Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening farm on the time is 6.30 and I call this meeting of the planning is on commission order. These rise for the indication and the pledge. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and thank you for this town of Flower Mound that we call home. Thank you for all those who serve and enable this place to be a wonderful place to live, to visit, and to do business. We pray, Lord, that you will be with us this evening and grant us discernment, help us to serve our town well. In Christ's name we pray. Amen. Dear Heavenly Father, excuse me.

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.

And prayer in mind.

Okay, moving on our agenda to point D. The purpose of this item is to allow public an opportunity to address the commission regarding any item on the agenda that is not public hearing. Daily operational or administrative matters should first be dealt with by calling town hall during business hours. Do we have anyone that's indicated an interest? Very well. Moving to item E, coordination of calendars. Our next two meetings will be held on July 13th and July 27th. If you'll not be available, please let Lorianne know as soon as possible. Looking at item F, future agenda. Are there any commissioners who have any future agenda items to bring forward at this time? Moving along quickly. Item G. We'll now have a staff report by Lexan Murphy.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. I just wanted to give you an update on a couple of training opportunities that are coming up. Pornima had previously mentioned the elected and appointed officials workshop. That date has gotten changed again. So now it is going to be August 7th. They have not actually put it on the APA's calendar yet, so there's no notice of it. We'll let you know as soon as it's posted in case you want to register for it, but just in case you had marked it on your calendar, I wanted to let you know about the change in date. The second item I wanted to mention is the upcoming Texas APA conference. It's actually going to be in the area this year. It's going to be in Irving. So if the commissioners have any interest in attending that, I wanted to give you a heads up on the dates. It's October 14th through the 16th. You don't have to go to all of it. There's usually an opportunity to register for just one day or that sort of thing. So we can send out that link to everybody so you can take a look and let us know if it's something that you might be interested in attending.

Lexan, for the one that's August the 7th, could you please tell me where that is?

They normally have it at the North Richland Hills city. They kind of have a little conference area there that they rent out for events. So it's the city of North Richland Hills.

Thank you.

And the APA conference, you said that's the 14th through the 18th?

Yes, October 14th through the 16th.

The 16th.

And it's at the Irving Convention Center at Las Colinas.

Thank you. Moving on to item H on our agenda. This part of the agenda consists of non-controversial housekeeping items required by law. We have only one item listed, and that is the minutes from June 8th. If the commissioners have had an opportunity already to review the minutes, do we have a motion?

I'll move that we accept the minutes as written.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Laura Ann, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bayek?

Aye.

Commissioner Langley?

Aye.

Commissioner Gilmore?

Aye.

Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Commissioner Fitzpatrick? Aye.

And that passes. Item I on the agenda is non-discretionary items. These are items in compliance with all applicable development standards. They are not requesting waivers, exceptions, or deviations and do not require a public hearing. We'll now open with item I.1 for SP 26-0003, Cachet Salons. Presenting is Cody.

Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Cody Hay. I'm a planner with the planning department and the item before you is the cashier salons site plan. So this shows a general location of the property, which is located south of Lakeside Parkway and east of North Drive. And then this is a more detailed location of the property. So it is master plan for the land use of Campus Commercial and it is located in the Lakeside Business District area plan. It is on plan development 153 with both non-residential and residential uses. And then this is the site plan in reference to the site pictures. So this is a site picture looking south towards the property. This is a site picture looking east towards the property. This is a site picture looking north towards the property. And then this is a site picture looking west towards the property. And then this is the site plan. So this is Lot 3, Block A of the Lakeside Crossing addition, and it is approximately 0.647 acres. And just to give further background information, in December 16, 2024, the Town Council approved concept plans for this site. So this is them coming forward with their site plan project application. and to give further background information there is a couple differences between the concept plan and the site plan that is in compliance still with those concept plans one of the major changes was the original building was two stories and now the building is one story on the site plan that means the square footage dropped from 13 580 square feet to now 7 160 square feet That also means the parking demand dropped from 54 parking spaces to 29 parking spaces. So now on site, there will be 20 parking spaces and nine spaces offered offsite through Lakeside Crossing parking agreement that they have. And then they also did a mixed use table. If y'all remember at the time, they did a parking analysis that was mixed use for the site. And then access to the site will be through mutual access easements that connect back to Northwood Drive and the adjacent properties. And then this is the landscape plan, which applies with that parking area, landscaping, and enhanced landscaping. I did want to also point out that they updated their landscape plan to meet our tree biodiversity requirements. That's in the newer code. And then also, as a reminder to the applicant, the applicant is aware of the requirement to install improvements depicted on the concept lighting plan that was approved when the ordinance went forward for lot 86. prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the third building within the Lakeside Crossing development. So that means whatever third building is next installed, they will have to install those lot 86 improvements from that concept plan. And then this is the elevation plan, which is in compliance with that concept elevation plan. Again, it is just now one story, which is why it's a little bit different, but still in compliance with the concept plan. It utilizes a combination of primarily stucco, brick, and composite aluminum wood panels and colors complying with the town's urban design plan and PD 153 standards. And they're also still doing the, it's not ivy, the plants on the north facade. And then this is the application matrix. So this is a site plan with no exceptions. So the final decision-making body will be the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight. And that is the end of my presentation. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask. The applicant is here tonight if you have any questions, but they do not have a presentation.

Any questions for staff?

Pretty straightforward.

And any questions for our All right, very good. We'll go ahead and move then into Commission deliberation. Thoughts, considerations?

Y'all know I'm excited about that greenery on that wall. It's something I'm onto lately.

I think that, as you mentioned, it's pretty straightforward. A clean design complements the area.

And they updated the landscaping requirements to match the new code. I think, thank you. I think it's great. Okay. Excited about it.

In which case, would any commissioner like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve item I as presented. Second.

So we have a motion and a second to approve item I1. Or Ann, you want to call the roll?

Commissioner Fitzpatrick?

Aye.

Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Commissioner Gilmour? Aye. Commissioner Langley?

Aye.

Commissioner Beck?

Aye.

Very good. Motion passes.

At this point, we'll move on to our regular items. This is Agenda Item J. Typically, the Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Council on projects listed in this section of the agenda. If a public hearing is required, it will be noted in the item captioned. 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. And we will now open item J.1 for LDR26-0001, time-based sharing parking. And presenting is Nick.

All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Tonight I'll be presenting our land development regulation on time-based shared parking. So just a quick overview. Really, we're here to discuss just Chapter 82 amendments and adding time-based shared parking to this. Originally, we did have Chapter 98 in there for some definition updates, but we decided to forego those. So I'll go over kind of our methodology, how we got where we are, why we're doing it, and kind of what our current code also says regarding any kind of reductions in parking that you can use. So what is shared parking? So this is the use of parking spaces to serve two or more land uses within a development that are compatible based off their peak times throughout a day, weekday, morning, afternoon, evening, or the weekend, and any combination of that. idea behind shared parking is to provide that balance of parking and to not oversupply any kind of parking area and that would generally be based off of our adopted parking minimum requirements which those are basically assumed to be at peak 100 capacity at all times so the idea here is to have compatible land uses that don't need to be always 100%, and they can all complement each other. So what does our current code say? Currently, the only method we have to reduce parking in the code for developers is deviation of 20%, and that's the cap. If you go beyond that, or increasing or decreasing beyond 20%, And in this case, we're looking at the decreasing parking. You would still need an independent shared parking study and then town council approval upon recommendation from this commission. Current parking supply that we have today is based off of national parking requirements generated from the parking generation manual from 20 years ago. Like I said in the previous slide, they spend 100% capacity at all times a day. And generally that's just not true for all land uses. So there's a good portion of parking that just sits empty for several times throughout the week. And then generally, our shared parking is only found in mixed use and planned developments. So the idea with adopting this code is to open that up to really anyone to be able to use that with what we're proposing here tonight. And just a reminder that we do have SHARED PARKING WITHIN THE TOWN ALREADY THROUGH SOME OF OUR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE LAKE SIDE AND RIVER WALK AND FIRST RANCH AND THEY USE A TABLE THAT IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TONIGHT. SO WHY ARE WE ADOPTING SHARED PARKING? This came from an objective from the strategic plan that was adopted by council in the fiscal year 2025, which they identified commercial parking code revisions that would incentivize reducing the amount of parking in a development and potentially increasing opportunities to have more open space or landscape based off of that. And secondly, the idea here is to remove any barriers in our current code, as we discussed in the previous slide, without having to provide a parking study or any new zoning. And then some other benefits that are listed in these next four bullet points are obviously to reduce the cost of building parking spaces. That can be pretty expensive depending on where it is, what you're doing with parking, and how much parking you really would need to provide. And then secondly, reduce the heat island effect. reducing the amount of impervious pavement, and then reducing stormwater runoff. And then again, more opportunities for landscaping. So with the study that we did for the shared parking, we used the shared parking manual. It's a third edition that was written in 2020 or published in 2020 and this is a national index of parking for tons of different uses on on different times of days and peak hours and whatnot and even monthly adjustments um so they within that manual there's certain recommendations for cities or or anyone that's looking to adopt shared parking within their development. And one of those is, well, you need to do your own study and have some more localized data. So that's what we set out to do. And I'll get to that later, but, you know, Our data is going to be a little bit different than what's on a national scale with how people move around and shop or eat or any other uses that we might have that attract customers or other people, even around the region. And then another recommendation that comes out of that is designing for what they call the design day and design hour, which is within shared parking, uses the 85th percentile of the peak hour of observation for any recommended parking ratios that they have in their book. And that's similar to... what traffic designers use, traffic engineers, when they're designing roads. They're not designing at full capacity all the time. Or else we'd just have overbuilt highways and roads everywhere. So same principle with parking. We don't want to go overboard if we don't need to. So what kind of data did we observe? We've got five different years of data starting from 2022, and that's through Just hand count observations and using our near-map aerials, which are high-resolution aerials that give us specific times of the day and month and day as well. So we can really dial in on areas in the past that we might have not been able to count based off of that. And then we've got all months of the year, 108 different days. We've counted weekdays, weekends. morning, afternoon, evenings. The only exception is nighttime, which I'll get to that later too. But over the course of these five different years, there were 450 different observations. We had 120 different sites and then 280 visits. That was the hand count visits in over 36,000 cars. And within that, there are 17 different land uses that we did observe, and those land uses are based off our own parking code table that's defined in there, and also the parking generation manual. They break it down into tons of different uses. With that, these are the land use categories that we did come up with in the proposed shared parking table. You can see we got hotel, which includes both business and leisure type hotels. Just note, we really only observed business hotels. That's really all we have here. There are some recreational type hotels around, but for the purposes of Fire Mound, we really stuck to the business side of it. And then the office, we have, of course, our general office. That could be your office parks, our Class A offices that we just got, and then any other office variety. We have medical office as well. And then banks are considered within this category. And restaurant, of course, have our casual family restaurants. We also have our fine dining and destination restaurants. And then any fast food type restaurants within that category. And then, of course, retail. We have our shopping and strip centers, any personal service type establishments, pharmacies, home improvement, garden stores. And then entertainment, recreational. We have our theaters, any indoor, outdoor amusement, assembly hall event centers, health club. Under that umbrella is the health fitness club, athletic clubs, recreational community centers. So with that, this is the distribution of the counts or the sites that we counted within those categories. We counted 41 hotels, 72 office, 117 restaurants, 151 retail, 45 entertainment, recreational, and then 29 health club or athletic club. And it could be the same site within those categories too. We revisited just to see if their peak demands changed or not. So how did we find this demand in the first place? So what we did first when we were going out and counting these cars is, well, we counted any car that was actually sitting within the site and then counted the parking spaces that were also provided and made sure that they were actually lining up with what an approved site plan that we had on file was. And then from there, we would divide that number of cars by the number of spaces and get an observed occupancy rate. From there, we adjusted those values based off of any parking deviations that we had on file. And then any vacancy rate that was known at that time. Generally, our vacancy rates sit around 5% on average for any office or retail. But we did adjust it for some sites that might be more vacant than that if we had that on file with our economic development. And then hotel rates generally set at a 20% vacancy, just kind of an overall yearly rate. So we were actually able to obtain that from our hotels that we have here in Fairmount. And then, yeah, of course, the parking deviation, that's just if it was over the 20% or or over just the maximum requirement, then we would plug that in as well to adjust the rate to a more common basis, basically. And then from there we would normalize that rate. So whatever adjusted rate we found, or even the observed rate, we kind of used both. We would divide that rate by the peak rate that was either observed or adjusted from. So that would help us find a higher demand, basically. And then from there, we could filter and find that 85th percentile. So how we did that is filtering, again, each day in a category of weekday or weekends. And so Monday through Friday, weekday, weekends, or Saturday, Sunday. With the exception of Fridays after 5, we counted that as a week and evening. We've found quite a bit of peak observations after that. And then the shared parking manual also has that recommendation within there as well. So we're kind of taking their form as well. And then we also filtered by the time of day from each of those into morning, afternoon, evening, and nighttime. So with that nighttime data, we did not observe that. That's our Herculean task. So what we used was the shared parking manual. They don't really have nighttime data either, but They do have hourly periods, so we were able to see what it is kind of leading up to midnight and right after 6. And then I showed you those shared use tables from our other developments, Riverwalk and Lakeside and First Ranch. So we kind of based it off of what they have there, just to not kind of rock the boat or anything like that. And then we filtered those land uses into bar categories like I showed you earlier. And then we were able to, from there, compare our observed data to the shared parking manual and the parking generation manual as well. And see how they compare to each other on a national scale. And then create a weighted scale based off of that. So the more observations we had in category, the more it was weighted toward what we found in our localized data. If we didn't have as many observations as we'd like in one category, a heavier weight was assigned to a more national index level, just to kind of balance that out a bit and go with recommended best practices. So before I show the proposed table, I was going to go over some effects on parking. This is just in general and more speculative because it's really impossible to capture this when you are looking at parking, but they are things that do tend to change how how parking demand is really affected. Of course, we've got workplace changes in the past five years. We've seen increases in work from home. So that has a big effect on office. And then, of course, hybrid work. So maybe you have people working remote one day and they come in the office the next. That really affects what those peak demands look like throughout the week. And then, of course, we have general market shifts and e-commerce. And shared parking manual recognized that a little bit before it's really peaked in the past several years. But they saw the rise in that. So they recognize that some parking may be affected by that even five years ago and still is to this day. That just changes the whole demand situation there as well. And so there's some other changes in here I've listed. Captive parking is one thing. That's how long someone stays out of sight. Depending on the mixture of uses, people might stay longer in certain areas than others versus a hop in, hop out. That really changes what that demand looks like. If people are staying at a restaurant longer, well, it might... You might say, I actually need more parking here just because people are staying longer and having a more enjoyable experience, or they do things afterward that are taking up the space. But the idea is that when you have all these uses together in aggregate, we're saying that these percentages will actually equal out to serve that development well. Yeah, there's some other ones in here by cheering by telling that that's affected some hotel Data in the past several years, too so I'm just things to be aware of But it's not really anything we can measure accurately at a direct basis so This is the proposed table for the shared parking requirements. I've highlighted kind of the peak times that we did find for several uses in that bold black text. That's what we're showing here, you know, hotel in the morning, very high peak there. This is very in line with the shared parking And then weekend mornings, weekend evenings, and offices, of course, peak around weekday. We do have a few offices that are open on the weekend, but they're usually in the morning, so there's some occupancy there. And then restaurants, of course, in the evening for both weekday and weekend are pretty high. And, of course, yeah, we have 100% there in the restaurant on the weekend. And then retail... During the weekday, in the afternoon, we have a rate of 70%. And then, surprisingly, in the morning, it's very high on the weekend. And then, of course, our entertainment, recreational, that peaks a lot more on the weekend afternoons and even higher in the evening. And then our health clubs or athletic clubs, they They also have high peaks in the weekday and weekend morning, and even higher weekday evening activity. So this is kind of how it looks on a crazy chart here. You can see how it all shifts around and flows. These uses are not always at 100% of the time. when our current code we're kind of over designing in some ways. And the shared parking allows us to reduce that should someone want to choose this. So I was going to go through an example. This is the model we used to kind of help us identify what the best table we could use and the best uses to include. And the different times of day and weekend activity. We had four different ones I was using and studying. So this is what we found to be the best refinery model. So you would first calculate any site. If you know what all your uses are going to be, generally the square footage and how many seats you can provide for anything or any room counts, you're going to calculate it as normal. So in this example, we've got several different uses, hotel, office, restaurant, retail, theater, any medical office, gym, recreation. That summed up to be the required minimum parking of 1,328. And you can see on the bottom right table there, we've aggregated each of those individual uses of the required parking. So you would sum all those together. This is how a developer would essentially use this. And so each use has their total required parking within there. Step three, we would multiply each percentage in that column by that total required parking from that land use that was in that proposed table in the previous slide. So you can see here in the hotel category, we've got each percentage for each time of the day, and the day and weekend, and multiplying that by the 200 that's normally required under our minimum parking standards, and then so on and so forth. Basically, at the end, once you're done calculating all that, the highest number in the column is going to be your shared parking requirement. The weekday afternoon is the highest peak demand in this model of 918 parking spaces, which is a reduction of 410 from that normally 1,328 that would be required by the code. And that's beyond that 20% now, and they don't have to do a study or anything like that to get to this point. Using our table, they can get this 31% reduction. This is just kind of how it looks like on a bar chart, what you can see compared to all the other uses, just at a glance, a little bit in the numbers. So you can see here, of course, the weekday afternoon is the peak, but even weekday morning could have been pretty substantial. But in this specific scenario, you would design for that afternoon time slot. So what are we actually proposing tonight? We're gonna be proposing amendments to section 82-73, which is how we compute parking. Essentially, we're just saying that jerry parking is allowed within our code to be able to reduce parking requirements, runoff, P diamond effect in impervious areas. And so with that, we're proposing this new section of 82-84, which is shared parking is not required, but if you are to use this, then you must have a site that contains two or more different land uses that are listed in that proposed shared parking table. and then they must be located in the same development or subdivision as specified in an approved town document. So that would be a PD excuse development or any other document that's approved by the time. In addition, we would require a shared parking agreement between all parties that are within that development, any owners or any vested interest, basically. And then the town would be made party to that. And we would essentially have that on file or it would be recorded in the local county. So either Denver or Tarrant, wherever the development's at. Any change in use would be, of course, reassessed and obtain approval. This could be done either at an administrative level or it could reach even to the Commission and Council, just depending on how that change occurs, if there's any substantial change or not. This is standard protocol that we have currently. And of course, this may reduce the parking by more than 20%, and you wouldn't have to have a parking study at that point, just trusting the data that we have found here. And then for any special projects, there's a caveat here that you can use your own tripartite study if you want to beyond this. I think what we found is pretty good, but it is there just in case someone has maybe a different project that they think is gonna have a higher demand than what's shown in our table. And then again, this is the table, the second one here. And with that, that's my presentation on the location part. And I can do any questions you all may have.

OK. I have a question.

Sure.

First, I think this is a wonderful proposal. The amendments are awesome. I just think it's a win-win for the town, for developers, just the residents, for everybody. So this is fabulous. I just had one question as I read through the packet, and that was, if you have, you talk about having two different kinds of businesses using the shared parking. What if you've got two restaurants and one has, does only breakfast service, breakfast and lunch, and the other is only evening dining? Is that something that there's an accommodation for?

So it's, they would technically both be in that broad restaurant. Category so yeah, they would need another use within their development retail or office, so you wouldn't consider No, they would just they have to They would just probably use our current code honestly to reduce their parking They would really need to have more uses to counteract any reduction in parking Essentially, the table that's proposed accounts for that already, what that breakfast peak time is and any lunch or dinner service peak is. And then our restaurant peak is 100% on the week and evening, so they would just be designed to that normal rate that we already have.

Okay, all right, thanks. Yeah, but great presentation and I love it. Thank you. Thank you.

Just to provide a little bit more information about that question about the restaurants. Part of the reason why we wouldn't do that also is because we couldn't really hold the restaurant to that. Like if one said, oh, I'm only gonna serve breakfast, so I'm only gonna be open for these hours, but they could then extend their hours whenever they wanted to and we wouldn't know and have the ability to stop them so um just because of that you know like nick said i think it would make sense for us to just consider them all the same as restaurant great thank you

I think this is wonderful as well. And I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. But I don't think this would apply to the CAC renovation or any future town parks because of the land use. There's one land use.

Is that right? Yeah, we didn't observe any public institutions or anything. This is all private. Yeah.

OK. Nick, can you go back to, I think it's slide 22.

There we go.

So obviously you're going to use the matrix, that proposed table whenever you're considering how parking might more efficiently be used under this. One of the things I'm a little bit concerned about, made note that the two different land uses must be located in the same development or subdivision. To me there's a kind of a geographical limitation to where it would no longer make sense to be applying this There's I'm we could be in the same subdivision, but I'm not gonna park You know three blocks down and walk all the way to you know the retail store I want to go into and if I look at you know some of the larger complexes where they have a hotel have a few restaurants and some retail and it seems there needs to be some kind of a geographical containment that's a little bit more specific than saying the same subdivision. Just based upon the logic of how far would people normally be wanting or willing to readily park and walk to get to their destination?

Yeah, that's a very good point. It is something we did consider when we were first going through this exercise. Um, but we can certainly take a look at it again. Um, because I know our current mixed use developments, um, like a river water lake side, they, I think they do have. The stipulation in there that parking has got to be within so many feet of the front entrance for. something to that effect. Because, yeah, within a mixed-use development, yeah, it's obviously walkable, but no one wants to walk too far either, especially in Texas heat.

I would encourage a little bit of thought in terms of adding a little bit of specificity there. Yeah, we can certainly look into that. But I agree with the other members of the commission here. I think that the objective and the strategic plan even identifying this as one of our objectives makes a lot of sense. We don't want to overbuild parking. And I think we're all in favor of having as much green space with all the benefits that come with that as possible. I did appreciate that the analysis seemed to go into a fair amount of detail looking at the specific different land uses and the implications there, as well as the different time periods that might be implied. I'm just a little concerned about the geographical distancing when you're looking at those combined land uses in a particular area.

Sure. Yeah, we'll make note of that.

So one other thing to think about with that, and as Nick said, we can definitely look at that and see if there's any additional language we can put in, but it's a little bit different with this time-based shared parking than how we would normally look at this with shared parking, because usually, While we say it's shared parking, it's basically how we would typically do it is one business is saying, okay, I'm going to let you count these seven spaces on my lot toward your parking. And so we want them to be very close. We say they have to be next door because it doesn't make sense to be like, oh, I'm down the street, but you're going to do that. But in this time-based shared parking, it's a little bit different because they're truly all sharing the spaces. So you could have kind of three businesses. And so, well, this one's kind of far from this one, but somebody may be parking at the middle one or this one, or it's like, they're all, more fluid it's more fluid all the spaces are counting for all of the businesses because it just depends on the time of day where they could be sharing them so um so it's just a little bit different than doing the straight like oh must be within you know 500 feet or something but but maybe there's something we can look at to say kind of everything must be within some sort of range i don't know nick can take a look at that and see if he has any recommendations

Along the same lines, there's also the issue geographically. If you look at an area, you could have something that has much a higher density on this table for use, and it's on the far right side of the complex. So you could skew the results in terms of the parking needed on the far left side, four retail stores down or something like that. And I don't mean to be pouring cold water on this. I think this is a great initiative. I just think there's a little bit of nuance that needs to probably be given to it. And along that, I've got one other question. You touched on this slightly on this particular page towards the bottom, and that is if we have changes in tenants, that could have an implication, obviously, in terms of parking. And then where does responsibility, if it's determined additional parking is required because of change in tenants, who has a responsibility for that?

Right, yeah, they would. If we do have a change in tenant reuse, it would come back to at a staff level, be looking at that to see if it still is able to meet a parking count that is available on-site or not. Yeah, they could get a more intense use in there. At that point, they might have to come back to this commission or council to get any approval if they needed to add parking spaces. I hope that's not the case, but that is something that could very well happen.

So that would involve you going out and doing another study?

No, we wouldn't have to do another study like this. We would just use our current If this is adopted, we would use that table and see what those ratios come out to, where that new parking minimum would be. It might not affect it. You never know. Some of the models we ran, this one happened to be weekday afternoon. Some of them went to the evening time slot. It really depends on all the other uses that are there on that site, too. So it's just something at a staff level we'd have to look into first, and if it happens to be anything substantial, well, y'all might see it. And of course the shared parking agreement between everyone that has to be filed, that's something that holds everyone accountable to use this respectfully.

So I wanted to, actually this is one of the questions I had too when I was looking at the packet. I'm trying to think administratively. So one tenant moves out, another one moves in, but they're the same type, similar type of businesses. So they, you know, we're the office or whatever it's going to be. So how do you, I mean, do you actually have to go and have the new tenant then sign a shared parking agreement or does just, is that part of like when the business transitions over the shared parking agreements tied to that particular business address or something? How does that work?

That's so the agreement's going to be tied to that development, that site, um, That's all the town would look at. There might be other private contracts or easements or any other additional deed restrictions or covenants that would run with the land that we wouldn't look at. So the property manager would basically be handling that when they'd be going through? Well, they would notify them that this development is under these rules, basically.

So going back to some of the previous comments as well, I mean, we've had a lot of parking discussions in the past over different developments and different things going on. And I've always been in the back of my head trying to do the math and what you guys did here. So I think the methodology that you guys have is you guys put together and the studies you did was absolutely phenomenal. And I love it. I'm just curious and it's more out of morbid curiosity than anything else, specifically since the guidelines were published in 2020. with the results of your study that you guys did, how close were you to what the book had said? Right.

It's a great question. Here, I can go back to our table here. So our observed rates were, the National Index did, like, overestimate on several of them. But overall, since we did calibrate them, We were able to get them to a good spot that was both in favor of a flyer amount and, of course, the National Index. The hotel, those actually are very much in line with the manual's recommendation. And the office on the weekday, it's a little different on the weekend, but... Just the types of uses that we have are not as intense on the weekend as compared to what the shared parking manual recommends. Our restaurant, the weekday during the morning and afternoon is a little bit lower, but our evenings are spot on, actually even more. And then the weekend is... Yeah, the National Index kind of tends to overestimate that, too. The real one that I did see was our retail. That one is very different. Just our demand during the day doesn't peak very high. The most I saw was I didn't even see it peak at 100%. Gosh, I'm trying to think off the top of my head what that was. But it didn't come close to where the shared parking is. I know we have a lot of retail, but I think a lot of it might be oversupplied. So that's something that's definitely different. And then entertainment. Very much follows. It's a little bit less on the afternoon and evening, but not by much there. And then health athletics. That one was a weird one. Ours is very different. I think ours has actually been more, from what I recall. The morning is very high, and so is the evening, and then surprisingly, the weekend morning. Of course, in the afternoons, it tends to dip, but in the weekend as well, after the morning, but yeah. It's very different depending on what you're looking at.

Yeah, interesting to see too. I mean, after five or six years and then obviously after COVID and all the changes that have taken place there as well. So it's interesting to see that we're relatively in line. But I love what you guys did with this and I really thank you.

Are there any other questions? Okay. This is a public hearing, and do we have anyone indicated an interest in making comments? If not, we'll close the public hearing. And with that closed, does the Commission have any other questions for staff, or we can move straight into deliberation? Any comments? Other considerations?

I just wanted you to pull up the very last slide, the one before the question. There's a big question mark and then whatever the last one, just so I can, okay, there we go, just so we can have that up while we're talking, if we need it.

My sense from some of the comments we've already made is that we all agree with both the objective of this as well as appreciate the analysis that went into it.

Oh my gosh, yes.

And Commissioner Jackson points out a good chart because I think that summarizes everything we heard.

Well, and I love it because we want to be, this is win-win for everybody. It's win for businesses that either are here or will be coming here. It's win for the environment. It's win for the cost of putting all this stuff together. I mean, it's Heat Island, all the things that we're always dealing with. I think it's as win-win as it could be. I really appreciate this very much. I think a lot of people who want to, you know, build businesses and stuff here, that's a big challenge that they have. So it's business friendly and environmental friendly. Come on.

So assuming that we have a motion here to recommend approval, I don't think it would be necessary for us to specify within that that we would like the staff to take a little closer look at a couple of items that we did mention from kind of an administrative perspective.

We certainly can suggest that as part of the motion, but it wouldn't be contingent on that. You'll need to have a straight up or down vote on the ordinance unless you want to bring it back at a later date to have them add.

I personally have a lot of faith in our staff. I think having brought it up that that's something to take a look at. But thank you. I appreciate that as a point. So I'm not hearing any concerns. With that in mind, would any commissioner like to make a motion?

I'm trying to think of disadvantages, and I can't. And I think if something comes up where there's a situation, really, it kind of comes down to those kind of things. I guess those businesses to try to like come up with a solution, but I can't.

Or they can do their own parking study too. What's that? Or they can do their own parking study too.

Right. And so, you know, I just, that's what I've been scouring my mind is like, what is, what is the pitfall of this? And I can't think of anything. So, I'll make a motion to recommend approval for J-1 with the recommendation made by our chair to take a look at, a closer look at kind of like putting some parameters on the distance within the subdivision, because the subdivision is, a little kind of vague is does that cover it or is it uh need some more kind of i think that i got what it's already okay i i would say if i could i would suggest that you

that you make a straight motion to approve or disapprove and then say something along the lines of, and I hope you will come back at some point in the future with having looked at this issue of contiguity, I think would be the... How close they are.

I mean, we can we can look at whether there's anything we can add before this goes to council because we have a couple of weeks. 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 any language we can add to it just before it gets to council that tries to address that.

I don't think we're suggesting these come back to us again.

No, I think we're fine either way. We just kind of want to go from an A plus to an A plus plus.

And if the motion's good, I'll second it.

So we have a motion and a second. Lorianne?

Commissioner Bate.

Aye.

Commissioner Langley.

Aye.

Commissioner Gilmore.

Aye.

Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Commissioner Fitzpatrick.

Aye.

And that motion passes. Ladies and gentlemen, the time is 7.25, and I call this meeting adjourned.