Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

A lot of ours. All good. All right. Recording in progress. Good evening and welcome to the May 8th, 2025 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting with a roll call, please. Commissioner Hunt here. Commissioner Bangs here. Commissioner Molain here. Commissioner Mahaley, present. Commissioner Choy, present. Chair Brownise here. Thank you. Um, can I have a motion to approve this evening's agenda? So moved. I'll second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Do we have anybody who wants to speak for items that are not on this evening's agenda? All right. Seeing none, can somebody check online for me? Yeah, nobody. Okay, sounds good. We'll move into our first item of business, a general development plan yard and bulk requirements code amendment. Director Zakaro. Um here I'll start with this. So I will now open the public hearing on a request for a general development pan plan yard and bulk requirements code amendment. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation and testimony by city staff followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we'll have a presentation and testimony by the applicant followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations and testimony by the applicant uh after these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand

function if participating by computer or star 9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve approve with conditions deny or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Hearing none. Do we have notification? Good evening, chair, members of the commission. Rob Zukero with the community development department. I'm going be making the presentation here this evening. Um, there was public notice made for this item. It is a legislative item. It's not property specific, but it is a public hearing for an ordinance amendment and public notice was made to meet the code requirements. Chair, we are having a technical issue here. I just noticed that the lect turn is not plugged in. Um, so I'm trying to get that fixed if you give appropriate amount of time to fix it. Thanks. Absolutely. In the meantime, do we have any um disclosures from the planning commission anybody needs to make? Seeing none

Did you get it? Okay. This will take a couple minutes to reboot, but it should restart. Okay. All right. So, I think it is rebooting here and hopefully it comes up here soon. If not, I might try see if I get the click share to come up. Something is happening here, just so you know. Yeah. All right. progress. [Music] I guess we do require the the most recent hire from your department to ad liib during this period of time. Test of your metal really. There's nothing like trying to get computer to work while everybody's watching you. It's also really awesome. Hey Ben, do you want to try click going to click share? See get that to work. All right. Well, I'm gonna go ahead and get Oh. Oh, here we go.

All right, I'm going to try to uh beat the system here and just get started while this is still booting up. So, I'll use the click share. So, um so again, I'm going to be presenting on this. What you have before you is a resolution recommending approval to city council an ordinance amendment to section 1772190. So this is in relation to um yard and bulk requirements on general development plans. So this is a proposal from um a property owner. So any property owner in the city can initiate a zoning text amendment in addition to zoning map amendments. So this is legislative but the the property owner does own two properties within our plan community zone district um that's govern that is governed by general development plans. They've recently purchased a property in the Red Tale Ridge um development which is under the Konico Phillips general development plan and they're planning to develop under that property. But again, this is legislative. It's applicable to the whole city. It's not specific to any one property. Um so as you as you know, you've all seen general development plans, you've seen planned community zone district zoning. Um what's being proposed is to allow establishment of basically custom yard and bulk standards within a general development plan. So those are typically heights setbacks and lot coverage is we call them yard and bulk standards. So how big a building could be basically and how close it has to be or how far away it has to be from property lines and other things. Um, so the current code restricts yard and bulk standards on G GDPs to be in general conformance with comparable zone districts and then it lists several comparable zone districts. You hopefully you saw in your packet we have several different GDPs. Um, you know, that's that's a vague term just to say in general

conformance. So it's been interpreted differently over the decades as we've seen with different GDPs. But in this case um what is being proposed is to change this section to pro really to provide clarity when you are amending or approving a general development plan to create that development standard for the yard and bulk standards. That's in a way the purpose of a general development plan. In a way it's a purpose of a plan community zone district is to create custom zoning standards for the property. So this was kind of a limitation on doing that general development plan standard. So this is what's being proposed on the text amendment. Basically says that you will establish your yard and bulk standards on the general development plan and that they need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan any other adopted policies of the city. But the intent is that planning commission city council will determine the desired character on the general development plan. You're again you're creating the zoning or design standards. Um, so just a little background again, the code was the original code was adopted in 1983. Th this language hasn't really changed since 1983. The process hasn't really changed since 1983. Yard and bulk standards are required to be on general development plans, but again, they're supposed to be in general conformance with those comparable standards. And then the idea is that when you come in for your planned unit development, potentially you could get a waiver. Now, when you come in for the PUD, the benefit of that could be that you have the architecture and the site planning, and if you're asking for yard and bulk waivers, you you have more information. uh but this proposal um you know would allow and really facilitate general development plans to have design standards on them and provide more predictability for property owners um

who are trying to develop the property at that GDP level. So the if you look at the actual PCZD code, the idea is that you're the actual stated purpose is to use contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design. How we how we think about that is that the you know our basic zoning is isn't what we want here. We want to do something custom basically for this district. And the the general development plan through the plan community zone district is the method. It's it's it's how you create that custom contemporary land planning for that district. GDPs are required to dictate the type and character of development. Yard and bulk standards are central to dictating the character of that development. So, if you're approving a general development plan and you're not really saying what you want the yard and bulk standards to be and then you have to wait for a PUD to come in, um again, it doesn't provide good predictability for property owners who are wanting to develop and it doesn't allow you when you're master planning the whole development to really dictate the desired um the desired character of the development. So, another thing to note is that if this does pass and goes into effect, as staff was contemplating this, it doesn't mean planning commission and council have to accept any big deviations in the yard and bulk standards. when you're approving GDPs or GDP amendments, you could determine that a comparable underlying zone district and being close to that is appropriate. Um, so there's no obligation just by changing the code to say you have to allow something

that's significantly that significantly deviates from those comparable zone districts. an applicant would have to come in and demonstrate that it's appropriate for that district and that probably they have design standards that will, you know, mitigate height. For example, if somebody's coming in and asking for more than three stories, um having design standards or limitations on the taller aspects of the buildings, preserving view corridors, that could be analyzed and determined through the general development plan process. So again, the you know, in staff's analysis, we would hope that this would provide a more predictable process for property owners and developers. Um which gets us to our city council work plan. the city council the last year, two years, especially as we've been updating our comprehensive plan, um have asked staff, and I know this isn't staff initiated, but I do think it fits in with this city council work plan item. They've asked us to identify near-term targeted priority code updates um even before imple implementing the comprehensive plan. And we're not changing land uses or anything here, but basically they've asked us if there's process improvements to our development code that we want to bring forward. They're asking us to bring those forward for consideration. Um, and the idea is to have a more businessfriendly approach to our process. Again, this doesn't change your discretion on approving what is an appropriate yard or bulk standard. It just changes the process of how and when it gets determined. So, we do think this is consistent with what city council has asked us to do. We are planning to update our whole land development code after the comprehensive plan. It's been budgeted. It's in the work plan. So, once we adopt the

comprehensive plan update later this year, we do intend to do a rewrite of our land development code and update all of our processes. Uh, but this this is again trying to get ahead of that with a targeted amendment potentially. So staff is staff is recommending approval of the proposal that that we received and I'd be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here and um would like to make a presentation or a statement as well. Great. Thank you. Commissioner questions for Director Sakaro. I'll start. I just I just want to make sure I understand the implications of this. Um, it sounds to me and I'm mostly just recapping and getting confirmation that all this does really is it sort of changes the timeline of and and the presumptions um of of applying these these yard and bulk standards because in in the past you they would just they would have to come at the PUD approval process and then get waivers and now instead it frontloads it a little bit more. or they have to come earlier with what they want the whole community to look like. Yeah, they can. It gives them the opportunity to, right? Right. They can still go through the PUB waiver process um in the future or they if this were to pass then they'd have the option at the time of GDP approval to get um you know a height approval you know and the way the GDPs work is they're basically setting the zoning standards. So it doesn't even give the final development approval. It just sets the parameters of what you want that development to look like, right, at the GDP stage. Okay. I I think I I understand how staff would still work with them y to to figure out appropriate zoning for this particular, you know, zone district. That's absolutely I would expect someone who's who would come in with a GDP or GDP amendment and was asking for something

significantly different from the comparable yard and bulk standards would have to provide um you know a lot of analysis and demonstration of why a deviation from that would be appropriate. Okay. And I guess when you say that it's it is um provides more certainty or predictability for the developers, is that just because they have more they have the op that option at the beginning to sort of set out what they want the whole community to look like? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So I I you know the way we look at it is if we set you know adopting a general development plan is a pretty big deal. They have to be big property, single ownership. Again you're creating a whole new zoning, custom zoning. Um and so when a de when a developer comes in or a property owner for that single lot development they have to put a lot you know we require full engineering drawings full architecture drawings and if they don't know what the desired outcome of the zoning standards are going into that process that's a difficult unpredictable and maybe expensive process for them where they could get rejected. So again, you're not obligated to prove anything in particular at the PUB if it doesn't meet all the standards, but this gives them more assurance that yeah, we've looked at this. We think these yard and bulk and height and setbacks are appropriate. So when they develop their plans, they'll have more that it that they're on the right track of the desired character. And then one last thing, and I'll shut up. Um, I did note that it looks like if they don't do that at the beginning, then the way it has been would still it would still you would still look at those other uses to set the yard and bulk requirements. Yeah. Well, yeah. So, we left that language in there because we think there's some general development plans that have portions of them that there are no yard and bulk standards. So we just go so we

want to leave that language in there for the existing GDPs mostly so that we know what to reference back to. But as I mean I said I was going to be quiet but so the idea is as I understand it is that because these are custom zoning it doesn't necessarily make sense to reference those other yard bulk requirements for non-custom zones. Is that the idea? Right. I think that would be the justification for for supporting this. Yes. Commissioner H. all great questions. If you have any more, please follow on. Yeah. Well, I I do read statutes for a living. So, additional questions. I guess I got a question. Yeah. Maybe following the same line of questioning. So, if we don't approve this code, any developer would need to come and seek waiverss from established yard and bulk requirements. Correct. We accept this code. this you've used this phrase of it would be um compared to a definition of comparable zone districts. What what is that right actually mean? Yes. Yes. So this is confusing and there so again we have many different GDPs and they've all inter been interpreted differently over the decades and how it's been applied but some of our GDPs just simply refer to the zone district. Some GDPs actually set the standard. So they'll say, you know, we actually want 40 feet of height or 50 feet of height, but our our underlying zoning really only allows 35 and then some additional height for screening at the most. Um, so I think can you restate your question? I I just want to make sure I answer it right. Yeah. Definition of comparable zone districts who who who determines that? So, so this I think this is one of the problems with this code is if it's

not explicitly stated on the GDP or we're doing a new GDP, we don't like we can guess which one we want to compare it to. They're all fairly similar. So, we end up going to if it's commercial or industrial uses, we go to those codes and we say you have to be generally in compliance with those. We don't know what that means. Does that mean you can go five feet above or 10 feet above or you can't go above the underlying code at all? Um, it's really not clear. I mean, I think this regardless of this application and I think staff's opinion, we would want to amend this code for clarity in the future anyways at the very least to say exactly what we mean by the comparable codes. So you're getting rid of except for the ones that are sort of grand, you know, older ones. You're getting rid of that and and putting it hopefully on the applicants to come in with what they think it ought to be like for your consideration for our consideration and councils. Correct. Before you get to the PUD. Yeah. And and again, it it does have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan or another adopted policy of the city. we did put in there um you know and the desired character of the district because I think that's important too. Again, these are custom zoning. So, this is a little bit of a discussion with planning commission and city council of what the desired character is. Sometimes that's going to be really clear in the comprehensive plan. If it isn't really clear in the comprehensive plan, that's why we put that additional language in. So, so help me understand. I mean, we want to be as friendly as possible, but the existing waiver process seems to work. There's enough precedent and probably enough guidance from city staff that any developer would know and understand what waivers are likely to be approved. So, why I would say yeah, that's a great

question. I'd say sometimes yes, sometimes no. And you know, we do work with applicants for a long time before an application comes in. Um, I would say we we try to guide on what's an appropriate waiver. Um, sometimes it's really not clear because policies change over time too and councils change on kind of what they want to see. And so if it's not clearly stated in the comprehensive plan, um, sometimes we do have a hard time guiding them. And then frankly, I think the the bigger issue is when a property owner or developer comes in and they're about to spend a significant amount of money developing the PUD um and the and the GDP says you can only have 35 ft in height and they want 50 feet in height just as an example. That's a big risk for them to spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars developing plans to get in front of city council. And they may say no. they they they're not they're not sure. So, is there a risk that if we if we pass this and now it becomes part of the GDP, is it easier or more difficult for us to redefine what they've pushed back on what they've requested as opposed to the waiver process that exists today. Yeah. Well, I think the idea is that everybody's going to know what's desired in that district or what's acceptable in that district from a yard and bulk standard. So there won't need to be a lot as much discussion or the very very subjective waiver process. There will be more predictability for everybody planning commission city council because we have looked at it. We've established the desire and then they have the opportunity to make the PUD um in compliance. So I I think that makes it easier for everybody along the way.

again, as long as you're comfortable putting that um regulation on the GDP, and that's going to be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate a planning commission, city council's comfort to even put it on the GDP in the first place because we're basically doing a custom zone for these particular these GDPs. And so at the outset, we will have set what we think this zone yard and bulk requirement should be. So we won't have to then argue about it later in the PED. They'll have certainty, but we still get to help decide that based on the comprehensive plan. Is that right? Is that what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. The comprehensive plan will guide plus there'll be a public hearing for a GDP or GDP amendment. You'll So that's important, right? We'll still we would still have to hear the proposal in with GDP process. Yes. So I guess that's the the the Wii is what I'm looking to define. Planning commission and city council. Well, city staff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we'll make a recommendation. Yeah, city staff would make a recommendation on a GDP or GDP amendment. Yeah, we would analyze it and make a recommendation like any land use proposal. But is the intent with the comprehensive plan how much definition will be in the plan? Yeah. Um, you know, comprehensive plans aren't regulatory and we tr we try to not have really spec really specific information in there because they aren't regulatory. I think the likely outcome of this comprehensive plan is that there might be areas that have of town that have ranges of what's desirable uh as far as land uses or building heights and then and then you know those ranges then get determined at the GDP or the PUD stage the actual height. I I know it's it's it's it's difficult to comprehend like all how all

how all the different processes layer. Um and I I apologize because we we do it so much sometimes I I kind of gloss over the process. Please ask questions. Yeah. I'm still struggling to understand why the waiver process is inadequate. Yeah. I mean the waiver process works. That's a process where a property owner can get an adjustment and it's it's it is it's it it's not necessarily broken. It's just is this a better process based on um you know really city council's direction and of trying to find you know we're trying to improve and make our development review processes more streamlined and more predictable. This would do that. Um, as far as making it more streamlined and predictable for the business community and property owners, then there's a question of, you know, are you comfortable with still having enough assurance that that you can establish the appropriate character through the process we're creating? Yeah. So, I guess I'm going to ask your opinion on that is I understand the advantages and don't want to stand in the way of of improving efficiency. However, what's the downside in your opinion? What's the risk? Right. Yeah. I I think you know to look to look at kind of the two sides of the coin the downside potentially is that you are making the decision um without seeing the final design. Right? So if you have a PUD you're going to have the final architecture the final site plan very precisely and you have probably more information to determine the waiver at that time. Um, so that would be why somebody might want to keep our current process. Um, so, so expand on that. What information will we have? Yeah. Versus what we, I mean, we'd have very specific

with a PUD. It would be Yeah. Yeah. You wouldn't have as specific of information. I would imagine that, you know, they would have to uh you know, again, just using an example of trying to think of some other examples here, but if if they wanted to like if the minimum setbacks were 10 to 15 feet in the zone district and they said we want to do zero lot line setbacks, well, that's probably not um you know, in general conformance with the zoning. And that would be hard to argue if you're going from 10 15 foot setbacks to zero foot setbacks. So they could come in and say, well, you know, here are neighborhoods that are being built with zero zero foot setbacks um within the city of Lewisville or what's in within the city of Lewisville or sure within Lewisville or comparable communities. you like like and you could see how they're defining the character and say see if this is what we're intending to do and we're going to write these design standards on the GDP that will you know facilitate this type of physical development to you know that that makes that a nice place right if you're trying I'm I'm trying to go away from a commercial but you know because we do residential GDPs too and we've done zero setback residential GDPs that is not allowed in most of our zone the comparable zone districts, but they're doing a more urban walkable neighborhood and they're they're providing setbacks and they're demonstrating what it's going to look like and feel like to create that neighborhood character. Right. So, it would be more conceptual rather than specific design. Exactly. It would be it would be completely conceptual. But then again, the the stop, you know, the the back stop is they still have to come in for a PUB. And then you get to see everything at that time. And although, you know, there's there's some leeway, but not as much at that time to say, you know,

there's issues with this development that you don't like. But at that point, if the 20 foot setback is established in the GDP, um they that's they get that that's they could still they could still potentially request a waiver, right, for something less. Yeah. So regardless of this and something gets established, the PU you could still have waiverss through the PUD process. And that and I think that's a key point because it it's still it's not like we're getting rid of waivers because you would still have you know because using the example of setbacks we still have that waiver process later at the PUD if they you know if if it was 20 and they come in at 18 or something like you still have that level of review and exception discussion. Correct. But it but again it sounds like the idea is these it's been a little fuzzy because you don't know what you know what general compliant what what's the language on there um general conformance general conformance with what which zones I mean it's difficult and so now what you're doing is having them have the option to come in because these are custom zones to come in and say here's what we think this neighborhood ought to look like in general and then then they can go and do their development plans right consistent with that with a little bit more consistency or with dependability, right? That would be that would be a reason to adopt this is Commissioner Troy. Sorry. Thanks, Chair. So, um, Director Zakaro, does this would this amendment only apply to those areas that are 30 acres or greater under single ownership within the city? Yes. So, this would only apply to properties zoned PCZD. To qualify for zoning, that zoning, you have to be 30 acres or more and under single ownership. So, and how many of those exist within the city? Um, not a lot. I think I don't have the

exact number. I think maybe up to eight. I could get the exact count, but I think I I forget how many I put in the staff report. I think I put the majority of them in the staff report. Um, but I think I missed Centennial Valley maybe. So, yeah, I think there are five listed five. So, maybe it's six. We might have six full districts. A and and it's it's reasonable that um if this GDP standard was applied to the zone district under that single ownership 30 acre greater than 30 acres criteria that um the development could occur and then through subsequent action and application the zone district could be further kind of divided and sold off as individualized properties if it met the other criteria. Correct. Right. Yeah. So it it only has to be under single ownership at the time of of establishment of the original GDP and then individual property owners can come in and amend the GDP for their parcel. Um there's one other question in staff report. There's a statement that says uh for any newly proposed GDP's differences between GDP and the zoning district could be subject to legal challenge. Yeah. Um without the proposed amendment, can you talk a little bit about what that statement is or what the anxiety? Yeah. Yeah. So, yes. So, if someone if the city council wanted to adopt a new GDP or GDP amendment and the underlying zoning says 35 ft and the city council and planning commission actually wants to accept a proposal for 50 feet, that could be subject to potential legal challenge because is

that really in general conformance um just because of the code language? And so there there was and I and and I I am saying that based on some legal review because back in 2010 when Kico Phillips was actually developing their GDP, we did a review of this language, had the city attorney do a review of the language. I went back and looked at that analysis and that was the conclusion was that really general you know general conformance is open to interpretation but there's and there's no really clear line when you've crossed the line but you know again if it's 35 ft's the limit and you're going up to 50 feet there's pro that doesn't fill and seem like it's general conformance so that could be open to legal challenge and lawyers could milk that for Commissioner Molly. Um Rob, I didn't have a chance uh to to review the code before the meeting. Can you remind me when a GDP is required? Right. A GDP is required when anybody requests the PCZ PCZD zone district. So basically, we created this in 1983 and invited property owners to come in and ask for the zoning. We didn't proactively zone any of the properties. So all the PCZD properties are ones that voluntarily came in and said we want to enter into this process and work with the city to create a general development plan that establishes zoning for the city. Now do we have 30 30 acre plus vacant tracks right now under single ownership in our landlock city? No. So this you might also realize this might apply to a lot of GDP amendments in the future if it does pass. I don't know that we're going to have a lot of new full GDPs. Thank you. Very helpful.

On a process question, um I am racking my brain. I don't remember last time we've had an outside party um work to amend code. Um are you aware of anything? I I know it's legal. Yeah, I haven't seen any in in um the last decade or so. I think it is pretty rare, but our code defin it does allow it. Um again, uh the planning commission, the city council, or a property owner can initiate a zoning text amendment or map amendment. Great. Thanks. Any additional questions for directors at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Can we invite the applicant up with your name and city of residence, please? See if we can do a little height adjustment there. Uh good evening uh chair and members of the commission. Uh my name is Mark Smith and I am the CEO of Advent Health Vista here in Lewisville. Uh our address is 100 Health Park Drive here in Lewisville. We are here this evening in support of the amendment uh to the G GDP yard and bulk requirements. Little bit about Advent Health. uh not a lot. Uh Advent Health, of which a Vista is a part, is a national health system. We operate 55 hospitals in nine states with over a thousand clinics. As noted, uh we recently purchased 40 acres in the Red Tail Ridge development. Uh and growth in the north Denver, North Metro Denver region is a key part of our mission to serve our community and also part of our strategic plan. I'll see if we can get there. We go. Right now, Advent Health in conjunction with our project team is currently in the very early stages of design uh for planning uh the future at Red Tail Ridge. While the code amendment has been requested by Advent Health, as noted, the change is applicable to all planned community zone districts and allows the city to adopt development

standards reflect the intended character of that district. We are very supportive of this amendment because from our lens the process dictated by the current city ordinance as written does make it challenging uh to engage in predictable planning and inhibits our design process. That means that both we as Advent Health as well as other property owners are unable to effectively progress design development uh the way that we would hope due to those uncertainties. We believe the code amendment as it's proposed allows the thoughtful progression of design to enhance our ultimate PUD submission including comprehensive site planning, site access, the progression of traffic conversations and facilitation of building stacking. We fully acknowledge we're going to need to meet design standards, the city requirements to move this project to approval. and we fully intend to follow the proper channels of the PUD process and work with the city to demonstrate those project specifics. For those reasons, uh we are in support of this amendment and believe it'll provide benefit uh to the planning process. I'm happy to answer any questions, although I would note uh that we have members of our project team here and so any of the substantive aspects of this, they'll doubtless be more helpful in re providing you a response. Great. Thank you. Open it up for questions. Commissioner questions. Oh, the applicant. Really? So, I guess you decided that it was better to go this route in in and uh affecting the the code. It just makes it that much easier. I mean, I know I know you just kind of said that, but uh it's just it's it is fairly rare. It is um curious as to how you got to that point. I think uh in nature of this project we

feel that the ability to have uh clarity for our development team on the project team earlier now than waiting till the waiver process uh would be of an impact has real materiality uh to our ability to move this project forward. So yeah, maybe there's somebody amongst your speakers who could address, you know, give us some tangible examples of why this would improve your design process over the existing PUB waiver process. What what what are you going to be able to do that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise? Thank Valerie Wilkins will be able to speak to that. Thank you. by having some certainties in that planning process. Can you start with your name, Miss Wilkins? Sorry. Valerie Wilkins, Adam's management, uh, owners rep for the hospital for the project development, city, city of residents. Yeah, Morrison. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, by avoiding the waiver process farther down the process, we can get through our design development now and we can have more comprehensive plan back on the GDP. If we know what your requirements are going to be for the yard and bulk side, our development package is going to be more comprehensive of what you were looking for from us. So, we can come back and hopefully go through the process a little bit simpler where you're not having to reject our proposals back and saying we've not met certain pieces. helps us from a design standpoint that we can move through our different phases of design progress so that we can also advance and get to our final ultimate construction document set that will move us forward for your final entitlements and then allow us to get building permit. So, we're just trying to move through the process in a more comprehensive way of addressing what your ultimate needs are going to be. So, it helps us understand yard and bulk what we can put on the parcel and what we can understand and have our design match that. So maybe it's a question for director Zakaro. Is is the yard and bulk requirements today not clear.

So so they're under the Kico Phillips general development plan. I would say they are not clear on the general development plan. There's a note on the general development plan that has a wide range of heights that was intended for the Konico Phillips development and then it references the waiver process. So, somebody coming in and designing a new project, um, it's, you know, it, again, it's it's not clearly stated what the desired height is for really any of the parcels based on how it's drafted currently. Okay. So, I know I'm being pedantic on this, then if it's undefined, the developer is now going to define what they would like to do, right? Right. So, the devel Yes. the the developer or the property owner. And again, this it, you know, an application could come in for an individual parcel or for a whole district potentially. And then there could be a and we do have GDPs that do this already. So if you look in your packet, their current campus GDP has different zones and they have different zones that allow different heights. So they actually did this back when they did their original campus GDP. Um, again, our legal advice is that that isn't the way to do a GDP amendment now. And um, but there's good reason to do it. But that's an example of where they defined, I think it was four different zones and said in each of these zones, we can have different heights of buildings. And they demonstrated at that time when they came into city council and planning commission that you know the hospital building is going to be a little taller. The medical office buildings don't need to be so tall. So we're going to show you generally where we're going to put those different height buildings. So it works. We have examples of it. Our code really just doesn't support it now. So we're trying to get that clarity. Right. So if we take this specific example, how far down the design process

will it be before the applicant comes with their intentions to planning commission? I mean how many how iterative is that process if at all or is it so I you know I would probably defer to them a little bit but I want to try to answer if I'm understanding your question correctly. Um, you know, we're working with them right now. They're going to I mean, they've they've recently applied for a GDP, so we can't clearly can't talk about any of the content of that GDP. Um, but we will be working with them on um the application materials to demonstrate what is appropriate or not appropriate. We actually have comprehensive plan policies that we'll be looking at now. In relation to that, u we'll have a new comprehensive plan soon. So, we're going to take that into consideration as well in our analysis. So, I don't know what you mean by iterative, but we'll be iterating with them on a potential GDP amendment, we expect before they really get into the final PUD design is the whole point. Okay. But if they came before us with the GDP and we voted against it, that's the iterative part you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Or told the table. Yeah. Okay. I think per your question that with the timeline of design for our GDP that we're trying to currently submit, we have we're through our concept design. So, we're able to provide at least initial information. If we need to wait for the waiver process for PUD, we are talking later this year and that's a significant amount of time that we'll go through assuming what we think you will give us a waiver for and our design will represent that and then we could potentially get to that point and you say, "No, sorry, that won't work." And we're kind of back to the the drawing board. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. Additional questions for the team. Seeing none. All right. Uh, we'll

now open it up for public comment. Um, as we do so, if I could have a motion to enter the email from Miss CR into the record. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Do we have cards for public comment? Yeah. So it's Tomar Grants. Hi, my name is Tomar Crants. I live in Lewisville, W three. And um I noticed a friend of mine came in. Cindy, would you be willing to leave me like 30 seconds of your time if you don't plan to speak? Yes, I'll give you three minutes. Okay. Thank you so much. Because I prep I prepared something to say, but I learned so much from the really good questions that you are asking that I have new questions. And my first question that um I think that Commissioner Banks asked is what does A Vista want for the property? Um do they want different setbacks than are in the Kano Phillips GDP? Um now I'm starting to think that maybe this code amendment is going to facilitate changing the GDP more than helping with changing the setbacks for a particular property. Um, if you guys were to pull up the KICO Phillips GDP, I'm not sure that you would think that it was that hard to interpret what the setbacks are. Um, for example, a building that has um 30,000 square feet or more requires a 50-foot setback. And I was trying to visualize what that is by driving by the 7-Eleven. And those are like 100,000 square feet buildings. And I could kind of see how a 50- foot setback would be appropriate. Um, under this new code, it go it's kind of working rather than like like Rob said, it's going to help us with what the director Suharu said, it was it's going to help us with GDP amendments. Um it's and it I'm not sure

how it will work retroactively on existing GDPs, but um so I think that we should ask the applicant what setbacks what in the GDP right now is it that they don't like and they're going to want to and don't want to go for the waiver pro go through this waiver process for. Um I'm really curious about that. Um I also um am curious how this would work for existing GDPs. Maybe this is just a dumb question, but like for in the table that was just a sampling of the GDPs. What about the Centennial Valley GDP? Um that wasn't listed there and I didn't get a chance to look, but would this change the setbacks that are in there right now or only change the setbacks if they were to do a GDP amendment? Um I hope that you'll ask staff that question. And finally, I kind of object to the way that this is happening because it's it is unusual and I would like to be able to as a resident to be able to call or to c call um my former colleagues on the planning commission and say, "Hey, how does this work? Can we discuss this? Can we talk about it?" And if this were a legislative action, I could call my city councelor or asked for a meeting and talk about how this would impact existing GDPs, you know, how this works moving forward. So, I really feel like um this would be um I think there's a lot of questions that should be asked and I would really hope that you would um figure out if there might not be a better way to do this. And finally, um with regard to the code, like the changes right now, if this is supposed to clarify things, I don't I think you guys could do a lot better. I mean, I really appreciate the simplicity of what Director Zakaro is doing and just changing a few lines, but um general conformance, I mean, why not just say conformance and then you say the nearest um the the area that's the closest to it? Is it agricultural, industrial,

commercial? I mean, why not say the exact one that's specified in the GDP? Like if for example the Kico Phillips says CC commercial, you know, why not follow those yard and bulk requirements? Those are the yard and bulk requirements that apply now. And if we want to change it, why not specify that it should apply the exact one, not the closest one. I mean, I think that that would think give a lot more clarity and I hope that you guys um could if you decide to move forward with this that you could try to make it more clear because I honestly feel like this change is going to make it less clear, especially when you're putting the words comprehensive plan in there. and what takes precedence, you know, specify what takes precedence, that table of yard and bulk requirements or the new um uh the the new things like in the uh comprehensive plan because I know we're talking about raising the heights to five potentially five stories in Mccasin. Um is that in the comprehensive plan going to take precedent over the yard and bulk requirements that we currently have? Um thanks for your time. Sorry, I'm just asking questions and not making a clear point, but I hope you'll ask more questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who wanted to speak for public comment on this? Can we check online? Nobody. Okay, great. Thanks. Seeing no one else, um I'd invite the applicant up again for a response and closing statement. Thank you for an opportunity to speak one more time. I understand some of the questions that just came up. We are we are very early in our planning process, but we are not asking for any setbacks that vary from the GDP. We can firmly say that. So I know that was a question. Ours is more relative to the art and bulk requirements. That is what we are specifically talking about. We are not setbacks was just an example that was brought up in the conversation. But we

thank you for your time tonight and thinking of approving our ordinance amendment. Thank you. Thank you. And welcome staff with a Yeah. Uh no further comments from staff. Happy to answer any additional questions. Yeah. Do we have any questions at this point while a public hearing is still open? You know, at risk of being pedantic, can you summarize one more time how this relates to the GDP? If this passes, how would this change the GDP amendment process? Right. So, so in the case of existing GDP, yeah, so this wouldn't affect existing Yes. This wouldn't affect existing GDPs. Exist all the existing GDPs have their yard and bulk standards listed on them already. So only if somebody came in for a new or an amended would this apply. So the GDP amendment process is still there. Yes. Yeah. Any additional questions for staff before we close? Because it seems like it's still a little confusing. I just want to make this this continued reference to general conformance with the art and bulk requirements. That only applies if the GDP like current ones don't have specifics. Most of them do. Well, they do, right? Yeah, most of them do have specifics. We left that language in there because there's probably some instances where if there's not a specific, we can go back and reference to the comparable, right? But for any for any GDP that is amended or comes in under this that has the yard and bulk requirements that are in the GDP, the rest of this the bottom part of this statute won't even apply. Right. So, we can no longer have to worry about this general conformance question. Correct. Got it. Additional questions? or for the applicant. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and the planning commissioners will deliberate on the

evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received unless we need to reopen it. Who would like to begin? Thoughts, ideas, concerns? I've been talking. I'll I'll start. I think um I was a little confused by the original report, but I think that the presentations were really helpful. I understand what it is you're trying to do. I frankly was not aware we had these sort of custom zoning um zones and I think it's it's an interesting idea and I like the idea of providing more certainty and dependability and um the fact that we that we still have the ability to review these GDPs and make sure that they're a particular area is has the appropriate requirements in it for what that development is intended to be and that we can look at whether it fits with our comprehensive plan before we at the very beginning I think is um I think really useful and um a very a good addition. I look forward to seeing what other amendments we do after the comprehensive plan is um is done. But um I would be in favor of this. Thank you. I'll I'll uh build on Commissioner Hunt's comments. Um, to me these this this is going to affect our district areas. And so to me, when you have a planned community zoning district, you're looking for some variation from our standard potentially from our standard, you know, all of our standard zones. And so to me, that's that's what a GDP is is going to be for. and for to for the GDPs to be able to provide that additional clarity of what's expected within that district property. I think to me clarity is kindness. So if if something is clear, it's clear to

everybody. It's transparent. Um and so I think this is I'm going to be in support of this. Um I think this is a benefit to the code and I think it's a benefit to the community. I think it helps us understand better what's going to be happening on these district properties. It lets us see that better than we currently can. Um so, you know, since it applies to those district properties where we're going to let there there's going to be some flexibility, not just our traditional zoning, I think this is a great tool. So, I'm supportive of this change. Thank you, Commissioner Choy. Thanks, chair. Um, so building off a little bit of what Commissioner Molen said, um, I I agree that I think the applicability of this, um, proposal speaks and aligns well with the, uh, nature of what these uh, of what these specific zone districts are and how they are inherently different from a lot of the other different types of areas around the city where some of the more conservative standards are better applied. Um I uh I I actually think that this goes well towards getting away from the uh bring me a rock game when we have developers who are trying to work through the early stages especially of of um you know design and planning for larger developments. um where some of the some of the more restrictive standards don't necessarily comply with the larger developments in their nature and and it really is you know when you when they bring that rock we say no not that rock a different rock I I think that gets to the point of of what Commissioner Banks was saying about the

waiver process which while it does work for a specific type of variance from requirements as established in different in different areas you know I'm personally not that big of a fan of um development applications that come through with a a substantive amount of of waiverss. I think it's better to have requirements set forth that are more specific to the type of districts and the type of zoning areas um that you know those those um you know settings would would apply to. So generally I'm I'm in favor of it u if only for the reasons of clarity prior to the development and application process and to establish some some additional guideposts to try to almost get away from some of those waiver requests. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Maley. So, I will admit I came in with several reservations um in regards to the process changes and and and I would say that um the presentation by Director Zakaro and then I would say that the detail oriented line of questioning by um Commissioner Bangs and Commissioner Hunt uh really helped address those reservations because the the for lack of a better term checks and balances and processes to to to help influence and maintain standards are still there by maintaining the GDP amendment process and you still have the PDU PUD D waiver. Man, that's a mouthful. Um, so those are still there. So I I appreciate the presentation and the the the attention to detail. I didn't think that was panic at all. I thought it was on point. So, thank you. Um, so, uh, coming at this as a systems engineer. Um, I I see this as a process improvement. I think it's consistent with with the the vision of trying to be more, you know, friendly towards businesses by removing some of the risk. And also as a systems engineer, I have a high appreciation for

requirements definition and it allows to do that upfront and there's less risk uh and inherited by the developer and trying to you know like commissioner Choy just mentioned you know make sure we they bring the right rock before the planning commission. So being clear I think this does improve clarity without removing our our methods and and processes as a planning commission um to help maintain standards. So, um, I appreciate the the attention to detail and the lines of questioning and I'm in favor. Thank you. I guess I guess that leaves me. So, I I I'm I'm more convinced largely based on the the input from staff. Uh, that said, I I guess I haven't been as engaged for as long as some to be as disenchanted as maybe some are with the existing PUB waiver process. So to to my mind, you know, it's not that broken that we need a radical change, but I am all about friendliness and efficiency and expediting uh progress. So I will I will support it, but um I'm maybe not quite as convinced as everyone else that the existing process is that broken that it's not adequate. Thank you. Um I guess I also find myself in favor at this time. Um it uh I I don't think we are giving away anything. I think we still maintain the ability to look at this at a reasonable level. Um having worked previously in design, I can thoroughly appreciate how there's a lot of money on the line here of knowing what you're up against and coming in requesting a waiver and not getting that and having to send your team back to the drawing boards literally uh can be very expensive. Um, so, uh, I appreciate that this is a break from standard where it's different that we're having an applicant

proposed change to city code. Um, I do find though that it is actually kind of relatively limited uh, given the number of sites we have remaining throughout the city. Um and and I don't again there I don't feel like we're giving away yard and bulk requirements um because they still have to make their case in advance. So we just move up that that point in time. So um with that then I would request a roll call please. Oh a motion. Yes. I've been skipping this a lot lately. Motion please. All right, I'll I'll make the motion um that that we approve resolution six of 2025 recommending to the city council approval of an ordinance amending the Lewisville Municipal Code section 7 1772-190 regarding yard and bulk requirements for general development plans. Second. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Commissioner Bangs. Yes. Commissioner Molain. Yes. Commissioner Mahaley. Yes. Commissioner Choy. Yes. Chow Brown House. J Brown Eyes. It works. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you for your preparation on this and I think we may ultimately end up with a cleaner piece of city code paid for by others. Um, all right. Why don't we take a fivem minute break? We'll reconvene at 7:38. Recording stopped.

65 and my mother was 6 foot six foot. Okay, recording in progress. Welcome everybody back. Thank you very much. We will now move into Thank you. We'll now move into our second item of business. I will now open the public hearing on a request for a signage uh planned unit development amendment. uh as it regards to signage. Um the purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we will have a presentation and testimony by the applicant, followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star 9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve approved with conditions. Table, deny,

or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in the hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, um can we ask for notification, please? Uh yes. All public notice requirements have been met. Thank you. Do any planning commissioners have any disclosures? Seeing none, invite you up. Good evening, chair and commissioners. This is Emily Klein Gibson, planner 2 with the staff presentation. This is a request to approve an amended campuswide sign package for the Advent Health A Vista H Hospital property located at 100 Health Park Drive. Uh this will include replacing existing freestanding signs and adding a new wall sign. to provide a brief overview. This is a PUD amendment application for lots 2 through 4 of the Advent Health A Vista Hospital property which is located in the southern part of Lewisville west of 88th Street and is outlined in the blue in the image on the screen. The amendment includes replacing nine existing freestanding signs, removing one freestanding sign, relocating one freestanding sign, and adding one new wall sign. Four existing wall signs are proposed to remain unchanged. This property has previously undergone sign changes since the establishment of a campuswide master sign plan in 1990. The master sign plan consisted of 13 total freestanding and wall signs, including a freestanding sign facing US Highway 36 that was approved for installation on city property. An amendment to the master sign plan was approved in 1997 and the most recent signage was established in 2002. Each new sign amendment has been

established to reflect hospital rebrand efforts and many of the signs placement locations from the original master plan remain unchanged. to provide a brief brief background on Lewisville's sign regulations. The original regulations were established in 1981 and underwent some minor changes in 1992 through 1994. A major update to the sign regulations was approved in 2006. And in 2019, all previous sign regulations were repealed and a new citywide sign code was established. While the original hospital master sign plan and amendments were established under the current sign regulations at that time, any new sign proposals now must comply with the 2019 adopted sign code. The details of the proposal again include replacing nine freestanding directional signs, relocating one existing freestanding sign from city property to within the hospital property boundaries, removing one freestanding directional sign with no replacement, and adding one new wall sign. The images on the bottom right provide an example of what one of the freestanding signs will look like in daylight and at night, as well as the location of the wall sign shown in the image above. Five waivers are requested for this application. Four of the waiver requests are for the freestanding signs and the last waiver request is for the wall sign. This slide shows exactly where on the property each sign will be located. Starting with the far western side of the property. The green boxes represent the sign that's currently on city property facing US 36 and where it would be located within the property boundaries of the hospital. The small blue sign box uh to the north shows the proposed wall sign location. The purple colored box in the center shows the existing freestanding sign that will be removed and not replaced.

And all the orange boxes show existing freestanding signs that will be replaced in the same location and of similar size. And also shown on this site plan are four gray boxes towards the center. Uh these represent the four existing wall signs that are proposed to remain unchanged. So the new signage is proposed to improve wayfinding around the hospital campus and reflect current Advent Health at Vista hospital branding. The new freestanding signs are proposed to be in the same location and of similar size as the existing signs as shown in table one. And the sign that will be relocated onto hospital property is proposed to be 10 feet tall with a landscape base. The proposed wall sign will be 4.4t tall and approximately 131.7 square ft. Included with this request are five waivers from sign code requirements. These waiverss include allowing the quantity of freestanding signs to exceed the maximum number of four which is permitted. Uh to wave the requirements of an architectural base and border from all the freestanding signs. To wave the landscaping requirements at the base of the nine existing freestanding signs. Allow illumination of a red background on five freestanding signs where typically the illumination of only the letters is permitted. and to allow the area of the wall sign to exceed the maximum area permitted. Staff analyzed each sign against the criteria in her sign code and found that aside from the five waiver requests, all signs meet the criteria. Specific sign criteria include maximum freestanding sign heights and areas as well as uh specific requirements for signage oriented towards US 36 which are allowed increases in those maximum sign areas and heights and with the consideration of

the waiver request number five specifically the proposed wall sign also meets all criteria. Staff analyzed the waiver requests against the sign waiver criteria, found them to be consistent with the character, scale, and placement of previously approved signage on the hospital campus um with the understanding that most of these proposed freestanding signs are primarily provided for clear wayfinding around the hospital grounds. And staff also found the proposed waiver request for the size of the wall sign supports the intent of the sign to be visible from US 36 at a distance. and the proposed size would be scaled appropriately on the building wall. So with all of this, staff recommends approval of resolution 7 series 2025 recommending approval of a request for a planned unit development amendment to replace existing freestanding signs and add a new wall sign on the hospital campus with the five waiverss and with no conditions. And this concludes the staff presentation. Um the applicant and members of the hospital uh team are present and I believe they also have a presentation of prepared. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner questions for Miss Glen Gibson. I just have a quick question. Great. Please go ahead. Sorry. Um thanks for the presentation. I appreciate that. Um just one quick question then maybe one follow on. Are these all proposed as internally illuminated signs? Yes. Okay. And I know that um the sign code notwithstanding is there uh an increase of decrease or no change to the lumin output from the new signage. Um there is no change proposed. Mr. Wolen, thanks. Um thanks for the presentation. I've got a quick question

about the requirement for architectural base and border. So, we're that is in the new code. Yeah. Yes, that's a requirement for freestanding signs. Um, typically freestanding signs are are used as at the entrance of shopping centers and and stuff like that. So, we did have that requirement for some architectural um you know, stone columns and such. Um since these are primarily wayfinding um the applicant believes that this waiver Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yep. Additional questions. Commissioner B. Yeah. The the relocate the the sign that's being relocated is one that faces 36. Correct. And it's 10 ft high. That's the proposed height. That's the new one. What is it today? Um today I believe it's in the uh application materials. I don't know off the top of my There's a table we can pull up. Okay. Somebody Yeah. Um I'm uh curious about the sign that would be facing open space and the golf course primarily um and questioning the need or value of that sign. Uh what considerations were taken into account when thinking about that open space and golf course and the fact that the sign is uh are you specifically referring to the wall sign that faces the open space? Yeah. Um yeah, that the applicant may be able to further provide their reasoning. Um I believe from what staff can gather is um it's meant to be viewed from US 36 um with the removal of the larger sign that's currently on the city property that this would just add additional um visibility from the highway. Okay. Thanks. Any additional questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much for the presentation. welcome up the applicant again with I

know it's repeat but name and city of residence please. We'll see if I can do better this time and being heard. Uh good evening again uh chair and commissioners. Uh for the record I'm Mark Smith um CEO of Vista for Advent Health 100 Health Park Drive. um appreciate very much the remarks uh and a very comprehensive uh presentation by Miss Gibson. Uh what I would like to do is just to speak to the necessity of signs for a hospital campus and the utility of that uh to aid the uh commission in making a decision. Uh Advent Health uh has taken uh the last two or three years to consolidate its brands and you saw the history uh of the various owners uh of Vista. uh we are moving from the uh Centura brand now to Advent Health as part of the disaffiliation process from Centura and so that's what's precipitated some of the reworking of the signs and the need for this request uh among other things. Uh we believe that the signs uh and their locations are extremely important for our ability to operate our hospital in a safe and efficient manner. One of the things that's interesting about a hospital compared to other businesses is that signage is not just simply a mechanism to inform people that you exist. It's actually a safety concern. As we have patients come on to our campus, one of the primary things that we want to do for them is provide direct and efficient wayfinding uh so they can go where they need to go. We have a 48 acre campus uh serving two medical office buildings and a hospital with multiple entrances and many of our patients uh rely on those signs uh and their awareness of them uh to get to where they're going in the most efficient manner. A number of our patients are elderly uh and do not have mobility uh to traverse sufficient distances. Uh so when we guide them to the mob or we guide them to the emergency entrance, uh that's a critical thing for us on being able to make sure

that they're routed to where they need to go. Uh so we would submit that these uh changes uh and these um signage requests um form a public safety function in addition to the obvious one uh of directing and providing wayfinding for people who come onto the campus. So we would thank you for your consideration. Uh again very happy uh to answer any questions uh and any of the technical aspects I would defer to our team. Thank you. questions. Uh, yeah, I'm concerned about this sign, this new wall sign facing the open space and and golf course. Um, right. Some people would often consider signs kind of a clutter uh, and especially when they're o when they're primarily facing open space and golf course. Um, can you or do you want to defer to your team to No, I I can speak to it and any follow-up we can certainly have a member of the team provide additional clarification. I I think our uh desire in that is so that we can uh have the hospital be seen from 36 as you're coming from 36. Uh there's not a lot of call out uh as you drive down the highway uh to be able to see the building. Now there's the sign, you know, actually on 36. Uh but the signage uh there on the uh the end of the building that we're talking about, the new wall sign, uh provides visibility from people who are traversing 36. And and you don't feel that the the addition of the sign closest to 36 accomplishes that? I mean, I think we're all We think that's helpful. Uh for sure, but we would we would prefer both. I will say just uh not that this is particularly relevant uh but I will say having worked for uh and run hospitals on campuses in uh eight states um uh there is um I think the signage that we

have on our campus is appropriate. I don't think it's in any way excessive in terms of the existing signage. That doesn't speak to your question about the new sign. Uh but certainly I think it's uh it's appropriate and probably uh on the uh the smaller end uh of the number of signs and wayfinding placements uh that you would typically find on a hospital campus to help people navigate it. Just to make sure I understand that um that wall sign is really sort of aimed at if you're coming down 36 from the west, right? Correct. Because that's probably where you're less likely to see Yes. the the sign on 36 coming that direction. You'd see it pretty well coming from the east, but okay. Yes, that's correct. And there's one there now. Is that right? No, this is not Oh, there's not one there now. Okay. Yeah, there's nothing there that faces 6. There there's a rendering in the packet that seems to indicate that it's minimally visible. Um is kind of the theme of that. I don't know if we have the packet available to pull up. Um, yeah, but there's a there's like a black and white version of that that shows it from a distance. I thought it saw this. Is it that one? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And it'll be lit up. Is that idea that then you can see it if you're coming from Boulder? Say Yeah. All right. Any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much. I'll open it up for public comment now. I don't believe we have any written public comment regarding

this. And nobody online, nobody in the room. Okay. Um, we'll open it up then if you had a closing response and statement. We appreciate the commission's consideration of the proposal. Uh, and thank you for your attentiveness to it. Certainly. Thank you. Do we have a staff response and closing statement? No further comments at this time, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, last chance questions. Uh, yeah, I have a quick question. I don't think we have any other signage in the city of Lewisville, do we? That faces 36 illuminated building signage. I'm just thinking of this as a precedent. Um, yeah, not not that I can think of um at this time. Okay. Any additional questions? Can can we state directly also? Um, so for for just the wall sign that's being discussed facing 36 if it were to to conform to the current code, what would that sign look like? Because it looked like it was a waiver on area and height. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So, currently it's uh the height is 4.4 4 ft. Um the sign regulations max out the height at 4T. Um same with the area, it's about 131 and a half give or take square feet. The maximum wall sign area is 100 square feet. Guess in terms of width, what would that you know equate

to? A few a few extra feet. Yeah. So I mean, so we're talking about a an an exceedence in, you know, point four feet and several feet width. Yeah. So So the waiver on the illuminated sign to the freeway is simply the dimensions. Otherwise, they're within code to have an illuminated sign on the side of the building. Uh yes. So since the location um is near a public entrance, a wall sign is allowed on that face. Um it it's strictly based on the area and height. Okay. And the and the freestanding sign that's going to be relocated is also illuminated next to the freeway. I think that's correct. Okay. Any additional questions? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented during deliberations. No further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? We can uh work our way down from All right. Okay. Cool. I'll start again. We'll start. We'll just work our way across and we'll throw you in there randomly. Mr. I don't have any issue with I think with any of these requests. I think they all seem reasonable for the purpose of a hospital hospital wayfinding. And I do think that um that the sign making it more visible on 36 is helpful. I know that the building kind of hides in there and people who aren't as familiar probably like to know that there's a hospital and where it is. Um so I I don't have any concerns and would be in favor of this. Thank you. I agree. All right. Thank you, Mr. Um I'm also uh going to be in agreement. I appreciate cherry concern about visibility of something um and

kind of orientation and are we are we aiming it to travelers or to you know is it is it aimed too much to you know kind of open space area. So I appreciate the concern. Um I I guess at this point I'm I'm I'm okay with the proposal. So thanks. Yeah, generally in support um you know my line of questioning about you know I I I paused because I liked Commissioner um Bang's question about setting a precedent and I think we're it's a it's a small enough exceedence over the existing code for the wall sign you know and in this case you know you're going to see it you know we're talking a few extra inches in height and then it's basically enough width to add the logo and so um it it it seems as small enough you're going to see this thing regardless with the current code. So, at least now it's it's it's a complete you can actually see what it says. So, um I I shared some of um Chair Brown Eyes's concerns about, you know, visibility from the open space, but I I think it is appropriately targeting the highway and I think it's a small enough exceedence set it it's acceptable and meets the the desire to make uh make the sign visible from the highway. So, I'm in favor. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Choy. Uh I'm in general agreement. I don't think that there are substantive enough um changes or significant impacts from the waiverss to be in opposition to this. I think it's a pretty good evolution for the signage package for one of our critical facilities within the city. Thank you. Well, while I still remain concerned, I find myself in favor of it at this point in time. Um I I think that the waiverss make perfect sense. Uh particularly it's interesting to see when we've created that sign code back in 2019, we didn't really think about

these kind of wayfinding signs and example and clearly uh it's there's no need for that that type of additional landscaping. It's not even the look look that we're really after. It's kind of a cleaner more modern look. So I can appreciate uh those waiverss in particular. So thank you very much. With that then I would entertain a motion. Okay, I'm ready. Uh motion to carry uh resolution 7 series 2025 recommending approval of request for a planned unit development PUD amendment to replace existing freestanding signs and add a new wall sign on the hospital campus. Second roll call, please. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Molain, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Chair Brown ice. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you all for your time this evening. With that, then we'll move into our next item of business. I will now open the public hearing on a request for amendment for parking minimum code. Um, the purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission of staff. Next, we'll have a presentation and testimony by the applicant, which is the city at this point. Um uh after this presentation, members of the public who join the meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star nine if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for

up total of six minutes. The purpose of the public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, table, deny, or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notification? Notice has been satisfied. This is a legislative item, so uh no no property notifications, but just uh daily camera notice and then posting notices as well. So, thank you. Do any planning commission members have any disclosures? Take it away, Mr. Post. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Matt Post, senior planner on the community development team. Uh the item before you tonight is uh consideration of an ordinance concerning parking minimums. And so the request is for approval of resolution 8 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of an ordinance amending title 17 of the LMC concerning parking minimums for multif family and adaptive reuse developments. Uh this ordinance update is a direct result of house bill 241304 which was adopted by the Colorado General Assembly in 2024. The bill requires that local governments which are located which within metropolitan planning organizations or members of Dr. Cog um eliminate minimum parking requirements for new multi-family developments and residential adaptive

reuse developments within designated applicable transit service areas. Uh again, the city of Lewisville is located within a metropolitan planning organization and a total of 44 transit stops are present in the city that qualify as applicable transit service areas. Uh we'll cover what those are in detail in later slides. As the bill is written, local governments are prohibited from enforcing parking minimums um in the identified transit service areas for the specified uses as of June 30th of this year. So, the bill specifically states that we may no longer enforce parking minimums in those areas, and we'll cover those areas and what those uses are, but as of June 30th, um, so, House Bill 24304 applies to properties within the city that are at least partially located in or partially intersect with areas identified as having applicable transit service. Applicable transit service areas are areas within the city that are within a quarter mile of a transit stop that provides service at intervals of 30 minutes or less during peak transit hours. Here in the city of Lewisville, those qualifying transit service lines would be the dash route uh that serves the South Boulder Road corridor and then of course the Flat Iron Flyer uh that stops at US 36 and Maclin station which would be considered a bus rapid transit route for RTD. Uh applicable transit transit service areas were developed by the Department of Local Affairs or DOA in collaboration with CDOT, the Colorado Department of Energy and RTD. Um and then again 44 transit stops are located in the city uh that qualify as those applicable transit service areas. Uh the map that is presented on the slide shows all applicable transit service areas in

the city and these areas were identified uh by the bill and these are the areas where the city is now prohibited from enforcing parking minimums again for multifamily and adaptive reuse residential developments. Uh this map was generated with data provided directly by DOA. The Department of Local Affairs specifically identified these transit areas. We pulled that data down and generated this map. Um as you can see, it is a buffer that is directly related to those transit stops within a quarter mile of those transit stops. You can see the dash route down South B Road to Main Street to Pine Street up via AIA back to South Ble Road. That would be the dash route. And then obviously the area on the southern part of the city there adjacent to Highway 36 which would be the Flat Iron Flyer. Um so the the the quarter mile transit service areas where we may no longer enforce parking minimums um again would apply to multif family developments but this would also include new mixeduse developments that contain a residential component. When I say new, I do quite literally mean new developments. So, new multif family, new mixed use with the residential component. Um, the bill does however allow the city to continue to require parking minimums for the non residential uses of new mixeduse developments within these applicable transit service areas. Again, that would only apply to the map that was on the previous slide. Um, the the the prohibition also applies to again adaptive reuse projects. The big takeaway there is that an adaptive reuse project for an existing bu building where a use is being converted uh that contains more 50% or more residential and gross floor area within that applicable transit service area is also

exempt from parking minimums. Um, adaptive reuse is defined by the state bill specifically, just so we're on the same page with this, that is the conversion of an existing structure from the use for which it was constructed to a new use by maintaining elements of the structure and adapting such elements to a new use. So, the reuse of the existing building for a new use. That is that is the the general definition there. We elected not to adopt a new definition because the term is generally recognized and we can refer to the state bill if necessary when considering an adaptive reuse project. Uh with this new ordinance, it's important to note that a developer may still voluntarily supply parking in an applicable transit service area. We again just simply cannot enforce our parking minimums anymore. And we'll we'll talk more about staff's opinion on how that may play out in future development proposals. Uh some background on the bill here. Um uh so so in addition to the prohibition on parking minimums, um the law also clarifies that nothing prevents a jurisdiction from requiring parking compliance uh with affordable housing conditions. And so we'll generally see um as a condition of of financing or lending with an affordable project uh that a certain number of parking spaces are required. Again, if it's a proper affordable project and funding has been supplied for an affordable project, there would typically be chaffa funding or something along those lines, they'll require minimum parking. We can still require minimum parking for an affordable project in this particular scenario. The law also does not prevent a local jurisdiction from providing bicycle parking. And it does not prevent a local jurisdiction from requiring accessible or ADA parking spaces or electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure specifically in line with the state EV code and the model EV code

which if you all recall we adopted last year. But we can only require those when an applicant voluntarily provides parking on site. I think we can linger on this for a little bit here specifically regarding accessible spaces or accessible ADA spaces. The language of the bill specifically states that nothing in this law lowers the protections provided for persons with disabilities, including the number of parking spaces for persons who are mobility impaired under the ADA. Staff interpret this to mean that the city may require ADA parking spaces again when they are voluntarily supplied by the developer. Um and the same is true with electric vehicle charging stations. Um with ADA spaces, we do have to consider our building code requirements as well. We have specific accessible building code requirements under the IBC. There's specific occupancy classifications for building types. Uh those would fall under adaptive reuse and multif family um requirements. But even the building code requirements are specifically uh keyed toward provided parking spaces. Right? So uh the building code requires ADA accessible spaces as a percentage of provided parking spaces on site. I can tell you that um if uh there is a requirement for type A or type B ADA units um in a specific multif family project um we'd have to probably get a legal interpretation if that scenario comes up to determine whether or not we can actually require ADA spaces. I would have to imagine that if a developer is coming through with units that are ADA accessible that they would hopefully be providing ADA parking spaces with those units as well. I I I would have to imagine that would be a one-off that we would um be seeing a project come through that's not providing ADA spaces with ADA accessible units.

Um jumping into definitions here a little bit. Multif family is not defined in the law. It's it's explicitly not not defined by the law. Um so Dola has provided guidance um on the bill indicating that local jurisdictions may utilize their own definition of multif family so long as it doesn't deviate or differ substantially from the state's definition of multif family. Uh the city's definition of multif family is currently uh a building used by two or more families living independently of each other in separate dwelling units but does not include hotels, motel or resorts. that is almost identical to the state's definition. The state's definition is provided in your packet. The the real takeaway there is that any structure with more than two dwelling units in it is considered a multif family or a multi-unit dwelling unit, which is how our code defines it. So staff elected not to update or change that definition. Specifically, we would have had a pretty significant episode of scope creep. If we would have decided to change that definition, it would have caused us to have to go through the entire code with a fine tooth comb to find every instance of multi-unit or multif family. So, we elected not to update that definition again because it is so closely aligned with the state code. Um, and then no other definitions are proposed with this particular ordinance. Um so in regard again a little background here in with in regard to the zoning and review process for multif family mixeduse residential and then residential adaptive reuse projects within applicable transit service areas. Staff will utilize current land use allowances that are that are currently codified within the zoning ordinance to to determine whether a multi-unit mixed use or adaptive reuse project is permitted by right or whether it would require a special review use for approval. uh number of zone

districts within applicable transit service areas that allow multi-unit uses uh allow those multi-unit uses as special review uses specifically not by right. Um, as the commission is aware, a special review use um includes review of additional criteria to ensure that the proposed use is located in an appropriate location given the context and character of the area, adjacent development, and then also the consideration of any potential adverse impacts that a particular use may have um on adjacent properties or the the neighborhood in general. It's important to note that um as part of this bill uh parking minimums may not be imposed as a condition of approval with a special review use. Again, we uh the the bill prohibit as long as it's in an applicable transit service area and a special review use would be required to establish a multi-unit or multif family dwelling, we cannot apply conditions that would amount to minimum parking um requirements. And so just a quick note of zone district breakdowns here. So zone districts where um multif family or multi-unit dwellings are permitted as a special review use would include residential estate, residential low density, rural residential business office, commercial business, commercial community, and commercial neighborhood. Um, it's important to note that these districts where multi-unit dwellings are permitted as a special review use, specifically the single family residential districts, RER, L, and RR. I'm calling them single family residential because that's the predominant land use types that exist in those districts today. We do have additional provisions in the ordinance that significantly limit density. Right? So, I'm I'm I'm bringing this up because I don't anticipate or staff rather don't anticipate a free-for-all in these zone districts with, you know, 20 30 dwelling units per acre. In most circumstances,

you may be able to add one additional unit if the property size is large enough to accommodate that. So um for those particular zone districts, we don't anticipate uh any significant increase in in density um that may come with development uh for groups that may take advantage of this particular prohibition on parking minimums. Uh so multi- again multif family multi-unit uh uses are also permitted as by right. Again obviously any new development project that comes in still needs to come before the commission and the council for approval. The delineation between byite and special review use is simply in our use table. A byite use is has a yes in it where the special review use is subject to those additional review criteria because of the sensitivity of the zone district that that those uses are located in. Uh so where multif family dwellings are permitted as a by right use include residential medium density residential highdensity mixeduse residential and then some of our planned community zone districts those would be where GDPs right which we discussed earlier this evening would permit multifamily uses specifically um these particular zone districts are generally considered appropriate for uh high density residential or medium density residential. I think staff anticipate that these would be the most likely candidates for future redevelopment within the applicable transit service areas. These particular zone districts would be the most likely areas where we see redevelopment that would may take advantage of of the parking minimums ordinance here. So moving into analysis again we are uh or we may not rather enforce parking minimums in these areas after June 30th. Um we we did some analysis into our policy documents in in regard to parking minimums and found that previously

adopted plans including the housing plan actually support generally support the state's efforts to reduce parking and then more specifically the city housing plan identified minimum parking requirements as a significant barrier to additional housing development within the city. Uh the study indicates that uh parking minimums increase development costs, reduce buildable area on constrained sites and negatively impact the feasibility the feasibility of projects specifically in areas near transit where parking demand is generally lower. Uh the study included modeling as part of the feasibility analys an analysis and demonstrated that reduced parking requirements had a greater positive impact on project viability than increased height incentives. Um as an example the study looked at scenarios that reduced parking from 1.4 4 to one per unit and the corresponding modeling revealed that the reduction in parking yielded higher residual land values for those particular projects which thereby improved the financial feasibility of those particular projects and then increased the likelihood that that project would move forward to completion. Uh the study also recommends uh lower parking ratios and parking related incentives again specifically in transit corridors and downtown Lewisville. the part the the housing study recommends this uh with an effort to encourage additional housing development. Also just so happens that those areas that the housing plan recommends revisions to the parking uh to to reduce parking requirements directly correspond correspond with the applicable transit service areas identified by the bill again um in downtown Lewisville. and uh and then those transit stop locations notwithstanding zoning the the existing zoning designations in in those areas. Uh so some additional analysis again just want to you know make sure

the commission and the public are aware here that developers may still voluntarily supply parking for eligible projects within the applicable transit service areas. Again, we simply cannot enforce a parking minimum. So, we're looking at a project, we'll enforce our parking standards, 50 units. If we have uh one parking space per unit, we'll say you need to park this with 50 spaces, right? We can't do that anymore. Um that said, staff do anticipate that most eligible projects will continue to include off- streetet parking on a voluntary on a voluntary basis. And this expectation is supported by, I think, many conversations we've had with with developers where we've attempted or encouraged them in some instances to actually reduce their parking on site. Um, and in most most circumstances, their response is uh along the lines of market feasibility, right? They they look at market feasibility and they determine that specifically in a suburban community like Lewisville, they need to provide parking on that site in order to make it feasible for from a marketing perspective. The second major item there would be lending again financing. Most financers and most lenders uh when we talk to developers they actually require parking as a condition of financing and lending. So we do work with with developers on a regular basis if they're overparked or we feel they're overparked to consider reductions. A lot of times what we hear back from them is that doesn't we we doesn't match market conditions for this particular use and area and or it's a condition of our funding. So, um again, we anticipate that most projects will continue to include parking um in in in these areas. Uh I I think some other notes here, it's um right, I I think Lewisville is unique in in this sense. If we were in a more dense downtown urban environment with rail lines, it may be a different story. Uh but I but again I do believe that to maintain

financial viability for the life of the development for most of these projects we'll see we will continue to see parking proposed. Um so while we're obligated to comply with the state law um again the practical realities here is that we'll see uh additional parking uh with wi with with with some of these projects. I think one of the other things we want to talk about here are potential concerns or risks. the state did provide some uh some guidance in regard to um risk mitigation wasn't it's not necessarily worth sharing at at the moment I can tell you that there's not a lot of information in it but I think um you know to the extent that any impacts you know remain unknown I think they'll depend on the location scale and size of any particular development as well as ongoing market behavior I think we can continue to monitor those monitor those conditions and then consider a policy response uh if appropriate in line with the law. So, on to the ordinance proposal here. Uh we are proposing updates to chapter 17 and more specifically section 1720 only, which is our off- streetet parking requirements. Key updates include a new subsection in LMC 172010F which will prohibit the enforcement of off- streetet parking for qualifying projects within applicable transit service areas and a provision indicating the new uh that the new subsection that we're creating in in 1720 there um supersedes any existing design guidelines GDPs or PUDs. So we have multiple design guidelines. Our industrial design guidelines, which residential wouldn't be allowed in industrial anyways, but we have commercial and then mixed use. They all have their own parking requirements there. This specific provision again will ensure that this new subsection supersedes our design guidelines. And then any parking requirements that would apply to GDPs or PUDs that are in applicable transit service areas with

those proposed uses again would um uh be exempt from from parking requirements. We're also proposing to revise section 1720 that references that new subsection that I just mentioned. And then we'll include a new subsection clarifying that the entirety of section 1720 does not apply where parking is exempt under the new subsection 172010. Uh we'll also update uh section 17205A which is parking in downtown Lewisville. Again, the entirety of downtown Lewisville is within an applicable transit service area. So the language provided in that section mirrors what's in the initial subsection indicating that parking minimums are no longer enforceable for the specific use types. Um so no no other ordinance updates. Again we kept it as targeted as we as we possibly could within the off streetet parking section there. Um, and I think with that we uh uh move forward recommending approval of resolution 8, series 2025, recommending to the city council approval of ordinance of an ordinance amending title 17 of the LMC concerning parking minimums for multif family and adaptive reuse developments. So with that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Open it up. Questions of staff? I just I just have one clarifying question. And I think I heard you say this, but if assuming that a lot of projects will still voluntarily provide parking, if they do voluntarily provide parking, then we can still apply our EV and accessibility requirements on those voluntary spaces. Correct. Okay. Um, so bus 228, does that not meet the 4hour? Has it been rerouted? I still runs around somewhere within Louisville. Yeah. I don't I I don't I don't believe it. I don't think it actually meets the standard for for service every 30

minutes during peak transit service hours. Yeah. I think what from from the information we gathered from Dola, it's the it's the dash and the flat iron flyer only. Yeah. All right. Um and then uh if there was a private shuttle, uh that was operated um perhaps even on a schedule that met those requirements, how does that impact these allowances? private shuttles were part of the consideration that Dola and the Department of Transportation uh worked into the to the to the application of applicable transit service areas. Um and again, they had to meet that standard of service every 30 minutes during peak transit hours. So if if if a private shuttle or another transit agency, there's other transit agencies around the state that operate locally or regionally um if if it doesn't meet that standard of service every 30 minutes, then it's not considered part of the applicable transit service area. But it would be it it would be if it if it if there's service every 30 minutes. Yes. At a stop. So that's an interesting one in particular, right? Because if a if there's a private shuttle and then the funding dries up for that shuttle and the parking minimums have been allowed. I guess the same thing is potential with public and with RTD. But yeah, I'm not sure of any private shows. I I I guess I'll say again, Dola didn't identify any service outside of the RTD service that's an applicable service area. So, okay, additional questions. Did Did I Did you use an example earlier on where you said on a oneacre lot, 20 units, if they had no parking, they might additionally squeeze in one unit. Is that what I heard you say? Oh, I don't I don't I don't know that I said that. No, I mean, um, but I I would I would have to imagine that this bill would absolutely lead to more units where they can fit them in, where the density permits it. Again, our density limitations will still apply. there's no

change there. So, you know, we'd see how that works out. Um, I can tell you right now that a lot of projects we review, we find their limit is density. Our our density limitations in most circumstances. Obviously, every property is different. The configuration of that of those particular properties and size would impact that. But I would I would have to imagine that we may we would likely see more density as a result of this bill if developers choose to take advantage. Right. And conceivably I think you there's still parking requirement minimums if there's commercial as part of the development as part of a mixeduse development. Yes. In in the service area. Yes. Again I mean it's all hypothetical but conceivably somebody could turn it into multif family only and remove the commercial component to potentially improve their density. Uh potentially. Yeah. If if it's within line with our density limitations. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Thanks. Additional questions. Seeing none, thank you. Well, well, yeah, thank you very much. We'll open it up for public comment now. You could even stay up there perhaps while hear it there. Seeing none, none online gathering. All right. Thank you. How about a closing statement? Um, no closing statement today. We'll keep you super clean. Thank you very much. Sure. I will now close public hearing and planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented during deliberations. No further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? Commissioner Chroy, I'm looking at you, but I'll do it. I'll start again. I'll just say that um obviously state law dictates this. Um there are also good reasons for it, but we there I think that the the amendments, the specific amendments um to this to the ordinance um make sense as a way to incorporate the new state law in the most elegant

and simple way possible. So I am in favor. Thank you, Commissioner Bangs. Yep. Nothing to add. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Molen. Yeah, I too will be in support um and uh found the staff report and its recommendations very helpful and consistent with how I feel about this application. So, thank you, Commissioner Haley. I think it's an efficient implementation of the state law, which we which we need to do. So, I'm in favor for it. Thank you, Commissioner Choy. Okay, I'll wax a little bit more. Um, thank you for I know this kind of end up being a crunch on a certain level to make this all comply. Um, appreciate your efforts on that. Uh, and yet um, many an environmentalist and progressive urban planner have railed against minimum parking for decades now really. Um, so I'm encouraged to see us do this. Um, I would also like to encourage staff and council to consider perhaps abolishing minimums in other areas throughout the city. Um, I I I think there's any number of good reasons for this. Uh, not just because the state made us do it. Um, so hopefully we'll be able to see that perhaps as we move forward with comp plan, move forward with uh other zoning requirements and rewrites uh that we can evaluate that. I think we're all familiar with um certain areas of town where there's seas of parking that literally none of us have ever seen filled. Uh that has any number of environment negative environmental impacts. Uh so hopefully we can uh get even more progressive with this move at some point. So I do find myself in favor at this time. With that I would entertain a motion. I move approval of resolution number 8

series 2025. A resolution recommending approval of an ordinance amending title 17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code concerning parking minimums for multif family and adaptive reuse development. Second and a roll call, please. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Molain, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Chair Barnise, very yes. Thank you all. Appreciate your work on it. Uh, with that then we'll open it up to planning commission comments. Does anybody have anything they'd like to share? Seeing none, staff comments. Nothing here. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we're looking at possible comp plan update in July. Yeah, the um the schedule has us releasing a public review draft in and around July. So it' be concurrent with that sort of community engagement window and so you'll have a draft to react to and discuss in July is the plan. So that'll be a lengthy discussion we expect. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. With that then I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. All in favor? I. Thank you all. And thank you all. Recording stopped.