. Are there any staff comments? Just a reminder of your uh special overflow meeting on February 26th regarding the comprehensive plan consideration of adoption. Great. Uh, with that, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Wildlife Refuge.