Jul 13, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2022-07-13 5:00 PM

Thank you very much for joining me. This is our work session and with a quorum present I will call us to order at 5 o 1 p.m. Let the record show at the moment commissioners Anderson and Smith on the phone. I do not see anyone here on that. Nor here that there is anyone on the phone. So we'll go ahead to our work session item two, which is receive a report, hold a discussion regarding commercial and residential parking requirements. Which is always a fascinating discussion. Hello, Ron. Welcome to this fascinating discussion. Let's get started. Good afternoon, Ron. Thank you for the opportunity. This is a parking boot camp, a continuation of our boot camp series that we've been having with the planning zoning commission. Hopefully we can share some information with you related to parking. That not only helps you understand parking, but as you review plans in zoning and SUPs and the like, this can give you some background as to how parking is calculated or required for development. So purpose, why do we, the city, regulate parking? Really it's to provide that off street parking to prevent, you know, the streets from filling in, right? Filling up with cars. So to avoid and mitigate the traffic that's associated, you know, with all roadways. So taking off the parking and putting them into the property. That's obviously the main purpose. Obviously it also with that enhances the vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian safety as, you know, we get more cars off the streets. It also encourages multimodal transportation in terms of other forms of transportation, rail, bus and the like, but also included in the requirements in sub-chapter 7.9 specifically. There are other requirements as it relates to parking in terms of landscaping and addressing, you know, runoff, water quality, you know, landscaping and buffering as I mentioned earlier. So that's also part of the analysis and the review that we do when we look at parking plans. But overall I think the most important thing is also to, you know, look at and how we can avoid and mitigate those visual impacts, again, with the trees. You see here as a site or as an example, this is taken at Razor Ranch. Part of their parking lot landscaping requirements has a lot of trees and water treatment facilities as well. So I wanted to share this photo to help illustrate why we do regulate parking. When is parking required? So that's another important question. Obviously as new construction is being proposed, parking requirement, parking, off-street parking specifically, is going to be required. Expansions and enlargements, so if an existing building or existing site has parking now but they're expanding their site, their square footage, well of course that's going to have to accommodate, be accommodated with parking, so that's also part of it. Change of use, so if a use is an office space and transitions to or turns into say a restaurant, obviously the need for parking is going to be more needed there because there's more people coming to that particular site. But there are also exemptions to the parking requirements. Those, the top three that you see here listed is properties that are less than 5,000 square feet per lot, of the lot area that is. So we're not talking about building, we're talking about the lot size itself. So any lot that is 5,000 or less would not be required to provide parking. Now that is accepting also single-family duplex and townhomes. So those would still need to provide parking even though there may be 5,000 square feet or less. Residential development within the mixed use downtown zoning district. Residential development, I'm sorry, residential development 10 units or less. If there are residential developments that are 10 or more, or 11 that is, then they would need to provide parking. Non-residential development in the mixed use district are not required to provide, are exempted to provide parking. And so I put together a couple more slides to further the last two bullets here to kind of illustrate where that MD, the mixed use downtown zoning district, is located within the city. This is primarily obviously by the square, the downtown, Carroll to the west, Prairie to the south, Exposition to the east, and Parkway generally to the north. The area that's MD is the purple shaded parcels. And again, those parcels, if there is a multi-family or development that is, that has 10 units or less, is not required to provide parking. Any non-residential development is also not required to provide parking as long as they're within that MD zoning district. To help answer, well, if they're not providing parking, where's parking in the downtown? So I got this off of our website, the City of Denton's website. And hopefully you all can see, and can you make sure if I'm blocking you, please? Excuse me. You see that there are parking along the street. There are two-hour parking. And then there are also parking that have no time limits. The number that you see there to the far left, you see, I guess it'd be your right, you'll see that the two-hour parking is approximately 500 parking spaces there. The no time limit, there's about 110. We also have public parking spaces, and those are labeled or shown here in green. And those represent 1,016 parking spaces. In addition to the public parking, we have publicly owned parking spaces, but are not public until after 5 p.m. And those are represented there in blue. So those parking spaces after 5 p.m. will be available for the general public to use. And then last is paid parking. There are a number of privately owned paid parking lots in the downtown, approximately 200 spaces, and those are shown there in the orange polygon. So let me stop here and kind of ask questions before I head into the next topic. Are there any questions to what we've discussed so far? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. It may have just zoomed by me, but on the first slide you talked about traffic impacts. Could you explain how people parking would create more traffic? So, right, so if you have more parking on the street, you know, it narrows down the street, and that makes it, you know, a lot less, you know, passable in some cases. So the idea there is to hopefully if we can, you know, move more of the parking off site or off the street, then that will allow for ease of traffic travel. So we're talking about streets that maybe aren't designed with a parking lane, for instance, if somebody -- I think generally, yeah, generally, you know, you don't want to overburden, you know, the street with parking. So there is a way to balance between on-street and off-street parking and make it easier for travel to occur. That's sort of the intent. Okay. Okay. And then, I mean, okay. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Okay. So you required parking, but how much parking do I have to provide? So we have a table in the development code, and that's Table 7-9-I, which outlines the minimum parking required for off-street parking. And it's listed by use. And we'll get into that. I've got a couple of slides that explain or show examples of those parking requirements. But I also wanted to cover that there's also maximum parking allowed. There's so much parking that you can provide -- that is allowed before you are required to do extra design. So right now, the minimum is your maximum. However, if you choose to go over the minimum, you know, increasing it more than 100 percent to 125 percent, your additional parking spaces will need to be built or constructed per ice swim, integrated stormwater management design. So the idea there is that as you add more parking, you're addressing the additional parking pavement by providing more water quality treatments, possibly maybe capturing some of the runoff through some detention areas in landscaping and the like. Now, if you want to, you know, increase your parking spaces above the 125 percent, there's also an ability to do that. That goes through the director of planning. The director of planning will receive or take in a parking study that shows -- hopefully it shows your need for additional parking over the 125 spaces. If it meets the criteria in which the code allows that director to approve it, then you're able to. Now, those additional parking spaces will have to be constructed with pervious surfaces, approved pervious surfaces. So again, those are -- some of the examples that I show here on this photo is on Teasley and Hickory Creek, the sprouts development there on the northwest corner. They installed some pervious pavement in their parking lot there to accommodate some of the increased parking. So that's just an example of what you can do. So here is a couple of slides that illustrate the table that I was referring to. I pulled here or show here the residential uses. As you can see, each use type from single family down to multifamily has a minimum parking requirement. I'll touch on two specifically, the single family first. A single family detached dwelling is required for spaces per dwelling unit. Now, those spaces can be in a garage. It can be part of a driveway, but it has to be provided on the property off street parking. Similarly, with multifamily, it's per bedroom by the unit. So for example, a one bedroom and efficiency unit, the required parking space there is 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Now, if it's a two bedroom or more, then it's one space for each bedroom. So as you increase the number of bedrooms per unit, the number of parking also increases. Overall, if the total development requires a parking count of more than 10 parking spaces, then I'm sorry, if a development is 10 units or more, then the requirement for guest parking is required. So if you have, for example, the parking space of 100 spaces for your development and you've got 10 units, then you need to provide 10%, which is an additional 10 parking spaces for that development to accommodate those guest parking needs. Also wanted to show commercial requirements, parking requirements. So you see here that bar, tavern, or lounge, private club, restaurants, and restaurants with drive through all share the same parking requirement. That is currently one space per two square feet for indoor and one space per 350 square feet for outdoor. On the bottom part of this table, you have administrative, professional offices, banks, movie, sorry, music studios. All of those and others, all of those share a similar parking requirement and that is one space per 450 square feet of gross floor area. So again, kind of gives you an idea of what is required for each of the uses. Now, there is more uses that I don't have here, but our development code has all of them listed and all of them have a parking requirement for each of those uses. Now, what if they can't meet those parking requirements per the minimum required per the table? Well, there are parking alternatives that the development code is available for applicants to submit. The director must approve those alternatives and it cannot exceed 50% either up or down in terms of that alternative. So, for example, we use the 50% before we get to the detail. If there is 100 spaces required and the development would like to lessen that, it cannot be less than 50 spaces. So, it has to be a maximum of 50% of what would be allowed. So, how do they get there, right? So, if, for example, a development is an infill development, they can reduce their parking spaces up to 10%. If they are shared or off-site parking and there's off-site parking in a public facility, they can reduce their parking spaces up to 25%. On-street parking, there isn't a percentage there, but if you are proposing on-street parking, it has to be on your property frontage and it is a certain width of that frontage to count as one parking spaces. So, that's how you can get it off of the site and use the on-street parking. Now, the other caveat to that is that the mobility plan allows you to have parking on that particular street because there are certain streets in the city that does not allow for on-street parking. Proximity to transit, so if you're close to the downtown transit center or the Med Park Transit Center, you can reduce your parking requirement up to 10%. For affordable and senior housing, if you're proposing a use that meets that definition, you're able to reduce that up to 25%. Now, again, all of this is under the review of the director of planning. Bicycle or motorcycle spaces, if you're proposing above the bicycle requirement, you can reduce your parking requirements up to 5%. And the last two here are just an opportunity that may not necessarily fit all the other ones above, but you just feel like there is a need for your development does not need as much parking and you're proposing less. You can apply for a modification. Again, that would be approved by the director. Conversely, if you're proposing a number of parking spaces above, we talked about, you know, the 125 and above. This is where you would submit your parking study. And again, that would be under the director of planning's consideration. Any questions on parking alternatives? Commissioner Cole. Okay, so the director has leeway on these parking minimums. To what extent? So the percentages here are the most that they can be reduced. Now, these are not automatic, right? But they would have to submit an application or submit their request in writing. And then at that point, if they're within the percentage, then the director will then review it. Now, there are parameters in which the director looks for. It's not a simple yes and no. Obviously, there's things to look at as far as context, as far as, you know, truly looking at what they provide is actually accurate and correct. You know, in that slide shows an area of town, so am I right that there are still parking minimums in the Fry Street area, in that business area? Yeah, yeah. That area, outside of the residential part of it, the apartments and things, but the businesses that rely on so much walk-up traffic, why put parking minimums on those people? Because Chai owns the strip center, the small one. On Welchin. On Welchin, yeah. Heck, for three years, he couldn't fill the whole thing up, or more than that, because of parking minimums. So he had to leave one of his spaces open, you know? Yeah. Look, I've talked about my opposition to parking minimums for a long time. But I don't want to lose economic activity because of a couple of parking spaces, because I can cite, I mean, in the last 15 years alone, I know of so many business projects that couldn't get past the parking minimum, had solid plans, business plans, great concepts, awesome funding. But we're a couple spots short, and we're losing that economic activity from that business because of some parking minimums, in an area that relies on walk-up traffic anyway. Well, Commissioner Colle, and if I can address Commissioner Colle's comment, as you know, you know, we worked on the area plan, or the smaller plan that is right there, and one of the things that we discussed was parking, right? Obviously, parking is a big issue around the university specifically, and, you know, an overlay, there is an overlay. We asked about is parking required in this particular area? Yes, and the overlay addresses that. Now, with an overlay, we can revisit that, and again, identify a boundary for this area, specifically the Fry Street area, and possibly change it, if that is the case. Now, the existing businesses that have been there are grandfathered, right, because there's no additional parking, but those new ones, like the example you provided, that was a new development that was put in several years ago. The most popular word in Denton, grandfather, because it seems like half of Denton is grandfathered. Does that make sense? I mean, continue, I'm sorry. Commissioner Villarreal. Yeah, just hopping off Commissioner Colle's point, I know there's been movements in other cities of similar sizes to remove parking minimums entirely. Is that something that the city is considering at all? Is that a discussion that's come up here in the city of Denton? We also have heard about that in other cities, and I think they're fairly large cities. We, there's no movement for the city of Denton, at least not at this time, is my quick answer. Would there be any consideration for that, or would that be something that would come up before DCRC at some point? That is a possible, I would recommend that that would be, you know, if that is something that the DCRC would entertain. We often ask, you know, for those DCR members here, you know, concluding items, if there's things that we could look into and then maybe discuss it at that early stage. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. So, thank you for this, this is really clear to kind of set these things out. I guess, when I'm thinking back to your first slide of the types of things that these regulations are intended to mitigate or prevent in the city. Would you say that there are a lot of developments to Commissioner Cole's point that were built before our current parking minimums and may not be conforming to that standard right now? There are, yeah, a handful. I mean, just areas that obviously are older in terms of, you know, their development, yes. And do those areas have large problems that we don't hear about commonly that we just don't try to go fix and we say, well, if they redevelop, I guess our parking standards will fix them, or are they operating relatively okay? I think the, obviously, the area specific, I think we have to really pay attention to the context, right? This area that I think we're looking at and that kind of brought up the conversation, the Fry Street area, it's right there by the University. And, you know, there is still a need for parking in some cases, but you probably see those parking just sort of being redirected further away from the area. For the majority, those people that visit this area here, again, the Fry Street, are probably students, more or less. I think people that are from, you know, outside the University would either, you know, drive their vehicle or, you know, bike and walk, too, if that's the case. Yeah, so I understand these contextual areas. I'm thinking of, like, places that are different than that, like an older strip center that was built in 1972 when our parking minimums were lower. Do we have, like, a chronic absenteeism, not absentee, a vacancy issue in all of those strip centers, or do those businesses continue to run? I don't think there is. I think the majority of, you know, the older strip centers are actually over-parked. I think they either were under a different code at the time or requested or got approval for additional parking spaces. So I don't think they're suffering because of parking. I think it's just that maybe the businesses are no longer, you know, needed at that time, so that's sort of why you see some of our older strip centers empty. But for the most part, I don't think parking is an issue. I'm going to talk, maybe Hale has something to add. No, I'm just going to add typically, at least what we've seen with properties that are redeveloping or have new tenants coming in is that there is an excess of parking in a lot of our older facilities. So, like, for example, along I-35, TxDOT's been doing a widening project and acquiring right-of-way. Most of those businesses are still coming in and having excess parking even after TxDOT might take out, you know, a row or two at the front of the business. So I don't think there's a lack of parking at most of our commercial locations in Denton. Okay. And then lastly, I mean, this rubric, it seems very specific in, you know, I'm sure it comes from, you know, reasoned thought of processes of how much does this impact this, how much does that impact that. It gives the impression to me that we have a high degree of certainty how much parking a given business or multifamily development or townhome development or something is going to need and going to use. Do we ever go back a few years later after that development has filled up and do some sort of parking usage survey to see whether these are actually accurate to how much is needed? So the quick answer is no, but we do have and have received information, you know, as to say a multifamily development will come back and say, you know, out of the 100 parking spaces, you know, 80% is being used. But again, there's so many different reasons or factors that go into it. It's hard to really come up with a, you know, a good answer to that question. What I can tell you is, you know, as we work through, you know, our development code, you know, you know, seeing where we can get it closer to that number. And it's very difficult, right, because each area is different, each use is different. I mean, even with the same use that is, you know, you're going to have different factors, location, you know, types of people that, you know, are able to, you know, drive or whatnot. There's different factors, right. And I guess specifically to the spillover parking concern, are there other planning and regulation tools that can be used to manage that risk apart from off street parking requirements? When you say spillover, like going on to streets further away from utilizing street parking in a manner that that creates externalities. Yeah. Well, I know in this area, especially with the university as, you know, as we've already discussed in maybe previous discussions, you know, offering more public parking, working with the universities in terms of their permitting. We also discuss, you know, having, you know, residential permit programs. There's also other, you know, I guess it boils down to having that additional parking spaces, you know, and finding that right number, you know, if we can introduce park public parking in the fry street, we would, but we just don't have the ability at this time. Yeah, I just, I just like to echo Commissioner calls comments that, you know, from everything from housing affordability to, you know, business flexibility to redevelopment efforts to just, just letting the city breathe and grow as, as demands happen instead of six years later, when it takes it to, oh yeah, okay, it shouldn't be, you know, 2.5 spaces, it should be 3.2 spaces, that kind of thing. I, I, I'm not a lover of the number of off street parking permit spaces required. And I don't want to get too much off posting, but I know that we do have some code amendments that we're bringing forward that we're trying to get to to that number of parking spaces and requirements. Okay. A couple other things that's in the required parking space. The development code off street parking layout and design dimensional parking spaces obviously as developers are popular as I want to add parking. There's a certain minimum requirement per per standards as to how big a parking spaces so that's all covered under that, as well as drive vials, the drive out specifically I want to make mention that, although there's the mention that's stated in the development code. The fire code has other requirements and codes that that need to comply with as well. That needs to be part of that discussion. Compact parking is a is something that we allow and, but only can be up to 5% surface materials, obviously each parking space needs to be constructed in a manner that's suitable for that area now, I can tell you that the previous parking is something that is allowed. If you're extending extending or increasing the number of parking spaces, but also on the other side of that spectrum. When you have rural development, then that parking material could be of a gravel, you know parking material so again, there's there's provisions for all types of scenarios. The other item here that I listed here which has a little bit more information is location of parking spaces or parking areas. For the most part, the, the non residential development that you see here. Developments that are not allowed to have parking between the building and the street. Those are not. Those are not allowed. However, unless those developments are outside the MN or the MD. So for example, if you have a property in this photo right here illustrates a bank. It's in the MN zoning district. Because of this provision, it was not allowed to have parking along Carol, rather it needed to locate its parking to the side or rear of the building so you see that parking here is on the side or the rear of that building. Now the building fronts Carol as well as Mulberry on the other side, because again, one, it is within the MN and MD zoning district. If it wasn't then you're able to so just again, give you some other, you know parking provisions that's in the code. Other, other than being outside the MN. It also needs to be outside any gateway corridors and those are the Dallas drive the forward drive that leads into the downtown element locus as well. It needs to join an arterial collector. So, again, if you meet all those criteria, then you can provide parking in front, and then infill and satisfies front parking design those are also where you can provide parking in front if you can you meet all of those bulleted items that you see here listed. The next item I have here is bicycle parking. You know we talked about vehicle parking. The code also has bicycle parking requirements. It only applies to multifamily and non residential developments, and the requirement ratio here is one space for us right one bicycle parking space per 20 vehicle spaces. So for example, this is the all the development off of university and actor. So for example if this development required 60 parking spaces, then three bicycle parking spaces be required, and so on and so forth. Now if there is a large enough development, where the parking spaces would be a lot. The applicant or developer can submit a request for reduction, and again that reduction is approved by the director planning. And then lastly the bicycle parking section of the code also talks about, you know placement of where those bicycle, either racks or storage or shelters or can be located. There's, there's requirements there as far as location and design as well. So I wanted to share this slide real quickly and again, to be just to be really quick and just kind of share some of the code amendments that we are bringing forward to the planning zoning Commission. These items that you see here and I don't want to get off topic of our posting but really, just to explain that the DC RC has gone through a number of meetings to talk about these code amendments. And then your future. This commission will see these code amendments come forward for your consideration. And with that I'll stand for further questions. Commissioner McDade. I have a question I heard you mentioned, local street, a couple of slides ago, and there's an issue about local street at the corner of locusts and prairie. There's a two small apartment complexes on the north and the south of that intersection. And I'm curious I don't know how many apartments there are but apparently there's not enough parking if you try to go down east on prairie off of locusts, you cannot get down that way that's cars on both sides. And I'm just curious what the ratio if they say there's 80 apartments, what would be the ratio of parking spaces that they would need because I know the neighbors have tried to talk to him you know there's there's a business complex across the street where there's only nobody there they're trying to get him to park there, but the residents refuse. Yes, so when that development was developed and I'm assuming there was a parking ratio now to answer your question, we would have to know the bedroom count, you know, per unit to be able to come up with that number. So, so it depends on the number of bedrooms is my quick response, but but again as it relates to that question and to what commission pro was asking. Obviously, you know, the lack of, you know, parking on site, or off site that off street that is sorry could affect the traffic pattern right of the street so that's where the traffic or parking requirements are needed to help address some of those concerns. All right, thank you. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you. I think in some places in the city I'm thinking like, if we just stay downtown for a second like along, which is at Oakland Street and right next to TWU there right, the parking I think is only allowed on one side of the street in order to make sure that two cars can safely pass each other. Is that something that the city evaluates when there are congestion issues due to street parking. Absolutely. And there's a process for that one sided parking only, and it goes through our transportation staff. Ultimately it's approved by the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council, it's an ordinance that needs to be approved. Those typically come from property owners, but not to say that our staff that you know also reviews those locations. Obviously, it's sort of initiated, either because of a situation, maybe the fire EMS truck was not able to get down that that particular streets street, therefore, there was a need to reevaluate or evaluate that street and allow for just one parking on one side. The difficulty there is what I've heard is, well, if it's on one side, how do you choose which side, you know, you could be affecting one property owner because now all the parking is on one side and the other side is not. And then when it comes to, you know, solid waste, you know, you know, bins and whatnot that also pays a big factor but the fact is, those requests are received staff is also looking at them. And yes, we're trying to address the issue of the ability to get through that particular street. Okay. And then just two small things one when you're showing the bike parking. I've always been curious what the process is because if I'm remembering correctly our code requires bike racks to support the bicycle in at least two locations, and I've seen many of these types of, I think they call them wave racks, that if the bicycles are parked in this method like shown in the picture, they're really only supported in one place. So, help me understand at what point in the planning or civil engineering plans or inspection process. Do we even find out what type of bike racks they're installing and what that plan is so to answer, I believe it's during the building permit stage, because that's I mean they will show it, they'll show a location in there. There is a site plan or zoning compliance plan but it's not till the building permit state that will actually see it. Okay. And then last but not least because I forgot at the beginning I apologize if you could go back to your map that shows the MD zoning district. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe before the 2019 code. The area that was the central business district was similarly exempt from parking minimums is that correct that is correct. Okay, so there are areas that we've seen growth in and see future growth in north and south of the square, which currently are not exempt from parking minimums but used to be exempt is that correct that is correct. Anybody else. Thank you. Thank you very much. Look forward to bringing what we've discussed with the parking requirements on DC RC bringing you that absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. There will be some tweaks to what we just learned today. Anyway, appreciate it. Okay, moving through our next work session item is clarification on tonight's agenda. We'll take item two is the minutes. There were just some slight corrections to that those got emailed back out earlier this week. Any further discussion or questions on that item. No, okay. Consent agenda item. Any questions for staff on that item. We've got one final plat on our consent agenda. Okay, items for individual consideration is for a. And. Okay, I know we've got some people probably on vacation right. Yeah. Hi, Mia. Hi, not Cameron. But yeah, I can I'll be covering for her. Great. Evening. Okay, that is the right. Okay, so yes, this is a final plat. Mia Heinz, associate planner. Good evening. This is a final plat for the Mayhill 380 business park edition. At this time, they have not met all of our review criteria. So staff is recommending denial, but we have received a letter requesting an extension and we do not have opposition to that extension. Okay, and that'll be August 10th. I think. Yes. Okay, unless they withdraw or something like that, of course. Okay, questions on this item. Thank you, Mia. I know with 4B Commissioner Cole has to recuse himself. So we'll let that happen. And you're being Cameron again. So. Okay, yes, so this is a sorry. This is a preliminary plat for Hunter Ranch phase one. Similarly, they have not met all of our approval criteria. So staff is recommending denial, but we have received a letter requesting an extension and we have no opposition to that extension. Questions on that extension request. Okay. You're going to stay up here for 4C. Let me bring Commissioner Cole back in. Is that you? Hello. Hello. Angie Mangler, Senior Planner. This is a final plat request for the Luxe edition. It is a three lot plat in our ETJ. When the packet initially went out to you all, they were not quite ready for approval. However, they have met all of our criteria and staff is recommending approval for this plat. I don't think we got a copy of that, did we? I believe it went out Monday afternoon or Tuesday. Yes, I believe it went out Monday afternoon. We can confirm if you did not receive that though. I'm going to look it up and see. And we're looking at the one that's recommended for approval. Yes. Okay. All right. Very good. Questions on this one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next one will be 4D. Yeah, that is your item. Yes. This one is actually mine. So this is a final replat for the London Dairy Edition, lot 1A, block 1. If you recall at the last regularly scheduled PNZ meeting, you all considered a variance request and approved that request. That then allows staff to review and approve the civil engineering plans and so they're ready now with the final replat for ultimately the development of that site. So staff is recommending approval as they have met all of our criteria. I'll take any questions that you have. Great. Thanks, Mia. Any questions on that one? Okay. Thank you. Let's see. That takes us to 4E, PP220016. Julie's not here, so E&G is Julie. Hello. This is a preliminary plat for the Singing Oaks Church. It is a two lot plat at Mockingbird Lane and Paisley Street. At this time, they do not meet all of our criteria and staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the extension request to the date of the August 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Great. Questions on that one? Thank you very much, Angie. 4F, FP220020. Mr. Brown again. Thank you, Chair. Yes, this is a final plat application for a future industrial warehouse development. At this time during their current review, the applicant has not met all of the requirements as listed as far as the final plat approval. However, staff has no objections to their request for an extension of 30 days to a date starting of August 10th. Great. Questions about this extension request or this plat? Okay. Thank you, Rob. Thank you. That takes us to our public hearing item for tonight, which is being postponed, so we will not take any action on that item tonight. And with that, that takes us through our agenda. So we'll adjourn work session at 546 PM and meet in council chambers at 630 for our regular meeting. Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday, July 13th, 2022. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 630 PM and I will make note that Commissioner Smith is joining us tonight via Zoom. Our first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes for June 22nd and July 6th. Chair can entertain a discussion or a motion. Commissioner Villarreal. Move to approve. Commissioner Anderson. Second. And I'll clarify that's approval of both minutes. Correct. Okay. Very good. We've got a first and a second for approval of the June 22nd and July 6th meeting minutes. Any discussion? Okay. With Commissioner on Zoom, we'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Britt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0. Moving us to our consent agenda this evening. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Chair can entertain a motion or more discussion. Commissioner Villarreal. Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Pruitt. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Let's take a vote. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0. Moving us to our items for individual consideration for APP 220015. I believe Mia is coming up to present that item. Second here. Okay. Okay. Mia Hines, Associate Planner for the City of Denton. This item is a final plat for the Mayhill 380 Business Park, generally located at the southwest corner of University and Mayhill. At this time, or currently, the final plat does not meet all of our approval criteria, and so staff is recommending denial. However, the applicant has submitted a request for a 30-day extension, and staff is not opposed to granting that extension. I'll stand for any questions you have. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioner Pruitt. I move to approve the applicant's requested extension to a date certain of August 10th. Okay. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for that extension request approval. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, let's go ahead and vote. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0. Taking us to item 4B, Commissioner Cole will be recusing himself from this item, so we'll give him a minute to leave the dais. Thank you. Hi again, Mia. Hello. Good evening again, members of the commission. Okay. So this item is a preliminary plat for Hunter Ranch Phase 1. Similarly, this item or this plat has not met all of our approval criteria, and so staff is recommending denial. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension, and we are not opposed to granting that extension. I understand for any questions. Thank you, Mia. Any questions? I don't see any. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. I move to approve the extension to a date certain of August 10th. Okay. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 10th. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 6-0 with one recused. We'll go ahead and let Commissioner Cole join us, and I'll call item 4C, FP-21-0039. I think Angie is handling that item. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. Angie Manglaris, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. Let me share this. Okay. As mentioned, this is a final plat for the Luxe edition. It is a three-lot plat generally located to the west of 35 on the north side of Ganser Road. At this time, the proposed plat does meet all of our required requirements, and staff is forwarding this to offer consideration of approval. Thank you, Angie. Any discussion, questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very much. Chair can entertain discussion or a motion. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the plat. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of item 4C. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, let's take a vote. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0, taking us to 4D, FR-21-0012. Mia is going to present this item. Good evening again. Okay. This is a final replat for the Londonderry edition, lot 1A, block 1, generally located northeast of the bend at Sam Bass Boulevard in Londonderry Lane. If you recall, during the last regularly scheduled planning and zoning commission meeting, this body reviewed and approved a variance request, which allows staff to continue the review and approval of the civil engineering plans for this site, and so now they're ready to move forward with their final replat, and they have met all of our approval, review approval criteria, and so staff is recommending approval of this final replat at this time. Great. Thank you, Mia. Any questions? Not seeing any. Thank you very much. Commissioner Anderson. I make a motion to approve the plat. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Let's call for a vote, please. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0, taking us to 4E, PP-22-0016. Angie's back to present that item for us. Sorry, trying to get it to go into full screen. Or cooperate. Oh, that's the one before. There we go. Sorry about that. This is preliminary plat 22-0016. This is for the Singing Oaks edition. The subject parcel is approximately located at Mockingburn Lane and Paisley Street. At this time, the preliminary plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, and staff is recommending denial. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension to the August 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Thank you, Angie. Any questions for staff on this one? Thank you very much. Chair can entertain discussion or a motion at this time. Commissioner Villarreal. I move to approve the extension request to a date certain of August 10th. Commissioner Pruitt. Second. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of August 10th. Any discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. That motion carries 7-0, taking us to 4-F. P220020. Good evening, Ron. Good evening. Just a couple seconds here. I'm wanting to advance. One second. Technology doesn't want to work this evening. There we go. Sorry about that. That'll be the last one, right? This is a final plat request for a one lot intending to develop as an industrial warehouse. It's located just south of Jim Crystal, possibly 700 feet or so west of Western Boulevard. The application has not met all the approval criteria as set forth in the DDC for a final plat. However -- and staff is recommending denial. However, staff is not in objection to a requested 30-day extension to a date certain of August 10th. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Ron. Any questions for Ron this evening? Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, Chair can entertain discussion or a motion. Commissioner Pruitt. >> I move to approve the applicant requested extension to date certain of August 10th. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second to approve the extension request to date certain of August 10th. Any discussion? Okay. Go ahead and vote. Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Villarreal. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner McDade. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pruitt. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith. >> There's also an aye. That motion carries 7-0. Our public hearing item for tonight, 5AZ220008, has been postponed. We'll not be taking any action on that item tonight. It will be renoticed when it comes back before us. That takes us to item 6, our planning and zoning commission matrix. And I will turn it over to Haley for that discussion. >> All right. No real updates. I believe at the last meeting you all heard that the Woodrow multifamily SUP was approved. So that's the only public hearing item we've had recently with City Council. With respect to the matrix, we are just kind of working our way through that with some of those boot camps like we saw this evening. So we'll keep doing that. But we're happy to take any additional requests if there's something else you all would like to have us bring forward. >> Okay. Great. Is there anything to be added to the matrix by anyone? Making sure Commissioner Smith doesn't have anything. Okay. I do not see any. That will take us to concluding items, anything for concluding items this evening. Okay. Seeing none, with that, I will go ahead and adjourn us at 6 44 p.m. Thank you very much.