WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.560 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission 00:00:05.560 --> 00:00:11.480 work session for May 19 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting 00:00:11.480 --> 00:00:20.040 to order at 504. The first item of business is to we have one citizen comment on the consent 00:00:20.040 --> 00:00:24.320 agenda, at least they filed a note. So I just wanted to read this for the record for the 00:00:24.320 --> 00:00:31.520 consent agenda. Make sure it's right. Yep, three a, we had someone against it. And just 00:00:31.520 --> 00:00:36.600 for the record, their comment said against any development meeting via zoom. This is 00:00:36.600 --> 00:00:43.320 undemocratic. Anyone knowing anyone know anything about rental property by my house, I saw your 00:00:43.320 --> 00:00:50.280 sign in the neighbor's yard. That's the comment against item three a. Moving on from that, 00:00:50.280 --> 00:00:54.080 we have work session report, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction 00:00:54.080 --> 00:00:59.640 regarding downtown parking. Not sure who's presenting on this this evening. Richard who's 00:00:59.640 --> 00:01:08.040 got this one. Ron and Ron will be presenting. I think Cameron's also here. Christian Pernetta. 00:01:08.040 --> 00:01:14.280 Yeah, and this is just procedural. You know, not what we're going into with regard to the 00:01:14.280 --> 00:01:21.080 consent agenda. So when as probably other members of the commission have noticed, we 00:01:21.080 --> 00:01:27.800 have had a barrage of objections on everything from from like a single citizen over the last 00:01:27.800 --> 00:01:34.520 few weeks. When, you know, counselors and like that is having to review objections to 00:01:34.520 --> 00:01:40.920 a particular thing. When we get kind of blanket, you know, blind objections on those, let's 00:01:40.920 --> 00:01:45.120 go to the numbers. Are there something that they need to consider when they're, you know, 00:01:45.120 --> 00:01:49.240 like, you know, when we get the little things that go, how many objections do we get something? 00:01:49.240 --> 00:01:52.400 Does that count? Or or does it not count? Because they're not people that are within 00:01:52.400 --> 00:02:06.000 the area that chases the area. All of them get counted. Yes. If it's if it's a rezoning, 00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:12.960 that's the only time that that 20 the rezoning or an SGP. If that if is when the 20% rule 00:02:12.960 --> 00:02:19.880 kicks in. Typically in those instances, if it's unclear, we've had some where they didn't, 00:02:19.880 --> 00:02:25.240 you know, didn't check that they were for or against, but seem to be maybe for it but 00:02:25.240 --> 00:02:32.120 not really staff will follow up with them to try to clarify clarify their comment. If 00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:36.440 we can sometimes they'll they'll submit stuff and we just don't have a way to follow up 00:02:36.440 --> 00:02:43.440 or they never never respond. But in these instances, it is, you know, it is an action 00:02:43.440 --> 00:02:49.320 that's, you know, where PNC is the final, you know, final authority, if you will. But 00:02:49.320 --> 00:02:55.760 they do get, you know, they do get logged and are included in that overall comment list, 00:02:55.760 --> 00:03:04.600 if it were to go through a public hearing. All right, Ron, whenever you're ready. 00:03:04.600 --> 00:03:16.000 Let me go ahead and start bring up the presentation of the y'all can see and hear me. So, this 00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:22.160 is another presentation of a planning boot camp series of requests that we are responding 00:03:22.160 --> 00:03:27.280 to at the thing. It was a couple meetings ago where the planning zoning commission requested 00:03:27.280 --> 00:03:32.800 a boot camp or at least presentation regarding downtown planning or downtown parking, excuse 00:03:32.800 --> 00:03:39.360 me, specifically how parking is regulated in the downtown. One of the things that I 00:03:39.360 --> 00:03:45.320 would like to share with the planning zoning commission as we get to that particular topic 00:03:45.320 --> 00:03:49.360 is just to kind of give the planning zoning commission and the viewing public, you know, 00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:53.880 what are the parking goals for downtown kind of give us a little bit of background. Also, 00:03:53.880 --> 00:03:59.600 where is parking available today kind of gives us what's existing on the ground. For that 00:03:59.600 --> 00:04:04.480 part of the presentation, Cameron Robinson, our historic preservation officer and planner 00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:10.040 will be making that presentation. So, we'll be switching when that topic comes up. And 00:04:10.040 --> 00:04:15.560 then lastly, we'll again talk about how is parking regulated specifically for the downtown 00:04:15.560 --> 00:04:24.000 area. So, a couple of plans that we have and I think most of you are familiar with the 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:30.480 downtown master plan. This was done back in 2000, early 2000 and in the plan, it had a 00:04:30.480 --> 00:04:37.320 number of goals in terms of a number of different various topics, but parking was obviously 00:04:37.320 --> 00:04:42.680 a big part of their discussion when this was drafted. You can see that the goal for the 00:04:42.680 --> 00:04:49.760 downtown back then is similar to what it is today. We want a mix of uses. We want entertainment. 00:04:49.760 --> 00:04:56.960 We want a nice place for people to walk and enjoy the outdoors in the downtown. But they 00:04:56.960 --> 00:05:02.800 also address the question about parking. You know, is there a need for additional parking? 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:08.120 What are the solutions? And is there really a need for parking or is it just a perception 00:05:08.120 --> 00:05:13.160 as far as availability? So, all of that was addressed through the downtown master plan 00:05:13.160 --> 00:05:19.640 and we continue to do respond to these types of questions throughout the years that followed 00:05:19.640 --> 00:05:26.020 again, answering those similar questions and we hope that we can try at least to answer 00:05:26.020 --> 00:05:33.520 them in this presentation and any future studies that we do. So again, I just want to highlight 00:05:33.520 --> 00:05:39.200 a couple of the recommendations as it relates to parking for the downtown and again, the 00:05:39.200 --> 00:05:46.040 master plan, the downtown master plan, had some recommendations, solutions, strategies. 00:05:46.040 --> 00:05:50.760 A couple of them, I'll just read off the list here, is maximized on street parking. Of course, 00:05:50.760 --> 00:05:56.560 we want to make sure that we increase our parking as much as we can on street specifically, 00:05:56.560 --> 00:06:01.600 create sufficient parking facilities. You know, today we have a number of parking facilities 00:06:01.600 --> 00:06:08.680 on Oak, on Cedar, on Hickory, of course, but we can continue to acquire properties and 00:06:08.680 --> 00:06:13.560 we should continue to acquire properties for either surface parking lots or even a possible 00:06:13.560 --> 00:06:20.500 parking structure. Shared parking and after hours, the opportunity there is to have where 00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:27.240 there's uses that don't necessarily need parking during after hours or certain days that that 00:06:27.240 --> 00:06:32.720 could be used for the parking that's needed for the downtown. The recommendations from 00:06:32.720 --> 00:06:37.200 the downtown master plan also talked about improving the walking environment. Again, 00:06:37.200 --> 00:06:41.560 that is true today. We want to make sure that when you park, you're able to get to where 00:06:41.560 --> 00:06:47.720 your destination is. So improving the sidewalks, the lighting is something that our engineering 00:06:47.720 --> 00:06:54.760 and CIP group is working on continuously. Parking study, I'm going to leave that for 00:06:54.760 --> 00:06:59.360 Cameron to discuss. She's got a couple of topic discussions related to parking study 00:06:59.360 --> 00:07:04.760 and that's something that we will certainly need to do in the near future. Short-term 00:07:04.760 --> 00:07:10.040 parking, making sure that, you know, once someone parks, it's not there forever, that 00:07:10.040 --> 00:07:15.120 if there's a retail establishment, there's an opportunity for multiple individuals to 00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:21.260 use that parking space through a short-term parking our set. And then just helping to 00:07:21.260 --> 00:07:27.040 change people's perceptions as far as, you know, the lack of parking. There is parking, 00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:34.360 but it's just not in front of where they want to be. Moving on to the downtown implementation 00:07:34.360 --> 00:07:41.680 plan, often referred to as DTEP, it also had recommendations. This was more of a follow-up 00:07:41.680 --> 00:07:47.920 to the downtown master plan. And you see on the list there that they're very similar to 00:07:47.920 --> 00:07:54.640 what the downtown master plan was recommending. I think the only two or three, maybe the way 00:07:54.640 --> 00:08:02.680 finding the cash cash in lieu and early action parking projects were added to that list. 00:08:02.680 --> 00:08:07.920 So I'll share in the next couple of slides, some of the things that the city has done 00:08:07.920 --> 00:08:15.000 and other recommendations that have been accomplished as part of both the downtown master plan and 00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:24.480 the DTEP. The first one is, you know, increase public parking, create additional parallel 00:08:24.480 --> 00:08:32.280 and angle entry parking on existing streets. We see that in the Hickory street area, that 00:08:32.280 --> 00:08:39.200 area was redeveloped or reconstructed, where it created more parking through creating angle 00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:46.800 parking back in specifically. Also, the recommendation was to create, you know, more parking lots 00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:55.760 in the downtown. And specifically Cedar, Hickory and Exposition were not only there, but were 00:08:55.760 --> 00:09:05.760 expanded or enhanced through efforts by the city. So this slide here shows what Hickory 00:09:05.760 --> 00:09:11.920 street looked like pre the pre construction. And you can see that the parallel parking 00:09:11.920 --> 00:09:18.840 was very limited or very, very limited as far as number. And it took a lot of area in 00:09:18.840 --> 00:09:24.760 the middle of Hickory street. After construction, it narrowed the street and added more parking. 00:09:24.760 --> 00:09:30.720 And so you can see the back end parking there as it is today. So again, accomplishing what 00:09:30.720 --> 00:09:39.560 the recommendation was for creating more on street parking. Shared parking as well. We 00:09:39.560 --> 00:09:46.840 talked a bit about that and the DTEP recommended having the system in which shared parking 00:09:46.840 --> 00:09:51.880 was created or to be created through this program. And then form-based code parking 00:09:51.880 --> 00:09:59.800 calculation was another recommendation from the DTEP. Both have not yet been implemented, 00:09:59.800 --> 00:10:06.480 but that's something that the staff is looking into. Ron, we do have a question, Mr. Anderson. 00:10:06.480 --> 00:10:13.160 Thanks, Chair. Ron, whose idea was to do the back end parking? I hear more complaints. 00:10:13.160 --> 00:10:18.480 When I talk to people, I tell them on PNZ, they hate it. Everybody hates it. They want 00:10:18.480 --> 00:10:22.120 to get rid of it. Is there something we can talk about about getting rid of that? I don't 00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:26.480 know if that's the House or City Council. Sorry to cut you off there. Yeah. Obviously, 00:10:26.480 --> 00:10:34.600 that is something that has been discussed with staff. I'll tell you, I think, where 00:10:34.600 --> 00:10:44.760 it came from. I'll say traffic or engineering. The idea there was pulling out was safer through 00:10:44.760 --> 00:10:51.680 a back end parking. As you leave that space, you're not backing into traffic. You're actually 00:10:51.680 --> 00:10:57.080 leaving facing the area that you're trying to get into. So that's where it generated 00:10:57.080 --> 00:11:05.680 from. And again, proposed and council approved and we moved forward. So as far as how we 00:11:05.680 --> 00:11:11.440 address that, I think it would be something that we just need to bring up to council. 00:11:11.440 --> 00:11:15.960 Because I know people and it's happened to me multiple times when you're trying to pull 00:11:15.960 --> 00:11:20.680 up and go up Hickory and these people don't use their blinker and they'd stop in the middle 00:11:20.680 --> 00:11:24.320 of the street and all of a sudden you're on their tail and then they're waving their hand 00:11:24.320 --> 00:11:28.240 they're mad at you trying to back up. Now you can't back up because you got cars behind 00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:34.840 you. So then they get mad. They have to drive off. I just think it's a horrible idea. I 00:11:34.840 --> 00:11:39.320 agree with most of the people that are complaining about it. I go up there quite often and it's 00:11:39.320 --> 00:11:45.800 just miserable. Yeah, no, we've heard and like I said, the only I think remedy would 00:11:45.800 --> 00:11:50.800 be to, you know, it would cost money obviously to retrofit that and that's something that 00:11:50.800 --> 00:11:58.320 we just have to get direction from council. All right, thanks. 00:11:58.320 --> 00:12:10.120 You know, you're talking about shared parking. Is there a way I know NCTC has that parking 00:12:10.120 --> 00:12:18.080 garage right there off of that Mulberry Mulberry. Yes. And I mean, that would be a nice structure 00:12:18.080 --> 00:12:22.560 to see if they wouldn't work some kind of partnership with us with the city. Yeah, no, 00:12:22.560 --> 00:12:27.160 definitely something we've also talked about. I think it's really just working on that agreement 00:12:27.160 --> 00:12:33.320 and that that liability with with, you know, our insurance and the city attorney's office. 00:12:33.320 --> 00:12:40.280 So definitely something that we've discussed. We just haven't really implemented yet. Okay. 00:12:40.280 --> 00:12:50.160 Thanks Ron. Let's go on to the next slide here. 00:12:50.160 --> 00:12:54.720 So this is just kind of illustrate the the other recommendation from the detail and that 00:12:54.720 --> 00:13:00.040 is to enlarge the existing public parking. For those that are familiar with this site, 00:13:00.040 --> 00:13:06.320 this site is the Cedar parking lot. It used to have the central fire station, the one 00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:11.920 of the original fire stations. It no longer is there, of course. And what we have now 00:13:11.920 --> 00:13:20.120 is 30. It was 33 parking spaces. Now we have 85 parking spaces, 52 new spaces as a result. 00:13:20.120 --> 00:13:25.480 And this is what we have today. So quite an improvement. It did accomplish a lot of the 00:13:25.480 --> 00:13:31.840 recommendations. One, obviously improve the area, but also add additional parking and 00:13:31.840 --> 00:13:39.880 in this case, 52 additional parking that you see here for the Cedar Street parking lot. 00:13:39.880 --> 00:13:43.480 Another recommendation from the detail and partly as well as the downtime as planned 00:13:43.480 --> 00:13:48.280 is to create that signage, you know, to help educate individuals where parking is located 00:13:48.280 --> 00:13:56.520 as well as try to market where parking can be where people can park. Sorry. So what we 00:13:56.520 --> 00:14:03.300 did, we started with the parking and as we started working on the parking initiative, 00:14:03.300 --> 00:14:08.040 we found that we needed to market the downtown or promote the downtown through signage as 00:14:08.040 --> 00:14:15.840 well. That grew to a citywide wayfinding project. So in the end, we have a wayfinding science 00:14:15.840 --> 00:14:23.680 project that I believe is quite nice and helps not only direct, you know, our tourists and 00:14:23.680 --> 00:14:29.120 our visitors to the downtown. It also helps, you know, with the parking. So the examples 00:14:29.120 --> 00:14:36.280 that you see here primarily help guide individuals, motorists to those parking lots that we have 00:14:36.280 --> 00:14:43.160 currently in downtown. That was a schematic design. This is actually what's on the ground. 00:14:43.160 --> 00:14:51.040 So you can see that both, you know, pole signs that help create a trail to the parking. We've 00:14:51.040 --> 00:14:56.880 actually have parking signage where it talks about or shows that it's free parking so people 00:14:56.880 --> 00:15:03.320 know that that's a public parking lot. We also have it along within and on. There are 00:15:03.320 --> 00:15:08.760 traffic signal lights so that when you're driving, you can again see where parking is 00:15:08.760 --> 00:15:14.800 and it's directing you to those parking lots. So a lot of help has been done to help direct 00:15:14.800 --> 00:15:19.440 people to these parking lots. And so again, wayfinding was one of the recommendations 00:15:19.440 --> 00:15:27.640 and I think we've accomplished that. This next slide here just illustrates where, you 00:15:27.640 --> 00:15:34.240 know, the recommendation was to create a cash in lieu of parking. The idea there is that, 00:15:34.240 --> 00:15:41.480 you know, if a person or a business wanting to develop was required to provide parking, 00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:48.320 they can have a choice in paying in lieu of parking, establishing parking. And the idea 00:15:48.320 --> 00:15:55.480 was to use that money that was collected or is collected to either purchase land or have 00:15:55.480 --> 00:16:03.800 a parking garage built in the idea is to again create more parking spaces. We also had other 00:16:03.800 --> 00:16:11.840 recommendations in terms of, you know, walk zones, creating an incentive for reduced parking, 00:16:11.840 --> 00:16:16.880 private public parking. I think that Commissioner Anderson spoke a little bit about that with 00:16:16.880 --> 00:16:23.440 the University or the college. And then also guidelines for truck deliveries. The issue 00:16:23.440 --> 00:16:29.400 there was the square was hit, was visited with a lot of truck deliveries during peak 00:16:29.400 --> 00:16:34.520 hours and that just caused a lot of issues with parking and we wanted to make sure we 00:16:34.520 --> 00:16:41.800 addressed that as part of the detail. Last, I think this last slide before Cameron comes 00:16:41.800 --> 00:16:43.000 and speaks to her. 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:47.800 >> Sorry to interrupt. I think we had a question on the previous slide or not. 00:16:47.800 --> 00:16:52.880 >> I do. Thank you, Chair. Ron, is the cash in lieu program active? 00:16:52.880 --> 00:16:56.440 >> It's not. >> That was just a recommendation? 00:16:56.440 --> 00:17:03.800 >> Correct. I know that the reason why we probably haven't started that yet is we have 00:17:03.800 --> 00:17:10.680 in place the TURS, the downtown TURS, and so there's that in place. As you all probably 00:17:10.680 --> 00:17:18.040 know, it's more of a taxing finance program where the money that is generated by increased 00:17:18.040 --> 00:17:24.360 tax property taxes is used to help the downtown either funding infrastructure, parking or 00:17:24.360 --> 00:17:28.920 whatever it may be. So I think that's been the main focus of the city and if there is 00:17:28.920 --> 00:17:33.560 an opportunity for that cash in lieu program, certainly that's another finance tool that 00:17:33.560 --> 00:17:40.320 we can use if we wanted to consider another parking surface parking lot or a parking structure 00:17:40.320 --> 00:17:41.320 in the future. 00:17:41.320 --> 00:17:49.400 >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Okay. So let me go through this next slide 00:17:49.400 --> 00:17:55.600 real quickly. Talking about early actions, the striping and angle parking of Hickory 00:17:55.600 --> 00:18:00.520 Street check, you know, that's done. Development of parking lots, we've done that with Cedar 00:18:00.520 --> 00:18:07.200 Street. We've actually helped improve Hickory Street parking lot as well. That's the parking 00:18:07.200 --> 00:18:13.880 lot there on Mulberry and Hickory. Wayfinding, we've done that. Road and streetscape improvements 00:18:13.880 --> 00:18:20.640 on Hickory Street, we've also done that. And then the striping and angle parking on industrial, 00:18:20.640 --> 00:18:26.520 we did not, but that was one of the recommendations. Enhanced parking education. Cameron's going 00:18:26.520 --> 00:18:31.360 to talk a bit about that, so I won't speak to that. And then elevate and modify parking 00:18:31.360 --> 00:18:36.120 fine structure. That's something that we will work with the police department that has not 00:18:36.120 --> 00:18:41.200 yet been implemented, but that's something we should also consider. So with that, I'm 00:18:41.200 --> 00:18:47.240 going to turn it over to Cameron, and she'll present the next topic. 00:18:47.240 --> 00:18:56.760 >> Hi, everyone. So I'm going to talk about the parking that we have today in downtown. 00:18:56.760 --> 00:19:02.760 So over the years, the city and other entities such as the Denton Main Street Association 00:19:02.760 --> 00:19:08.240 have undergone parking surveys to establish the quantity, location, and the usage of parking 00:19:08.240 --> 00:19:13.920 in the downtown Denton area. So the map provided by the Denton Main Street Association breaks 00:19:13.920 --> 00:19:19.320 down the parking into public and private, as well as their hours of availability. On 00:19:19.320 --> 00:19:25.000 the map shown, there are nine free public parking lots, primarily along McKinney Street, 00:19:25.000 --> 00:19:32.000 as you see here, five of which are within the 1/4 mile radius or within approximately 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:38.000 five minutes walking distance from the downtown area. There are also two paid parking lots 00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:44.260 near the square, one at the Wells Fargo building, as well as the other at Walnut Street and 00:19:44.260 --> 00:19:51.480 South M Street. There's also ample on-street parking in the downtown area. So we have timed 00:19:51.480 --> 00:19:58.400 two-hour street parking available along West and East Oak Streets, as well as Hickory Streets, 00:19:58.400 --> 00:20:05.120 and within the immediate vicinity of the square. Unlimited street parking is available further 00:20:05.120 --> 00:20:10.280 south and north along Elm and Locust Streets, and just outside the vicinity of the downtown 00:20:10.280 --> 00:20:16.960 square, such as along East and West Sycamore Street and Industrial Street. So in total, 00:20:16.960 --> 00:20:22.440 if you look at the parking spaces here in downtown that Denton Main Street Association 00:20:22.440 --> 00:20:30.580 put together, there are approximately 2,096 total parking spaces in the downtown area. 00:20:30.580 --> 00:20:38.280 This breaks down to approximately 861 street parking, 148 paid parking, and 1,087 public 00:20:38.280 --> 00:20:44.680 parking lots. However, this does not include the new development services parking lot that 00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:50.320 will be at the North Elm Street and Parkway Boulevard corner. When this opens, this will 00:20:50.320 --> 00:20:56.460 eventually be open to the public for parking on weeknights and weekends. This will provide 00:20:56.460 --> 00:21:06.720 an additional 148 parking spaces for a total of 2,244. So, just to continue on some of 00:21:06.720 --> 00:21:11.500 the parking that we have today, once again, this is a Denton Main Street Association resource 00:21:11.500 --> 00:21:16.560 that we have here, this map. This map shows the location of the public parking lots that 00:21:16.560 --> 00:21:22.480 you see here. It shows the paid parking lots, which are highlighted in yellow here. The 00:21:22.480 --> 00:21:26.480 unlimited and two hour public street parking in the downtown area, which is highlighted 00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:32.440 by the green and the purple. This map, in addition to the wayfinding signage found in 00:21:32.440 --> 00:21:37.480 downtown that Ron described earlier, serve as resources for those interested in visiting 00:21:37.480 --> 00:21:45.480 the area. Also, Denton Main Street Association also provides the parking availability during 00:21:45.480 --> 00:21:58.600 the weekends and weekdays. And I'm going to hand it back to Ron. 00:21:58.600 --> 00:22:04.480 So that kind of gives you an idea of where parking is, you know, currently and I appreciate 00:22:04.480 --> 00:22:12.000 Cameron's presentation. So again, setting up for how we regulate parking in the downtown. 00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:17.720 We have a lot of parking now. And what we have in place in the DDC, the Denton Development 00:22:17.720 --> 00:22:25.480 Code, is section 7.9 of the development code where it provides the required parking spaces, 00:22:25.480 --> 00:22:31.400 off street parking spaces, as it relates to certain developments that occur in and around 00:22:31.400 --> 00:22:39.120 the downtown. Again, the application or applicability for these parking requirements fall under 00:22:39.120 --> 00:22:45.600 new development, expansions and enlargements, changes of uses, all are required to provide 00:22:45.600 --> 00:22:57.440 a minimum parking spaces, either new or reconstructed. However, there are exemptions as to the parking 00:22:57.440 --> 00:23:04.240 requirements, and that is properties that are less than 5,000 square feet in lot area, 00:23:04.240 --> 00:23:09.800 any expansion or enlargements that is less than 10% or 1,000 square feet, whichever is 00:23:09.800 --> 00:23:17.120 less. So those smaller enlargement projects or expansion projects would not need to add 00:23:17.120 --> 00:23:23.440 additional parking. Those smaller lots that are too small to add additional parking would 00:23:23.440 --> 00:23:31.240 be exempted from providing the required parking spaces. In addition to those two exemptions, 00:23:31.240 --> 00:23:36.680 there is also the MD Zoning District. And the MD Zoning District is what you see on 00:23:36.680 --> 00:23:44.240 the screen that is the purple, the purple that's around the square. The gray that you 00:23:44.240 --> 00:23:50.120 see around the square, just to help clarify, is what is an overlay, the square district 00:23:50.120 --> 00:23:56.440 overlay. But underneath that overlay, it's MD as far as zoning. So that area also falls 00:23:56.440 --> 00:24:02.880 under to under the MD Zoning District. So kind of illustrate again where the MD is located, 00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:08.040 and this is just in this area. It's not located in anywhere else in the city. It's just around 00:24:08.040 --> 00:24:14.400 the downtown or downtown square. So under the MD Zoning District, any residential development 00:24:14.400 --> 00:24:22.720 with less or 10 or less units do not have to provide parking. So again, no parking required 00:24:22.720 --> 00:24:29.400 if they're, if you're proposing 10 or fewer units on your development, for your development. 00:24:29.400 --> 00:24:36.520 In addition, any non-residential development, it could be office, it could be restaurant, 00:24:36.520 --> 00:24:41.040 whatever it may be. If you're in the MD Zoning District, you are not required to provide 00:24:41.040 --> 00:24:46.760 additional parking. So kind of give you an idea of, and it makes sense, right? Because 00:24:46.760 --> 00:24:53.440 the downtown is already crowded with, or dense that is, and has already ample parking. So 00:24:53.440 --> 00:24:59.160 the need for additional parking would not be necessary. Now, if you're proposing either 00:24:59.160 --> 00:25:05.040 apartment or a high-rise residential development, of course, we're going to have to find parking. 00:25:05.040 --> 00:25:10.320 And so that's why the 10 was selected. Anything above 10 would still need to provide that 00:25:10.320 --> 00:25:17.640 parking requirement, minimum off-street parking. Just to help illustrate a little bit of how 00:25:17.640 --> 00:25:23.560 we look at other areas in the downtown. Again, I'll swing, I'll go back to this illustration 00:25:23.560 --> 00:25:30.360 here. Not every property within the downtown proper is zoned MD. So there are still properties 00:25:30.360 --> 00:25:37.840 that will still need to provide the parking minimum, specifically the MN. There are other 00:25:37.840 --> 00:25:43.600 zoning districts within this area as well, but MN would need to provide any property 00:25:43.600 --> 00:25:46.600 within the MN would still need to provide that parking minimum. 00:25:46.600 --> 00:25:52.120 Hey, Ron, can I interrupt real fast? Yeah. You mentioned this a minute ago, you used 00:25:52.120 --> 00:25:56.960 the words, if it's an apartment, of course, we would have to have parking minimums. Can 00:25:56.960 --> 00:26:03.680 we, can I dive into what the rationale behind parking minimums is to begin with? Like why, 00:26:03.680 --> 00:26:09.640 why is it, of course, we need to provide parking to apartments and why is it that MN needs 00:26:09.640 --> 00:26:13.600 parking? I just, I come from the perspective of if you open a grocery store and provide 00:26:13.600 --> 00:26:17.320 no parking, you might not get customers. It seems like they could probably determine how 00:26:17.320 --> 00:26:21.320 much parking they would need for the customers they can take in at a time. And with apartments, 00:26:21.320 --> 00:26:26.400 if we build up a downtown that has grocery and food and access to the university or we 00:26:26.400 --> 00:26:32.280 have mobility planned, why, why are we enforcing a minimum? 00:26:32.280 --> 00:26:37.680 Well, I didn't mean to say, when I said, of course, I was, I was referring to the size 00:26:37.680 --> 00:26:42.960 of the apartment. So that's what I was referencing, you know, anything above 10, but back to your 00:26:42.960 --> 00:26:47.720 question though, that is, that is a valid question. You know, when we looked at the 00:26:47.720 --> 00:26:54.160 downtown, the, all the non-residential uses, right, do not require additional parking. 00:26:54.160 --> 00:26:59.880 And it just held, it held that requirement just for the multi-family or any unit count 00:26:59.880 --> 00:27:06.060 that's above 10 units would need to provide that. That is a policy question or policy 00:27:06.060 --> 00:27:13.120 direction that we got from city, city council at the time when we first had this requirement 00:27:13.120 --> 00:27:20.020 drafted, it's been in the, in, in the development code since I've been here. So I can't answer 00:27:20.020 --> 00:27:26.840 that question as to why we isolated that primarily, but again, that is something that was determined 00:27:26.840 --> 00:27:33.440 back when, when the code was drafted. And just for clarification, you said any non-residential 00:27:33.440 --> 00:27:37.720 does not provide additional parking. You're talking additional parking above the minimum 00:27:37.720 --> 00:27:43.100 for that zoning, correct? No, any additional parking period. So if they have existing parking 00:27:43.100 --> 00:27:48.160 on the property and they're short on their parking spaces, they do not need to provide 00:27:48.160 --> 00:27:53.680 parking. They can keep the parking that they have there today, but it would be, if say, 00:27:53.680 --> 00:27:58.640 for example, there was a development that had no parking on there now, say along the 00:27:58.640 --> 00:28:04.180 square, right? There's no parking on that lot. They are not required to provide additional 00:28:04.180 --> 00:28:08.720 parking from what they have today. So obviously they're starting from zero, so they would 00:28:08.720 --> 00:28:14.440 not need to provide any parking. Unless like where the, the mini mall was on the east side, 00:28:14.440 --> 00:28:19.700 they put apartments above that. 10 or more. Yes. 10 or more units. Yes. Is it 10 or more 00:28:19.700 --> 00:28:25.680 units or square footage? 10 or more units would, they would require to provide parking. 00:28:25.680 --> 00:28:31.360 Okay. That's probably not likely. Okay. Thanks. Part of the interruption. Right. And I'm just 00:28:31.360 --> 00:28:35.680 going to, just to kind of carry forward with that, you, you know, where, where are they 00:28:35.680 --> 00:28:40.360 going to put parking? Well, there are alternatives and I'm going to get into that right now as 00:28:40.360 --> 00:28:45.520 far as where they can put parking, specifically if there's not an ability to do that on the 00:28:45.520 --> 00:28:50.720 particular lot that they're developing on. Yeah. And then obviously this is a council 00:28:50.720 --> 00:28:59.880 decision and not P and Z, but if we're trying to incentivize infill and this urban area, 00:28:59.880 --> 00:29:04.760 parking is going to be a massive player in that and requiring it of any kind, I think 00:29:04.760 --> 00:29:10.640 deters incentivizing walkability because we're just putting more cars on the streets and 00:29:10.640 --> 00:29:15.540 this might be pie in the sky, but it seems if the city really wants to incentivize some 00:29:15.540 --> 00:29:21.040 downtown urban urbanality, if that's a word, then we should just build a parking garage 00:29:21.040 --> 00:29:27.060 and let everyone who builds downtown have access to it would be a really random idea. 00:29:27.060 --> 00:29:31.480 But again, if we start enforcing a ton of parking, I think we're shooting ourselves 00:29:31.480 --> 00:29:37.400 in the foot of what I think downtown is designed or hoped to be. That's my soapbox, Ron. Thanks 00:29:37.400 --> 00:29:42.160 for listening. That's a great point. And again, I want to 00:29:42.160 --> 00:29:48.500 let you know, I'm going to go back to this slide here that illustrates again, MD is carved 00:29:48.500 --> 00:29:54.480 out except for the single, I'm sorry, the number of units above 10. I say multifamily 00:29:54.480 --> 00:30:00.320 because that's typically the property, the development that usually has 10 or more units, 00:30:00.320 --> 00:30:06.320 but you're right. There are areas outside of the MD and the MN that potentially is within 00:30:06.320 --> 00:30:12.520 that fourth mile, five minute walk to the downtown square that certainly it has the 00:30:12.520 --> 00:30:20.640 similar feeling and could benefit from the no additional parking as well. 00:30:20.640 --> 00:30:29.620 So to those areas that are not MD and are non-residential restaurants, bars and other 00:30:29.620 --> 00:30:35.040 uses offices as well, they are required to provide the parking spaces that is in the 00:30:35.040 --> 00:30:42.560 development code. And again, we have a table 791 or 790 that is where it aligns basically 00:30:42.560 --> 00:30:47.640 what that minimum requirement is. So you can see here that for a restaurant and if you're 00:30:47.640 --> 00:30:54.480 in the MD, any indoor space seating is one space per 200 square feet and for outdoor 00:30:54.480 --> 00:31:01.580 seating it's one space per 300. So that's how we get to that minimum parking requirement. 00:31:01.580 --> 00:31:08.360 Back to the section 7.9 in terms of parking alternatives and Chair, I don't know if this 00:31:08.360 --> 00:31:15.560 kind of addresses your topic or your discussion. Infill development, there is a reduction that 00:31:15.560 --> 00:31:24.800 can be done if it's a infill development, specifically 10% for non-residential reduction. 00:31:24.800 --> 00:31:30.800 Shared or offsite parking, that is an option for property. So again, we talked about having 00:31:30.800 --> 00:31:37.960 that with the college, but if there were two property owners that have the ability to share 00:31:37.960 --> 00:31:44.080 parking, that is also an option as long as they meet the location and documentation requirements. 00:31:44.080 --> 00:31:53.400 On street parking, if you have the on street space in terms of 22 linear feet in total, 00:31:53.400 --> 00:32:02.240 you can remove one parking space requirement from your development. Proximity to transit, 00:32:02.240 --> 00:32:08.480 that's up to 10% reduction and we obviously we have the downtown transit center. Affordable 00:32:08.480 --> 00:32:14.280 and senior housing, up to 25% reduction in terms of your required parking spaces and 00:32:14.280 --> 00:32:19.860 then bicycle and motorcycle spaces as well. If you're wanting, if you're proposing to 00:32:19.860 --> 00:32:25.480 develop with additional four parking space, I'm sorry, bicycle spaces, you can remove 00:32:25.480 --> 00:32:31.120 one. If you're proposing to develop with two more cycle spaces, you can reduce your parking 00:32:31.120 --> 00:32:40.320 space by one. So that is also available as parking alternatives. Director determination, 00:32:40.320 --> 00:32:47.280 this gives the director of planning the ability to review any proposal. For example, if there 00:32:47.280 --> 00:32:53.800 is a say a restaurant or a business that doesn't require as much parking and they can prove 00:32:53.800 --> 00:32:58.840 that it does not in other locations or they have got some studies that they can provide, 00:32:58.840 --> 00:33:05.640 the director can reduce that parking spaces as well. And then the next couple of slides 00:33:05.640 --> 00:33:12.400 or items here is really under section seven nine parking loading and drive throughs. Most 00:33:12.400 --> 00:33:17.360 likely not going to happen in downtown area, but it does cover areas outside of downtown 00:33:17.360 --> 00:33:23.240 and then also bicycle parking. We do require that one bicycle parking space be provided 00:33:23.240 --> 00:33:31.880 for each 20 vehicle parking space. So that is to increase, encourage bicycle use in parking 00:33:31.880 --> 00:33:41.080 as well. That concludes my presentation in terms of how we regulate parking. If you all 00:33:41.080 --> 00:33:46.520 have any questions, I'll be happy as well as Cameron is here with me to answer those 00:33:46.520 --> 00:33:47.520 questions. 00:33:47.520 --> 00:33:48.520 >> Commissioner Smith. 00:33:48.520 --> 00:33:57.160 >> Thank you, Chair. Kind of to Chair Rosell's point, how much parking is actually needed 00:33:57.160 --> 00:34:02.600 downtown Ron? There's obviously an environmental capacity at some point in time. I know there's 00:34:02.600 --> 00:34:06.760 plenty of we've had plenty of discussions and analysis have done by multiple different 00:34:06.760 --> 00:34:13.020 groups that have looked at what areas can we increase parking. But has the question 00:34:13.020 --> 00:34:16.720 ever been asked and the answer ever been given of how much parking is needed? What's the 00:34:16.720 --> 00:34:22.040 maximum amount of parking that is truly going to be needed for environmental capacity downtown 00:34:22.040 --> 00:34:25.960 if everything was built out, which we're at the point now we've had quite a bit of infill 00:34:25.960 --> 00:34:27.440 down there. 00:34:27.440 --> 00:34:34.120 >> I think that to be honest, you know, when we leave here, I leave here on Wednesdays 00:34:34.120 --> 00:34:40.540 and you know, in late hours on Tuesdays, you know, the parking space across City Hall where, 00:34:40.540 --> 00:34:48.720 you know, it's on Oak and McKinney, that's always crowded. Cedar street parking lot is 00:34:48.720 --> 00:34:53.600 also crowded in the evening. So I think that there is a demand for parking and there's 00:34:53.600 --> 00:34:59.740 obviously a lot of businesses that benefit from it. But I think if we start to grow the 00:34:59.740 --> 00:35:05.040 way we think we're going with more restaurants, with more housing or other development in 00:35:05.040 --> 00:35:10.920 the area, we're going to need more parking. And so there has to be a balance, right, with 00:35:10.920 --> 00:35:14.000 you mentioned the environmental component of it. I don't think it has been studied. 00:35:14.000 --> 00:35:18.600 I think it was more of an economic, you know, study. I think the environmental study I don't 00:35:18.600 --> 00:35:24.280 think has been done in my understanding. But back to your question, as we continue to grow, 00:35:24.280 --> 00:35:31.720 the downtown grows, not only in uses and size of the development, parking is going to be 00:35:31.720 --> 00:35:36.920 something that we definitely need to have. And if it's going to be a public parking structure 00:35:36.920 --> 00:35:42.400 or something to that effect, then that's something that we need to do. And of course, as I mentioned 00:35:42.400 --> 00:35:47.640 earlier, the tours was one of those, one of the reasons why we created that tours program 00:35:47.640 --> 00:35:53.700 was so that if and when we have the ability to create more parking, we have the funding 00:35:53.700 --> 00:36:00.240 to do so. And that was started back in 2010, 2011. So we've increased, you know, obviously 00:36:00.240 --> 00:36:05.680 with the property tax market, we've increased that amount. And I don't have the exact amount 00:36:05.680 --> 00:36:10.600 as far as the budget. But certainly that is something that we can utilize in terms of 00:36:10.600 --> 00:36:14.960 adding more parking to the downtown area. And that's not to draw away because I know 00:36:14.960 --> 00:36:19.800 we've got an entire other agenda we got to get to tonight. But, you know, I don't know 00:36:19.800 --> 00:36:25.800 if this conversation, Ron, if you guys looked at leadership didn't did a project around 00:36:25.800 --> 00:36:29.280 downtown parking at one point in time. I don't know if anything went back and maybe went 00:36:29.280 --> 00:36:33.600 back and referenced that I wasn't part of that project, but it's the presentation. But 00:36:33.600 --> 00:36:39.600 there was this conversation of perception versus actuality. And the for those who don't 00:36:39.600 --> 00:36:46.880 know about it, essentially the point was made that if you took a, you know, the entire circumference 00:36:46.880 --> 00:36:52.000 or really, I guess the correct term should be the tire diameter of, you know, if you 00:36:52.000 --> 00:36:56.240 dropped a point in the middle of Golden Triangle Mall and drew a circle all the way around 00:36:56.240 --> 00:37:01.080 where all the parking on a typical, typical series of days based off sideline images were 00:37:01.080 --> 00:37:07.200 at the mall, you took that same circle and you overlaid it over the square that the parking 00:37:07.200 --> 00:37:12.260 is really much further away from the square that that you could use. But the perception 00:37:12.260 --> 00:37:17.000 is I don't want I don't mind parking at Golden Triangle Mall. For those who still go to Golden 00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:22.240 Triangle Mall, I don't mind parking here and walking to the store inside the mall. But 00:37:22.240 --> 00:37:27.240 when it comes to me having to park down at that Bell to be able to have to walk over 00:37:27.240 --> 00:37:32.800 to a restaurant that's on the square, that's atrocious, right? And even though that's the 00:37:32.800 --> 00:37:38.600 exact same distance in a lot of instances, it was less. And so I just I just worry about 00:37:38.600 --> 00:37:43.440 that perception versus actuality. And I get there's a demand for parking downtown. To 00:37:43.440 --> 00:37:49.480 me, I feel like that we were maybe maybe putting I don't know, protection of appearance and 00:37:49.480 --> 00:37:57.680 the fabric of the downtown area and how it looks. Second to we want to shove more cars 00:37:57.680 --> 00:38:02.360 downtown like like, like, like Chair Rozelle said that, you know, we started putting up, 00:38:02.360 --> 00:38:08.000 you know, parking garages left and right shirt, there's gonna be cars that will come up totally. 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:12.740 But do we have to do that? Do we have to compromise us to having, you know, five or six parking 00:38:12.740 --> 00:38:17.520 garages all around the square? If we do keep building out and you know, the downtown keeps 00:38:17.520 --> 00:38:22.040 expanding the way it has over the last, you know, 50 years and keeps growing outward and 00:38:22.040 --> 00:38:29.680 outward. We have downtown businesses that are next to or behind parking garages. It 00:38:29.680 --> 00:38:40.460 just gives me a lot of concern and hesitation. So yeah, Christopher, you know, and kind of 00:38:40.460 --> 00:38:45.680 along the point of what Commissioner Smith was saying, you know, when we talk about where 00:38:45.680 --> 00:38:51.600 we walk from our car to our destination, we're going to the mall, there is there is a slight 00:38:51.600 --> 00:38:57.120 consideration of that one. And that's like, I can park on, you know, the side where like 00:38:57.120 --> 00:39:03.720 the Macy's is or whatever, and then go over to, you know, Barnes and Noble. On that journey 00:39:03.720 --> 00:39:10.760 though, you know, I am shaded and there's a you know, it's about 75 degrees inside, 00:39:10.760 --> 00:39:14.200 which is an issue, you know, I think for a lot of people that are going to be, you know, 00:39:14.200 --> 00:39:20.240 parking farther downtown and having to walk a farther distance, you know, if it's July, 00:39:20.240 --> 00:39:26.520 you know, when it's 105 degrees outside. Are there any things that we can do though that, 00:39:26.520 --> 00:39:33.400 you know, whether it's through the use of public art or, you know, some kind of or trees 00:39:33.400 --> 00:39:39.920 or something like that, that would kind of mitigate heat, mitigate, you know, the discomfort 00:39:39.920 --> 00:39:45.840 of that that we could, you know, that we could do. I know we can't enclose this. But, you 00:39:45.840 --> 00:39:51.560 know, I think for a lot of people, it's simply the fact that, you know, hey, if I park, you 00:39:51.560 --> 00:39:57.400 know, by the post office and I'm walking to LSA and it's 106 degrees outside, I'm going 00:39:57.400 --> 00:40:02.440 to be sweating to my shirt by the time I get there. Are there things that we can look at 00:40:02.440 --> 00:40:08.480 where we go? Is there a way to make this a more temperate, you know, walk that might 00:40:08.480 --> 00:40:14.440 alleviate the need for having to jam more parking into a condensed area? 00:40:14.440 --> 00:40:18.800 Commissioner Burnett, I think there's a lot we can do. Obviously, straight trees are the 00:40:18.800 --> 00:40:23.760 quickest answer I can give you as far as providing that shade. You know, there are businesses 00:40:23.760 --> 00:40:28.940 that can provide awnings or canopies that can provide that shade. But as far as the 00:40:28.940 --> 00:40:37.720 public or the city, I think street trees would be the most quickest way to get that shade 00:40:37.720 --> 00:40:42.320 and that comfort that you're talking about. And not only shade, but also lighting, right? 00:40:42.320 --> 00:40:46.680 So we're also talking about evening hours as well. So that's something that we're working 00:40:46.680 --> 00:40:52.560 on as part of improving the downtown's walkability. 00:40:52.560 --> 00:41:00.400 Any other questions for Ron? Richard has a question for Ron. 00:41:00.400 --> 00:41:05.880 Not really a question, just a little bit more of a statement, I guess, sort of kind of where 00:41:05.880 --> 00:41:10.720 I think everybody's at. I think one thing it's important to note, now is the time to 00:41:10.720 --> 00:41:15.960 talk about it. You know, we're in the update of the comprehensive plan. We're going to 00:41:15.960 --> 00:41:22.120 have a special meeting specific for downtown. And I think that's the document where these 00:41:22.120 --> 00:41:29.160 policies are set. I think another component of that is, quite honestly, is how our roadway 00:41:29.160 --> 00:41:35.720 impact fee functions downtown. And asking those questions, should there be a roadway 00:41:35.720 --> 00:41:44.040 impact fee downtown? Or should it be more of a mobility fee that focuses more on transit 00:41:44.040 --> 00:41:50.840 bike, pedestrian environment, so that those funds, instead of paying to widen lanes, somewhere 00:41:50.840 --> 00:41:57.640 else in that zone, that those funds are used to enhance the overall mobility of the downtown 00:41:57.640 --> 00:42:02.120 in the square. So I think those are all the things that, you know, probably could be done, 00:42:02.120 --> 00:42:07.560 looked at. But I think a big component of that is making sure that, you know, within 00:42:07.560 --> 00:42:14.600 the next couple of months, that gets discussed as part of that comp plan update. 00:42:14.600 --> 00:42:16.700 Commissioner Pernetta. 00:42:16.700 --> 00:42:20.440 And kind of circling back to one of the first, you know, comments that Commissioner Anderson 00:42:20.440 --> 00:42:29.360 made about the atrocity and abomination that is back in parking. I know when this was done, 00:42:29.360 --> 00:42:33.960 there was this idea that back in was somehow safer, you know, for people who were eventually 00:42:33.960 --> 00:42:40.960 backing out. But I guess my question is, as someone who's had to do it, you see your parking 00:42:40.960 --> 00:42:46.600 space, you put on your signal, you have to stop, and the person behind you who's not 00:42:46.600 --> 00:42:50.520 used to maybe being in this doesn't know that you're going to be backing up and it creates 00:42:50.520 --> 00:42:57.040 an issue. Well, if we had front end parking, but it was also at an angle, you know, if 00:42:57.040 --> 00:43:01.280 I'm backing out at that point, I actually do have a better vantage point for what's 00:43:01.280 --> 00:43:05.800 behind me than I would if it was just, you know, kind of perpendicular, right? Do we 00:43:05.800 --> 00:43:15.240 have any data that shows that, you know, back in parking is safer than front end parking 00:43:15.240 --> 00:43:19.800 at an angle where we would still wind up having an option to be able to see behind us a little 00:43:19.800 --> 00:43:25.680 bit and traffic going along would see a car coming along and anticipate that that's going 00:43:25.680 --> 00:43:29.400 to be backing up into traffic rather than somebody suddenly stopping and then hitting 00:43:29.400 --> 00:43:34.760 reverse? Is there any kind of traffic study that kind of shows, or do we have anything 00:43:34.760 --> 00:43:41.600 since we've implemented this that shows that there is a reduction or real safety benefit 00:43:41.600 --> 00:43:46.920 to this? If I can answer that, Commissioner Pernan, when this was proposed for Hickory 00:43:46.920 --> 00:43:53.080 Street, there was a study presented to, I believe, it may have been to the Planning 00:43:53.080 --> 00:43:59.320 Zone Commission, as well as City Council, and to that specific question, you know, is 00:43:59.320 --> 00:44:03.760 this really safer? And so the engineers at the time, they present that study. I can certainly 00:44:03.760 --> 00:44:07.760 look that up and maybe if there's an updated version of that study, I can certainly make 00:44:07.760 --> 00:44:10.960 sure that that's passed along to the Planning Zone Commission. 00:44:10.960 --> 00:44:13.600 Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. 00:44:13.600 --> 00:44:20.120 Thanks, Chair. Hey, Ron, again, back to that back end parking. Along with Commissioner 00:44:20.120 --> 00:44:25.360 Pernetta, I mean, most of these vehicles now, most of the new cars have rear cameras. So 00:44:25.360 --> 00:44:29.000 when you're backing out, they're going to tell you if you have oncoming traffic coming. 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:34.160 So that kind of, you know, throws that little safety issue out the window, I believe. But 00:44:34.160 --> 00:44:38.320 also my other question is, when was that study done? I mean, was that done before these cars 00:44:38.320 --> 00:44:44.400 had all the backup cameras? Was that done 10 years ago? If so, the study is probably 00:44:44.400 --> 00:44:45.400 outdated by now. 00:44:45.400 --> 00:44:51.080 Right. And all I can tell you is that yes, it was the study that was presented, obviously, 00:44:51.080 --> 00:44:56.840 studied back in parking prior to the Hickory Street reconstruction. So now with all the 00:44:56.840 --> 00:45:02.520 back end, you know, or backing cameras, whatever it may be, I don't know if that study has 00:45:02.520 --> 00:45:07.000 been updated. Certainly, it should be. And if there is one, again, I'll make sure to 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:10.000 pass that along to the Planning Zone Commission. 00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:11.960 Thank you, sir. 00:45:11.960 --> 00:45:14.600 Commissioner Ellis. 00:45:14.600 --> 00:45:19.200 Thank you, Chair. And Ron, thanks for this presentation. Yeah, I think you can hear all 00:45:19.200 --> 00:45:26.000 the frustration with the back end parking situation. I mean, our city feels that we 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:31.120 all hear that on the regular. And that definitely needs to be revisited just to see, is that 00:45:31.120 --> 00:45:35.880 the best we can do for that area? And then the other thing I would like to be a huge 00:45:35.880 --> 00:45:42.720 proponent of as we continue to to increase parking or makes changes that we do is the 00:45:42.720 --> 00:45:49.240 whole public outreach and PSA and all of that and letting people know where they can park. 00:45:49.240 --> 00:45:56.000 I still think that that is not known well enough, especially with regard to like the 00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:00.920 city parking lots and whatnot. So I think we could definitely improve upon that and 00:46:00.920 --> 00:46:06.880 we should because I think perception is still not where we need it to be. 00:46:06.880 --> 00:46:11.000 Well, we'll make sure to work with economic development as well as the Downtown Main 00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:16.140 Street Association to increase that awareness. 00:46:16.140 --> 00:46:17.140 Commissioner Anderson. 00:46:17.140 --> 00:46:22.040 Sorry, I promise this is going to be my last point on this back end parking thing. But 00:46:22.040 --> 00:46:26.560 a lot of people get confused because on Hickory, it's back end parking. But then you go down 00:46:26.560 --> 00:46:30.200 industrial, it's pull in parking. And then you go up on the square, it's pull in parking. 00:46:30.200 --> 00:46:35.200 So I think it's just a money grab for some of the parking tickets things. That's what 00:46:35.200 --> 00:46:38.040 I hear. People's like, you know, they're just doing this because they can make money off 00:46:38.040 --> 00:46:44.240 of parking tickets on Hickory Street. But anyway, if it's going to be back in, let's do it consistently, 00:46:44.240 --> 00:46:50.360 which I don't want to be back in. I'd rather be forward parking. But anyway, it'd be much 00:46:50.360 --> 00:46:52.600 better just to have it all consistent. 00:46:52.600 --> 00:47:00.560 No, I think I'll just echo what Richard said. I think if there is, you know, a want or whatever 00:47:00.560 --> 00:47:05.840 it may be to participate, those that are listening or in the planning, zoning commission as well. 00:47:05.840 --> 00:47:11.960 If you have an opportunity next week, Wednesday, we are having our second community workshop 00:47:11.960 --> 00:47:16.480 on the comprehensive plan update. And again, that would help, you know, in terms as far 00:47:16.480 --> 00:47:22.080 as setting goals. And it is a little broader, but we do have special topics. And one of 00:47:22.080 --> 00:47:28.080 them is the downtown. And we hope to have comments and ideas and suggestions as to how 00:47:28.080 --> 00:47:34.440 we can improve the downtown area. And it is one of those focus topics that we will have. 00:47:34.440 --> 00:47:40.520 I mean, it's not a voting issue or anything, but I wanted to at least let the record show 00:47:40.520 --> 00:47:45.880 that I'm for back in parking. I don't I don't hear the frustration. I just read an article 00:47:45.880 --> 00:47:54.320 right here. Vox.com says AAA actually recommends it and it prevents up to 300 people dying 00:47:54.320 --> 00:47:59.520 every year. So, I mean, I'm not undermining the other commissioners standpoints, but it 00:47:59.520 --> 00:48:04.520 does seem like a three year old study from Vox and AAA would say that it's significantly 00:48:04.520 --> 00:48:08.440 safer. Also, the United States Fire Protection Incorporated. I don't know what that company 00:48:08.440 --> 00:48:13.360 is. They also recommend back in parking. So there's a there seems like there is some evidence 00:48:13.360 --> 00:48:18.320 that it's safer. So, again, nothing's actually on this side. I just want the record to show 00:48:18.320 --> 00:48:24.380 that I'm not in agreement with commissioners that speak against it. So I afford it's worth 00:48:24.380 --> 00:48:34.680 any other items. Right, Mr. Cole. Yeah, I just want to pile on. I like back in parking 00:48:34.680 --> 00:48:42.240 half. I'm a downtown regular and half the cars are parked wrong anyway. I mean, they're 00:48:42.240 --> 00:48:49.280 pulling in straight. But outside of that, I want to, you know, just go on record said 00:48:49.280 --> 00:48:54.280 I'm against parking minimums because they're bad for all the stakeholders. They're bad 00:48:54.280 --> 00:49:00.000 for the small business owners. They're bad for the renters. They're bad for the developers. 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:06.080 I mean, for everybody. And I can't tell you over the years how many businesses that people 00:49:06.080 --> 00:49:10.520 have, you know, all these business ideas that people couldn't bring forward because they 00:49:10.520 --> 00:49:17.640 were short a couple of parking spots. And so look at that economic activity you're losing. 00:49:17.640 --> 00:49:21.960 You know, heck, I can make two businesses I tried to start in my several years couldn't 00:49:21.960 --> 00:49:27.480 do it because of parking. So would you rather have the economic activity or a couple parking 00:49:27.480 --> 00:49:34.120 spots? I mean, strong towns has a really good case against parking minimums. I would strongly 00:49:34.120 --> 00:49:43.840 suggest you read their material on parking minimums. And that's all I have. Thank you. 00:49:43.840 --> 00:49:55.320 Anyone else want to pile on Iran? I'll just share one one item related to it. I don't 00:49:55.320 --> 00:50:00.120 know that anyone here is against eliminating parking, at least I'm planning eliminating 00:50:00.120 --> 00:50:08.160 some of the parking minimums. But in a past life working as a in a development role developed 00:50:08.160 --> 00:50:14.720 in a downtown two large condo buildings that didn't require parking. But we did put it 00:50:14.720 --> 00:50:19.440 in because we knew that our numbers were what we needed to do to sell those condos were 00:50:19.440 --> 00:50:24.880 1.2 spaces per unit. So for whatever it's worth, I think that everyone knows what they 00:50:24.880 --> 00:50:31.720 need. And I just think it's a policy item that needs to be discussed further. Great. 00:50:31.720 --> 00:50:38.520 It's good insight. All right. Ron, you are all good. Thank you for the presentation. 00:50:38.520 --> 00:50:45.200 All right. Thank you guys. Next is clarification on agenda items. Richard, apart from what's 00:50:45.200 --> 00:50:52.760 posted on the postponements, is there any changes to this agenda? No. Great. That brings 00:50:52.760 --> 00:51:01.820 us to the minutes. Margie, I remembered them this evening with no text. Any updates or 00:51:01.820 --> 00:51:08.440 comments on the minutes? Okay, great. That brings us to the consent agenda. We just have 00:51:08.440 --> 00:51:15.840 one item 3A. Anyone have questions on this, Mr. Cole? 00:51:15.840 --> 00:51:26.480 I have to sit out on this one, remember? Yes. Okay. Thanks for reminding me. Does anyone 00:51:26.480 --> 00:51:33.680 need Julie to bring up the presentation? Is there any questions on this one? Okay. Great. 00:51:33.680 --> 00:51:37.600 We'll just continue on then. That moves us to our individual consideration in the bulk 00:51:37.600 --> 00:51:47.440 of our agenda this evening. We'll start with 4A. Mark Laird is presenting 4A. Good evening. 00:51:47.440 --> 00:51:51.920 My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner in the development services. For your review and 00:51:51.920 --> 00:51:58.640 consideration, I have for you the preliminary plat of SP1 phase two edition. This plat is 00:51:58.640 --> 00:52:04.720 located off Western Boulevard. It is north of Airport Road. Staff recommends to now of 00:52:04.720 --> 00:52:11.880 this project as the items outline and exhibit to. Please note that the applicant late yesterday 00:52:11.880 --> 00:52:19.520 evening made a request for a 30-day plat extension and staff endorses requests to allow the applicant 00:52:19.520 --> 00:52:25.960 to address those comments. I stand for any questions. The only question I have a clarification 00:52:25.960 --> 00:52:32.560 either by Richard or Mark is the 30-day extension the farthest we can go is June 9th is the 00:52:32.560 --> 00:52:43.040 next one puts us out. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Great. Thanks, Mark. Next 00:52:43.040 --> 00:52:56.360 item is item 4B, PP 21-0007 and this is Sean Jacobson's item. Good evening, Mr. Chair and 00:52:56.360 --> 00:53:03.760 members of the planning zone commission. Yes, this is PP 21-07. This is a preliminary plat 00:53:03.760 --> 00:53:12.440 of the vintage village edition. This is just off vintage Boulevard and they are staff is 00:53:12.440 --> 00:53:16.400 recommending denial of this request does not meet the established requirements as outlined 00:53:16.400 --> 00:53:22.200 in staff analysis. The applicant is requesting an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 00:53:22.200 --> 00:53:31.320 2021 and staff does not object to this request for an extension. Any questions for Sean? 00:53:31.320 --> 00:53:41.720 Okay, Sean, you're the next one 4C, FP 21-13. Sir, thank you, sir. Yes, this is a plat final 00:53:41.720 --> 00:53:47.400 plat of the Hilltop Road estates edition. This is in the extra territorial jurisdiction. 00:53:47.400 --> 00:53:53.320 Again, staff is recommending now this request as it does not meet the established requirements, 00:53:53.320 --> 00:53:58.280 but the applicant has requested an extension to June 9th and again, staff does not object 00:53:58.280 --> 00:54:06.360 to this extension. Great. Any questions for Sean on this item? Okay, Sean, I think you 00:54:06.360 --> 00:54:16.280 have the next one 4D, PP 21-5B. I do. And this is one that I sent you the updated plat 00:54:16.280 --> 00:54:26.160 today. This is a preliminary plat of the YOLO first edition. They have changed their plat 00:54:26.160 --> 00:54:30.840 somewhat from the last time this came in. They're currently not preliminary platting 00:54:30.840 --> 00:54:37.360 the third lot. They're instead preliminary platting the first two, the third lot required 00:54:37.360 --> 00:54:40.920 a base floor elevation to be established, which required a flood study, which is taking 00:54:40.920 --> 00:54:45.160 a little bit more time. And they are able to preliminary plat those front two because 00:54:45.160 --> 00:54:51.040 they'd previously conveyance plotted. And so they have now addressed all of the outstanding 00:54:51.040 --> 00:54:56.440 comments and staff is recommending approval of the request at this time because they've 00:54:56.440 --> 00:55:04.600 met all the requirements. Great. Any questions for Sean? Alright, thanks Sean for the presentations. 00:55:04.600 --> 00:55:18.680 This is 4E FP 21-10 and this is Julie Wyatt's item. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt. This 00:55:18.680 --> 00:55:27.080 is FP 21-10. It is Country Lakes subdivision and staff does recommend denial of the request 00:55:27.080 --> 00:55:32.160 as it fails to meet the established requirements. However, they have requested an extension 00:55:32.160 --> 00:55:36.440 to the June 9th planning and zoning commission meeting, and we have no objection to that 00:55:36.440 --> 00:55:48.560 request. Great. Any questions for Julie on this? Okay. Julie, you have the next item 00:55:48.560 --> 00:55:59.840 4F FP 21-12. Yes, sir. So I have good news on this one. So this was put on the agenda 00:55:59.840 --> 00:56:06.320 as a denial with that requested extension. However, in the interim period from when the 00:56:06.320 --> 00:56:12.120 agenda was posted and today they have made the one correction that we needed in the plat 00:56:12.120 --> 00:56:21.240 notes related to a labeling and then the corrections related to the HOA documents. So we can recommend 00:56:21.240 --> 00:56:26.640 approval as it meets the established requirements. Alright, great news. Any questions for Julie 00:56:26.640 --> 00:56:37.640 on this? All right. Seeing none, I'll move it to 4G PP 21-9 and this is Haley Zygurskis. 00:56:37.640 --> 00:56:47.120 Good evening. This is a single lot plat for a industrial use located on I-35 just north 00:56:47.120 --> 00:56:51.720 of Berthold Road where the new truck wash has been developed. At this time, staff is 00:56:51.720 --> 00:56:55.720 recommending denial for the reasons outlined in exhibit two. However, the applicant has 00:56:55.720 --> 00:57:00.280 requested that extension to June 9th and staff has no objection to that. Happy to answer 00:57:00.280 --> 00:57:05.800 any questions. Great. Any questions for Haley? All right, Haley, I don't see any on this 00:57:05.800 --> 00:57:13.200 item. Let's go to your next one 4H FP 21-11. All right. This is the final plat for phase 00:57:13.200 --> 00:57:16.840 two of the Stark Farms Edition. If you're familiar with this, it's located on the north 00:57:16.840 --> 00:57:22.120 side of Long Road just west of Sherman Drive. At this time, again, staff is recommending 00:57:22.120 --> 00:57:27.200 denial of this plat that was outlined in exhibit two in your backup and the applicant has provided 00:57:27.200 --> 00:57:32.240 that request for the extension to the June 9th meeting, which staff has no opposition. 00:57:32.240 --> 00:57:40.320 I will answer any questions. Any questions for Haley on this item? All right. I did not 00:57:40.320 --> 00:57:44.440 see any. Thank you, Haley. That concludes our individual consideration items. Next is 00:57:44.440 --> 00:57:53.760 our public hearings. 5A is being postponed to June 9th. 5B is being postponed to June 00:57:53.760 --> 00:58:01.040 9th. Richard is for clarification. No action needs to be taken on those items, correct? 00:58:01.040 --> 00:58:10.040 I'll confirm with Mack, but I think we may need to open those and take a vote to formally 00:58:10.040 --> 00:58:12.400 postpone those. And leave them open? 00:58:12.400 --> 00:58:15.720 Correct. Leave the public hearing open, yes. 00:58:15.720 --> 00:58:25.480 Okay. So both we need to open and carry forward with the motion. And citizens will have the 00:58:25.480 --> 00:58:33.600 opportunity to provide feedback at the June 9th as well. Since the, I guess the meeting 00:58:33.600 --> 00:58:34.600 stays open. Yes. 00:58:34.600 --> 00:58:41.760 Okay. Great. So that moves us to our last item for the work session, which is item 5C, 00:58:41.760 --> 00:58:45.080 1-1. And this is Julie Wyatt's item. 00:58:45.080 --> 00:59:11.320 All right. Let me get this presentation brought up. Okay. So this is Z21-0001, commercial 00:59:11.320 --> 00:59:21.720 zoning. So the request before you is to, is a rezoning of 1.535 acres from public facilities 00:59:21.720 --> 00:59:27.000 to suburban corridor district. The current property owner acquired the property in December 00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:35.440 of last year from Denton ISD with the intent to develop commercial uses. With the adoption 00:59:35.440 --> 00:59:41.920 of the 2019 code and that implementation of properties that were owned by public entities, 00:59:41.920 --> 00:59:46.240 the zoning on those properties transitioned to public facilities district. And that's 00:59:46.240 --> 00:59:51.960 intended to provide for those public and community uses, things like fire station schools and 00:59:51.960 --> 00:59:58.400 civic buildings. So prior to development, the property owner must rezone the district 00:59:58.400 --> 01:00:05.680 not only to reflect that new ownership, but also to develop a site with a commercial use. 01:00:05.680 --> 01:00:09.760 So just to give you a little background of those, of that kind of zoning transition. 01:00:09.760 --> 01:00:15.920 So I've got the 2002 zoning map. The subject property had that NRMU-12 zoning. That was 01:00:15.920 --> 01:00:25.320 one of our commercial districts under that 2002 zoning code. That transitioned to PF. 01:00:25.320 --> 01:00:30.640 You can see that the subject site as well as the adjacent site, that's an elementary 01:00:30.640 --> 01:00:37.800 school owned by the Denton ISD, transitioned to that PF district with the implementation 01:00:37.800 --> 01:00:43.320 of the 2019 Denton Development Code. And then the proposed zoning would just return it back 01:00:43.320 --> 01:00:49.600 to more of a commercial use to reflect that new ownership. And that SC district is consistent 01:00:49.600 --> 01:00:55.560 with the surrounding zoning pattern. So the criteria for approval for rezoning cases is 01:00:55.560 --> 01:01:00.600 in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development Code. We have that general criteria for approval 01:01:00.600 --> 01:01:05.480 and then we have the specific criteria for approval. We won't go over all of them, but 01:01:05.480 --> 01:01:09.920 we will touch on the highlights for these. So the first thing we look at, the Denton 01:01:09.920 --> 01:01:17.000 Plan. This area has a future land use designation of commercial. That is intended for concentrations 01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:23.640 of commercial uses. And that can go from a regional scale all the way to a neighborhood 01:01:23.640 --> 01:01:29.680 shopping center scale. SC is consistent with that future land use designation. It permits 01:01:29.680 --> 01:01:35.600 a variety of commercial uses. And it's at a scale that's typically found on primary 01:01:35.600 --> 01:01:40.840 arterial roadways. It was sort of created for these types of suburban corridors, those 01:01:40.840 --> 01:01:47.440 auto-oriented corridors like we find on university. This is an infill area as well. So it is surrounded 01:01:47.440 --> 01:01:53.440 by that existing development and it does have existing infrastructure. So it furthers that 01:01:53.440 --> 01:02:01.480 goal to just to continue to develop and redevelop our existing commercial corridors. The next 01:02:01.480 --> 01:02:07.240 criterion is it minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property. As I mentioned, SC district 01:02:07.240 --> 01:02:12.280 is consistent with that surrounding zoning and development pattern. We have a lot of 01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:16.800 commercial uses surrounding the subject property, particularly on the north side of university 01:02:16.800 --> 01:02:24.240 and then to the east of the site. Expansion of that SC, as you can see in this inset map, 01:02:24.240 --> 01:02:29.760 is a logical extension of that existing zoning pattern. And it would facilitate commercial 01:02:29.760 --> 01:02:36.400 uses along this corridor. Additionally, there's no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood 01:02:36.400 --> 01:02:45.360 to the south, so it would sort of push that vehicular traffic toward the university corridor. 01:02:45.360 --> 01:02:49.320 And of course, any development of the site would have to conform to current regulations 01:02:49.320 --> 01:02:57.740 and that includes things like minimum landscaping, site design, screening. Public facilities, 01:02:57.740 --> 01:03:05.900 they did submit a TIA with this rezoning. It is under review. Now, I will caution you, 01:03:05.900 --> 01:03:10.160 this is just kind of a straight rezoning and I know we've seen a lot of PDs come before 01:03:10.160 --> 01:03:18.160 you and SUPs recently where a site plan gets tied to that zoning designation. This zoning, 01:03:18.160 --> 01:03:22.200 if approved, wouldn't tie that site plan. It really is just would allow those uses that 01:03:22.200 --> 01:03:28.360 are permitted in SC to develop in accordance with the Denton Development Code. So I have 01:03:28.360 --> 01:03:34.740 a conceptual site plan shown here, but this wouldn't be tied to this zoning. So given 01:03:34.740 --> 01:03:42.920 that caveat, our engineering department is reviewing that TIA. And so it wasn't just 01:03:42.920 --> 01:03:49.840 reviewed with this specific district or this specific site. It was reviewed. This is the 01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:56.320 subject property here and that would show those potential commercial uses. It also, 01:03:56.320 --> 01:04:01.760 the TIA also included the adjacent property. So this property right here, it does already 01:04:01.760 --> 01:04:07.800 have that existing SC zoning and is currently under development with a retail use. So that 01:04:07.800 --> 01:04:15.200 TIA included all of these potential uses and they would generate about 3,100 trips per 01:04:15.200 --> 01:04:25.140 day with 162 morning peak and then 171 evening peak. As a result of that study of the traffic, 01:04:25.140 --> 01:04:34.120 there are some recommendations on that TIA. One, the entire retail center that is proposed 01:04:34.120 --> 01:04:42.320 for this location would connect to this existing roadway. This is would connect to this existing 01:04:42.320 --> 01:04:49.840 roadway and then connect onto this signalized intersection at university. Now this wouldn't 01:04:49.840 --> 01:04:54.960 go into that adjacent neighborhood. These are existing office and commercial uses. So 01:04:54.960 --> 01:05:02.320 it really would continue on to that commercial corridor there. They are also proposing a 01:05:02.320 --> 01:05:07.040 protected left turn here to make sure there's adequate storage for vehicles to turn left 01:05:07.040 --> 01:05:16.280 into the site here. And then would also propose a deceleration lane for right turn movements 01:05:16.280 --> 01:05:24.720 from university into the site. So those are those elements that the TIA is studying for 01:05:24.720 --> 01:05:32.360 the future development of this site. Now 380 University is a TextDOT corridor. So any improvements 01:05:32.360 --> 01:05:37.040 to that road and any driveway connections would have to go through the city review and 01:05:37.040 --> 01:05:45.180 be approved by TextDOT. And there are public water and wastewater available to the site. 01:05:45.180 --> 01:05:52.440 Public outreach was done. We did send out notification. We have not received any responses. 01:05:52.440 --> 01:05:56.160 And based upon the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, we do recommend approval 01:05:56.160 --> 01:06:00.640 of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And I do believe the applicant 01:06:00.640 --> 01:06:04.600 is calling in tonight. They don't have a presentation, but they'll be available to answer any questions 01:06:04.600 --> 01:06:18.280 for you. Julie, thank you for the presentation. Any questions? All right. I don't see any. 01:06:18.280 --> 01:06:24.800 With no questions, that concludes our work session meeting for this evening. We will 01:06:24.800 --> 01:06:35.120 reconvene here on Zoom in about 19 minutes at 630. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and 01:06:35.120 --> 01:06:39.440 gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, May 01:06:39.440 --> 01:06:47.760 19th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 631. First 01:06:47.760 --> 01:06:54.360 item of business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas 01:06:54.360 --> 01:06:59.820 flag. If other commissioners wish to join me, they can unmute their microphones. I pledge 01:06:59.820 --> 01:07:05.600 allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it 01:07:05.600 --> 01:07:14.840 stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the 01:07:14.840 --> 01:07:24.800 Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. 01:07:24.800 --> 01:07:31.920 Next item of business is consideration for the minutes of May 5th, 2021. Commissioner 01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:40.280 Ellis? I move approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval 01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:47.240 of the minutes of May 5th. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. 01:07:47.240 --> 01:07:54.680 Starting with Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner 01:07:54.680 --> 01:08:01.880 Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. 01:08:01.880 --> 01:08:11.040 Next item of business is our consent agenda. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. 01:08:11.040 --> 01:08:16.640 Great. We have a first. Commissioner Anderson? Second. We have a first and a second for approval 01:08:16.640 --> 01:08:23.080 of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner 01:08:23.080 --> 01:08:32.200 Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. 01:08:32.200 --> 01:08:39.740 Chair is also an aye. Commissioner Cole was recusing on this item. This item passes 5-0. 01:08:39.740 --> 01:08:48.900 Next item of business is our items for individual consideration. Starting with 4A, PP 21-0008. 01:08:48.900 --> 01:08:55.720 I'll invite Mark Laird for presentation. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner 01:08:55.720 --> 01:08:59.680 with the Development Service Department. For your review and consideration this evening, 01:08:59.680 --> 01:09:05.280 I have for you the preliminary plat of SP-1 edition, phase two. This property is located 01:09:05.280 --> 01:09:11.680 on the west line of Western Boulevard and is north of Airport Road. Staff recommends 01:09:11.680 --> 01:09:16.880 denial of this case as it does not meet the requirements established in the exhibit two 01:09:16.880 --> 01:09:22.880 of staff analysis. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day plat extension to June 01:09:22.880 --> 01:09:35.920 9th. Staff does endorse this. I stand for any questions. Any questions for Mark? Okay. 01:09:35.920 --> 01:09:43.160 Open to a motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval of the applicant's request for an 01:09:43.160 --> 01:09:51.600 extension to a date certain of June 9th. Okay. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first 01:09:51.600 --> 01:09:57.660 and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. 01:09:57.660 --> 01:10:03.200 Any discussion? Just wanted to read into the record that for this item we had one person 01:10:03.200 --> 01:10:08.840 make a comment using our online form and they were against. This comment form was emailed 01:10:08.840 --> 01:10:15.800 to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. Seeing no discussion, no other 01:10:15.800 --> 01:10:22.840 discussion, I will call for a vote via roll call. Starting with Commissioner Smith? Aye. 01:10:22.840 --> 01:10:29.080 Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner 01:10:29.080 --> 01:10:40.200 Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item is item 4B, PP21-0007. I'll 01:10:40.200 --> 01:10:46.000 invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning 01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:51.240 and Doting Commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner. I'll be presenting PP21-007. 01:10:51.240 --> 01:11:01.680 This is a preliminary plat located off Vintage Boulevard and Fort Worth Drive. Staff is recommending 01:11:01.680 --> 01:11:06.200 denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements. However, the 01:11:06.200 --> 01:11:11.520 applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021 and staff does 01:11:11.520 --> 01:11:17.000 not object to this request. With that, I will stand for any questions. Great. Any questions 01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:24.760 for Sean? Seeing none, we can make a motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve 01:11:24.760 --> 01:11:31.640 the extension to date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Pernetta? Second. We have a first 01:11:31.640 --> 01:11:36.760 and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. 01:11:36.760 --> 01:11:41.920 Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Starting with Commissioner 01:11:41.920 --> 01:11:49.680 Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. 01:11:49.680 --> 01:11:55.800 Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item is also Sean 01:11:55.800 --> 01:12:09.340 Jacobson's. It's item 4C FP21-0013. All right. Good evening and I'll make sure I'm sharing 01:12:09.340 --> 01:12:17.200 my screen here. This is a preliminary plat for -- I'm sorry, make sure I've got the right 01:12:17.200 --> 01:12:25.280 one here. This is a final plat for the Hilltop Road Estates Edition. This is just off Hilltop 01:12:25.280 --> 01:12:29.600 Road. Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet the established 01:12:29.600 --> 01:12:34.440 requirements as outlined in staff analysis in Exhibit 2. The applicant has requested 01:12:34.440 --> 01:12:41.080 an extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Staff does not object to this request. 01:12:41.080 --> 01:12:46.520 With that, I will stand for any questions. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Sean? 01:12:46.520 --> 01:12:54.400 All right. Seeing none, Commissioner Anderson? Motion to approve to date certain of June 01:12:54.400 --> 01:13:01.240 9th. Great. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first and a second for an approval 01:13:01.240 --> 01:13:08.680 of the 30-day extension to the date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? All right. 01:13:08.680 --> 01:13:13.880 Seeing none, I'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? 01:13:13.880 --> 01:13:21.480 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair 01:13:21.480 --> 01:13:29.160 is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item is item 4D PP21-0005B and this is also 01:13:29.160 --> 01:13:36.200 Sean Jacobson's item. Excellent. Thank you. And once again, Sean Jacobson, I'm here to 01:13:36.200 --> 01:13:46.960 present the plat of PP21-0005B, the YOLO first edition. Because the applicant was able to 01:13:46.960 --> 01:13:56.880 address outstanding concerns today, we are now able to recommend approval of this request 01:13:56.880 --> 01:14:02.340 as it meets the established requirements. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Great. 01:14:02.340 --> 01:14:09.720 Any questions? Okay. I don't see any. Is there a motion? Commissioner Smith? Make a motion 01:14:09.720 --> 01:14:14.920 to approve. Great. Commissioner Ellis? I do. And just for clarification, the motion on 01:14:14.920 --> 01:14:22.640 the table is to approve the item as recommended. Great. Great. Any discussion? Seeing none, 01:14:22.640 --> 01:14:27.720 I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner 01:14:27.720 --> 01:14:35.040 Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. 01:14:35.040 --> 01:14:43.600 Motion carries 6-0. The next item is item 4E FP21-0010 and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for 01:14:43.600 --> 01:15:07.400 the presentation. Let me pull up that presentation. Okay. Sorry for the delay. I'm Julie Wyatt, 01:15:07.400 --> 01:15:16.720 Senior Planner with the City of Denton and this is FP21-0010 and it is for a residential 01:15:16.720 --> 01:15:21.880 development within the Country Lake subdivision. Staff recommends denials. It doesn't meet 01:15:21.880 --> 01:15:26.360 the established requirements. However, they have requested an extension and staff has 01:15:26.360 --> 01:15:33.120 no opposition to that request. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Julie? I don't see 01:15:33.120 --> 01:15:37.960 any, Julie. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve the extension to 01:15:37.960 --> 01:15:43.440 date certain of June 9th. Great. We have a first. Commissioner Pernetta? I second. We 01:15:43.440 --> 01:15:52.200 have a first and a second for the 30-day extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion? 01:15:52.200 --> 01:15:56.600 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner 01:15:56.600 --> 01:16:04.680 Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair 01:16:04.680 --> 01:16:14.520 is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4F FP21-0012. This 01:16:14.520 --> 01:16:22.280 is also Julie Wyatt's item. This has a slight change from the agenda that was posted. This 01:16:22.280 --> 01:16:30.240 is FP21-0012. It was originally posted as a denial as it had a correction that needed 01:16:30.240 --> 01:16:35.760 to be made in the general notes as well as some items or an item related to the HOA documents. 01:16:35.760 --> 01:16:39.760 They have made those corrections and so staff recommends approval as it meets the established 01:16:39.760 --> 01:16:48.000 requirements. Great. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any. Thank you, Julie, for the 01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:57.760 discussion. Commissioner Anderson? I'm sorry. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. 01:16:57.760 --> 01:17:06.880 Great. Commissioner Cole? Second. Great. We have a first and a second for approval. Any 01:17:06.880 --> 01:17:12.040 discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner 01:17:12.040 --> 01:17:19.840 Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair 01:17:19.840 --> 01:17:30.080 is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4G PP21-0009. I'll 01:17:30.080 --> 01:17:42.200 invite Haley Zegerski for presentation. Let me get to the right plat here. This is PP21-0009. 01:17:42.200 --> 01:17:48.600 This is a preliminary plat for a single industrial development, single lot industrial development 01:17:48.600 --> 01:17:54.280 located north of Barthold Road on the west side of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending 01:17:54.280 --> 01:17:58.440 denial of the plat as it does not meet the established requirements. However, the applicant 01:17:58.440 --> 01:18:02.360 has requested an extension to the June 9th meeting, and staff has no opposition to this 01:18:02.360 --> 01:18:11.320 request. Great. Thanks, Haley. Any questions for Haley? All right. Seeing none, Commissioner 01:18:11.320 --> 01:18:18.360 Pernetta? Motion to postpone to the June 9th. Okay. We have a first for denial with a postponement. 01:18:18.360 --> 01:18:24.400 Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for a 30-day extension 01:18:24.400 --> 01:18:31.360 granting the extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion on this item? 01:18:31.360 --> 01:18:35.800 Okay. Before we vote, I just want to say for this item, we had one person make a comment 01:18:35.800 --> 01:18:41.400 using our online form. That individual was against the item, and this comment form was 01:18:41.400 --> 01:18:47.360 emailed to all the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. With that, we'll 01:18:47.360 --> 01:18:53.360 go to a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner 01:18:53.360 --> 01:19:00.120 Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. 01:19:00.120 --> 01:19:08.720 Motion carries 6-0. Next item for business is item 4H, FP 21-0011. This is also Haley's 01:19:08.720 --> 01:19:20.800 item. Good evening again. This is item FP 21-11. This is a final plat for phase two 01:19:20.800 --> 01:19:25.080 of the Stark Farms Edition located on the north side of Long Road on the north side 01:19:25.080 --> 01:19:30.760 of town north of Loop 288. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the request as it 01:19:30.760 --> 01:19:34.780 does not meet the established requirements. Again, the applicant has requested that extension 01:19:34.780 --> 01:19:42.440 to the June 9th meeting and staff has no opposition to that request. Stop sharing. Thanks, Haley. 01:19:42.440 --> 01:19:49.920 Any questions for Haley? Okay. Commissioner Anderson? Make an approval to postpone to 01:19:49.920 --> 01:19:58.760 date starting on June 9th. Make a motion for the extension. Yes. We have a first for a 01:19:58.760 --> 01:20:04.400 30-day extension. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for a 30-day 01:20:04.400 --> 01:20:10.960 extension to a date certain of June 9th, 2021. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll 01:20:10.960 --> 01:20:17.600 call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner 01:20:17.600 --> 01:20:24.300 Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. 01:20:24.300 --> 01:20:32.000 Motion carries 6-0. Next item on our agenda for business is item 5A. This is the start 01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:40.000 of our public hearings. Item 5A is PD 20-0009. The staff is requesting a postponement to 01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:44.880 a date certain of June 9th, so I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion 01:20:44.880 --> 01:20:53.520 to carry this meeting forth to a date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion 01:20:53.520 --> 01:20:59.080 to postpone a date certain of June 9th. We have a first for the postponement. And Commissioner 01:20:59.080 --> 01:21:05.080 Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second to postpone this to a date of June 9th. Any 01:21:05.080 --> 01:21:09.840 discussion on that vote? Okay. Prior to taking the vote, I just wanted to say that for this 01:21:09.840 --> 01:21:15.000 item we had one person make a comment using our online form. They were in support of the 01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:19.560 item. This comment form was emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be 01:21:19.560 --> 01:21:23.840 recorded. And just for a note for the public, this item is being carried forward to June 01:21:23.840 --> 01:21:28.720 9th, pending the approval of this vote, in which you would have, anyone would have the 01:21:28.720 --> 01:21:36.520 opportunity to speak on the item again or for the first time on June 9th. With that, 01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:40.160 we have the motion on the table, with no discussion. We'll go to Commissioner Smith to kick off 01:21:40.160 --> 01:21:48.400 the voting. Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. 01:21:48.400 --> 01:21:56.240 Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. The motion to postpone carries 6-0. Similar 01:21:56.240 --> 01:22:03.040 with item 5B, PD 21-0001. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion to 01:22:03.040 --> 01:22:08.320 carry this forth to a date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to 01:22:08.320 --> 01:22:15.520 postpone to date certain of June 9th. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second 01:22:15.520 --> 01:22:20.960 to postpone this. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'm just going to go ahead and read for the 01:22:20.960 --> 01:22:25.120 record that we had two individuals make comments using our online form. Both of those individuals 01:22:25.120 --> 01:22:29.160 were against the item. Both comments were emailed to all the commissioners and to the 01:22:29.160 --> 01:22:35.240 committee secretary to be recorded. And again, anyone wishing to make a statement again or 01:22:35.240 --> 01:22:40.240 for the first time, we'll be able to do so at the June 9th meeting, provided this motion 01:22:40.240 --> 01:22:47.480 carries. With that, Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? 01:22:47.480 --> 01:22:53.400 Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. This motion 01:22:53.400 --> 01:23:00.880 carries. It will be brought back on June 9th. The next item for public hearing is item 5C, 01:23:00.880 --> 01:23:09.800 Z 21-0001, known by Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. 01:23:09.800 --> 01:23:19.820 Let me share that presentation. All right. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City 01:23:19.820 --> 01:23:27.240 of Denton and I'm presenting Z 21-0001, commercial zoning. The request before you is a rezoning 01:23:27.240 --> 01:23:34.160 of 1.535 acres from public facilities district to suburban corridor district. The current 01:23:34.160 --> 01:23:39.360 property owner acquired it in December of last year from Denton ISD with the intent 01:23:39.360 --> 01:23:47.040 to develop it with commercial, with a commercial use. In 2019, we adopted a new Denton development 01:23:47.040 --> 01:23:51.960 code. And within that code, we had a new zoning district called public facilities. And that 01:23:51.960 --> 01:23:56.920 was intended for properties that are owned by public entities. And it was to provide 01:23:56.920 --> 01:24:02.640 for those community uses, fire stations, schools, libraries, and civic buildings. Because this 01:24:02.640 --> 01:24:09.120 property was owned by Denton ISD, it did transition to that public facilities zoning district 01:24:09.120 --> 01:24:17.800 in 2019. Prior to development of the site, the applicant does have to rezone it for, 01:24:17.800 --> 01:24:24.120 to a district that permits commercial uses and also reflects that current ownership. 01:24:24.120 --> 01:24:28.520 So this just helps show kind of what, what that transition of zoning looked like. So 01:24:28.520 --> 01:24:34.840 I have the 2002 zoning map. The subject site had a zoning designation of NRMU 12. That 01:24:34.840 --> 01:24:41.040 was one of our mixed use commercial districts within the city. With the adoption of the 01:24:41.040 --> 01:24:46.680 2019 code, because that property was owned by Denton ISD, it transitioned to that blue 01:24:46.680 --> 01:24:54.560 public facilities zoning designation. And then they're proposing to rezone the property 01:24:54.560 --> 01:24:59.760 to reflect that new ownership. And that is that SC. And that really is just, it's, that 01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:04.560 SC is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern and really is that logical extension 01:25:04.560 --> 01:25:10.600 of the existing zoning. The criteria for approval for all zoning cases is in sub chapter two, 01:25:10.600 --> 01:25:16.000 we have the general criteria as well as the specific to the two zoning cases. We'll touch 01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:21.920 on these as we talk through the project. So first Denton plan 2030. The site has a future 01:25:21.920 --> 01:25:29.280 land use designation of commercial, and that's consistent along that university, that highway 01:25:29.280 --> 01:25:36.220 380 corridor. That's intended for concentrations of commercial uses. And that can vary in scale 01:25:36.220 --> 01:25:42.920 from regional community and neighborhood shopping centers. SC is consistent with this future 01:25:42.920 --> 01:25:48.800 land use designation. It is one of our commercial zoning districts. And it really does, is appropriate 01:25:48.800 --> 01:25:55.240 for these commercial corridors, those auto oriented corridors where you have a concentration 01:25:55.240 --> 01:26:01.080 of commercial uses. And this is also an infill area there. It is served by existing water 01:26:01.080 --> 01:26:06.940 and sewer as well as a university, which is a six lane divided road. And so it does further 01:26:06.940 --> 01:26:16.320 that goal to, to encourage that compact development pattern. We also look at impacts in the surrounding 01:26:16.320 --> 01:26:21.840 property. As I said, SC is consistent, not only with that surrounding zoning pattern, 01:26:21.840 --> 01:26:29.280 but also the existing development. You can see those, those uses along, along university 01:26:29.280 --> 01:26:37.560 are commercial uses. We have office commercial restaurant type uses and, and redevelopment 01:26:37.560 --> 01:26:45.240 of this site would be consistent with that, with that current use pattern. It would also 01:26:45.240 --> 01:26:51.720 facilitate just that expansion of this commercial center. I would do want to note that there 01:26:51.720 --> 01:26:57.200 is no vehicular, direct vehicular connection to the neighborhoods, to the South. And any 01:26:57.200 --> 01:27:02.200 development would require conformance with those site design standards in the, in the 01:27:02.200 --> 01:27:07.600 2019 Denton Development Code. That includes things like minimum landscaping, screening 01:27:07.600 --> 01:27:14.360 at the right of way, and just those site design standards. There are public facilities available 01:27:14.360 --> 01:27:20.240 to serve the property. As part of this request and the development of the, of the subject 01:27:20.240 --> 01:27:26.160 site and the adjacent site, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis that 01:27:26.160 --> 01:27:32.820 is under review. I just want to talk a little bit about that and, and but I do want to provide 01:27:32.820 --> 01:27:39.560 a word of caution. Although there is a site plan shown on this slide, this is just a straight 01:27:39.560 --> 01:27:46.000 zoning case to a base zoning district. So that site plan wouldn't be tied to this development 01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:52.440 of this site and, and there could be modifications. So I do want to make that comment. So the, 01:27:52.440 --> 01:27:58.240 the subject property as well as development of the adjacent property here would generate 01:27:58.240 --> 01:28:04.120 about 3,100 vehicle trips per day. The, the adjacent property is under development with 01:28:04.120 --> 01:28:10.720 a retail use at right now. And they have looked at the traffic patterns in this area to see 01:28:10.720 --> 01:28:16.500 how those impacts of the traffic patterns and what would need to be accomplished in 01:28:16.500 --> 01:28:21.320 order to accommodate that. So as part of the development of not only the subject property, 01:28:21.320 --> 01:28:26.760 but that adjacent property, there will be a connection to this existing right of way, 01:28:26.760 --> 01:28:32.400 which ties into Fulton Street, which has a signalized intersection at university. This 01:28:32.400 --> 01:28:37.160 one just point out that the uses adjacent to this right of way are commercial uses. 01:28:37.160 --> 01:28:42.520 So this wouldn't be cutting through a neighborhood street. It really is a commercial corridor. 01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:49.200 There also would be improvements along university, including adequate storage for left-hand turns 01:28:49.200 --> 01:28:55.320 and in a deceleration lane for right-hand turns. Now a university is a text out road. 01:28:55.320 --> 01:29:00.320 So we'll have to go through all text out reviews and approvals. And there is public water and 01:29:00.320 --> 01:29:06.040 wastewater available to the site. Notification was sent out for the request. We have not 01:29:06.040 --> 01:29:13.000 received any responses either in opposition or in favor. And staff recommends approval 01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:19.080 of the request as it complies with the criteria in the DENT development code and is appropriate 01:29:19.080 --> 01:29:26.120 in this location. And I will be happy to answer any questions. Oh, I did want to mention the 01:29:26.120 --> 01:29:32.640 applicant does not have a presentation, but he is on the call for any questions. 01:29:32.640 --> 01:29:39.040 Thanks, Julie. Looks like we have a couple of hands raised. We'll start with Mr. Pernetta. 01:29:39.040 --> 01:29:45.520 So there's going to be a connection along the back of it, right, going to Fulton. You 01:29:45.520 --> 01:29:49.600 mentioned that there generate, what, about 3,100 trips. And I imagine those are mostly 01:29:49.600 --> 01:29:55.880 going up university, which already has that traffic. Where it looks like it's connecting 01:29:55.880 --> 01:30:02.560 to Fulton is right above Denton High, where there's a lot of kids walking and things like 01:30:02.560 --> 01:30:10.960 that. Do we know what the potential, you know, trips that we're introducing into that and, 01:30:10.960 --> 01:30:16.920 you know, is there any concern about basically, we also have Newton razor that kind of wraps, 01:30:16.920 --> 01:30:21.120 you know, kids wrap around under that when they're walking. Was that a consideration 01:30:21.120 --> 01:30:29.560 in terms of, you know, that connecting spot? Our engineering group did not raise any concerns 01:30:29.560 --> 01:30:37.480 regarding conflicts with those students that are at that current Denton High location. 01:30:37.480 --> 01:30:53.000 Any other questions? Commissioner Ellis. Yep. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So on that note, I 01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:59.320 mean, Denton High is relocating, correct? Correct. Yeah. So that could improve that. 01:30:59.320 --> 01:31:04.080 But my question is, with concern with the same cut through, I know we've sent out the 01:31:04.080 --> 01:31:08.600 notifications to property owners. I guess my concern is the current businesses that 01:31:08.600 --> 01:31:16.280 are there that end at Westway. Have they been notified that that will be a cut through and 01:31:16.280 --> 01:31:23.880 traffic patterns will be changing there? They have been notified regarding the zoning change, 01:31:23.880 --> 01:31:28.640 but they have not, there hasn't been any public outreach in terms of tying into that existing 01:31:28.640 --> 01:31:35.320 right of way. It seems to me that, I guess, as they were reviewing the TIA and traffic 01:31:35.320 --> 01:31:43.080 patterns and whatnot, that some kind of outreach with regard to that is important. It may impact 01:31:43.080 --> 01:31:47.000 their businesses as well. I think we have to keep in the consideration, though you say 01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:52.280 right, they are adjacent to where the new cut through is going to be, is not a residential 01:31:52.280 --> 01:31:59.160 neighborhood. But the other side of Westway, on the other side of Fulton, I mean, is residential. 01:31:59.160 --> 01:32:04.560 So as a city, we certainly need to take that into consideration, exactly what are we flowing 01:32:04.560 --> 01:32:19.200 through this new cut through. Julie, when they do the TIA studies, what 01:32:19.200 --> 01:32:24.880 is peak times? I believe peak times are between five and 01:32:24.880 --> 01:32:31.500 six in the evening and I don't know about the morning peak. I'm pulling up the TIA right 01:32:31.500 --> 01:32:38.640 now to see if I can find quickly the trip distribution as well as those peak times. 01:32:38.640 --> 01:32:57.640 So let me see if I can find that and I'll let you know. 01:32:57.640 --> 01:33:22.640 Let's see. I'm going to try to find that. I'm going to try to find that. I'm going to 01:33:22.640 --> 01:33:49.480 try to find that. I'm not seeing where they have listed what 01:33:49.480 --> 01:34:13.280 is considered that a.m. peak time. Yeah, Richard. 01:34:13.280 --> 01:34:21.320 Typically, for a.m. peak, the look at a six a.m. to nine a.m. interval and then for p.m. 01:34:21.320 --> 01:34:32.040 peak, it's typically four to seven p.m. OK. That's all I needed. Julie, I don't know 01:34:32.040 --> 01:34:39.080 if you're still looking up something for Margie or not. OK. Any other questions, Christopher? 01:34:39.080 --> 01:34:56.040 Sure. Julie, under suburban corridor, how tall are you able to go? Pull that up. The 01:34:56.040 --> 01:35:07.240 maximum building height in suburban corridor is fifty five feet. Thank you. Any other questions 01:35:07.240 --> 01:35:15.760 for staff or the applicant is available. There's any questions out there? OK, there's no one 01:35:15.760 --> 01:35:23.520 on the phone calling in. So at this time, I'm going to close the public hearing and 01:35:23.520 --> 01:35:37.400 I can certainly entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve is recommended 01:35:37.400 --> 01:35:42.000 the first for approval. Commissioner Anderson, I second. We got a first and a second. Any 01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:49.760 discussion? All right. Seeing none, I call for a vote. Be a roll call. Commissioner Smith. 01:35:49.760 --> 01:35:57.800 Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner 01:35:57.800 --> 01:36:07.240 Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries six zero. Congratulations. That concludes 01:36:07.240 --> 01:36:13.920 our working agenda for this evening and takes us to the plan and zoning matrix. As always, 01:36:13.920 --> 01:36:22.440 I will turn this over to Richard and then to the dais for any other discussion. Thank 01:36:22.440 --> 01:36:30.760 you, Chair. Nothing really to add to the you know, as far as updates to the matrix. The 01:36:30.760 --> 01:36:39.880 City Council did consider PNZ's motion regarding the small area plan yesterday. Ron presented 01:36:39.880 --> 01:36:44.440 that at the work session. And so there was support to move forward with the small area 01:36:44.440 --> 01:36:50.720 plan for that area. And so that'll be something that staff will get underway here. We'll be 01:36:50.720 --> 01:36:57.360 reaching out to the property owners. So in the very near future, that will be that will 01:36:57.360 --> 01:37:08.800 be started. And lastly, while I haven't shared this overall with everyone, if you did see 01:37:08.800 --> 01:37:16.960 the Friday report, I did tender my letter of resignation. And so my last day with the 01:37:16.960 --> 01:37:28.120 city will be June 4. And so there was an opportunity that presented itself in Denver, Colorado. 01:37:28.120 --> 01:37:33.680 It's always been a kind of a dream of mine to work there. We own some property now not 01:37:33.680 --> 01:37:43.920 too far away. And it was just something that I couldn't pass up. So really hard sometimes 01:37:43.920 --> 01:37:50.680 to talk about it. It was not an easy decision. But not sure that that opportunity would come 01:37:50.680 --> 01:37:57.400 around again. So just wanted to share that. Congrats, Richard. Thank you. Congratulations, 01:37:57.400 --> 01:38:04.640 Richard. Sorry to lose you. Yes, we will miss you. Thank you for all you have done. Absolutely. 01:38:04.640 --> 01:38:09.680 And before I forget, one of the things that we wanted Scott and I try to work on is succession 01:38:09.680 --> 01:38:17.440 planning. And so after my departure, Haley will be serving the role of interim planning 01:38:17.440 --> 01:38:24.440 director. And so I think she's more than capable and will be able to handle it. So I think 01:38:24.440 --> 01:38:33.720 that continuity will be there. And I have full faith as does Scott and Sarah. So Haley 01:38:33.720 --> 01:38:42.680 will be in the seat at the next meeting. Awesome. Well, Richard, that's terrible news. We hate 01:38:42.680 --> 01:38:51.000 to see you go. I can say for me personally, I don't know if I have served as chair without 01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:59.240 you on my right-hand side. And so I appreciate you making me look good every meeting. I wouldn't 01:38:59.240 --> 01:39:06.080 have come across as confident as I might sometimes without knowing that I got you behind me to 01:39:06.080 --> 01:39:10.840 answer questions and guide me and make sure I don't do anything illegal and all those 01:39:10.840 --> 01:39:18.080 things. So sincerest thank you for serving the city as well as you have. But personally, 01:39:18.080 --> 01:39:22.480 just for helping me out being the chair of this commission, you will be missed and best 01:39:22.480 --> 01:39:28.440 luck to you up in Denver for sure. Luckily we got some great people behind you with Haley. 01:39:28.440 --> 01:39:34.720 And so hopefully the city, at least this commission will miss a beat under Haley's tutelage. So 01:39:34.720 --> 01:39:42.240 congrats. You will be missed for sure. Any items that we want to throw onto Haley's plate 01:39:42.240 --> 01:39:50.800 this evening? All right. Richard, you leave and Haley doesn't get anything on the matrix. 01:39:50.800 --> 01:39:57.240 So I don't know what that says. But with that, seeing there's no other item, I will close 01:39:57.240 --> 01:40:05.600 out this P&Z meeting at 7.05. Thank you, everyone. Thanks.