May 19, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-05-19 5:00 PM

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session for May 19 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 504. The first item of business is to we have one citizen comment on the consent agenda, at least they filed a note. So I just wanted to read this for the record for the consent agenda. Make sure it's right. Yep, three a, we had someone against it. And just for the record, their comment said against any development meeting via zoom. This is undemocratic. Anyone knowing anyone know anything about rental property by my house, I saw your sign in the neighbor's yard. That's the comment against item three a. Moving on from that, we have work session report, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding downtown parking. Not sure who's presenting on this this evening. Richard who's got this one. Ron and Ron will be presenting. I think Cameron's also here. Christian Pernetta. Yeah, and this is just procedural. You know, not what we're going into with regard to the consent agenda. So when as probably other members of the commission have noticed, we have had a barrage of objections on everything from from like a single citizen over the last few weeks. When, you know, counselors and like that is having to review objections to a particular thing. When we get kind of blanket, you know, blind objections on those, let's go to the numbers. Are there something that they need to consider when they're, you know, like, you know, when we get the little things that go, how many objections do we get something? Does that count? Or or does it not count? Because they're not people that are within the area that chases the area. All of them get counted. Yes. If it's if it's a rezoning, that's the only time that that 20 the rezoning or an SGP. If that if is when the 20% rule kicks in. Typically in those instances, if it's unclear, we've had some where they didn't, you know, didn't check that they were for or against, but seem to be maybe for it but not really staff will follow up with them to try to clarify clarify their comment. If we can sometimes they'll they'll submit stuff and we just don't have a way to follow up or they never never respond. But in these instances, it is, you know, it is an action that's, you know, where PNC is the final, you know, final authority, if you will. But they do get, you know, they do get logged and are included in that overall comment list, if it were to go through a public hearing. All right, Ron, whenever you're ready. Let me go ahead and start bring up the presentation of the y'all can see and hear me. So, this is another presentation of a planning boot camp series of requests that we are responding to at the thing. It was a couple meetings ago where the planning zoning commission requested a boot camp or at least presentation regarding downtown planning or downtown parking, excuse me, specifically how parking is regulated in the downtown. One of the things that I would like to share with the planning zoning commission as we get to that particular topic is just to kind of give the planning zoning commission and the viewing public, you know, what are the parking goals for downtown kind of give us a little bit of background. Also, where is parking available today kind of gives us what's existing on the ground. For that part of the presentation, Cameron Robinson, our historic preservation officer and planner will be making that presentation. So, we'll be switching when that topic comes up. And then lastly, we'll again talk about how is parking regulated specifically for the downtown area. So, a couple of plans that we have and I think most of you are familiar with the downtown master plan. This was done back in 2000, early 2000 and in the plan, it had a number of goals in terms of a number of different various topics, but parking was obviously a big part of their discussion when this was drafted. You can see that the goal for the downtown back then is similar to what it is today. We want a mix of uses. We want entertainment. We want a nice place for people to walk and enjoy the outdoors in the downtown. But they also address the question about parking. You know, is there a need for additional parking? What are the solutions? And is there really a need for parking or is it just a perception as far as availability? So, all of that was addressed through the downtown master plan and we continue to do respond to these types of questions throughout the years that followed again, answering those similar questions and we hope that we can try at least to answer them in this presentation and any future studies that we do. So again, I just want to highlight a couple of the recommendations as it relates to parking for the downtown and again, the master plan, the downtown master plan, had some recommendations, solutions, strategies. A couple of them, I'll just read off the list here, is maximized on street parking. Of course, we want to make sure that we increase our parking as much as we can on street specifically, create sufficient parking facilities. You know, today we have a number of parking facilities on Oak, on Cedar, on Hickory, of course, but we can continue to acquire properties and we should continue to acquire properties for either surface parking lots or even a possible parking structure. Shared parking and after hours, the opportunity there is to have where there's uses that don't necessarily need parking during after hours or certain days that that could be used for the parking that's needed for the downtown. The recommendations from the downtown master plan also talked about improving the walking environment. Again, that is true today. We want to make sure that when you park, you're able to get to where your destination is. So improving the sidewalks, the lighting is something that our engineering and CIP group is working on continuously. Parking study, I'm going to leave that for Cameron to discuss. She's got a couple of topic discussions related to parking study and that's something that we will certainly need to do in the near future. Short-term parking, making sure that, you know, once someone parks, it's not there forever, that if there's a retail establishment, there's an opportunity for multiple individuals to use that parking space through a short-term parking our set. And then just helping to change people's perceptions as far as, you know, the lack of parking. There is parking, but it's just not in front of where they want to be. Moving on to the downtown implementation plan, often referred to as DTEP, it also had recommendations. This was more of a follow-up to the downtown master plan. And you see on the list there that they're very similar to what the downtown master plan was recommending. I think the only two or three, maybe the way finding the cash cash in lieu and early action parking projects were added to that list. So I'll share in the next couple of slides, some of the things that the city has done and other recommendations that have been accomplished as part of both the downtown master plan and the DTEP. The first one is, you know, increase public parking, create additional parallel and angle entry parking on existing streets. We see that in the Hickory street area, that area was redeveloped or reconstructed, where it created more parking through creating angle parking back in specifically. Also, the recommendation was to create, you know, more parking lots in the downtown. And specifically Cedar, Hickory and Exposition were not only there, but were expanded or enhanced through efforts by the city. So this slide here shows what Hickory street looked like pre the pre construction. And you can see that the parallel parking was very limited or very, very limited as far as number. And it took a lot of area in the middle of Hickory street. After construction, it narrowed the street and added more parking. And so you can see the back end parking there as it is today. So again, accomplishing what the recommendation was for creating more on street parking. Shared parking as well. We talked a bit about that and the DTEP recommended having the system in which shared parking was created or to be created through this program. And then form-based code parking calculation was another recommendation from the DTEP. Both have not yet been implemented, but that's something that the staff is looking into. Ron, we do have a question, Mr. Anderson. Thanks, Chair. Ron, whose idea was to do the back end parking? I hear more complaints. When I talk to people, I tell them on PNZ, they hate it. Everybody hates it. They want to get rid of it. Is there something we can talk about about getting rid of that? I don't know if that's the House or City Council. Sorry to cut you off there. Yeah. Obviously, that is something that has been discussed with staff. I'll tell you, I think, where it came from. I'll say traffic or engineering. The idea there was pulling out was safer through a back end parking. As you leave that space, you're not backing into traffic. You're actually leaving facing the area that you're trying to get into. So that's where it generated from. And again, proposed and council approved and we moved forward. So as far as how we address that, I think it would be something that we just need to bring up to council. Because I know people and it's happened to me multiple times when you're trying to pull up and go up Hickory and these people don't use their blinker and they'd stop in the middle of the street and all of a sudden you're on their tail and then they're waving their hand they're mad at you trying to back up. Now you can't back up because you got cars behind you. So then they get mad. They have to drive off. I just think it's a horrible idea. I agree with most of the people that are complaining about it. I go up there quite often and it's just miserable. Yeah, no, we've heard and like I said, the only I think remedy would be to, you know, it would cost money obviously to retrofit that and that's something that we just have to get direction from council. All right, thanks. You know, you're talking about shared parking. Is there a way I know NCTC has that parking garage right there off of that Mulberry Mulberry. Yes. And I mean, that would be a nice structure to see if they wouldn't work some kind of partnership with us with the city. Yeah, no, definitely something we've also talked about. I think it's really just working on that agreement and that that liability with with, you know, our insurance and the city attorney's office. So definitely something that we've discussed. We just haven't really implemented yet. Okay. Thanks Ron. Let's go on to the next slide here. So this is just kind of illustrate the the other recommendation from the detail and that is to enlarge the existing public parking. For those that are familiar with this site, this site is the Cedar parking lot. It used to have the central fire station, the one of the original fire stations. It no longer is there, of course. And what we have now is 30. It was 33 parking spaces. Now we have 85 parking spaces, 52 new spaces as a result. And this is what we have today. So quite an improvement. It did accomplish a lot of the recommendations. One, obviously improve the area, but also add additional parking and in this case, 52 additional parking that you see here for the Cedar Street parking lot. Another recommendation from the detail and partly as well as the downtime as planned is to create that signage, you know, to help educate individuals where parking is located as well as try to market where parking can be where people can park. Sorry. So what we did, we started with the parking and as we started working on the parking initiative, we found that we needed to market the downtown or promote the downtown through signage as well. That grew to a citywide wayfinding project. So in the end, we have a wayfinding science project that I believe is quite nice and helps not only direct, you know, our tourists and our visitors to the downtown. It also helps, you know, with the parking. So the examples that you see here primarily help guide individuals, motorists to those parking lots that we have currently in downtown. That was a schematic design. This is actually what's on the ground. So you can see that both, you know, pole signs that help create a trail to the parking. We've actually have parking signage where it talks about or shows that it's free parking so people know that that's a public parking lot. We also have it along within and on. There are traffic signal lights so that when you're driving, you can again see where parking is and it's directing you to those parking lots. So a lot of help has been done to help direct people to these parking lots. And so again, wayfinding was one of the recommendations and I think we've accomplished that. This next slide here just illustrates where, you know, the recommendation was to create a cash in lieu of parking. The idea there is that, you know, if a person or a business wanting to develop was required to provide parking, they can have a choice in paying in lieu of parking, establishing parking. And the idea was to use that money that was collected or is collected to either purchase land or have a parking garage built in the idea is to again create more parking spaces. We also had other recommendations in terms of, you know, walk zones, creating an incentive for reduced parking, private public parking. I think that Commissioner Anderson spoke a little bit about that with the University or the college. And then also guidelines for truck deliveries. The issue there was the square was hit, was visited with a lot of truck deliveries during peak hours and that just caused a lot of issues with parking and we wanted to make sure we addressed that as part of the detail. Last, I think this last slide before Cameron comes and speaks to her. >> Sorry to interrupt. I think we had a question on the previous slide or not. >> I do. Thank you, Chair. Ron, is the cash in lieu program active? >> It's not. >> That was just a recommendation? >> Correct. I know that the reason why we probably haven't started that yet is we have in place the TURS, the downtown TURS, and so there's that in place. As you all probably know, it's more of a taxing finance program where the money that is generated by increased tax property taxes is used to help the downtown either funding infrastructure, parking or whatever it may be. So I think that's been the main focus of the city and if there is an opportunity for that cash in lieu program, certainly that's another finance tool that we can use if we wanted to consider another parking surface parking lot or a parking structure in the future. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Okay. So let me go through this next slide real quickly. Talking about early actions, the striping and angle parking of Hickory Street check, you know, that's done. Development of parking lots, we've done that with Cedar Street. We've actually helped improve Hickory Street parking lot as well. That's the parking lot there on Mulberry and Hickory. Wayfinding, we've done that. Road and streetscape improvements on Hickory Street, we've also done that. And then the striping and angle parking on industrial, we did not, but that was one of the recommendations. Enhanced parking education. Cameron's going to talk a bit about that, so I won't speak to that. And then elevate and modify parking fine structure. That's something that we will work with the police department that has not yet been implemented, but that's something we should also consider. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Cameron, and she'll present the next topic. >> Hi, everyone. So I'm going to talk about the parking that we have today in downtown. So over the years, the city and other entities such as the Denton Main Street Association have undergone parking surveys to establish the quantity, location, and the usage of parking in the downtown Denton area. So the map provided by the Denton Main Street Association breaks down the parking into public and private, as well as their hours of availability. On the map shown, there are nine free public parking lots, primarily along McKinney Street, as you see here, five of which are within the 1/4 mile radius or within approximately five minutes walking distance from the downtown area. There are also two paid parking lots near the square, one at the Wells Fargo building, as well as the other at Walnut Street and South M Street. There's also ample on-street parking in the downtown area. So we have timed two-hour street parking available along West and East Oak Streets, as well as Hickory Streets, and within the immediate vicinity of the square. Unlimited street parking is available further south and north along Elm and Locust Streets, and just outside the vicinity of the downtown square, such as along East and West Sycamore Street and Industrial Street. So in total, if you look at the parking spaces here in downtown that Denton Main Street Association put together, there are approximately 2,096 total parking spaces in the downtown area. This breaks down to approximately 861 street parking, 148 paid parking, and 1,087 public parking lots. However, this does not include the new development services parking lot that will be at the North Elm Street and Parkway Boulevard corner. When this opens, this will eventually be open to the public for parking on weeknights and weekends. This will provide an additional 148 parking spaces for a total of 2,244. So, just to continue on some of the parking that we have today, once again, this is a Denton Main Street Association resource that we have here, this map. This map shows the location of the public parking lots that you see here. It shows the paid parking lots, which are highlighted in yellow here. The unlimited and two hour public street parking in the downtown area, which is highlighted by the green and the purple. This map, in addition to the wayfinding signage found in downtown that Ron described earlier, serve as resources for those interested in visiting the area. Also, Denton Main Street Association also provides the parking availability during the weekends and weekdays. And I'm going to hand it back to Ron. So that kind of gives you an idea of where parking is, you know, currently and I appreciate Cameron's presentation. So again, setting up for how we regulate parking in the downtown. We have a lot of parking now. And what we have in place in the DDC, the Denton Development Code, is section 7.9 of the development code where it provides the required parking spaces, off street parking spaces, as it relates to certain developments that occur in and around the downtown. Again, the application or applicability for these parking requirements fall under new development, expansions and enlargements, changes of uses, all are required to provide a minimum parking spaces, either new or reconstructed. However, there are exemptions as to the parking requirements, and that is properties that are less than 5,000 square feet in lot area, any expansion or enlargements that is less than 10% or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. So those smaller enlargement projects or expansion projects would not need to add additional parking. Those smaller lots that are too small to add additional parking would be exempted from providing the required parking spaces. In addition to those two exemptions, there is also the MD Zoning District. And the MD Zoning District is what you see on the screen that is the purple, the purple that's around the square. The gray that you see around the square, just to help clarify, is what is an overlay, the square district overlay. But underneath that overlay, it's MD as far as zoning. So that area also falls under to under the MD Zoning District. So kind of illustrate again where the MD is located, and this is just in this area. It's not located in anywhere else in the city. It's just around the downtown or downtown square. So under the MD Zoning District, any residential development with less or 10 or less units do not have to provide parking. So again, no parking required if they're, if you're proposing 10 or fewer units on your development, for your development. In addition, any non-residential development, it could be office, it could be restaurant, whatever it may be. If you're in the MD Zoning District, you are not required to provide additional parking. So kind of give you an idea of, and it makes sense, right? Because the downtown is already crowded with, or dense that is, and has already ample parking. So the need for additional parking would not be necessary. Now, if you're proposing either apartment or a high-rise residential development, of course, we're going to have to find parking. And so that's why the 10 was selected. Anything above 10 would still need to provide that parking requirement, minimum off-street parking. Just to help illustrate a little bit of how we look at other areas in the downtown. Again, I'll swing, I'll go back to this illustration here. Not every property within the downtown proper is zoned MD. So there are still properties that will still need to provide the parking minimum, specifically the MN. There are other zoning districts within this area as well, but MN would need to provide any property within the MN would still need to provide that parking minimum. Hey, Ron, can I interrupt real fast? Yeah. You mentioned this a minute ago, you used the words, if it's an apartment, of course, we would have to have parking minimums. Can we, can I dive into what the rationale behind parking minimums is to begin with? Like why, why is it, of course, we need to provide parking to apartments and why is it that MN needs parking? I just, I come from the perspective of if you open a grocery store and provide no parking, you might not get customers. It seems like they could probably determine how much parking they would need for the customers they can take in at a time. And with apartments, if we build up a downtown that has grocery and food and access to the university or we have mobility planned, why, why are we enforcing a minimum? Well, I didn't mean to say, when I said, of course, I was, I was referring to the size of the apartment. So that's what I was referencing, you know, anything above 10, but back to your question though, that is, that is a valid question. You know, when we looked at the downtown, the, all the non-residential uses, right, do not require additional parking. And it just held, it held that requirement just for the multi-family or any unit count that's above 10 units would need to provide that. That is a policy question or policy direction that we got from city, city council at the time when we first had this requirement drafted, it's been in the, in, in the development code since I've been here. So I can't answer that question as to why we isolated that primarily, but again, that is something that was determined back when, when the code was drafted. And just for clarification, you said any non-residential does not provide additional parking. You're talking additional parking above the minimum for that zoning, correct? No, any additional parking period. So if they have existing parking on the property and they're short on their parking spaces, they do not need to provide parking. They can keep the parking that they have there today, but it would be, if say, for example, there was a development that had no parking on there now, say along the square, right? There's no parking on that lot. They are not required to provide additional parking from what they have today. So obviously they're starting from zero, so they would not need to provide any parking. Unless like where the, the mini mall was on the east side, they put apartments above that. 10 or more. Yes. 10 or more units. Yes. Is it 10 or more units or square footage? 10 or more units would, they would require to provide parking. Okay. That's probably not likely. Okay. Thanks. Part of the interruption. Right. And I'm just going to, just to kind of carry forward with that, you, you know, where, where are they going to put parking? Well, there are alternatives and I'm going to get into that right now as far as where they can put parking, specifically if there's not an ability to do that on the particular lot that they're developing on. Yeah. And then obviously this is a council decision and not P and Z, but if we're trying to incentivize infill and this urban area, parking is going to be a massive player in that and requiring it of any kind, I think deters incentivizing walkability because we're just putting more cars on the streets and this might be pie in the sky, but it seems if the city really wants to incentivize some downtown urban urbanality, if that's a word, then we should just build a parking garage and let everyone who builds downtown have access to it would be a really random idea. But again, if we start enforcing a ton of parking, I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot of what I think downtown is designed or hoped to be. That's my soapbox, Ron. Thanks for listening. That's a great point. And again, I want to let you know, I'm going to go back to this slide here that illustrates again, MD is carved out except for the single, I'm sorry, the number of units above 10. I say multifamily because that's typically the property, the development that usually has 10 or more units, but you're right. There are areas outside of the MD and the MN that potentially is within that fourth mile, five minute walk to the downtown square that certainly it has the similar feeling and could benefit from the no additional parking as well. So to those areas that are not MD and are non-residential restaurants, bars and other uses offices as well, they are required to provide the parking spaces that is in the development code. And again, we have a table 791 or 790 that is where it aligns basically what that minimum requirement is. So you can see here that for a restaurant and if you're in the MD, any indoor space seating is one space per 200 square feet and for outdoor seating it's one space per 300. So that's how we get to that minimum parking requirement. Back to the section 7.9 in terms of parking alternatives and Chair, I don't know if this kind of addresses your topic or your discussion. Infill development, there is a reduction that can be done if it's a infill development, specifically 10% for non-residential reduction. Shared or offsite parking, that is an option for property. So again, we talked about having that with the college, but if there were two property owners that have the ability to share parking, that is also an option as long as they meet the location and documentation requirements. On street parking, if you have the on street space in terms of 22 linear feet in total, you can remove one parking space requirement from your development. Proximity to transit, that's up to 10% reduction and we obviously we have the downtown transit center. Affordable and senior housing, up to 25% reduction in terms of your required parking spaces and then bicycle and motorcycle spaces as well. If you're wanting, if you're proposing to develop with additional four parking space, I'm sorry, bicycle spaces, you can remove one. If you're proposing to develop with two more cycle spaces, you can reduce your parking space by one. So that is also available as parking alternatives. Director determination, this gives the director of planning the ability to review any proposal. For example, if there is a say a restaurant or a business that doesn't require as much parking and they can prove that it does not in other locations or they have got some studies that they can provide, the director can reduce that parking spaces as well. And then the next couple of slides or items here is really under section seven nine parking loading and drive throughs. Most likely not going to happen in downtown area, but it does cover areas outside of downtown and then also bicycle parking. We do require that one bicycle parking space be provided for each 20 vehicle parking space. So that is to increase, encourage bicycle use in parking as well. That concludes my presentation in terms of how we regulate parking. If you all have any questions, I'll be happy as well as Cameron is here with me to answer those questions. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Kind of to Chair Rosell's point, how much parking is actually needed downtown Ron? There's obviously an environmental capacity at some point in time. I know there's plenty of we've had plenty of discussions and analysis have done by multiple different groups that have looked at what areas can we increase parking. But has the question ever been asked and the answer ever been given of how much parking is needed? What's the maximum amount of parking that is truly going to be needed for environmental capacity downtown if everything was built out, which we're at the point now we've had quite a bit of infill down there. >> I think that to be honest, you know, when we leave here, I leave here on Wednesdays and you know, in late hours on Tuesdays, you know, the parking space across City Hall where, you know, it's on Oak and McKinney, that's always crowded. Cedar street parking lot is also crowded in the evening. So I think that there is a demand for parking and there's obviously a lot of businesses that benefit from it. But I think if we start to grow the way we think we're going with more restaurants, with more housing or other development in the area, we're going to need more parking. And so there has to be a balance, right, with you mentioned the environmental component of it. I don't think it has been studied. I think it was more of an economic, you know, study. I think the environmental study I don't think has been done in my understanding. But back to your question, as we continue to grow, the downtown grows, not only in uses and size of the development, parking is going to be something that we definitely need to have. And if it's going to be a public parking structure or something to that effect, then that's something that we need to do. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, the tours was one of those, one of the reasons why we created that tours program was so that if and when we have the ability to create more parking, we have the funding to do so. And that was started back in 2010, 2011. So we've increased, you know, obviously with the property tax market, we've increased that amount. And I don't have the exact amount as far as the budget. But certainly that is something that we can utilize in terms of adding more parking to the downtown area. And that's not to draw away because I know we've got an entire other agenda we got to get to tonight. But, you know, I don't know if this conversation, Ron, if you guys looked at leadership didn't did a project around downtown parking at one point in time. I don't know if anything went back and maybe went back and referenced that I wasn't part of that project, but it's the presentation. But there was this conversation of perception versus actuality. And the for those who don't know about it, essentially the point was made that if you took a, you know, the entire circumference or really, I guess the correct term should be the tire diameter of, you know, if you dropped a point in the middle of Golden Triangle Mall and drew a circle all the way around where all the parking on a typical, typical series of days based off sideline images were at the mall, you took that same circle and you overlaid it over the square that the parking is really much further away from the square that that you could use. But the perception is I don't want I don't mind parking at Golden Triangle Mall. For those who still go to Golden Triangle Mall, I don't mind parking here and walking to the store inside the mall. But when it comes to me having to park down at that Bell to be able to have to walk over to a restaurant that's on the square, that's atrocious, right? And even though that's the exact same distance in a lot of instances, it was less. And so I just I just worry about that perception versus actuality. And I get there's a demand for parking downtown. To me, I feel like that we were maybe maybe putting I don't know, protection of appearance and the fabric of the downtown area and how it looks. Second to we want to shove more cars downtown like like, like, like Chair Rozelle said that, you know, we started putting up, you know, parking garages left and right shirt, there's gonna be cars that will come up totally. But do we have to do that? Do we have to compromise us to having, you know, five or six parking garages all around the square? If we do keep building out and you know, the downtown keeps expanding the way it has over the last, you know, 50 years and keeps growing outward and outward. We have downtown businesses that are next to or behind parking garages. It just gives me a lot of concern and hesitation. So yeah, Christopher, you know, and kind of along the point of what Commissioner Smith was saying, you know, when we talk about where we walk from our car to our destination, we're going to the mall, there is there is a slight consideration of that one. And that's like, I can park on, you know, the side where like the Macy's is or whatever, and then go over to, you know, Barnes and Noble. On that journey though, you know, I am shaded and there's a you know, it's about 75 degrees inside, which is an issue, you know, I think for a lot of people that are going to be, you know, parking farther downtown and having to walk a farther distance, you know, if it's July, you know, when it's 105 degrees outside. Are there any things that we can do though that, you know, whether it's through the use of public art or, you know, some kind of or trees or something like that, that would kind of mitigate heat, mitigate, you know, the discomfort of that that we could, you know, that we could do. I know we can't enclose this. But, you know, I think for a lot of people, it's simply the fact that, you know, hey, if I park, you know, by the post office and I'm walking to LSA and it's 106 degrees outside, I'm going to be sweating to my shirt by the time I get there. Are there things that we can look at where we go? Is there a way to make this a more temperate, you know, walk that might alleviate the need for having to jam more parking into a condensed area? Commissioner Burnett, I think there's a lot we can do. Obviously, straight trees are the quickest answer I can give you as far as providing that shade. You know, there are businesses that can provide awnings or canopies that can provide that shade. But as far as the public or the city, I think street trees would be the most quickest way to get that shade and that comfort that you're talking about. And not only shade, but also lighting, right? So we're also talking about evening hours as well. So that's something that we're working on as part of improving the downtown's walkability. Any other questions for Ron? Richard has a question for Ron. Not really a question, just a little bit more of a statement, I guess, sort of kind of where I think everybody's at. I think one thing it's important to note, now is the time to talk about it. You know, we're in the update of the comprehensive plan. We're going to have a special meeting specific for downtown. And I think that's the document where these policies are set. I think another component of that is, quite honestly, is how our roadway impact fee functions downtown. And asking those questions, should there be a roadway impact fee downtown? Or should it be more of a mobility fee that focuses more on transit bike, pedestrian environment, so that those funds, instead of paying to widen lanes, somewhere else in that zone, that those funds are used to enhance the overall mobility of the downtown in the square. So I think those are all the things that, you know, probably could be done, looked at. But I think a big component of that is making sure that, you know, within the next couple of months, that gets discussed as part of that comp plan update. Commissioner Pernetta. And kind of circling back to one of the first, you know, comments that Commissioner Anderson made about the atrocity and abomination that is back in parking. I know when this was done, there was this idea that back in was somehow safer, you know, for people who were eventually backing out. But I guess my question is, as someone who's had to do it, you see your parking space, you put on your signal, you have to stop, and the person behind you who's not used to maybe being in this doesn't know that you're going to be backing up and it creates an issue. Well, if we had front end parking, but it was also at an angle, you know, if I'm backing out at that point, I actually do have a better vantage point for what's behind me than I would if it was just, you know, kind of perpendicular, right? Do we have any data that shows that, you know, back in parking is safer than front end parking at an angle where we would still wind up having an option to be able to see behind us a little bit and traffic going along would see a car coming along and anticipate that that's going to be backing up into traffic rather than somebody suddenly stopping and then hitting reverse? Is there any kind of traffic study that kind of shows, or do we have anything since we've implemented this that shows that there is a reduction or real safety benefit to this? If I can answer that, Commissioner Pernan, when this was proposed for Hickory Street, there was a study presented to, I believe, it may have been to the Planning Zone Commission, as well as City Council, and to that specific question, you know, is this really safer? And so the engineers at the time, they present that study. I can certainly look that up and maybe if there's an updated version of that study, I can certainly make sure that that's passed along to the Planning Zone Commission. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. Thanks, Chair. Hey, Ron, again, back to that back end parking. Along with Commissioner Pernetta, I mean, most of these vehicles now, most of the new cars have rear cameras. So when you're backing out, they're going to tell you if you have oncoming traffic coming. So that kind of, you know, throws that little safety issue out the window, I believe. But also my other question is, when was that study done? I mean, was that done before these cars had all the backup cameras? Was that done 10 years ago? If so, the study is probably outdated by now. Right. And all I can tell you is that yes, it was the study that was presented, obviously, studied back in parking prior to the Hickory Street reconstruction. So now with all the back end, you know, or backing cameras, whatever it may be, I don't know if that study has been updated. Certainly, it should be. And if there is one, again, I'll make sure to pass that along to the Planning Zone Commission. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. And Ron, thanks for this presentation. Yeah, I think you can hear all the frustration with the back end parking situation. I mean, our city feels that we all hear that on the regular. And that definitely needs to be revisited just to see, is that the best we can do for that area? And then the other thing I would like to be a huge proponent of as we continue to to increase parking or makes changes that we do is the whole public outreach and PSA and all of that and letting people know where they can park. I still think that that is not known well enough, especially with regard to like the city parking lots and whatnot. So I think we could definitely improve upon that and we should because I think perception is still not where we need it to be. Well, we'll make sure to work with economic development as well as the Downtown Main Street Association to increase that awareness. Commissioner Anderson. Sorry, I promise this is going to be my last point on this back end parking thing. But a lot of people get confused because on Hickory, it's back end parking. But then you go down industrial, it's pull in parking. And then you go up on the square, it's pull in parking. So I think it's just a money grab for some of the parking tickets things. That's what I hear. People's like, you know, they're just doing this because they can make money off of parking tickets on Hickory Street. But anyway, if it's going to be back in, let's do it consistently, which I don't want to be back in. I'd rather be forward parking. But anyway, it'd be much better just to have it all consistent. No, I think I'll just echo what Richard said. I think if there is, you know, a want or whatever it may be to participate, those that are listening or in the planning, zoning commission as well. If you have an opportunity next week, Wednesday, we are having our second community workshop on the comprehensive plan update. And again, that would help, you know, in terms as far as setting goals. And it is a little broader, but we do have special topics. And one of them is the downtown. And we hope to have comments and ideas and suggestions as to how we can improve the downtown area. And it is one of those focus topics that we will have. I mean, it's not a voting issue or anything, but I wanted to at least let the record show that I'm for back in parking. I don't I don't hear the frustration. I just read an article right here. Vox.com says AAA actually recommends it and it prevents up to 300 people dying every year. So, I mean, I'm not undermining the other commissioners standpoints, but it does seem like a three year old study from Vox and AAA would say that it's significantly safer. Also, the United States Fire Protection Incorporated. I don't know what that company is. They also recommend back in parking. So there's a there seems like there is some evidence that it's safer. So, again, nothing's actually on this side. I just want the record to show that I'm not in agreement with commissioners that speak against it. So I afford it's worth any other items. Right, Mr. Cole. Yeah, I just want to pile on. I like back in parking half. I'm a downtown regular and half the cars are parked wrong anyway. I mean, they're pulling in straight. But outside of that, I want to, you know, just go on record said I'm against parking minimums because they're bad for all the stakeholders. They're bad for the small business owners. They're bad for the renters. They're bad for the developers. I mean, for everybody. And I can't tell you over the years how many businesses that people have, you know, all these business ideas that people couldn't bring forward because they were short a couple of parking spots. And so look at that economic activity you're losing. You know, heck, I can make two businesses I tried to start in my several years couldn't do it because of parking. So would you rather have the economic activity or a couple parking spots? I mean, strong towns has a really good case against parking minimums. I would strongly suggest you read their material on parking minimums. And that's all I have. Thank you. Anyone else want to pile on Iran? I'll just share one one item related to it. I don't know that anyone here is against eliminating parking, at least I'm planning eliminating some of the parking minimums. But in a past life working as a in a development role developed in a downtown two large condo buildings that didn't require parking. But we did put it in because we knew that our numbers were what we needed to do to sell those condos were 1.2 spaces per unit. So for whatever it's worth, I think that everyone knows what they need. And I just think it's a policy item that needs to be discussed further. Great. It's good insight. All right. Ron, you are all good. Thank you for the presentation. All right. Thank you guys. Next is clarification on agenda items. Richard, apart from what's posted on the postponements, is there any changes to this agenda? No. Great. That brings us to the minutes. Margie, I remembered them this evening with no text. Any updates or comments on the minutes? Okay, great. That brings us to the consent agenda. We just have one item 3A. Anyone have questions on this, Mr. Cole? I have to sit out on this one, remember? Yes. Okay. Thanks for reminding me. Does anyone need Julie to bring up the presentation? Is there any questions on this one? Okay. Great. We'll just continue on then. That moves us to our individual consideration in the bulk of our agenda this evening. We'll start with 4A. Mark Laird is presenting 4A. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner in the development services. For your review and consideration, I have for you the preliminary plat of SP1 phase two edition. This plat is located off Western Boulevard. It is north of Airport Road. Staff recommends to now of this project as the items outline and exhibit to. Please note that the applicant late yesterday evening made a request for a 30-day plat extension and staff endorses requests to allow the applicant to address those comments. I stand for any questions. The only question I have a clarification either by Richard or Mark is the 30-day extension the farthest we can go is June 9th is the next one puts us out. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Great. Thanks, Mark. Next item is item 4B, PP 21-0007 and this is Sean Jacobson's item. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the planning zone commission. Yes, this is PP 21-07. This is a preliminary plat of the vintage village edition. This is just off vintage Boulevard and they are staff is recommending denial of this request does not meet the established requirements as outlined in staff analysis. The applicant is requesting an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021 and staff does not object to this request for an extension. Any questions for Sean? Okay, Sean, you're the next one 4C, FP 21-13. Sir, thank you, sir. Yes, this is a plat final plat of the Hilltop Road estates edition. This is in the extra territorial jurisdiction. Again, staff is recommending now this request as it does not meet the established requirements, but the applicant has requested an extension to June 9th and again, staff does not object to this extension. Great. Any questions for Sean on this item? Okay, Sean, I think you have the next one 4D, PP 21-5B. I do. And this is one that I sent you the updated plat today. This is a preliminary plat of the YOLO first edition. They have changed their plat somewhat from the last time this came in. They're currently not preliminary platting the third lot. They're instead preliminary platting the first two, the third lot required a base floor elevation to be established, which required a flood study, which is taking a little bit more time. And they are able to preliminary plat those front two because they'd previously conveyance plotted. And so they have now addressed all of the outstanding comments and staff is recommending approval of the request at this time because they've met all the requirements. Great. Any questions for Sean? Alright, thanks Sean for the presentations. This is 4E FP 21-10 and this is Julie Wyatt's item. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt. This is FP 21-10. It is Country Lakes subdivision and staff does recommend denial of the request as it fails to meet the established requirements. However, they have requested an extension to the June 9th planning and zoning commission meeting, and we have no objection to that request. Great. Any questions for Julie on this? Okay. Julie, you have the next item 4F FP 21-12. Yes, sir. So I have good news on this one. So this was put on the agenda as a denial with that requested extension. However, in the interim period from when the agenda was posted and today they have made the one correction that we needed in the plat notes related to a labeling and then the corrections related to the HOA documents. So we can recommend approval as it meets the established requirements. Alright, great news. Any questions for Julie on this? All right. Seeing none, I'll move it to 4G PP 21-9 and this is Haley Zygurskis. Good evening. This is a single lot plat for a industrial use located on I-35 just north of Berthold Road where the new truck wash has been developed. At this time, staff is recommending denial for the reasons outlined in exhibit two. However, the applicant has requested that extension to June 9th and staff has no objection to that. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Any questions for Haley? All right, Haley, I don't see any on this item. Let's go to your next one 4H FP 21-11. All right. This is the final plat for phase two of the Stark Farms Edition. If you're familiar with this, it's located on the north side of Long Road just west of Sherman Drive. At this time, again, staff is recommending denial of this plat that was outlined in exhibit two in your backup and the applicant has provided that request for the extension to the June 9th meeting, which staff has no opposition. I will answer any questions. Any questions for Haley on this item? All right. I did not see any. Thank you, Haley. That concludes our individual consideration items. Next is our public hearings. 5A is being postponed to June 9th. 5B is being postponed to June 9th. Richard is for clarification. No action needs to be taken on those items, correct? I'll confirm with Mack, but I think we may need to open those and take a vote to formally postpone those. And leave them open? Correct. Leave the public hearing open, yes. Okay. So both we need to open and carry forward with the motion. And citizens will have the opportunity to provide feedback at the June 9th as well. Since the, I guess the meeting stays open. Yes. Okay. Great. So that moves us to our last item for the work session, which is item 5C, 1-1. And this is Julie Wyatt's item. All right. Let me get this presentation brought up. Okay. So this is Z21-0001, commercial zoning. So the request before you is to, is a rezoning of 1.535 acres from public facilities to suburban corridor district. The current property owner acquired the property in December of last year from Denton ISD with the intent to develop commercial uses. With the adoption of the 2019 code and that implementation of properties that were owned by public entities, the zoning on those properties transitioned to public facilities district. And that's intended to provide for those public and community uses, things like fire station schools and civic buildings. So prior to development, the property owner must rezone the district not only to reflect that new ownership, but also to develop a site with a commercial use. So just to give you a little background of those, of that kind of zoning transition. So I've got the 2002 zoning map. The subject property had that NRMU-12 zoning. That was one of our commercial districts under that 2002 zoning code. That transitioned to PF. You can see that the subject site as well as the adjacent site, that's an elementary school owned by the Denton ISD, transitioned to that PF district with the implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code. And then the proposed zoning would just return it back to more of a commercial use to reflect that new ownership. And that SC district is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern. So the criteria for approval for rezoning cases is in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development Code. We have that general criteria for approval and then we have the specific criteria for approval. We won't go over all of them, but we will touch on the highlights for these. So the first thing we look at, the Denton Plan. This area has a future land use designation of commercial. That is intended for concentrations of commercial uses. And that can go from a regional scale all the way to a neighborhood shopping center scale. SC is consistent with that future land use designation. It permits a variety of commercial uses. And it's at a scale that's typically found on primary arterial roadways. It was sort of created for these types of suburban corridors, those auto-oriented corridors like we find on university. This is an infill area as well. So it is surrounded by that existing development and it does have existing infrastructure. So it furthers that goal to just to continue to develop and redevelop our existing commercial corridors. The next criterion is it minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property. As I mentioned, SC district is consistent with that surrounding zoning and development pattern. We have a lot of commercial uses surrounding the subject property, particularly on the north side of university and then to the east of the site. Expansion of that SC, as you can see in this inset map, is a logical extension of that existing zoning pattern. And it would facilitate commercial uses along this corridor. Additionally, there's no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the south, so it would sort of push that vehicular traffic toward the university corridor. And of course, any development of the site would have to conform to current regulations and that includes things like minimum landscaping, site design, screening. Public facilities, they did submit a TIA with this rezoning. It is under review. Now, I will caution you, this is just kind of a straight rezoning and I know we've seen a lot of PDs come before you and SUPs recently where a site plan gets tied to that zoning designation. This zoning, if approved, wouldn't tie that site plan. It really is just would allow those uses that are permitted in SC to develop in accordance with the Denton Development Code. So I have a conceptual site plan shown here, but this wouldn't be tied to this zoning. So given that caveat, our engineering department is reviewing that TIA. And so it wasn't just reviewed with this specific district or this specific site. It was reviewed. This is the subject property here and that would show those potential commercial uses. It also, the TIA also included the adjacent property. So this property right here, it does already have that existing SC zoning and is currently under development with a retail use. So that TIA included all of these potential uses and they would generate about 3,100 trips per day with 162 morning peak and then 171 evening peak. As a result of that study of the traffic, there are some recommendations on that TIA. One, the entire retail center that is proposed for this location would connect to this existing roadway. This is would connect to this existing roadway and then connect onto this signalized intersection at university. Now this wouldn't go into that adjacent neighborhood. These are existing office and commercial uses. So it really would continue on to that commercial corridor there. They are also proposing a protected left turn here to make sure there's adequate storage for vehicles to turn left into the site here. And then would also propose a deceleration lane for right turn movements from university into the site. So those are those elements that the TIA is studying for the future development of this site. Now 380 University is a TextDOT corridor. So any improvements to that road and any driveway connections would have to go through the city review and be approved by TextDOT. And there are public water and wastewater available to the site. Public outreach was done. We did send out notification. We have not received any responses. And based upon the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, we do recommend approval of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And I do believe the applicant is calling in tonight. They don't have a presentation, but they'll be available to answer any questions for you. Julie, thank you for the presentation. Any questions? All right. I don't see any. With no questions, that concludes our work session meeting for this evening. We will reconvene here on Zoom in about 19 minutes at 630. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, May 19th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 631. First item of business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. If other commissioners wish to join me, they can unmute their microphones. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. Next item of business is consideration for the minutes of May 5th, 2021. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes of May 5th. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Starting with Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is our consent agenda. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. Great. We have a first. Commissioner Anderson? Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Commissioner Cole was recusing on this item. This item passes 5-0. Next item of business is our items for individual consideration. Starting with 4A, PP 21-0008. I'll invite Mark Laird for presentation. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner with the Development Service Department. For your review and consideration this evening, I have for you the preliminary plat of SP-1 edition, phase two. This property is located on the west line of Western Boulevard and is north of Airport Road. Staff recommends denial of this case as it does not meet the requirements established in the exhibit two of staff analysis. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day plat extension to June 9th. Staff does endorse this. I stand for any questions. Any questions for Mark? Okay. Open to a motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval of the applicant's request for an extension to a date certain of June 9th. Okay. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? Just wanted to read into the record that for this item we had one person make a comment using our online form and they were against. This comment form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. Seeing no discussion, no other discussion, I will call for a vote via roll call. Starting with Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item is item 4B, PP21-0007. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Doting Commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner. I'll be presenting PP21-007. This is a preliminary plat located off Vintage Boulevard and Fort Worth Drive. Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements. However, the applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021 and staff does not object to this request. With that, I will stand for any questions. Great. Any questions for Sean? Seeing none, we can make a motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Pernetta? Second. We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Starting with Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item is also Sean Jacobson's. It's item 4C FP21-0013. All right. Good evening and I'll make sure I'm sharing my screen here. This is a preliminary plat for -- I'm sorry, make sure I've got the right one here. This is a final plat for the Hilltop Road Estates Edition. This is just off Hilltop Road. Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements as outlined in staff analysis in Exhibit 2. The applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Staff does not object to this request. With that, I will stand for any questions. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Sean? All right. Seeing none, Commissioner Anderson? Motion to approve to date certain of June 9th. Great. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to the date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, I'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item is item 4D PP21-0005B and this is also Sean Jacobson's item. Excellent. Thank you. And once again, Sean Jacobson, I'm here to present the plat of PP21-0005B, the YOLO first edition. Because the applicant was able to address outstanding concerns today, we are now able to recommend approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Great. Any questions? Okay. I don't see any. Is there a motion? Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. Great. Commissioner Ellis? I do. And just for clarification, the motion on the table is to approve the item as recommended. Great. Great. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item is item 4E FP21-0010 and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for the presentation. Let me pull up that presentation. Okay. Sorry for the delay. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton and this is FP21-0010 and it is for a residential development within the Country Lake subdivision. Staff recommends denials. It doesn't meet the established requirements. However, they have requested an extension and staff has no opposition to that request. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any, Julie. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of June 9th. Great. We have a first. Commissioner Pernetta? I second. We have a first and a second for the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4F FP21-0012. This is also Julie Wyatt's item. This has a slight change from the agenda that was posted. This is FP21-0012. It was originally posted as a denial as it had a correction that needed to be made in the general notes as well as some items or an item related to the HOA documents. They have made those corrections and so staff recommends approval as it meets the established requirements. Great. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any. Thank you, Julie, for the discussion. Commissioner Anderson? I'm sorry. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. Great. Commissioner Cole? Second. Great. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4G PP21-0009. I'll invite Haley Zegerski for presentation. Let me get to the right plat here. This is PP21-0009. This is a preliminary plat for a single industrial development, single lot industrial development located north of Barthold Road on the west side of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the plat as it does not meet the established requirements. However, the applicant has requested an extension to the June 9th meeting, and staff has no opposition to this request. Great. Thanks, Haley. Any questions for Haley? All right. Seeing none, Commissioner Pernetta? Motion to postpone to the June 9th. Okay. We have a first for denial with a postponement. Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for a 30-day extension granting the extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion on this item? Okay. Before we vote, I just want to say for this item, we had one person make a comment using our online form. That individual was against the item, and this comment form was emailed to all the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. With that, we'll go to a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item for business is item 4H, FP 21-0011. This is also Haley's item. Good evening again. This is item FP 21-11. This is a final plat for phase two of the Stark Farms Edition located on the north side of Long Road on the north side of town north of Loop 288. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the request as it does not meet the established requirements. Again, the applicant has requested that extension to the June 9th meeting and staff has no opposition to that request. Stop sharing. Thanks, Haley. Any questions for Haley? Okay. Commissioner Anderson? Make an approval to postpone to date starting on June 9th. Make a motion for the extension. Yes. We have a first for a 30-day extension. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for a 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item on our agenda for business is item 5A. This is the start of our public hearings. Item 5A is PD 20-0009. The staff is requesting a postponement to a date certain of June 9th, so I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion to carry this meeting forth to a date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to postpone a date certain of June 9th. We have a first for the postponement. And Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second to postpone this to a date of June 9th. Any discussion on that vote? Okay. Prior to taking the vote, I just wanted to say that for this item we had one person make a comment using our online form. They were in support of the item. This comment form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. And just for a note for the public, this item is being carried forward to June 9th, pending the approval of this vote, in which you would have, anyone would have the opportunity to speak on the item again or for the first time on June 9th. With that, we have the motion on the table, with no discussion. We'll go to Commissioner Smith to kick off the voting. Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. The motion to postpone carries 6-0. Similar with item 5B, PD 21-0001. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion to carry this forth to a date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to postpone to date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second to postpone this. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'm just going to go ahead and read for the record that we had two individuals make comments using our online form. Both of those individuals were against the item. Both comments were emailed to all the commissioners and to the committee secretary to be recorded. And again, anyone wishing to make a statement again or for the first time, we'll be able to do so at the June 9th meeting, provided this motion carries. With that, Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. This motion carries. It will be brought back on June 9th. The next item for public hearing is item 5C, Z 21-0001, known by Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. Let me share that presentation. All right. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton and I'm presenting Z 21-0001, commercial zoning. The request before you is a rezoning of 1.535 acres from public facilities district to suburban corridor district. The current property owner acquired it in December of last year from Denton ISD with the intent to develop it with commercial, with a commercial use. In 2019, we adopted a new Denton development code. And within that code, we had a new zoning district called public facilities. And that was intended for properties that are owned by public entities. And it was to provide for those community uses, fire stations, schools, libraries, and civic buildings. Because this property was owned by Denton ISD, it did transition to that public facilities zoning district in 2019. Prior to development of the site, the applicant does have to rezone it for, to a district that permits commercial uses and also reflects that current ownership. So this just helps show kind of what, what that transition of zoning looked like. So I have the 2002 zoning map. The subject site had a zoning designation of NRMU 12. That was one of our mixed use commercial districts within the city. With the adoption of the 2019 code, because that property was owned by Denton ISD, it transitioned to that blue public facilities zoning designation. And then they're proposing to rezone the property to reflect that new ownership. And that is that SC. And that really is just, it's, that SC is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern and really is that logical extension of the existing zoning. The criteria for approval for all zoning cases is in sub chapter two, we have the general criteria as well as the specific to the two zoning cases. We'll touch on these as we talk through the project. So first Denton plan 2030. The site has a future land use designation of commercial, and that's consistent along that university, that highway 380 corridor. That's intended for concentrations of commercial uses. And that can vary in scale from regional community and neighborhood shopping centers. SC is consistent with this future land use designation. It is one of our commercial zoning districts. And it really does, is appropriate for these commercial corridors, those auto oriented corridors where you have a concentration of commercial uses. And this is also an infill area there. It is served by existing water and sewer as well as a university, which is a six lane divided road. And so it does further that goal to, to encourage that compact development pattern. We also look at impacts in the surrounding property. As I said, SC is consistent, not only with that surrounding zoning pattern, but also the existing development. You can see those, those uses along, along university are commercial uses. We have office commercial restaurant type uses and, and redevelopment of this site would be consistent with that, with that current use pattern. It would also facilitate just that expansion of this commercial center. I would do want to note that there is no vehicular, direct vehicular connection to the neighborhoods, to the South. And any development would require conformance with those site design standards in the, in the 2019 Denton Development Code. That includes things like minimum landscaping, screening at the right of way, and just those site design standards. There are public facilities available to serve the property. As part of this request and the development of the, of the subject site and the adjacent site, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis that is under review. I just want to talk a little bit about that and, and but I do want to provide a word of caution. Although there is a site plan shown on this slide, this is just a straight zoning case to a base zoning district. So that site plan wouldn't be tied to this development of this site and, and there could be modifications. So I do want to make that comment. So the, the subject property as well as development of the adjacent property here would generate about 3,100 vehicle trips per day. The, the adjacent property is under development with a retail use at right now. And they have looked at the traffic patterns in this area to see how those impacts of the traffic patterns and what would need to be accomplished in order to accommodate that. So as part of the development of not only the subject property, but that adjacent property, there will be a connection to this existing right of way, which ties into Fulton Street, which has a signalized intersection at university. This one just point out that the uses adjacent to this right of way are commercial uses. So this wouldn't be cutting through a neighborhood street. It really is a commercial corridor. There also would be improvements along university, including adequate storage for left-hand turns and in a deceleration lane for right-hand turns. Now a university is a text out road. So we'll have to go through all text out reviews and approvals. And there is public water and wastewater available to the site. Notification was sent out for the request. We have not received any responses either in opposition or in favor. And staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the criteria in the DENT development code and is appropriate in this location. And I will be happy to answer any questions. Oh, I did want to mention the applicant does not have a presentation, but he is on the call for any questions. Thanks, Julie. Looks like we have a couple of hands raised. We'll start with Mr. Pernetta. So there's going to be a connection along the back of it, right, going to Fulton. You mentioned that there generate, what, about 3,100 trips. And I imagine those are mostly going up university, which already has that traffic. Where it looks like it's connecting to Fulton is right above Denton High, where there's a lot of kids walking and things like that. Do we know what the potential, you know, trips that we're introducing into that and, you know, is there any concern about basically, we also have Newton razor that kind of wraps, you know, kids wrap around under that when they're walking. Was that a consideration in terms of, you know, that connecting spot? Our engineering group did not raise any concerns regarding conflicts with those students that are at that current Denton High location. Any other questions? Commissioner Ellis. Yep. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So on that note, I mean, Denton High is relocating, correct? Correct. Yeah. So that could improve that. But my question is, with concern with the same cut through, I know we've sent out the notifications to property owners. I guess my concern is the current businesses that are there that end at Westway. Have they been notified that that will be a cut through and traffic patterns will be changing there? They have been notified regarding the zoning change, but they have not, there hasn't been any public outreach in terms of tying into that existing right of way. It seems to me that, I guess, as they were reviewing the TIA and traffic patterns and whatnot, that some kind of outreach with regard to that is important. It may impact their businesses as well. I think we have to keep in the consideration, though you say right, they are adjacent to where the new cut through is going to be, is not a residential neighborhood. But the other side of Westway, on the other side of Fulton, I mean, is residential. So as a city, we certainly need to take that into consideration, exactly what are we flowing through this new cut through. Julie, when they do the TIA studies, what is peak times? I believe peak times are between five and six in the evening and I don't know about the morning peak. I'm pulling up the TIA right now to see if I can find quickly the trip distribution as well as those peak times. So let me see if I can find that and I'll let you know. Let's see. I'm going to try to find that. I'm going to try to find that. I'm going to try to find that. I'm not seeing where they have listed what is considered that a.m. peak time. Yeah, Richard. Typically, for a.m. peak, the look at a six a.m. to nine a.m. interval and then for p.m. peak, it's typically four to seven p.m. OK. That's all I needed. Julie, I don't know if you're still looking up something for Margie or not. OK. Any other questions, Christopher? Sure. Julie, under suburban corridor, how tall are you able to go? Pull that up. The maximum building height in suburban corridor is fifty five feet. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant is available. There's any questions out there? OK, there's no one on the phone calling in. So at this time, I'm going to close the public hearing and I can certainly entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve is recommended the first for approval. Commissioner Anderson, I second. We got a first and a second. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, I call for a vote. Be a roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries six zero. Congratulations. That concludes our working agenda for this evening and takes us to the plan and zoning matrix. As always, I will turn this over to Richard and then to the dais for any other discussion. Thank you, Chair. Nothing really to add to the you know, as far as updates to the matrix. The City Council did consider PNZ's motion regarding the small area plan yesterday. Ron presented that at the work session. And so there was support to move forward with the small area plan for that area. And so that'll be something that staff will get underway here. We'll be reaching out to the property owners. So in the very near future, that will be that will be started. And lastly, while I haven't shared this overall with everyone, if you did see the Friday report, I did tender my letter of resignation. And so my last day with the city will be June 4. And so there was an opportunity that presented itself in Denver, Colorado. It's always been a kind of a dream of mine to work there. We own some property now not too far away. And it was just something that I couldn't pass up. So really hard sometimes to talk about it. It was not an easy decision. But not sure that that opportunity would come around again. So just wanted to share that. Congrats, Richard. Thank you. Congratulations, Richard. Sorry to lose you. Yes, we will miss you. Thank you for all you have done. Absolutely. And before I forget, one of the things that we wanted Scott and I try to work on is succession planning. And so after my departure, Haley will be serving the role of interim planning director. And so I think she's more than capable and will be able to handle it. So I think that continuity will be there. And I have full faith as does Scott and Sarah. So Haley will be in the seat at the next meeting. Awesome. Well, Richard, that's terrible news. We hate to see you go. I can say for me personally, I don't know if I have served as chair without you on my right-hand side. And so I appreciate you making me look good every meeting. I wouldn't have come across as confident as I might sometimes without knowing that I got you behind me to answer questions and guide me and make sure I don't do anything illegal and all those things. So sincerest thank you for serving the city as well as you have. But personally, just for helping me out being the chair of this commission, you will be missed and best luck to you up in Denver for sure. Luckily we got some great people behind you with Haley. And so hopefully the city, at least this commission will miss a beat under Haley's tutelage. So congrats. You will be missed for sure. Any items that we want to throw onto Haley's plate this evening? All right. Richard, you leave and Haley doesn't get anything on the matrix. So I don't know what that says. But with that, seeing there's no other item, I will close out this P&Z meeting at 7.05. Thank you, everyone. Thanks.