[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] Good evening, Flower Mound. The time is 6.30, and I call this meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.
[0:09] Please rise for the invocation and the pledge.
[0:15] Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this day, and thank you for this town of Flower Mound that we call home.
[0:21] Thank you for all those who serve and enable this place to be a wonderful place to live, to visit, and to do business.
[0:27] us. We pray, Lord, that you will be with us this evening and grant us discernment. Help
[0:32] us to serve our town well. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.
[0:35] Amen.
[0:38] You're Heavenly Father. Excuse me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
[0:45] of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
[0:52] with liberty and justice for all.
[0:57] I have prayer in mind.
[1:01] Okay, moving on our agenda, the point D, the purpose of this item is to allow a public
[1:05] and opportunity to address the commission regarding any item on the agenda that is not
[1:10] public hearing, daily operational or administrative matters should first be dealt with by calling
[1:15] town hall during business hours.
[1:18] Do we have anyone that's indicated an interest?
[1:21] Very well.
[1:22] Moving to item E, coordination of calendars, our next two meetings will be held on
[1:27] July 13th and July 27th. If you will not be available, please let Lori Ann know as soon
[1:34] as possible.
[1:37] Looking at item F, future agenda. Are there any commissioners who have any future
[1:42] agenda items to bring forward at this time?
[1:48] Moving along quickly. Item G. We'll now
[1:52] have a staff report by Lex and Murphy. Thank you, Chair, commissioners. I just wanted
[1:57] to give you an update on a couple of training opportunities that are coming up. Pornima
[2:01] had previously mentioned the elected and appointed officials workshop. That date has gotten changed
[2:07] again. So now it is going to be August 7th. They have not actually put it on the APAs
[2:14] calendar yet. So there's no notice of it. We'll let you know as soon as it's posted
[2:19] in case you want to register for it. But just in case you were – had marked it on
[2:23] your calendar, I wanted to let you know about the change in date.
[2:26] The second item I wanted to mention is the upcoming Texas APA conference.
[2:32] It's actually going to be in the area this year.
[2:35] It's going to be an Irving.
[2:36] So if the commissioners have any interest in attending that, I want to give you a heads
[2:41] up on the dates.
[2:43] It's October 14th through the 16th.
[2:46] You don't have to go to all of it.
[2:48] There's usually an opportunity to register for just one day or that sort of thing.
[2:52] So we can send out that link to everybody so you can take a look and
[2:56] Let us know if it's something that you might be interested in attending
[3:02] Lexin or the one that's August the 7th. Could you please tell me where that is?
[3:09] They normally have it at the North Richland Hills
[3:13] City they kind of have a little like conference area there that they rent out for events
[3:18] So it's the city of North Richland Hills
[3:22] Thank you, mm-hmm and the APA conference you said that's 14 through the 18th. Yes, October 14 through the 16th. They're 16
[3:33] And it's at the Irving Convention Center at Las Calinas.
[3:43] Thank you
[3:47] Moving on to item H on our agenda
[3:50] This part of the agenda consists of non-controversial or housekeeping items required by law
[3:55] We have only one item listed and that is the minutes from June 8th
[3:59] If the commissioners have had an opportunity already to review the minutes, do we have
[4:05] a motion?
[4:07] I move that we accept the minutes as written.
[4:12] Second.
[4:13] We have a motion and a second.
[4:15] Lorianne, please call the roll.
[4:18] Mr. Baick.
[4:19] Aye.
[4:20] Mr. Langley.
[4:21] Aye.
[4:22] Mr. Gilmour.
[4:23] Aye.
[4:24] Mr. Jackson.
[4:25] Aye.
[4:25] Mr. Fitzpatrick.
[4:27] Aye.
[4:29] And that passes.
[4:30] Item I on the agenda is non-discretionary items.
[4:34] These are items in compliance with all applicable development standards.
[4:38] They are not requesting waivers, exceptions, or deviations and do not require a public hearing.
[4:43] We'll now open with item I.1 for IP 26-0003.
[4:50] Cache salons presenting is Cody.
[4:53] Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.
[4:55] My name is Cody Hay.
[4:56] I'm a planner with the Planning Department.
[4:58] and the item before you is the cash station
[4:59] and lawns site plan.
[5:02] So this shows a general location of the property
[5:05] which is located south of Lakeside Parkway
[5:07] and east of Northwood Drive.
[5:10] And then this is a more detailed location
[5:12] of the property.
[5:14] So it is master plan for the land use
[5:16] of campus commercial and it is located
[5:17] in the Lakeside Business District Area Plan.
[5:20] It is on plan development 153
[5:22] with both non-residential and residential uses.
[5:26] And then this is the site plan in reference to the site pictures.
[5:30] So this is a site picture looking south towards the property.
[5:34] This is a site picture looking east towards the property.
[5:38] This is a site picture looking north towards the property.
[5:42] And then this is a site picture looking west towards the property.
[5:46] And then this is the site plan.
[5:47] So this is lot three block a of the lakeside crossing addition and it is approximately
[5:52] 0.647 acres and just to give further background information in December 16th
[5:58] 2024 the town council approved concept plans for this site
[6:01] So this is them coming forward with their site plan project application and to give further background information
[6:07] There is a couple differences between the concept plan and the site plan that is in compliance still with those concept plans
[6:13] One of the major changes was the original building was two stories and now the building
[6:19] is one story on the site plan.
[6:22] That means the square foot has dropped from 13,580 square feet to now 7,160 square feet.
[6:28] That also means the parking demand dropped from 54 parking spaces to 29 parking spaces.
[6:34] So now on site there will be 20 parking spaces and nine spaces offered off site through
[6:40] lakeside crossing parking agreement that they have. And then they also did a mixed use table.
[6:46] If you all remember at the time they did a parking analysis that was mixed use for the site.
[6:52] And then access to the site will be through mutual access easements that connect back to
[6:56] Northwood Drive and the adjacent properties. And then this is the landscape plan which
[7:01] is comprised with that parking area landscaping and enhanced landscaping.
[7:05] I did want to also point out that they updated their landscape plan to meet our
[7:08] tree by diversity requirements that's in the newer code.
[7:14] And then also as a
[7:16] reminder to the applicant, the applicant is aware of the requirement to
[7:19] install improvements depicted on the concept lighting plan that was approved
[7:22] when the ordinance went forward for lot 8-6 prior to the issuance of a
[7:27] certificate of occupancy for the third building within the Lakeside
[7:30] Crossing development. So that means whatever third building is next
[7:34] installed they will have to install those lot 8-6 improvements from that
[7:37] concept plan.
[7:40] And then this is the elevation plan, which is in compliance with that concept
[7:43] elevation plan. Again, it is just now one story, which is why it's a little bit different
[7:48] but still in compliance with the concept plan. It utilizes a combination of primarily stucco,
[7:53] brick and composite aluminum wood panels and colors complying with the Towns Urban
[7:58] Design Plan and PD 153 standards. And they are also still doing the, it's not
[8:04] IV the plants on the north facade and
[8:11] then this is the application matrix so
[8:13] this is a site plan with no exception so the final decision-making body will be
[8:17] the planning and zoning commission tonight and that is the end of my
[8:22] presentation if you have any questions for me please feel free to ask the
[8:25] applicant is here tonight if you have any questions but they do not have a
[8:28] presentation any
[8:33] questions for staff pretty
[8:37] straightforward and any questions
[8:39] for our app.
[8:43] All right, very good. We'll go ahead and move then into commission deliberation thoughts considerations.
[8:50] Oh, no, I'm excited about that greenery on that wall.
[8:54] I'm on too lately.
[9:02] I think that, as you mentioned, it's pretty, pretty straightforward, clean design, compliments the area.
[9:09] And they updated the landscaping requirements to match the new code. I think, thank you. I think it's great.
[9:15] Okay.
[9:16] which case would any commissioner like to make a motion I'll make a motion to
[9:22] approve item I as presented second so we have a motion and a second to approve
[9:32] item I one or an you want to call the roll Mr. Fitzpatrick aye mr. Jackson
[9:38] aye mr. Gilmore aye mr. Langley aye mr. Beck aye
[9:45] Very good. Motion passes. At this point, we'll move on to our regular items. This is agenda item J.
[9:53] Typically, the commission will make a recommendation to the town council on projects listed in this section of the agenda.
[9:59] The public hearing is required. It will be noted in the item caption.
[10:04] If you wish to speak on item J1, which is a public hearing item and you have not already done so, please fill out a green comment card.
[10:10] and we will now open item J.1 for LDR 26-0001 time-base sharing parking and presenting his neck.
[10:22] All right. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Tonight I'll be presenting our land development
[10:29] regulation on time-base shared parking. So just a quick overview. Really, we're here to
[10:36] discuss just chapter 82 amendments and adding time-based year parking to this.
[10:43] Originally we did have chapter 98 in there for some definition updates but we
[10:49] decided to forego those. So I'll go over kind of our methodology, how we got
[10:57] where we are, why we're doing it, and kind of what our current code also says
[11:03] regarding any kind of reductions in parking that you can use.
[11:11] So what is shared parking?
[11:13] So this is the use of parking spaces to serve two or more land uses
[11:18] within a development that are compatible based off their peak times
[11:23] throughout a day, weekday, morning, afternoon, evening or the weekend
[11:28] and any combination of that.
[11:32] So the idea behind shared parking is to provide that balance of parking and to not oversupply
[11:41] any kind of parking area.
[11:43] And that would generally be based off of our adopted parking minimum requirements, which
[11:55] those are basically assumed to be at peak 100% capacity at all times.
[12:00] So the idea here is to have compatible weighing uses
[12:06] that don't need to be always 100% and they can all come.
[12:14] So what does our current code say?
[12:18] Currently, the only method we have to reduce parking
[12:22] in the code for developers is deviation of 20%,
[12:26] and that's the cap.
[12:27] If you go beyond that, or increasing or decreasing
[12:31] beyond 20%.
[12:32] And in this case, we're looking at the decreasing of parking.
[12:37] You would still need an independent shared parking study and then town council approval
[12:41] upon recommendation from this commission.
[12:45] And current parking supply that we have today is based off of national parking requirements
[12:54] generated from the parking generation manual from 20 years ago.
[12:58] So like I said in the previous slide, they spend 100% capacity at all times a day.
[13:05] And generally that's just not true for all land uses.
[13:09] So there's a good portion of parking that just sits empty for
[13:17] several times throughout
[13:19] the week.
[13:21] And then generally, our shared parking is only found in mixed use and plain development.
[13:26] So the idea with adopting this code is to open that up to really anyone to be able to
[13:31] use that before we're proposing here tonight.
[13:38] Reminder that we do have shared parking within the town already through some of our mixed
[13:44] use developments like Lakeside and Riverwalk and Verge Ranch.
[13:48] And they use a table that is going to be similar to what we're proposing here tonight.
[13:57] So why are we adopting shared parking?
[14:00] And this came from a objective from the strategic plan that was adopted by Council in the fiscal year 2025,
[14:10] which they identified commercial parking code revisions that would incentivize reducing the amount of parking and development
[14:21] and potentially increasing opportunities to have more open space or landscape based off of that.
[14:29] And secondly, the idea here is to remove any barriers in our current code, as we discussed
[14:35] in the previous slide,
[14:38] without having to provide a part of study or any new zoning.
[14:47] Some other benefits that are listed in these next four bullet points are obviously to reduce
[14:52] the cost of building part of spaces that can be pretty expensive, depending on where
[14:58] it is, what you're doing with the part.
[15:00] How much parking we really would need to provide.
[15:05] And then, secondly, reduce the heat island effect, reducing the amount of impervious pavement,
[15:11] and then reducing stormwater runoff. And then, again, more opportunities for landscaping.
[15:20] So with the study that we did for the shared parking, we used the shared parking manual.
[15:28] It's the third edition that was
[15:34] written in 2020 or published in 2020.
[15:39] This is a national index of parking for tons of different uses on different times of days
[15:49] and peak hours and whatnot and even monthly adjustments.
[15:55] So within that manual, there's certain recommendations for cities or anyone that's looking to adopt
[16:05] shared parking within their development.
[16:08] And one of those is, well, you need to do your own study and have some more localized
[16:13] data.
[16:14] So that's what we set out to do.
[16:20] I'll get to that later, but our data is going to be a little bit different than what's on
[16:28] the national scale with how people move around and shop or eat or any other uses that we might
[16:38] have that attract customers or other people, even around the region.
[16:47] And then another recommendation that comes out of that is designing for what they call
[16:54] the design day and design hour, which is within shared parking, uses the 85th percentile
[17:02] of the peak hour of observation for any recommended parking
[17:07] ratios that they have in their book.
[17:11] And that's similar to what traffic designers use,
[17:17] traffic engineers, when they're designing roads.
[17:20] They're not designing full capacity all the time.
[17:24] Also, we just have overbill highways and roads everywhere.
[17:28] So same principle, parking, we don't want to go overboard if we don't need to.
[17:39] So what kind of data did we observe?
[17:42] We've got five different years of data starting from 2022,
[17:48] and that's through just hand count observations and using our near map aerials,
[17:54] which are high resolution aerials that give us specific times of the day
[18:01] and a month and a day as well so we can really dial in on areas and in the past
[18:08] that we might have not been able to count based off of that. And then we've got all
[18:13] months of the year, 108 different days,
[18:17] kind of weekdays, weekends, morning,
[18:20] afternoon, evenings. The only exception is nighttime which I'll get to that
[18:24] later too. But over the course of these five different years, there were 450 different observations.
[18:33] We had 120 different sites and then 280 visits. That was the hang count visits and over 36,000
[18:41] cars. And within that, there are 17 different land uses that we did observe. Those land
[18:48] and uses are based off our own parking code table
[18:54] that's defined in there
[18:55] and also the parking generation manual.
[18:57] They break it down into tons of different uses.
[19:00] So with that, these are the land use categories
[19:05] that we did come up with in the proposed shape parking table.
[19:09] You can see we got hotel,
[19:12] which includes both business and leisure type hotels.
[19:15] hotels. Just know we really only observe business hotels. That's really all we have here. There
[19:21] are some recreational type hotels around, but for the purposes of FireMound, we really stuck
[19:29] to the business side of it.
[19:32] And then the office, we have, of course, our general office.
[19:36] That could be your office parks, our Class A office that we just got, and then any
[19:42] any other office variety, we have medical office as well, and then banks are considered
[19:50] within this category.
[19:53] In a restaurant, we of course have our casual family restaurants, and we also have our fine
[19:57] dining and destination restaurants, and then any fast food type restaurants.
[20:05] And then of course retail, we have our shopping and ship centers, any personal service
[20:10] this type, establishments, pharmacies, home improvement
[20:14] garden stores.
[20:16] And then entertainment recreational.
[20:19] We have our theaters and any indoor outdoor amusement
[20:22] and assembly hall event centers.
[20:25] Health club under that umbrella is the health fitness club
[20:28] math club clubs, recreational community centers.
[20:33] So with that, this is the distribution of the counts
[20:37] are the sites that we counted within those categories.
[20:42] We counted 41 hotels, 72 office, 117 restaurants,
[20:49] 151 retail, 45 entertainment, recreational,
[20:53] and then 29 health club or athletic club.
[20:56] And they could be the same site within those categories,
[21:00] too, we revisited just to see if there are people.
[21:04] So
[21:09] how did we find this demand in the first place?
[21:12] So what we did first when we were going out and counting these cars is we counted any car
[21:24] that was actually sitting within the site and then counted the parking spaces that were
[21:31] also provided and made sure that they were actually lining up with what an approved site
[21:37] plan that we had on file was and then from there we would divide that number of cars
[21:43] by the number of spaces and get an observed occupancy rate.
[21:48] From there we adjusted those values based off of any parking deviations that we had
[21:56] on file and then any vacancy rate that was known at that time.
[22:04] Generally, our vacancy rates sit around 5% on average for any office or retail, but we
[22:13] did adjust it for some sites that might be more vacant than that if we had that on file
[22:17] with our economic development.
[22:21] Then, hotel rates generally sit at a 20% vacancy at just kind of an overall yearly
[22:28] rate.
[22:29] So, we were actually able to obtain that from our hotels that we have here, and for our
[22:35] amount.
[22:36] And then, yeah, of course, the parking deviation, that's just, if it was over the 20 percent
[22:42] or over just the maximum requirement, then we would plug that in as well to adjust the
[22:54] rate to a more common
[22:59] basis, basically.
[23:02] And then from there, we would normalize that rate.
[23:07] So whatever adjusted rate we found, or even the observed rate, we kind of used both.
[23:14] We would divide that rate by the peak rate that was either observed or adjusted from
[23:20] it.
[23:20] So that would help us find a hired man, basically.
[23:25] And then from there, we could filter and find that 85th percentile.
[23:31] So how we did that is filtering, again, by each day in a category of weekday or weekends.
[23:41] And so Monday through Friday, weekday, weekends are Saturday, Sunday.
[23:46] Like with the exception of Fridays after five, we counted that as a week in the evening.
[23:52] We've found quite a bit of peak observations after that, and then the shared parking manual
[23:59] also has that recommendation within there as well.
[24:02] So we're kind of taking their form as well.
[24:07] And then we also filtered by the time of day from each of those into morning, afternoon,
[24:13] evening, and nighttime.
[24:15] So with that nighttime data, we did not observe that.
[24:20] They're just, that's our Herculean Tusk.
[24:25] So what we used was the shared parking manual.
[24:29] They don't really have nighttime data either,
[24:32] but they do have hour late periods.
[24:35] So we were able to see, you know,
[24:37] what it is kind of leading up to midnight
[24:41] and right after six.
[24:42] And then I showed you those shared use tables
[24:46] from our other developments, Riverwalk and Lakeside and Perch Ranch.
[24:51] So we kind of based it off of what they had there, just did not kind of rock the boat or anything like that.
[24:59] And then filtered those land uses into park categories like I showed you earlier.
[25:05] And then we were able from there compare our observed data to the shared parking manual and the parking generation manual as well.
[25:14] and see how they compare to each other on a national scale
[25:19] and then create a weighted scale based off of that.
[25:24] So the more observations we had in category,
[25:29] the more it was weighted toward applied
[25:33] data.
[25:34] If we didn't have as many observations as we'd like in one category,
[25:38] a heavier weight was assigned to a more national index level,
[25:42] just to kind of balance that out a bit
[25:46] and then go with recommended best practices.
[25:54] So before I show the proposed table,
[25:57] I was gonna go over some effects on parking.
[26:02] This is just in general more speculative
[26:06] because it's really impossible to capture this
[26:10] when you are looking at parking,
[26:11] but they are things that do tend to change
[26:15] how
[26:18] parking is, our parking demand is really affected so of course we've got
[26:26] workplace changes in the past five years we've seen increases in work from home
[26:30] so that has a big effect on office and then and of course hybrid work so maybe
[26:37] you have people working remote one day and they come in the office next that
[26:41] really affects what those peak demands look like throughout the week and then
[26:49] of course we have general market shifts and e-commerce and shared parking
[26:55] manual recognize that a little bit before before it's really it's really
[27:03] peaked in the past several years but they saw the rise in that so they
[27:08] recognize that some parking may be affected by that even, you know, five years ago and
[27:15] still is to this day. So that just changes the whole demand situation there as well.
[27:24] And so there's some other changes in here I've listed. Captive parking is one thing
[27:29] that's how long someone stays out of sight. Depending on the mixture of juices, people
[27:35] might stay longer in certain areas than others versus a hop-in hop-out.
[27:41] That really changes what that demand looks like.
[27:44] If people are staying at a restaurant longer, well, you might say, I should need more parking
[27:52] here just because people are staying longer and having a more enjoyable experience or
[27:56] they do things afterward that are taking up the space.
[27:59] But the idea is that when you have all these uses together and aggregate, we're saying
[28:07] that, you know, these percentages will actually equal out, sort of, that development well.
[28:18] Yeah, there's some other ones in here by sharing, by telling that that's affected some
[28:22] hotel data in the past several years, too.
[28:25] So just things to be aware of, but it's not really anything we can measure accurately
[28:34] out of direct basis.
[28:38] So this is the proposed table for the shared parking requirements.
[28:44] I've highlighted kind of the peak times that we did find for several uses in that bold black text.
[28:53] What
[28:57] we're showing here, you know, a hotel in the morning, very high peak there.
[29:04] This is very in line with the shared parking manual.
[29:09] And then weekend mornings, weekend evenings.
[29:11] And offices, of course, peak around weekday.
[29:15] We do have a few offices that are open on the weekend, but they're usually in the morning.
[29:21] so there's some occupancy there and then restaurants of course in the
[29:27] evening for both weekday and weekend are are pretty high and of course yeah we
[29:33] have 100% there in the restaurant on the weekend and then retail during the week
[29:39] day in the afternoon the rate of 70% and then surprisingly in the morning it's
[29:46] very high on the weekend of
[29:50] course our entertainment recreational that peaks
[29:53] a lot more on the weekend afternoons and even higher in the evening and then
[30:00] Our health clubs or athletic clubs, they also have high peaks in the weekday and weekend morning,
[30:09] even higher weekday evening activity. So this is kind of how it looks on a crazy chart here.
[30:17] You can see how it all shifts around and flows.
[30:24] These uses are not always at 100% of the time,
[30:28] So, really, when our current code is kind of over-designing in some ways, and the shared
[30:35] parking allows us to reduce that, should someone want to choose this.
[30:44] So I was going to go through an example.
[30:45] This is the model we used to kind of help us identify what the best table we could
[30:53] use and the best uses to include and, yeah, the different times of the day and weekend
[30:59] activity.
[30:59] We had four different ones, I was using, studying,
[31:05] so this is what we found to be the best for firemen.
[31:13] So you would first calculate at any site,
[31:18] if you know what all your uses are gonna be,
[31:21] and generally the square footage
[31:23] and how many seats you're gonna provide
[31:24] for anything or any room counts,
[31:27] you're gonna calculate it as normal.
[31:29] So in this example, we've got several different uses, hotel, office, restaurant, retail, theater,
[31:38] any medical office, gym, recreation, stuff.
[31:42] So that's something about to be the required minimum parking of 1,328.
[31:48] And you can see on the bottom right table there, we've aggregated each of those individual uses of the required parking.
[31:57] So you would sum all those together.
[31:59] This is how a developer would essentially use this.
[32:03] And so each use has their total required parking with them.
[32:10] Step three, we would multiply each percentage
[32:13] and I call them by that total required parking
[32:17] from that land use that was in that proposed table.
[32:21] The previous slide, so you can see here
[32:25] in the hotel category, we've got each percentage
[32:28] which reached time of the day, and we day and weekend,
[32:32] and multiplying that at 200,
[32:34] that's normally required under our minimum parking standards,
[32:38] and then so on and so forth.
[32:41] Basically, at the end, once you're done
[32:43] calculating all that, the highest number
[32:49] in the column is gonna be your shared parking requirement.
[32:54] So in this case, the weekday afternoon
[32:58] is the highest peak demand in this model of 918 parking spaces,
[33:05] which is a reduction of 410 from that normally 1,328.
[33:11] That would be required by the code.
[33:13] And that's beyond that 20% now,
[33:15] and they don't have to do a study or anything like that
[33:20] to get to this point.
[33:22] Using our table, they can get this 31% reduction.
[33:31] This is just kind of how it looks like on a bar chart, what you can see compared to all
[33:38] the other uses, just at a glance, a little bit better than numbers.
[33:43] So you can see here, of course, the weekday afternoon is the peak, but even weekday morning
[33:50] could have been pretty substantial, but in the specific scenario, you would design for
[33:55] that.
[33:55] Yeah.
[34:00] So what are we actually proposing tonight?
[34:02] We're going to be posing amendments to section 82-73, which is how we compute parking.
[34:12] Essentially, we're just saying that jade parking is allowed within our code to be able to reduce
[34:21] parking requirements, run off P diamond effect in a number of these areas.
[34:25] And so, with that, we're proposing this new section of 82-84, which is, you know, shared
[34:36] parking is not required, but if you are to use this, then you must have a site that
[34:42] contains two or more different land uses that are listed in that proposed shared parking
[34:48] table.
[34:48] And then they must be located in the same development or subdivision as specified in the
[34:56] period of time document.
[34:58] So that would be a PD-exuse development or any other document that's approved by the
[35:04] time.
[35:06] In addition, we would require a shared parking agreement between all parties that are within
[35:11] that development, any owners or any vested interests, basically.
[35:17] And then the town would be made party to that, and we would essentially have that on file
[35:25] or it would be recorded in the local county, so either Denver, Tarrant, wherever the development
[35:30] is at.
[35:34] Any change in use would be, of course, reassessed and then tamed approval, this could be done
[35:39] either at an administrative level or it could reach even to this commission and counsel
[35:45] just depending on change occurs. If there's any substantial change or not, this
[35:54] is standard protocol that we have currently.
[36:00] And of course this may reduce
[36:01] parking by more than 20% and that you wouldn't have to
[36:09] trusting the data
[36:11] that we have found here. And then for any special projects, there's a copy I
[36:19] I hear that you can use your own shared parking
[36:23] study if you want to be on this.
[36:27] I think what we found is pretty good.
[36:31] But it is there just in case someone
[36:33] has maybe a different project that they think
[36:35] is going to have a higher demand than what's shown in our tape.
[36:44] And then again, this is the table in the second look here.
[36:50] And with that, that's my presentation on a shared
[36:54] any questions you all may have?
[36:59] Okay, I have a question.
[37:00] Sure.
[37:01] First, I think this is a wonderful proposal.
[37:04] The amendments are awesome.
[37:05] I just think it's a win-win for the town, for developers,
[37:09] just the residents, for everybody.
[37:11] So this is fabulous.
[37:13] I just had one question as I read through the packet,
[37:15] and that was, if you talk about having two different kinds
[37:20] of businesses using the shared parking. What if you've got two restaurants and
[37:26] one has, does only breakfast service, breakfast and lunch, and the other is only
[37:31] evening dining? Is that something that there's an accommodation for? So it's,
[37:38] they would technically both be in that broad restaurant category. So yeah, they
[37:44] would need another use within their development, retail or office. So you
[37:48] wouldn't consider no they would just they have to they would just probably use
[37:54] our current code to reduce their parking they would really need to have more
[37:59] use this to counteract any reduction in parking essentially the table that's
[38:05] proposed accounts for that already what that breakfast peak time is and then you
[38:17] 100% on the weekend evening, so they would just be designed to that normal rate that
[38:23] we already have.
[38:24] Okay.
[38:25] All right.
[38:26] Thanks.
[38:27] Thanks.
[38:27] Yeah, but great presentation and I love it.
[38:29] Thank you.
[38:30] Thank you.
[38:30] Just to provide a little bit more information about that question, about the restaurants.
[38:34] Part of the reason why we wouldn't do that also is because we couldn't really
[38:40] hold the restaurant to that.
[38:42] Like if one said, oh, I'm only going to serve breakfast, so I'm only going to
[38:45] be open for these hours, but they could then extend their hours whenever they wanted to
[38:50] and we wouldn't know and have the ability to stop them.
[38:53] So just because of that, you know, like Nick said, I think it would make sense to just
[38:58] consider them all the same as restaurant.
[39:01] Great.
[39:01] Thank you.
[39:03] I think this is wonderful as well.
[39:05] And I think I know the answer to this question, I'm going to ask it anyway, but I don't
[39:10] I think this would apply to the CAAC renovation
[39:15] or any future town parks because the land use,
[39:18] there's one land use, is that right?
[39:21] Yeah, we didn't, I'm sure if any public,
[39:25] is anything.
[39:25] This is all private, okay.
[39:29] Nick, can you go back to, I think it's slide 22?
[39:34] Sure.
[39:34] There we go.
[39:36] So obviously you're gonna use the matrix,
[39:38] that proposed table whenever you're considering
[39:41] how parking might more efficiently be used under this.
[39:46] One of the things I'm a little bit concerned about,
[39:50] we know that the two different land uses must be located
[39:54] in the same development or subdivision.
[39:56] To me, there's a kind of a geographical limitation
[39:59] to where it would no longer make sense to be applying this.
[40:04] We could be in the same subdivision,
[40:06] but I'm not going to park three blocks down
[40:10] and walk all the way to you know the retail store I want to go into and if I
[40:15] look at you know some of the larger complexes where we may have a hotel have
[40:19] a few restaurants and some retail it seems there needs to be some kind of a
[40:22] geographical containment that's a little bit more specific than saying the
[40:26] same subdivision just based upon the logic of how far wouldn't people
[40:32] normally be wanting or willing to readily park and walk to get to their
[40:37] destination. Yeah, that's a very good point. It is something we did consider
[40:44] when we were first going through this exercise, but we can certainly take a
[40:49] look at it again, because I know our current mix use developments, like a
[40:55] Riverwog Lakeside, they I think they do have a stability relation in there that
[40:59] parking has got to be within so many feet of the front entrance or something
[41:05] to that effect because yeah within a mixed use development yeah it's obviously walkable
[41:11] but no one needs to walk too far either especially in Texas heat so I would I would encourage
[41:19] a little bit of thought in terms of adding a little bit of specificity there yeah we can
[41:23] certainly look into town council yeah but I agree with the other members of commission
[41:28] here I think that you know the objective and the strategic plan even identifying this
[41:32] is one of our objectives makes a lot of sense. We don't want to over build parking and I
[41:37] think we're all in favor of having as much green space with all the benefits that come
[41:41] with that as possible. I did appreciate that the analysis seemed to go into a fair amount
[41:47] of detail looking at the specific different land uses and the implications there as
[41:53] well as the different time periods that might be implied. I'm just concerned about
[41:57] the geographical distancing when you're looking at those combined land uses in
[42:01] particular area. Sure. Yeah, we'll make note of that.
[42:08] So one other thing to think
[42:10] about with that and as Nick said we can definitely look at that and see if
[42:13] there's any additional language we can put in but it's a little bit different
[42:18] with this time-based shared parking than how we would normally look at this
[42:23] with shared parking because usually what we say it's shared parking it's
[42:28] basically how we would typically do it is one business is saying okay I'm
[42:33] going to let you count these seven spaces on my lot toward your parking. And so we want
[42:37] them to be very close. We say they have to be next door because it doesn't make sense
[42:42] to be like, oh, I'm down the street, but you're going to do that. But in this time-based
[42:47] shared parking, it's a little bit different because they're truly all sharing the spaces.
[42:53] So you could have kind of three businesses. And so, well, this one's kind of far from
[42:58] this one, but somebody may be parking at the middle one or this one or it's like they're
[43:03] all it's more fluid. It's more fluid. All the spaces are counting for all of the businesses
[43:09] because it just depends on the time of day where they could be sharing them. So it's
[43:15] just a little bit different than doing the straight like, oh, must be within 500 feet
[43:20] or something. But maybe there's something we can look at to say kind of everything
[43:25] thing must be within some sort of range? I don't know. Nick can take a look at that and
[43:30] see if he has any recommendations. Along the same lines, there's also the
[43:34] issue, you know, geographically, if you look at an area, you could have something that has
[43:38] much a higher density, you know, on this table for use, and it's on the far right
[43:42] side of the complex. So you could skew the results in terms of the parking needed
[43:46] on the far left side, you know, four retail stores down or something like that.
[43:52] And I don't mean to be pouring cold water on this.
[43:55] I think this is a great initiative.
[43:56] I just think there's a little bit of nuance that needs to probably be given to it.
[44:01] And along that, I've got one other question.
[44:03] And you touched on this slightly on this particular page towards the bottom.
[44:08] And that is, if we have changes in tenants, that could have an implication, obviously,
[44:14] in terms of parking.
[44:15] And then where does responsibility, if it's determined additional parking,
[44:19] parking is required because of change in tenants. Who has a responsibility for that?
[44:23] Right, yeah. They would, if we do have a change in tenant or use, they would come back to
[44:32] at a staff level be looking at that to see if it's still able to meet a parking account
[44:39] that is available on site or not.
[44:44] Yeah, they could get a more intense use in there.
[44:47] and at that point they might have to come back to this commission or council to
[44:52] get any approval if they needed to add parking spaces. Hope that's not the case.
[45:00] But that is something that could very well happen.
[45:03] So that would involve basic, like you going out and doing another study at, like, kind of
[45:09] would you?
[45:09] No, we wouldn't have to do another study like this. We would just use our current. If this
[45:15] is adopted, we would use that table and see what that, those ratios come out to, or that
[45:20] new parking, a minimal would be. It might not affect it, and we never know. Some of
[45:29] models re-randed. This one happened to be, you know, a weekday afternoon. Some of them
[45:36] went to the evening time slot. So it's just, it really depends on all the other uses that
[45:41] are there on that site, too. So it's just something at a staff level we'd have to look
[45:47] into first and if it happens to be anything substantial. Well,
[45:53] got my seat. And of course
[45:55] the shared parking agreement between everyone that has to be filed. That's something
[46:00] that holds everyone accountable to use this respectfully.
[46:09] So this is one of the questions I had too when I was looking at the packet.
[46:12] So trying to think administratively, so one tenant moves out, another one moves in, but
[46:19] they're the same type, similar type of businesses, so they're, you know, with office or whatever
[46:23] it's going to be.
[46:24] So how do you, I mean, do you actually have to go and have the new tenant then sign
[46:29] a shared parking agreement or does just is that part of like when the business
[46:32] transitions over the shared parking agreements tied to that particular
[46:37] business address or something? How does that work? That's so the agreements can be
[46:41] tied to that development, that site. That's all the town would look at. Okay.
[46:47] There might be other private contracts or easements or yeah or any other
[46:55] additional degrestrictions or covenants that that would run with the land so
[47:00] the property that we wouldn't look at but so the property manager would basically
[47:05] handle on that what would well they would notify them that this development
[47:11] is under these rules basically so going back to some of their previous
[47:17] comments as well I mean we've had a lot of parking discussions in the past over
[47:21] different developments and different things going on and I've always been in
[47:25] the back of my head trying to do the math and what you guys did here so I
[47:29] think the methodology that you guys have is you guys put together and the
[47:32] studies you did was absolutely phenomenal and I love it. I'm just
[47:36] curious and it's more out of morbid curiosity than anything else specifically
[47:39] since the guidelines were published in 2020. What the results of your study
[47:43] that you guys did, how close were you to what the what the book had said?
[47:48] Right, that's a great question, here I can go back to our table here.
[47:59] So our observed rates were, the national index did overestimate on several of them, but overall
[48:10] since we did calibrate them, we were able to get them to a good spot that was both
[48:17] in favor of firemen and of course with the National Index. The hotel, those
[48:24] actually are very much in line with the manuals recommendation. And the office
[48:31] on the weekday, it's a little different on the weekend, but just the types of
[48:39] uses that we have are not as intense on the weekend with the shared parking
[48:44] manual recommends. Our restaurant, the weekday, during the morning and afternoon, is a little
[48:55] bit lower, but our evenings are spot on, actually even more. And then the weekend is,
[49:06] yeah, the
[49:07] National Index kind of tends to overestimate that, too. But the real one that I did see
[49:12] was our retail. That one is very different. Just our demand during the day
[49:21] doesn't peak very high. The most I saw was I didn't even see it peak at a hundred
[49:27] percent. So gosh, I'm trying to think off the top of my head what that was. But
[49:33] it didn't come close to where our shared parking is. I know we have a lot
[49:38] a lot of retail. But I think a lot of it might be oversupplied. So that's something that's
[49:49] definitely different. And then entertainment, that very much follows. It's a little bit less
[49:57] on the afternoon and evening, but not by much there. And then health athletics. That one
[50:06] One was a weird one.
[50:09] Ours is very different. I think ours has actually been more from what
[50:13] I recall. The morning is very high, and so is the evening. And then surprisingly the
[50:21] weekend morning. Of course in the afternoons it tends to do it, but as well after the
[50:29] morning. But yeah, it's very different depending on what you're looking at.
[50:35] Yeah, interesting to see too. I mean after five or six years and then obviously after
[50:38] COVID and all the changes that have taken place there as well. So it's interesting to see that
[50:42] we're relatively in line. But I love what you guys did with this and I really thank you.
[50:52] Are there any other questions?
[50:58] This is a public hearing and we have anyone
[51:02] indicated an interest in making comments. If not, we'll close the public hearing.
[51:10] And with that closed, does the commission have any other questions for staff or we can move
[51:15] straight into deliberation. Any comments? Other considerations?
[51:20] I just wanted you to pull up the very last slide, the one before the question. There's
[51:24] a big question mark and then whatever the last one, just so I can, okay, there we go, just
[51:28] so we can have that up while we're talking, if we need it.
[51:36] My sense from some of the comments we've already made is that we all agree with both
[51:40] the objective of this as well as appreciate the analysis that went into it.
[51:44] Oh my gosh, yes.
[51:45] Commissioner Jackson points out a good chart because I think that summarizes everything we heard
[51:51] Well, and I love it because we want to be this is win-win for everybody
[51:55] It's win for businesses that either are here or we coming here. It's win for the environment. It's win for the cost of
[52:02] Putting all this stuff together. I mean, it's
[52:06] Heat Island all the things that we're always
[52:09] dealing with, I think it's as win-win as it could be. I really appreciate this,
[52:14] very much. I think a lot of people who want to, you know, build businesses and
[52:18] stuff here, that's a big challenge that they have. So it's business-friendly and
[52:22] environmental-friendly. Come on. So assuming that we have a motion here to
[52:30] recommend approval, I don't think it would be necessary for us to specify
[52:35] within that that we would like the staff to take a little closer look at a couple
[52:40] of items that we did mention from kind of an administrative perspective.
[52:44] Well you certainly can't suggest that as part of the motion but it wouldn't be
[52:49] contingent on that. You'll need to have a straight up or down vote on ordinance
[52:54] unless you want to bring it back at a later date to have them add.
[52:57] Well I personally have a lot of faith in our staff I think having brought it
[53:01] up that that's something that they take a look at but thank you I
[53:04] appreciate that as a point.
[53:07] So I'm not hearing any concerns with that in mind.
[53:12] Would any commissioner like to make a motion?
[53:13] I'm trying to think of disadvantages, and I can't.
[53:16] And I think if something comes up where there's a situation
[53:20] really, it kind of comes down to those kind of the,
[53:26] I guess, those businesses to try to come up with the
[53:29] solution, but I can't.
[53:31] Well, they can do their own parking study, too.
[53:32] Or they can do their own parking study too.
[53:35] Right.
[53:35] And so, you know, just that's what I've been scouring my mind is like, what is the pitfall
[53:41] of this?
[53:42] And I can't think of anything.
[53:43] So I'll make a motion to recommend approval for J1 with the recommendation made by
[53:53] our chair to take a look at a closer look at kind of like putting some
[54:01] parameters on the distance within the subdivision, because the subdivision is
[54:08] a little kind of vague. Does that cover it or is it need some more kind of... I
[54:15] think I got what's on there. I would suggest that you make a
[54:22] a straight motion to approve or disapprove
[54:26] and then say something along the lines of,
[54:28] and I hope you will come back at some point in the future
[54:31] with having looked at this issue of contiguity,
[54:38] I think would be the issue, how close they are.
[54:42] So I mean, we can look at whether there's anything
[54:45] we can add before this goes to council
[54:49] because we have a couple of weeks.
[54:51] So if that's what y'all are wanting us to do then we can go ahead and take a look at that and see if there's
[54:57] Any language we can add to it just before it gets to counsel that tries to address that
[55:01] I don't think we're suggesting these come back to us again. No, I think we're fine either way
[55:06] We just kind of want to go from an a-plus to an a-plus-plus
[55:12] And if the motion is good, I'll suck at it so we have a motion and a second lawyer
[55:18] Grant.
[55:18] Mr. Abayek.
[55:19] Aye.
[55:20] Mr. Langley.
[55:21] Aye.
[55:22] Mr. McGillmore.
[55:23] Aye.
[55:24] Mr. Jackson.
[55:25] Aye.
[55:26] Mr. Fitzpatrick.
[55:27] Aye.
[55:28] And that motion passes.
[55:30] Ladies and gentlemen, the time is 7.25 and I call this meeting adjourned.