Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Good evening and welcome to the January 8th, 2026 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting. Uh with a roll call, please. Um Chair Brownise here. Vice Chair Basket here. Commissioner Choy here. Commissioner Hunt here. Commissioner Mahaley here. And Commissioner Richie here. Thank you. Uh motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. Do a second. A second. Thank you. All in favor? I. I.

And then uh is there anybody here who wanted to speak for public comment for items that are not on this evening's agenda? All right. Thank you. Uh we'll move into some procedural business here, beginning with an election of officers for 2026. If I could begin with a motion. So moved. Oh, you have to state. Uh so do we make a do we make a nomination or do we Okay. Yeah. So I'd like to nominate uh Commissioner Choy as secretary, Commissioner Basket as vice chair, and Commissioner Brown eyes as chair. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. And then roll call, please. Um, Commissioner Hunt, yes.

Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Brownise, yes. Commissioner Basket, yes. Commissioner Toy Choy, yes. Commissioner Richie, yes. Thank you all. It truly is a pleasure to stay here. Thank you for the time being at least. Appreciate it. Um and then moving into approval of posting location for the agendas and uh approval of the expected 2026 planning commission meeting dates which will remain as the second Thursday of each month with a potential overflow two weeks after that for every month.

Did you want to say anything? Actually, to clarify, um, we have a special meeting planned for February 26th for the comp plan that's actually included on there, just so you're aware. Okay. Yeah. What you're voting on. That I would accept the motion for both of those. I move that we approve the posting locations and the expected planning commission meeting dates that are in the agenda. Second. Uh, all in favor?

I. Motion carries. Moving into our first item of real business, Lewisville comprehensive plan discussion. Um, it will be kind of free form and so we'll kind of follow the standard procedure on a certain level, but we'll make sure that we open it up for public comment and uh, you know, maybe a couple of times if you want to speak to different issues as we work our way through it. Um, we'll figure out how that works for all of us as we go through, but thanks for being here. Okay. Well, uh, ready to go?

Great. So, I'm here to present on the comprehensive plan, uh, draft that's before you tonight. And so the the specific purpose of the agenda item is to um introduce you to what we're calling the 95% plan um update draft in advance of forthcoming community sharing for information and we'll talk about that overall process. And so in terms of where to the I guess the level that we're requesting input from planning commission tonight. Um you know we've been working on this for about two years a lot of iterating. We've gotten policy direction from council. Um, our request tonight is to keep it at the sort of clarity, usability, om, major omissions level. Um, not go line by line. Um, but certainly we're open to discussion about some of the key policy questions that still remain in there as well. So, just wanted to tee that up. The topics I'm going to cover, I have about a 15 20 minute presentation. Just a warning, there's a lot of information to cover. Um, feel free to stop me if you want a break for questions. I'm happy to do that. I've got the questions teed up at the end. Um, the first thing I wanted to cover was just a reminder of what the comp plan kind of is and isn't to get your head back into it. It's been uh several months since we talked about it. Bit of a process recap where we've been. Um, we'd like to orient you to the document itself. So, um, hopefully you read it by now, but just to give you a sense of the structure and get your head kind of into how things work and the mechanics of the plan. Um we do want a bit of a do a bit of a deeper dive on the future land use component of the plan um in terms of future growth uh that is estimated out of that. Um and we also wanted to emphasize how um this is sort of part of a continuum where there's a lot of things that are slated to happen sort of immediately after the comp plan for implementation. So you can see how the sort of trajectory is planned and then we'll talk about next steps. So quick reminder kind of what a comp plan is and isn't. So again, this is our sort of communitydriven vision, our

20-year plan for future growth and development. It is a policy document. Important to remind everyone, it's not regulatory. This is not zoning. This is policy guidance for us um in our decision making. Um this does um represent an update to the 2013 comp plan and planning commission's role. Also, as a reminder, it is a codified role um that um you all make a recommendation to city council um on the comp plan. That is not tonight. That is scheduled for late February and we're working toward that hopefully. Um, and so recap, there's been several I know it's it's been several months. We've been drafting the plan. That's why we haven't been before you as much. Um, but there's been a lot of iterating with planning commission. I forget how many meetings there have been. Um, but the last one was back uh way back in June. Some city council context just to give you a sense of where they're at policy directionwise on this. Um they did a really deep dive on an very early draft of the plan back in June and July of last year. They had two kind of back-to-back really lengthy meetings where they provided some pretty specific direction and policy direction. This draft reflects that direction generally. As far as the process for the plan development, it's all summarized in the plan in detail. There's a there's snapshots in the plan and then there's actually an appendix that summarizes kind of all the results from the input to date. Um it has been very good turnout. We've had three rounds of of sort of focus engagement engagement throughout. Another window is coming here soon. We'll talk about um we engage with all of our sort of subject matter experts and our boards and commissions multiple times uh kind of on topics within their wheelhouse. I did um like I said want to emphasize how this is sort of part of a continuum or a trajectory. Um I'll circle back to some of this detail later in the presentation, but again this is really a foundation for us as a community um as a comprehensive plan. um for sort of all our city services, planning around infrastructure and investments,

programs, rule changes, things like that. Um and we did really intentionally sequence this um to follow the housing plan, which is one of our key policy documents to identify that need and how we can respond to it. Um and I'll talk a little bit more later about the things that are planned and budgeted and already underway to potentially implement this plan. um particularly as it relates to some of the growth estimates and how we sort of maintain our level of service and our high quality of life, things like that. So, how to use the plan? Just letting you know there's a graphic in there that I think is helpful kind of depending on who you are um as a planning commission, as a property owner, as a resident, as a city official, city staff, kind of helps guide you how to use the plan. But overall, it's our it's our policy guide for a lot of decisions, including development review, PUDS, things like that, but lots of other things the city does in terms of the structure of the plan. Just to orient you a bit, if you had to take like one graphic snapshot of how it's all laid out, this this would be it. I know it's kind of hard to read. Um, but it really starts with the vision statement and the core values. I'll remind you all of what um was discussed on that front. Um, and then the sort of the the bulk of the plan is the policies, which are organized by plan element. that's sort of the topics um that all the policies live within. Um and then there's an action plan that's actually an appendix to the plan where it's like it calls out the specific things the city could or should do to implement the plan. Just a snapshot of the table of contents. You can see all the different plan elements and how it's organized. Try to keep it under 100 pages. Met that goal. Arbitrary but helpful. vision statement.

I mean on that that I think that was a nice move. Yeah. Yeah. The appendices more than make up for the lack of volume in the main body of the plan.

Um so regarding the vision statement of core values, not going to read through them. Just to remind you these were heavily vetted. They're not perfect. We know there's you could still you could endlessly word smith these but um these were affirmed by city council and we expect them to be carried forward but open to suggestions certainly on that front. Um the for the plan elements again the bulk of the the planning document. Just want to call your attention. We did make an effort in the plan to have like if you don't want to read all 100 pages there's really like three or four pages that you could flip open to and see sort of the big picture of what this says. This is one of those. So this summarizes it's like page 30 or something. This summarizes all the different plan elements and all the different goals that live within each of the plan elements all in one place. So there's a lot of detail underneath this. So for each of those plan elements, there's how it's structured is there's the goal and then there's the strategies to implement that goal underneath each of the goals. Important to clarify, you know, this it's said in the plan. Um I think a lot of people view this as a prescriptive list of like shall do, must do by the city. There's so much in here, so resource intensive. Uh we really try to caveat it that this is not a prescriptive list. This is just sort of our guide, our menu of all the things as a city over the next 10, 20 years. we could or should be doing to implement these goals. And then lastly, in terms of plan structure, the action plan is intentionally an appendix with the idea that we can update it ideally every 5 yearsish um with sort of the short list of the biggest kind of most impactful things we can do from like a policy planning standpoint to implement this plan and make sure this plan's vision is kind of carried out and adapts. So, here's what I I didn't we didn't plan on getting into like a lot of the substance because there's so much, but we did want to do a deeper dive on the future land use framework and kind of tee up that discussion. Um, so within the land use element, plan element um lies the future land use map that sort

of acts as the policy foundation for what how we want a city our city to grow, future land uses, things like that. Um and so the way that that part of the document is set up is the city is basically arranged by place types. So like future land use categories. Um each of which have their own sort of desired attributes in terms of description of the place but also like level of residential density, building heights, the at a high level the types of land uses we would want to see there. Again, this isn't code, this isn't regulatory, this is policy guidance, but it is how the map is set up. And so for each one of the place types, there's like a one-page profile that describes kind of the desired attributes of that place type. And so I'm going to walk us through briefly kind of how that's set up so you can understand it a little bit more. Um, so for like neighborhood center for example, I know you can't read this, this is just for a visual. Um, the first thing you look at is character. So there's a character kind of narrative description of that place. Second thing in there is transportation connectivity that generally desri describes the transportation network within these areas and kind of what that looks like. This one land use and scale I might spend a minute on um because again not zoning but it does we felt it was important to set forth sort of an overall framework for the desired land uses in these places. Um so the way it's broken down is there's primary and supporting land uses. So the way to I think a good way to look at this is sort of like within the bubble on that map of that place type what are the predominant land uses what are the what are the most of the land uses going to be and then the supporting land uses are the ones that are less so sort of percent footprint wise but maybe appropriate you know in certain locations. So for example, you know, in the single family kind of low density category, the idea of like is a duplex okay in that area, that is an example of something in there that's like a supporting land use. So it it might be okay, just not probably the predominant land use in that particular

place type. It might be okay along certain corridors, things like that. And the density and scale is pretty self-explanatory. And the development considerations is just helpful sort of context and factors to consider as we're thinking particularly evaluating development proposals that are within these place types. And lastly to highlight the imagery that goes with each of the place types. These are intentionally sort of like found and calibrated to the density and height levels in the place type. So if you see an image within the place type, it should reflect for example somewhere in 18 to 30 dwelling units per acre. This project is that in that image. Same thing with the heights. The opportunity areas are also a sort of key component of that future land use framework um and how the sort of future growth estimates are dialed. Um and these are sort of four areas along the periphery of the city where um we think the most change is likely to occur. If you start getting into the analysis and the numbers, this is where about 90% of the future potential residential growth would occur. If you sort of run the analysis on that, we'll get into that. Um, these areas were selected, and we talked about this a while back, you may remember, but these areas were selected for a number of reasons. One of which is there's a lot of vacant, underutilized land in these areas. Another big one is that they're already or will be supported by infrastructure to support new development. Um and then one other important thing to note is we did actually ask we asked a lot of questions with the engagement. One specific question that we asked was basically how would you feel as a community about redeveloping these commercial areas? Um would you support mixeduse housing instead of just commercial? 80% said yes in that particular survey. That was a bianual resident survey. So, getting into the future growth estimates that are tied to the future land use map. Um, some context really quick before we get into the numbers.

Our population currently is about 20,000. Um, this is laid out in the plan, but we've actually seen a population decline of in and around 9% over the last 5 years, sort of outside of Marshall Fire issues. Um, did want to note that we've been actively consulting with the school districts as we've been going through this planning process. They've been resoundingly clear that they support uh residential growth in Lewisville and the policies in this plan as a result of that school enrollment decline. Before we get into the numbers, again, just wanted to clarify. So, the future growth estimates that are in the plan, not targets, they're not goals, they're not something that the plan is aspiring to. This is just really not simply but it is a foundation for us to kind of plan around and understand what could happen in the future if this builds out. Um and so um so yeah we can get into the methodology if you would like but it's basically tied to the density ranges and the place types and what's possible in some of these areas. a lot of different factors uh built in but overall purpose is to understand as a city our utility needs our infrastructure needs um and ensuring that we're we sort of have the systems in place to manage this change if it happens. Uh also wanted to I guess really clarify an important point in terms of this policy shift for us. Those of you that know the kind of the Louisville planning history know that we've um been intentionally slow residential growth with really restrictive. So this is a change for us to allow residential in a lot of these places. Um, you know, the proposal and sort of the policy direction reflects like basically supporting the housing plan, right? the needs that are laid out in the housing plan, diversity of housing types, more housing affordability. That's obviously a huge part of this, but it's also very much about the economic vitality of our commercial areas. And so the plan is very deliberately set up to sort of maintain that footprint of existing

commercial areas, our sales stack generating areas. So along Macaslon, along South Boulder Road, and downtown. Um, and we think, you know, there's a there's still a good footprint there. And the plan clearly articulates those are priority commercial only areas. And so it is important to know that a lot of the residential that's shown in that map is sort of peripheral to that and integrated with that, but not taking away for it. And in fact, we think heavily supporting it in terms of uh more customers, more people shopping nearby. Uh retail follows rooftops. You all may have heard that uh phrase. So um very much a sort of a dualpurpose dual benefit approach um is what's set forth in the plan. So getting into the numbers of what the analysis actually shows in terms of future growth estimates again not targets not goals. Our current housing number of housing units is about 9,000. If this plan were to build out um our estimate is that it could lead to potentially four to 5,000 additional housing units. Again, this is over 20 years. Um, and again, reminder, we're not proposing to change any of our sort of discretionary processes. All these projects will continue to come through a PUD. So, um, this isn't we're not talking about by right things happening here. Um, but over the span of 20 years, that's the range that um, our analysis came up with. And again, it's heavily concentrated in the opportunity areas. About 90% of it is, and about 70 75% of is concentrated in the Centennial Valley and Red Tail Ridge areas. So it's heavily concentrated in those areas. Wanted to highlight and about about finished here the transportation policies in the plan. So there's a whole section on transportation with goals and strategies, but there is also specifically a future transportation connections map that essentially builds off of the 2019 transportation master plan. That's still sort of our controlling governing transportation

specific policy document. So the comp plan aligns with it and builds off of it. just really is about highlighting like sort of dusting that off and showing what the key priority connections are from that plan and some additional information. And I wanted to circle back on the sort of this continuum trajectory idea and let u folks know kind of what's planned or already underway to continue this process wherever it lands. Um you know these are kind of teed up to address that. So one big big thing is the development code update. We've actually got an RFP that we're working on right now to at least start that process so they can sort of quickly follow this. That's a really important implementation tool I'll touch on. Um we also have budgeted and starting to scope development impact fee updates. That's a that's a huge a really important um issue to address especially with any future residential growth to make sure our fees are dialed to maintaining level of service in terms of um parks, open space, trails, transportation network, cultural services, other things I think are on the table.

So that's a consultant that you'll hire. Yes. Evaluate that. Yeah. Right. Thanks.

Hasn't started yet certainly but yeah. Um, and then the parks, you may all know that the the parks, recreation, open space, and trails master plan is well underway now, and it's sequenced well with this plan to start to develop responsive strategies depending on where this plan lands in terms of future growth. Um, we've been actively working with our utilities folks to ensure that we're tracking in terms of uh future estimates and things like that. So they are um planning to update the utility system plan for the city really immediately after this plan is updated and I think they've already started doing it to some degree. Development code update just touch on it briefly. We can circle back to this but it is currently scoped to be a really comprehensive update to title 16 and 17 of our code and also all of our design standards and guidelines. So it's a really good uh window and opportunity to continue the plan uh implement the comp plan. key differences from the 2013 plan

that no. So that is going to take on CDDSG and IDSG. Yes. It's currently scope to all four of them. Okay. Plus title 16 and 17, right? Parts of title 15. Yeah. Cool. Yeah, that's the plan. Yeah. Yeah.

Um so from the 20 just highlighting quick changes from the 2013 plan. certainly dusting off and refreshing value statements and vision statements to reflect current community priorities. Um things have changed obviously particularly around housing affordability around resilience. Um social equity is a more important topic now to be a lens for the plan. Um and then certainly we talked about the switch in how we view residential development. That's a really big one. The 2013 plan contemplated very little residential growth. Um, this plan contemplates residential growth combined with some commercial growth. So, the next steps, we actually go to council next Tuesday, which I know is quick, but we plan to immediately following this meeting document and relay your comments to council in advance of the meeting and then certainly share it at the meeting. Um, and then, uh, we actually have a community informational openhouse scheduled on January 28th at the Simon Event Center on Main Street here. Um and then we have the planning commission adoption public hearing. So that'll be another chance to look at the next iteration of the draft consideration for adoption. That's on February 26th council adoption plan for March 17th currently. So that concludes the presentation. These are the questions from the packet to kind of guide the discussion but happy to answer any whatever level of questions that you have.

Fantastic. Why don't we start with Commissioner Basket? Thank you. Could you say a little bit more about the analysis for the water supply?

Yeah. So, the the uh are you okay? Yeah. So yeah, we've been actively working with our utilities folks um that manage the water and waste water system and so they're well aware of the specific estimates and ranges in here and so our I guess our job at this point is to in talking with them and kind of their perspective is you know establish the vision establish what we want to see ensure that there's no major issues where we say well we can't accommodate that from a water supply perspective for example wastewater too. And so everything we've heard from them is that there's no major red flags. We're always ad sort of adapting our fee schedule and always monitoring that and we'll continue to do that. Um as of now, no major concerns.

And then I would just add a couple things. Um so you know, when new development comes in, they pay a a facilities expansion fee basically that pays for potential facilities expansion and water rights acquisitions needed to serve the development. So public works has a pretty robust plan that contemplates buildout, but they do get funds to pay for water rights acquisition. So I think, you know, looking at the numbers in the plan, it I don't want to say like we have everything we need, but there's a lot of capacity in the water system. Um, and there is a process where they are always acquiring water and getting money to acquire water as new development comes in. It's not a static utility. It's designed to um you know grow as the city grows and there's fee structures in place to do that.

Just just so I'm probably betraying my um lack of knowledge about the details about where the water comes from, but um is it then do they have a a clear source for acquiring that water and kind of going forward? I I I used to do some water loss. So, I know that this is not a simple process necessarily, but do they have like is there a a company or a reservoir or some place where they know that they can if need be acquire water in the future?

Right. So, we've recently bought into a a new reservoir project that gets us pretty far into the future. So, that's not to say that we wouldn't have to acquire additional water rights in the future. Um but we have multiple ways of getting water for the city right now and they're um you know they have a systems plan that looks out to the future and so I think once the comp you know whatever wherever the comp plan lands to they're going to redo their projections and then if there's a need for additional water rights those might be 10 15 20 years out is more likely than five years out based on what they already have as I understand it. So they're also always looking for water when the price is right as they've told me, right? Like they're not waiting till they run out of water as well. So they're very proactive when it comes to purchasing water rights.

You know what reservoir project that is that um it's Chimney Hollow. Okay. I think is what it's called. Y

just one comment around the whole topic of water that we started down. So, right, big themes in the plan really talk about future growth, future expansion. How do we develop? How do we support? How do we grow? Um, and I appreciate your your comments, Rob, about, you know, buying into the new reservoir project, making sure we have capacity, working with public works and wastewater. Right. on the logistical side of implementation, there really wasn't much, and this kind of goes to your last bullet point um of maybe some gaps or emissions. And um I remember reading through a previous version of this, but we didn't really necessarily have a lot of emphasis on um integrating efficiencies into the growth strategies, right? to like we talked a lot about, hey, we're going to get bigger. We're going to have more people. We're going to do these types of things, but there wasn't a whole lot of there wasn't a whole lot of backup on that to say we can do those things better than we're doing them now, right? And so I'm just the the topic about water just prompts me to to remember that thought that I had about you know maybe looking for that from the previous version and not necessarily seeing it here about how how we're also addressing the necessary growth all of those types of things but also saying here's how we're going to incorporate some of those efficiency initiatives to support that growth. Does that make sense in terms of what I'm saying? C can you explain what you mean by efficiency so I'm sure I understand

like a housing unit right right now um working with public works and wastewater right they are going to say great these many housing units this many people in the city this is the average consumption on the portable side you're talking about like water efficiency things like that and you know this is how much waste water gets generated from a specific housing unit if we were just to take that and and straight line it out and multiply it by the number of units That's one projection, right? But we but we didn't necessarily say here's how there's that straight line projection, but here's how we could optimize it by also including elements in the plan about incentivizing additional efficiency.

Right. So I I think there might be some broader policies about that, but we absolutely so with the development um the development code update that's going to be a really big focus very intentionally of the development code update and the design guideline update. And one of the things we're contemplating is also having multifamily development standards um so that we do build in incentives. I think it's actually in the RFP that's drafted right now that we're expecting the consultants to help us come up with an incentive based design standard system for energy efficiency, water efficiency, and all of those types of things. It's going to be built into that followup. So that's going to be part of the the next subsequent like efforts that we're Yeah. It's really implementation. Yeah.

Yeah. So, we want to make sure in this that we have those broad policy statements in this plan that are going to support the actual code update and that's where the rubber will meet the road on how we're going to do that. Do do you think it's an opportunity to emphasize some of those policy statements in this policy focusing instead of having it just address we will purchase water we will have efficiency programs in place to reduce existing consumption. Yeah. Well, at the same time, yeah, if that's not a strategy right now, we'll want to make sure it's in there. It does. It does or should those types of thing live in there. But I think to your point, we could we could draw a clearer line and distinction of what [clears throat] that means for

Yeah. And in reading in rereading through this version of the draft, and I probably didn't necessarily put in the same level of scrutiny as I did on the on the previous draft that we had, but it wasn't something that stood out and, you know, slapped me in the face. Um, which might be nice. It's a good comment. Yeah. Yeah. No, I would like to see that elevated. Commissioner Maley. [laughter]

Yeah. Along those lines, and I think this might fall under the future work um because I because I certainly don't know the full extent of what's planned for the the f it's, you know, it references future utility master plan updates. You know, in addition to comments made about water. I think those of us who live in W 2 and and elsewhere who have dealt with, you know, frequent power outages in the last few weeks, I see, you know, one of the factors that we're going to need to manage is um the expansion of the grid and and making sure that is resilient. I mean, sure, things are getting more efficient, but as our codes also are increasingly more demanding on electric services. Um I'm not sure how much of that is supposed to fall into this comp plan, right? But I however it whoever is holding that card, we at least need to be accounting for it somehow and how we're planning and doing policy. So I'm mentioning this really just because I don't know what's in the scope of the planned future updates to the utility master plan. So I'm also partly asking how much of that should we be considering for the comp plan because that certainly is a factor in managing growth.

So from an electric utility standpoint, obviously that's not the city. So we're really focusing on water and sewer as far as the utilities that we provide. Um, so I think if we wanted to, we could have policies about working with Excel, um, to have more infrastructure resiliency, but we're not, you know, in a position to build that out if that makes sense. And that's what I'm getting at. And I guess in answering the question, what's an emission I think we should be address, you know, the things that we can do, I think we should be doing on that front,

right? So that could be a good strategy to add. And I just would add ju just to get back on the other topic too like within the environmental sustainability we have a goal on promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy in buildings and promoting water conservation and efficiency. So those you know those are in the plan right now. So if you want some what might be helpful is if you see something missing um you know or you think it needs to be addressed slightly differently a little more specificity might be helpful because I'm hearing you want water efficiency but it's also already in the plan

and I mentioned electric you know it it's sort of in the in between because you know we have some effect but it's not we know we don't control it the entire thing but we certainly need to manage it and account for it as we're expanding right so it's sort of my concern is that it falls through the cracks because it's not a Lewisville Well, and right because we do have programs in place that will provide people with rebates to encourage certain behaviors for energy and water efficiency. Um, and so we do have a a little bit of leverage there and and I think the goal is right so that it doesn't appear to be development as usual, right? And we don't just buy our way out of water needs

or Yeah. or we we push it in we allow it to go in a direction that's so far beyond what Excel could could account for yeah you so ex yeah I mean Excel and utility and grid are that's what I'm getting at yeah whole ball of wax yeah any thoughts on water in particular no I have something else I wanted to ask water no utilities utility ah juicy yes uh should we start down there

Jennifer Yeah, I don't know if you want to stick with utilities, but I I wanted to talk a little bit about the future land use framework and understand a little better what is intended to be the relationship between these place types um which are really in some ways very different from our zoning our current zoning areas and like how what the relationship between these place types and our zone districts is intended to be y

and how like how much this has to be addressed with with that amendment. Yeah, it's it's uh the sequence is ideal to do the code right after the plan so you can sort of tee that up and that's the purpose in in part for the place types. So the purpose is kind of put simply to act as the foundation for a revised lineup of zone districts. So there and we don't know what that looks like yet. We're still scoping that obviously but um yeah so within you take one place type the residential low density place type for example the idea is you have enough of a framework there in terms of allowed uses at a high level densities heights development considerations you can craft the specific zone district to fit in that within that range so there'll be like a low range of that the lowest density within that range will be your residential lowest whatever we call it R1 or something um and so then you were able to calibrate all the uses allowed the development standards, building height, stepbacks, things like that, using this as a foundation.

Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think I was just what I was trying to get at is that or noticing I guess in this is there's like we have some really new concepts like this flex or mixed employment and just trying to figure out how if later we're trying to use this to craft new zone district sort of how that will relate. I think it's good to keep in mind like as you're looking at it through that lens to recognize that that is one of its outcomes. And so is this an a good it's like an example of a clarifying thing. Is this are there clarifications needed to where like it's important to clarify that now so that it's clear when we go to write the code.

Right. And I I would think what we're anticipating is there's the opportunity areas and those really have different concepts that we don't have in our zoning structure right now. And so that's absolutely going to be part of the development code update. I think outside of those areas, those areas of stability. We may or may not need to change the zoning in those areas. Um it may be supported. We may we may want to just for simplicity and ease of use, but generally maintain the same standards. So I think that's the direction that we would be headed.

That makes sense. And I think I like I one of the things I like are these are identifying these opportunity areas and it does give us the opportunity as a community to think about different ways to do zoning um ways that we haven't done before which is really hard to do with existing neighborhoods because we don't want to disrupt existing neighborhoods. So I think this is I like that aspect of it. Great utilities. Should we go there?

Yes. I want to go back to um Excel again for a minute and I understand it's not the city probably just fights with Excel all the time to get things done when they're supposed to be done. Um the city receives undergrounding funds which are never enough uh to to do as much as we'd like to see. But I think if there's not a policy statement in there about utility, about collaborating with Excel that there needs to be something explicit in there. We definitely find a home for that.

Yeah, completely agree. And especially as it pertains to growth and capacity. Do we actually do know when the XL franchise agreement is next up for discussion? Does it count? No, not necessarily. Okay, cool. All right. Any additional utility, water, placem, place saving? Questions, thoughts?

We go ahead and open it up. I'd love to get some of the public comments now. Um, why don't we open it up for public comment? Uh, as we move into that though, recognizing we do have an addendum one to our agenda this evening and thanking you guys for sending in your email comments. Um, appreciate it. First up, I have Andy Johnson. And on deck, Cindy Bedell will be on deck. Great. And then our online participant who's identified as Mike. If you want to raise your hand, if you want to speak, let us know, please.

All right. Not really. I mean, why don't we try to stay away from standard timing and if you can keep it, you know, concise, that's always appreciated. If we get to four or five minutes, I might interrupt you. Few ways you want more than that. Is it easy to set up for different amounts of time? Oh, [laughter] why don't we run it at six so you so at least people who are talking can know how long they've been.

Okay. First of all, [clears throat] never give an architect more than three minutes. [laughter] Welcome, Mr. Johnson. It's good to have you here.

Good evening. My name is Andy Johnson. Uh I'm a Lewisville resident, also a business owner in Lewisville. Um some of my comments may may not be as relevant um uh given that there are a lot of future uh discussions to be had after the comp plan is approved. However, some of them may apply. Um I want to begin by um thanking staff for the monumental effort reflected in this draft. Um this update is clear and significant a significant improvement over our previous two comp plans. Uh both of which I did participate in. Um the depth of research is evident and is and it represents a major step forward for Lewisville. So thank you. While I have way more to reflect on than three minute allows and um um I was anticipating that I'm speaking tonight as a proponent of strong towns principles which emphasizes long-term fiscal resilience and incremental growth. My goal is to offer some collaborative refinements that I believe will help the city achieve its housing and vibrancy goals. While the plan uh correctly identifies key areas for large-scale development, I believe we can bolster our success by also uh focusing on existing residential fabric. Roughly 60% of our town consists of single family neighborhoods which represents about 5,800 homes in the low density uh place type u area. Um, we can allow these areas to evolve gently by creating an easy byright path for duplex conversions of all residential districts. This type of incremental change provides a more

affordable entry point into Lewisville than a new detached home or attached single family home. It also uh does so with almost no impact on the physical scale of a neighborhood. Regarding our downtown, I believe it is time for a fresh approach. Our downtown design handbook is nearly 30 years old and frankly has become tired. While combined with our own parking requirements, the handbook is arguably arguably hindered more than it has helped. In recent years, it has seen stalled or failed projects more than successes, even those with strong community support. In many cases, the only way a project has been able to move forward is by seeking signi significant relief from these guidelines. We have the opportunity now to modernize these standards and invite authentic high-quality architecture that is actually feasible to build. I encourage to change language in the comp plan around downtown from preserve to enhance. Lastly, I'm looking for more clarity on how the Oldtown overlay will interact with the the new proposed uh residential place type. Much of downtown is designated as low as residential low density on the future land use map. I would love to see the plan explic explicitly define how we can protect the unique spirit of Oldtown while ensuring that it isn't restricted from the small-scale flexibility that has historically made our most vibrant made it our most vibrant neighborhood. Thank you again for this professional and comprehensive body of work. I look forward to working together to make our neighborhoods even more resilient and accessible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Miss Bedell and then after that um Tamar Krautz.

Oh, hi. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. So, um when I read this plan, quite honestly, I was shocked with the amount of population increase suggested. So, this plan proposes the addition of four to 5,000 housing units, which actually may be a low estimate if you look at some of the calculations. So, in a town of 8,929 current housing units, if each household averages 2.29 people, as set out in the plan, the city would grow from 19,889 to between 29,049 and 31,339 people, and that's within our 8 square miles. So, what would the impact be of adding 9 to 11,000 more people to this town as far as infrastructure, crowding, parks and wreck, open space? Like people are already kind of fighting over swim lanes at the rec center for example and the degregation of our open space without much use. Um, and then I also wanted to mention if you look at some of the past possible calculations for water needs, I'm looking at a presentation we had from our public works dire I mean from our um development director in September of 2024. So, so at that point I think there was some consideration of a 2047 projected population of 24,000 as far as the ability to purchase water. But now we're looking at 29,000 to 31,000 people. So I think that the water is a really good question. How will we have enough water to support that much growth? Um and finally, if I have a few more minutes, I think we should really focus on trying to maintain our naturally occurring, more affordable housing stock. So, an acquaintance of mine counted something like 85 scrapeoffs around Lewisville, and I'm sure that's a a small estimate.

And a lot of these scrapeoffs were smaller, more affordable housing units, and they were replaced by housing units that were much more expensive. So, it's just kind of difficult for me to understand why we're scraping off more affordable units, replacing them with units that are over a million, million and a half. say the East Street developments for example [gasps] and yet we're talking about we need more housing because we need more affordable housing. So those two things just don't match for me. So anyway, thank you. Thank you. Um okay. And then after this, uh Katherine Smith.

Hi, my name is Tamar CR. Hi Commissioner Richie. Nice to see you joining the board. Thank you for volunteering and everybody who came back. Um I really like [sighs]

um that there the new plan has an emphasis on sustainability and affordability and there's a lot of things that I really like but I don't like the growth and I don't have a lot of time to talk. So I just kind of wanted to address that issue. Um, I read appendix B that explains the growth methodology and I understand that four to 5,000 is a is what you're considering to be a realistic but you mentioned that it wasn't use by right but if you look at what's used by right I'm concerned that it's nearly double that because most of our the if I'm understanding the calculations correctly if you're assuming the the appendix that explains the methodology first you're assuming the midpoint is what's going to be achieved and then you're assuming based on that mid midpoint you're assuming only 10 to 80% of that's going to be achieved from what we've seen from recent developments we've seen requests for over a 100% of the use by right so I don't know how these assumptions came about but on the last draft um I sat there I don't have access to the sophisticated GIS that the staff does but I actually sat there and looked at all the parcels on the map and added up the acreage, estimated where all the lines were. And this is on the last draft because the last draft was really nice. The last draft showed you that really great map that came along with it that showed each opportunity area broken down by place types. And that was really useful. And based on that um I found I calculated that the maximum the use by right would be 733 units at a vista 3,863 units at Red Tail Ridge and 3,347 units at um in the Centennial Valley area mccasin court or just in that Centennial Valley part. But if I didn't

it was so took me so long to do it. Um, I didn't calculate South Boulder Road or downtown areas. So, we're already looking at 10,000 houses that are used by right from the last comprehensive plan. I don't know how things have changed. I noticed that you changed I really applaud you for changing the um flex growth type to the mixeduse growth type. I think that was a really great change, but um I would love it if you would ask the question. Could we could you ask um the planning staff? I would love to see it myself. show us this really cool database and how you guys can calculate this stuff because I think it might be worth you and city council having the opportunity to play with a little bit and look at what the maximums are and what the minimums are and what the assumptions are. So I know that this GI Jeff was explaining to me that this database is kind of complicated, but I'm sure it's user friendly enough for them to show you how it works and maybe you could ask questions about the minimum and the maximum so we could really see the range. I guess I'm kind of running out of time, but um regarding so I I hope I I think that's too much growth. Um I think that the housing plan said 20,000 some hundred. I mean stick to what was in the housing plan. This is way over what was in the housing plan. And I think that um we need to ask what people really want at the next open house because I don't think everybody really wants this much growth. Um it was it didn't come up that way in the last um community engagement thing when you guys got the scenarios. Um, I put that in my email to you. Um, regarding the development considerations, I think I love the questions that you guys were all asking so far. And I would love to see in the strategies for sustainability, for water efficiency and stuff like that that you give direction and in the in the strategy say up and rather than say increase water

efficiency or strive for water efficiency say change the CDSG and the IDSG and all the development code to actually include all those things. I think that would be great. And finally I just had one one off-topic thing about the school boarding. I understand that our schools are underenrolled, but um I was speaking to a couple of the school board candidates and they didn't say that their number one priority was population growth to fix the schoolboard issue. This the enrollment issues. There's a lot of other ways to deal with nobody wants neighborhood schools to close, but it's a more complicated issue than just adding more housing units. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Um, Miss Smith and then Matt Jones after that and then we'll jump on to the online person after that.

Sorry. Hi, I'm Katherine Smith. I live in Ward three and um I s am like the other commenters. I'm concerned about the level of growth and I feel um that some growth is important, some growth is necessary, but I'm looking for something that is really measured growth and thoughtful growth. And the question that comes to my mind that I that I just don't know the answer to from reading the comprehensive plan is what does how does Lewisville benefit? What good comes to our city from this level of growth? And that's a question I would like to see answered. I would like the planning commission and the city council to make the case for this level of growth and to explain to us why this is appropriate. Um, I make this comment because I love living in Lewisville. I think it's a great community. I think that we have done a lot of things right over time. I think going through this process and asking good questions. Uh community dialogue is healthy and I'd like to see that continue particularly around the growth issue. I am concerned about the impacts on my daily life. I'm concerned about traffic, which I think is already troublesome in places in Lewisville. And if we add all of this housing, have all of these people, all of the new cars, I just don't know how um we don't reduce our quality of life. I also feel like the plan does look at

resiliency issues, does look at wildfire issues um and other kinds of natural disasters. But an aspect of that that I don't I I didn't find in the plan is evacuation routes and how are we going to get all of these pe we already we've been through one evacuation where people talk about the length of time that it took them to get out of Lewisville and um I think that's an important thing and I also have in many city forums had uh residents of Lewisville express a lot of concern concern and frustration about the fire. Um, from a fiscal standpoint, it is my understanding that housing by itself doesn't pay its own way, which means that we have to have a thriving business community in order for our uh city to continue to be successful. And I'm concerned that I'm not seeing that aspect that there has to be a balancing between the residential growth and the commercial activity. And I'm just not seeing that here. How we're going to do that. Um, I would like to see um the city I I would like to see more affordable housing. I know the city spends a lot of time and energy working on that issue, but the reality is in terms of getting actual housing units, we've only been able to deliver a much smaller number of units, a much smaller number of units than we need. Um, and if we only have a community where very wealthy people live

in our community, I think the richness of our community will be diminished. With regard to um the pros plans and the trails master plans, I just um would like to say emphasize it's in my letters, but the city already has a very robust process underway to deal with the trails plans and the management of our open space. And to the extent that you start delving into the details, you start going in directions that are not consistent with what is going on in the other departments in the city and in the other with projects with other consultants. And so in particular, I ask that you remove the good h good good hue ditch trail connector uh from the comprehensive plan and use other city processes. There's no reason why you can't uh participate in the consultants process. Thank you for the additional time and for your service. [clears throat]

Thank you very much. Good evening. Uh, can you hear me? Yep.

Uh, uh, thanks for doing this and having this hearing. My name is Matt Jones. I live in Lewisville in Mighty Ward 3. Uh, I want to first thank staff for all the work they've done. If you look at this document, it's been a ton of work, right? and I appreciate all the time and effort and a lot of the competing voices and trying to integrate all that and make it work. So, thank you. Uh, I have three requests and I'll start with the table one which we've been talking about with the growth and how much and units of growth and that kind of thing. And if you look at that table and add up the columns, they don't add up to the total at the bottom. The total says four to 5,000 units, but if you add the total in those unit those columns, it's 4,100 to 5,900 units. So that would be a 46 to 67% increase. That's huge. I don't think people in town have any idea this is going on. I really don't. I think some do that keep track of planning stuff, but that's an unusual group of people. So what I would ask, my first request is let people know that you're planning, the city is planning in the comprehensive plan to increase growth 50 to 60%. Because that's what this document does. And you don't want to have come people coming up later. I had no idea because you know going to you tell people to plan to comment on a planning on a uh uh planning document they go oh boy you know but if you tell them that that's what's going to happen to them they'll show up and be part of this thing and you don't want to do that after the fact you want to do it now. Secondly, because of that, I think you should do a financial analysis, a marginal cost approach analysis to find out what that does, all that

residential growth does to the city coffers. Residential does not pay its way. You probably know all this. Commercial industrial subsidizes it. If you add a ton of residential, you undermine your finances in the city. that will run in run the city into either cutting services for residents or asking for a property tax or a sales tax increase. We want to avoid that. You need to make this decision wiseide open and the council does too. You need that analysis before you make a decision. I think you'll find that you don't want to do that. They did that I understand in the last comp plan and the top end of the people who were really go- go development was 26,000 people. So you need to know that ahead of time and not later. And thirdly I would ask you that's my third request is to reduce that number substantially of growth. you can accomplish the housing plan goals within a smaller number, especially when you consider most of these new units, if you add them, are going to be market rate units, unaffordable. And so you can do the affordability in a smaller scale and not have all this extra growth. Uh I was at a W three meeting last night with the council members and nice meeting. People were talking about traffic and quality of life and how things aren't going the way they want them to and how their concerns about that. They need to know that this plan is going to increase the number of people in town, residents 50 to 60%. So they got to know about it. You need to do a financial analysis. It's only the only prudent approach to doing this. And third, please drop that number. We have such a unique quality of life in Lewisville and we really really risk it

by doing that kind of increase and I'm particularly concerned about downtown and all the plans to change buildings, tear down buildings. That's our golden goose. That's what makes us unique. That's what when you talk to people around the state, they'll say, "Oh, I know Lewisville." Yeah, it's it's nice downtown. I'm really concerned with this growth here. What were the numbers? uh five, where is it? Two to 300 more units in the downtown area. And I know that area extends down far beyond just Oldtown, but still that is just huge. So, please back off. Please let people know what's going on and please do a financial analysis. And thanks for your time. Thank you. And online, we have a mic. If you can identify yourself and city of residence, we'll

Hello. Mike Mike Cranstarf. I'm not a Lewisville resident, but I'm a downtown business and property owner. U I want to applaud both the implicit and explicit recognition that all communities need to contribute to housing availability. Uh, I live in a single family neighborhood in Boulder and frankly I'm saddened by how many of my neighbors don't want any change, don't want any duplexes, don't want anything else. I welcome it. Uh, I'll also say it's essential to remember this is a 20-year plan. It doesn't require this growth. It just allows it. So, I I applaud the work of uh staff and I I I back this move. Thanks.

Thank you. [clears throat] Um so, moving back to commission, any thoughts, questions of staff, reactions, concerns? Yes, Miss Commissioner Richie.

Oh, thank you, Commissioner Choy. Um, I'm going to start maybe in a few directions. If we want to pause on some of them, that's fine. But overall, I just want to say really appreciate um all the hard work that has gone into this. And I say, you know, overall, I think it gets a lot right. Um, from a big picture perspective, um, I just want to kind of say on the record that I'm comfortable with the amount of residential development in the plan because it's entirely infill and it doesn't rely on new annexations, right? And I think from like an infrastructure and fiscal responsibility, smarter to do infill development than be looking at expanding our borders and adding a lot of new lane miles and things like that. So I'm I'm comfortable with the number. Um I do think though it would might be helpful from a policy perspective to draw a stronger connection between the fact that we've added you know what I can't remember the number 7,000 new jobs um since 2010 and just such a small fractional amount of housing. So when we think about the impact on our community and a lot of those people are already here, right? They're driving um they we've added 7,000 jobs in our community in the last 15 years, right? So they're coming from somewhere. So we should give them the opportunity to live here, be integrated in our community, and I think the traffic impact might not be as um as severe as folks are concerned about. Um I would like to see um I appreciate the naturally occurring affordable housing discussion. I think I'd like to see a little bit more fleshing out of u maybe why those areas were selected, kind of what might qualify other areas to be considered for that in the development code rewrite. Um I think I'm going to just can I do you want me to just keep going? Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. And and if any of the other commissioners want to dump on any topics as they come up, please.

Um I spent I think most of my time during the review and the place types discussion. I viewed that as kind of from my perspective that is kind of forms the basis of our new development code. Right? So I think the policies and guidance and those place types becomes kind of the the basis of our zoning and I appreciate the comments that we heard tonight about residential development and and I appreciate them kind of on both sides of the spectrum here. I I would be comfortable with more explicit allowance for duplexes in our existing neighborhoods. You know, I live in a neighborhood with duplexes and single family homes side by side and it's it's perfectly wonderful neighborhood to live in here in Lewisville. Um I also um don't I I share the same concerns I think that you know u Mr. Johnson raised around um Oldtown. It doesn't really factor in I think some of the character differences by lumping Oldtown in with the residential low. I think there's some distinct differences there. particularly I think you described in the development considerations you know RLD is suburban lowdensity development and I think there's a I I I don't I take I don't know that suburban is the right use use of the the term there um in any of the residential development discussions I would also I think appreciate a note um acknowledging that dwelling units per acre is not kind of a one-sizefits-all number you know a one-bedroom apartment is vastly different than a large lot single family home and so maybe some sort caveat in there that um and I think you you you acknowledge this, but just um I'd be curious to know more about how those numbers might be evaluated in the future. You know, is that neighborhoodwide? Is that development specific?

Well, do we want to discuss that and ask that right now if you I mean you guys are welcome. Also, the question is how are the specifically how would the density ranges be applied? Yeah. Do you guys view that as like a you know that will is that a hard cap? Is that just like an estimate? Is that neighborhoodwide or sight specific wide or

we we definitely intended it to be pretty flexible honestly to where like if you wanted to go if a project wanted to go lower than that range that would be fine. It's when you get into the upper limits of the range and even talking about requests for going above I think the intent of the plan and maybe could be clear is like the higher up that you might go on that range the more sort of community benefit we would want to see in exchange for that um kind of thing. Um I think that's you know probably not clearly articulated in the plan. That's sort of the intent of community benefit at that point. What's that examples of community benefit

on-site affordable housing, additional public land dedication, it could be some sort of energy efficiency metric, water conserv there, any number of things I think um and that's a code that's a code level thing in terms of like calibrating the incentives and getting all those metrics specific. But to your question also like that's also the code is is defining the zone districts that live with it. So there'll be one zone district that represents the very low end of that place type range, right? And so it'll be tighter. Um, and so I think the code is the place to flush it out. But the overall intent of the plan is for it to be not too rigid, but just give you a a just give you the lanes, right? Yeah.

And and I would just add we we've had some discussion. Sorry. I just want to say this is why the place types are like are not like real neat overlays onto what potential zone districts might be. They are just broad swath guidelines and we could have, you know, gradations within those when we get to the ultimate development code. And I think when you get into the higher density housing, there's a lot more questions because you could have three-bedroom apartments versus efficiencies in one-bedroom apartments. And it's the same physical form of the building, but it's a vastly different number of units. So, I think we did try to account for that somewhat by the range, but when we get into the development code update, we don't want this to be prescriptive. And if we do want to do more of a form-based code, we want to leave the door open for that. Um, we've actually had that question from some city council members. Um, but we're, you know, part part of it too is we we hope this is close enough to representing what we want and we can deal with that more specifically in the development code because it's a pretty big lift to turn this into kind of a form-based comprehensive plan. We want to just generally describe the character because people understand that a little bit more about dwellings per acre. Happy to keep going a little bit. I have a few more thoughts too in the place. Were

there any? So some of the topics you mentioned previously, did you want to ask questions directly? Um of staff. Let me go back. I think um I don't know that they were questions necessarily. Oh, I did have a question. Um yeah, I don't know if you want to talk about the naturally occurring affordable housing a little bit more before I move on. I did have I guess Yeah. kind of your thoughts on on how that advances forward.

Yeah. also intended to be flexible, but I think you know when you look at the map that we could pull up where there's a essentially it's I think it's called an overlay area. That's the area where it's just known that it's the highest concentration of apartments and naturally occurring means, right? I mean, I know you know what it means, but it's like they're not subsidized, but they're naturally the rates are a little bit lower due to the age of the structure or whatever it is. The concentration area is generally defined on the plan, but the intent is to leave enough wiggle room in there to where if there are other pockets in the city that have that amenity, that should be a priority to preserve that to the extent possible. Great.

Okay. Um, one question I have for staff, I think, as I was reading through, there was a kind of a caveat that you used quite a bit, and I understand kind of the rationale why, but I'm curious as you read it, what that means to you, and I think a lot of times you use the phrase like where compatible with [clears throat] neighborhood context, right? So, some of these land uses might be appropriate, you know, where compatible or as, you know, appropriate. And I'm just wondering in your mind, does that mean in like a lot of places, a little places? Are you going to flesh that out a little bit more? Like what what does that kind of cav do you have an idea of what that caveat means yet?

I mean, it's definitely a code a code level of like and intentionally um at that level. So that the code is the place to figure out what that means. But I would say like you know if you look at at this plan and like look at it on its whole neighborhood compatibility with neighborhood context could mean a number of things. I think one priority is when you look at the opportunity areas and the edges of them adjacent to the existing established neighborhoods. There are policies in there that support reduced building heights having the density sort of closely more closely aligned with what it's abuing. That's a huge example. Um and I think that you could probably extrapolate from the plan related to like architecture and sort of built environment kind of things but probably be clear. Um but it is intentionally as you acknowledge kind of at the you know admittedly vague level but gives us space to define what that means. I think a primary example of that could be um you know transitioning near a single family neighborhood, right? Like maybe if you're designing a new neighborhood and it's going to be a mix of row homes and multifamily homes, maybe you don't want to put the multifamily homes right next to the single family homes. Maybe you want to transition the density.

Okay.

So, I think that's an example of what we mean by that as well. I I assumed. I just think that was helpful to to clarify. Um, a few things. I just want to say I really appreciate the increased detail on the recovery and resiliency from the previous version of the plan. I think you guys have done a really nice job um expanding that discussion. Um, and I just have a few more if we want. I I appreciate um I think the comment about you know limiting scrapes of existing residential development and I think to some degree our existing code kind of incentivizes new large homes and so I'd like to see more language in here that I think maybe in our we're okay with smaller lots right in addition to smaller units like we're okay with maybe a smaller lot size character in some of our existing you know in our residential neighborhoods. Um, and then

yeah, I'm I'm curious to hear a little bit more about that, too. Um, right. Obviously, it's a market that's driving scrapes and multi-million dollar homes. Um, how do you view that?

Yeah. So, and I know Commissioner Richie was actually familiar with um Oldtown specifically. So, traditional lot sizes are much smaller than the zoning allows. And um you know a few years ago we were looking at potentially changing minimum lot sizes. I think um you know one of the issues was at that time um you know we weren't sure if that would be supported. Um right now I think based on what our city council has been giving us direction on. I think that is something we should consider for when we do our code update starting next year. Do we want to transition more to trai uh traditional size lots in Oldtown allowing smaller lots? Because smaller lots, you're going to have smaller homes as well. You're gonna have opportunities for smaller homes, which also might be more affordable, but also preserve character of Oldtown a little better, even if you're not landmarking and preserving the home. But the new homes arguably could be in clo a better match to existing character.

Okay. All right. Um, switching over to I think some more of our like commercial downtown. I appreciate the comment um, regarding maybe a little more flexibility and openness for change in our downtown area. I think there's some language in there like, you know, kind of honor the existing development standards and honor existing code. Like I think I think we should loosen that up a little bit. And I did notice that you put on your slide, you know, that an update to the downtown design guidelines is planned. So I think maybe you're planning for maybe more flexibility than how the the draft of the comp plan is maybe indicating. Um and then just finally I think in the commercial areas u maybe some more explicit language around I know our current code requires you know large landscaped areas on some of our commercial development and the practical effect of that I think is spreading out our buildings and kind of driving sprawl a little bit more. I think as we re think about rewriting our commercial design standards, I would want to have more language around like shared parking, less green landscaping, still certainly attractive landscaping, but not, you know, just large swats of of um landscaping be required um as they are today. Um I think that's kind of what I've got so far.

That's a whole bunch of things though, right? Okay. [laughter] Thank you very much. You told me to come with stuff, so here we go. Great to hear. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Um, additional question. Yes. Yeah. New topic. All right. Great. I had to go down the transportation path a little bit. Good for you. [laughter]

So, I think that there is a goal missing in the trail system discussion on page 44, goal CP4. Um, my concern is about management of the trail system, management of the users of the trail system. So, we've just passed a speed limit for the trail system, which is awesome. Now, I think we need a goal that says we're going to manage the trail system so it's accessible and safe for all users. So, I would I would suggest that addition additional um goal. What does that mean?

Well, I think it means education programs. I think it means more regulations. Unfortunately, I I perceive that we're at a tipping point where it the ebikes are not compatible with pedestrians and the way the trail system is used. I I believe it can be managed and and be a shared path, but um I'd like to see some language in there that's a little stronger. What's your concern? I I think you know Jeff emphasized a number of times that this is a policy based document and when we start talking about the idea of of having something that's that has an element of enforcability to it veers away from being policydriven and becomes more regulatory. Right. Um and I I'm not disagreeing with you. I think that that right now the way things are trending, you know, moves towards incompatibility. Um I just I I just wonder is this the right place for that? You know, because it is a policy driven thing, but you're talking about a regulatory solution.

Well, I am talking about a policy that says manage the trail system so it's accessible and safe for all users. Mhm. I think that is at the policy level rather than at the regulatory level. The question was how do you do that? You do it by regulation, enforcement, education. And this just I'm not looking for that at this level. It prompts that correct [clears throat] further discussion. Correct. Yeah.

It's got to be in the park parks recreation plan I think is where that lives. But in the interest of linking the two, the other thing that um stood out to me and it's maybe because I'm not in the room anymore, there's under the transit improvements discussion around Northwest Rail. There is number six says planning for a northwest rail system outside of for a northwest rail station outside of downtown near the Colorado tech center. Could you give me some context for that?

Yeah, you know that that there was some discussion about that in our transportation master plan. I think that's why it got pulled in. There was at one point talk about a potential I mean that's clearly not in any current plans for um you know passenger rail that's currently being planned pretty actively right now but there was a desire since it's so near an employment center at some point that if there was an opportunity that might make sense for a stop. Um so I I would say that's not something we like heard a lot of community input on. It's just something that's getting carried forward from our transportation plan. Well, it's never been discussed. That's why there's no community input on it, right?

Trying to find it in the plan where um uh page 293, I think it is. Yeah. And I and um yeah, I'm not I'm not familiar that that specifically can give you a moment. We'll see if it's we'll see if it's in the plan or I don't know if it was a reference to the transportation master plan. Five minutes. That'll give you guys a chance to pull that up. I'm also interested in discussing fiscal after we come back from a break. Sure. Uh and then also for public who are here, if you all want to if you have additional thoughts you wanted to share after our break, um you're welcome up again. Thanks. Five minutes. Recording stopped. 7:55. Six minutes.

I think that'll be motivating. She still has a lot of work aology with her yesterday. Thank you. We can reconvene now please in the audience. [laughter] Thank you. All right. So, uh, we were diving into, uh, a subject right there before. Oh, we broke. So, regarding this potential for possible train stop in the tech center that was attributed to what document now? It's in one of the background there's the transportation assessment which was a appendix document and I think yeah and I think it is I think it was discussed in our transport our transportation plan

as well um as further background but it is not in the comprehensive plan draft. It only discusses front-range passenger rail um that is being planned with potential stop in Lewisville by 2029 at South Street in DLO. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. And then as far as fiscal analysis, um yeah, at what point do we look at that? I mean, obviously it's not on the individual property level.

Yeah. So you you know fiscal impact analysis it's a very specific tool for land use planning. Um you know we didn't do a specific fiscal analysis for this comprehensive plan. We've done that a lot in the past. Um over the years we've done different levels of fiscal impact analysis. Um there is this concept called fiscal zoning which I think the city has been doing for a while. It's it's actually where you have undesirable it's it's an undesirable condition actually to have fiscal zoning because if you just look at commercial development of course it looks very strong to the city coffers but that if it's not market supported it could actually backfire and I think that's what we've seen as a city over the years especially when you look in the Maclin corridor and Centennial Valley um you know we've been fiscally zoning that it's broad commercial zoning over a very large area that is not commercially supported and it's it's struggled. The businesses have struggled. We'd have we'd have had a lot of big vacancies. Um and the idea of economic vitality and e economic development is a little more complex than just doing the fiscal analysis. You have to do placemaking. You have to bring in rooftops. You have to create places where people want to be. So part of the residential development strategy is economic vitality with this comprehensive plan. It is to bring in more interesting vital areas um to support existing businesses. But when we look at residential development that will drive additional commercial development that doesn't if you do a fiscal model or fiscal impact analysis that doesn't necessarily get captured. I would also say that um you know a comprehensive plan land use map is not zoning. It's it's intended to evolve over time and a fiscal analysis

is one moment in time and um you know it's very different is if this if the city were to do an annexation for example of a new area you actually have to zone that area. It makes a lot of sense to do a fiscal analysis and a market analysis at that time to make sure that you are having fiscal balance with large new annexed areas. But infill development's much more complex. A comprehensive land use map is just kind of a future vision for 20 years. It's going to go through lots of iterations. So, I was even going back and looking at our fiscal impact consultants notes from 2013, and he he does not recommend doing fiscal impact analysis citywide for a comprehensive plan map for those reasons. I know I'm not explaining it incredibly well here, but I just think it's really important to understand that if we drive all of our future land uses by a fiscal analysis, it may not be market supported and it may not actually result in good commercial growth and economic vitality for the city. It's much more complex than that.

Great. Thank you. And so is the idea then that that I think we have to get back to what the purpose of this document is and it is to provide a framework on which we can hang future iterative decisions right as we go about how the development that could happen whether it does happen and how it happens and whether it makes financial sense. Yeah, and I would just add, you know, having broad commercial zoning that does look really good in a fiscal model also doesn't necessarily support affordable housing. Um, when you put market rate and affordable housing in the fiscal model, it doesn't it doesn't show very well. Um, but it doesn't mean the city doesn't have to be smart and make sure that we grow responsibly and have an appropriate tax base. But the idea is that we that um you know this type of development will make areas more economically vital and attract new businesses and support existing businesses in a way that we haven't done over the last couple decades.

Great. Thanks. Um I think if if the commissioner feels okay, maybe we can invite the public again to if you all wanted to chime in on anything you're open to. Um, we did hear hear you out the first time, but sure. Mr. Johnson,

so Andy Johnson, uh, again, um, I completely agree with what director Zakaro is saying. I think that a financial analysis is purely a snapshot in time. It does not anticipate a whole lot more than that. Um, I am curious and I don't know if this could be a discussion. um you know when you look at uh the future land use map it's very segregated it's a it's like a you know has colors everywhere I'm wondering um given that there is such a gradient to the place types um that in some cases there is a little bit of overlap I'm wondering do those colors combine do they really need to be that segregated and unmixed or or do we really have opportunity to create more diverse neighborhoods as opposed to further segregated neighborhoods? To me, a comp plan is not necessarily about how we set up our zoning districts. It's about how we create our neighborhoods. And I think the diversity that uh we can create within a neighborhood is critical. It's why we love downtown. It grew over time. It was incremental and it had a lot of diversity. Um, we've lost a lot of that which we could gain back through aspirational goals within our comp plan, within our language of the the the design downtown design handbook and framework plan and all these guiding documents that create a lot of order. Maybe not a lot of intelligence, but a lot of order. But I think we can add more intelligence to our discussion about how do we create our neighborhoods

and the real meaningful placemaking that this comp plan does. We can get very lost in talking about utilities, resilience, all these very important things, but in the end we want to love living here. And quality of life isn't diminished by the fear of what growth may or may not bring. It doesn't um it it's not a color coding map. And so I'm wondering how do we shake the snow globe and let these colors mix? Anyway, something to think about. Food for thought.

I'm curious. Do you envision something that's more [clears throat] formishbased code or are we is that too early to ask that unfair question of me or

I think [clears throat] it's too early. I I I would say that even though there's lots of different colors and there's lots of lines and they don't overlap. Um we do intend that within a certain area that there should be flexibility. It's just a general mix of uses is how we want to describe it. And maybe we need to be more clear about that. I think what's different too with this comprehensive plan compared to last is our our residential mixed use, our neighborhood center, our regional center, our flex district. Those are all intended to be allow mixed use and not prescribed segregated uses, which I think is not exactly what Mr. Johnson's saying, but it's a similar concept. So, we are trying to move a little bit in that direction with this.

Great. Thanks. If I might, it sounds more like those colors kind of represent like development intensity maybe not segregation of uses. Is that kind of what you're trying to say? Like the regional center is probably like your highest intensity of amount of development. I think the importance of use depends on the area. I think that, you know, for for all the yellow in the middle of the city, the established single family low density, the usees probably more important to be clear on that. Um, but if we're talking about the opportunity areas and the commercial areas, that's where I think we're intended to be much more broad and flexible in terms of the mix of uses that go in there.

That's Jones. Matt Jones Lewisville to the fiscal analysis idea. Thank you for asking. It reminds me of when I was in my 40s and I went to my optometrist and he told me I he did an eye test and he told me I need glasses, but you might need progressive lenses later on and now I do have progressive lenses. And so since you are going to have change in vision, you don't need glasses, Matt. You need to know this information. The city is already has a structural deficit in their budget. You might have heard about it to make a wise decision for this. You need that snapshot in time. Yeah, it's going to change. Everything changes, but I can't understand why you wouldn't do it because what it'll amount to if if it goes south and it very likely, well, I think with 50 to 60% increase in h housing, it's going to go south. you're going to cut services or raise taxes. Neither of those are popular. And we we enjoy great services in this city and we have a decent tax burden. A lot of people complain about property taxes already for good reason. But you need to know that information. Yeah, it's not perfect, but why go blind? I just don't get it. You need that information before you can make an informed decision to do right by the residents of this town that don't want to pay more property tax and want to have continued good services. Thank you, Miss CR. Yeah,

I I so appreciate you letting the public be part of this discussion. It's really nice. It's really interesting about the financial thing and I I don't understand why I I'm probably don't understand a lot about financial analysis. I understand how we did fiscal analysis for particular developments, but it seems like perhaps in this comprehensive plan we could do like a back of the end develop type of thing so that we know that we're not going to run into the problems that we see in the headlines. Like I'm just looking at this one from Erie like I think it said a hund00 million in debt and um pro growth with growth projections and they they were recently there was a lot of headlines recently with Eerie having extensive growth and um not having enough police officers. So, I mean, it just seems like we should be able to figure out just basic back of the envelope how many how much it costs per resident and and if we increase our residents by 100% which I want to talk a little bit more about what the actual numbers are. Um, I think that um it seems like something that we could just just do some back of the envelope, you know, reality check on that. Um, and the other other thing I just wanted to add is I was just speaking to um Jeff and Rob about this was um like when you I I'm hoping that you guys will dig a little bit deeper and understand that these this four to 5,000 number that's in the comprehensive plan is a midpoint and that midpoint is based on 10 to 80% growth. And so I'm concerned that like when you guys make development decisions and you look at the comprehensive plan say does this is this compatible with the comprehensive plan. I mean even though it's just an estimate the comprehensive plan shows these land uses with larger growth than what we're showing in the summary. So, for example, like the I mean I understand why this happened because Rob just explained it to me, but

the A Vista lot we're assuming zero growth, but the land use category is RC, which means 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Apparently, a Vista doesn't want to have any dwelling units, but if it's going to be zoned residential with 30 to 40 dwelling units per units per acre, we don't know if that could be subdivided in the future. And I don't know if it's fair to assume that that's always going to be zero. I mean, why not make it so it's really straightforward that land use maybe just make a new hospital land use type or something like that. But if you're going to call it regional center that allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre, then somebody's going to come along and say that's our use by right, you know, just in case. So I think it's better to to be more explicit and to really for you guys to look at the actual map and see what the assumptions are for each area. Thank you.

Thank you. On that note, so the development impact fees and the the re-evaluation of those um how much do you envision that exercise taking into account these types of issues? [clears throat] So yeah, so development impact fees are a very specific fee that pay for capital infrastructure to maintain level of service and so they are calibrated to typically do that. So that's the intent and so there's different categories. Um so like as an example I know that includes the the rec center essentially those services, right?

So it could include it could include things like the rec center and then also when new residents come in they do still pay taxes. they sp. So when you do a fiscal model and fiscal impact analysis, um you do look at what those residents bring into the city from sales tax and property tax and the use tax, from the new construction of the buildings, both commercial and residential and all of that. And then you look at what the city costs are and then you can look at what infrastructure is needed. Now the fiscal impact models that we've done in the past also include the development impact fees. Um, so there is there is new revenue coming into the city from a residential development standpoint too. Again, these fiscal impact models are full of assumptions and they're static models. You can the one we've had most recently, you can play around with the numbers, but it's really difficult to have legitimate models that you can have some confidence in, but they give you a general direction of where you could be going. Um what we saw most recently with our fiscal impact models were that um based on the value of homes in the city there is a breaking point where they do pay for themselves and I think the last time I checked it was somewhere around I was looking at my notes around 850,000 per unit. You start breaking even on our assumptionfilled fiscal impact model. So, um, you

sorry. So, $850,000 like a home, family home or Yeah. And and and you know, don't take don't take take all of these like I'm just throwing numbers out there to describe concepts. So, don't take the numbers for anything. But there is a breaking point is the point where residential development actually

might pay for itself. Um, but also there's different trends that have been happening since we originally did our fiscal impact model, which I think we started around 2015 and we've updated it over the years. Um, namely internet sales. So, the city's actually been collecting significantly more internet sales tax. There's been new um there's been new legal precedents that require internet um sales providers to remit taxes into the state. The state has a relatively new collection system. The city is getting much much more internet sales tax that continues to trend up per household. So that really starts to replace some of the brickandmortar requirements for fiscal balance in the city as well. So again, none of these are are perfect or drive assumptions, but more than ever, having residential development because of our property values and because of internet sales, um you know, we're closer to a fiscal balance. Now, if we built if all of our housing that we built over the next 5 or 10 years was I mean, honestly, if it was, you know, $500,000 units and we put a lot of demand on our rec center services and all those other services, we probably could be in a deficit. Um, but there's a there's a lot that goes into that because if we develop these nice new mixed use neighborhoods that we're hoping to do, you know, slowly incrementally over 20 years, they create vibrant places where businesses want to be. So, not only are we bringing in residences and hopefully mixed income to meet our other goals of affordable housing, but we are creating neighborhoods and business districts where businesses want to be. Uh and so you start to get some synergy for economic growth. So if you look at McCaslin and Centennial Valley, we've

had static commercial zoning over hundreds of acres that there's absolutely no market support for. Um there's no market. We've done market studies. There's no market support for big boxes. There's very little market support for small retail. So those areas will remain stagnant and the businesses will continue to struggle there without doing something different. and and you know you commercial zoning is commercial zoning. There's only so much you can do. We don't want mckas to you know mccasin's never going to be a thoroughfare like 287 or something like that where you you're bringing in this massive amount of traffic that supports large format retail. It's a very unique business ecosystem in the mccaslin corridor. So we've for years we've been looking at you know we've been working with um you know economic consultants to do studies over the last couple comp plans. We did the parcel O study and their conclusion was the best thing you can do economically for this district is to do mixeduse development. You make it an in a vital place. You bring in residents. it actually supports the businesses and you're going to maximize the the amount of businesses and commercial revenues that the city's going to get by transitioning towards those mixeduse districts. That's what the third party experts are telling us as well.

Great. That's actually tremendously helpful to take into account. Yes. Welcome up.

I'm Katherine Smith. I just wanted to make uh one point about the complexity of this dynamic that we're discussing and to make you aware that there are two homes in my neighborhood that are second homes where the people in one case they come and go kind of at random from my perspective and in the other case they just come in the summer and there's a different set of problems that comes with that and we haven't had any discussions of whether my neighborhood is indicative of a trend in the city or whether it's an outlier.

Interesting. Thank you. Yes. Welcome up, Miss Bedell. Still another item, don't we? Yeah.

Hi, Cindy Bedell. I live in W 2 Lewisville. So just a couple comments that tag on to some things I heard tonight. So I do think quality of life for the current residents should be one of the most important measures. I don't know if you've read Deepac Shra but he wrote um a book about happiness and he said once you have your basic financial needs met having more money does not make you more happy. So as far as I know the city of Lewisville has been in the black with our budget. I haven't looked at last year's, but up to now when I've looked at the annual budget reports, I think we've been doing well. So my question is, should we add 50 to 60% more population growth that could decrease the quality of life for current residents? Or is a certain amount of economic vitality and doing what we can to support our businesses? Is that enough? As a previous planning commissioner said one time, the quickest way to degrade quality of life is spending more time sitting in traffic. So I I think what we need is a balance. We need to encourage economic vitality, which I believe we already have in many ways, but our important measure maybe is not always money. Maybe it's not always growth. Maybe it's not always more, more, more. How many more rooftops can we cram in with this this kind of tired, worn out trope I've been hearing for 10 or 15 years, ever since I've retired and started coming to meetings that we need more and more and more and more. Well, maybe we don't. Maybe we need enough to be vital. Maybe we need careful planning. And maybe quality of life is one of the most important measures. As long as our basic needs are met, we're in the black. And another comment I want to make is about the trail crowding and competition. So I I have to tell you the first semester I worked at CU, I was

walking across the crowded um pathways there and this woman passed me on a bike and she had this giant sign on her rear end and it said left, left, left and I didn't get over left fast enough and she ran me over. So when I think about that, I think about, well, what if we increase our number of bikers on our trail, say by my house in Hillsboro West, from 100 to 200. What if we increase the number of dog walkers from 100 to 200? The number of families with strollers from 100 to 200. So now you've basically [clears throat] doubled the conflicts that you're going to have with people on the trail. So, I find right now when I walk the trails every day as a pedestrian, a dog walker, a regular bicyclist, and an ebiker, um I think people are generally very polite and civil. We try to be considerate, get out of each other's way. But if we become very overcrowded with more overcrowding and more anonymity, become more less civil. So I just want to add that to my comments about adding too many more residential units to eight square miles will put a lot of increase on parks, wreck, open space and trails and quality of life also has to do with our social interactions. So thank you.

Thank you. And also just to warn you also next time when we're hearing this as a as a resolution, I won't be able to open it up as free play as as we are this evening. But thanks for going along with it. Additional commissioner questions, discussions, comments, concerns, direction for staff. That's what we're here for. Yes. I kind of have a concluding statement that I didn't have that many comments on the comprehensive plan because as I was reading it, I thought to myself, this is what we've been talking about. This is what I heard in the community meetings. So, it [laughter] I I think they did a fine job. [snorts] Thank you.

I want to echo that. I I want to say, you know, the one of the questions was, is it readable? Is it clear? And I think it is. Um I think it's greatly, you know, improved from the first drafts we saw. And I think it does capture, um I think the spirit and and the content that we were wanting to get across largely. And so, um I really just want to commend you all appreciate the huge amount of work that went into this. Thank you.

Yeah. And I can add to that. Um, I think it was very I think it was I forget what the comment was, but it's certainly more readable than I thought it was going to be. [laughter] Um, just given the the density of material there and the amount of work that's been done. Um, one thing that I did want to applaud in particular I don't think was mentioned is I think the the opportunity areas and looking at the future land use map. Um, based on the conversations I think we've had and you know my own experience with the community engagement, I think that is very reflective of what we talked about um, in terms of the integration of the residential mixeduse and this new flex. It's the purple color on the map. I think that um was well laid in. Um circling back to a comment about evacuation routes that I resonated with, I think that would be something that's worth expanding upon in the report. And one of the reasons why I like and I'm applauding the the the opportunity areas and the uses that are designated is I think they would play well with future evacuation planning um particularly in the Centennial Valley and the the Red Tail Ridge um developments. Um I I'll also just since like

Yeah, please

pause it. Okay. Um in terms of the growth figure, I I did not have a chance to go back and look at the last version as it pertained to numbers and and look at the survey results, but I I do agree with the comment that the scale of the growth is larger than I was expecting based on what I recall from community engagement survey and previous discussions. Um I share a lot of the concerns about the rapid growth. You know, I'm I'm certainly a fan of of manageable incremental growth, but looking at an absolute magnitude of 50% even over 20 years seems large to me. Um I I absolutely resonate with the um comment upon the, you know, erosion of the of the quality of services or the increase in tax. So, I think that needs to be managed. That's not saying I'm against growth. I think there's a sweet spot to be had to address some of our goals with affordable housing um and and address some of the other issues we've talked about. Um, that's not to say I don't know what the right answer is. I'm just commenting that I think I agree with what was said that if if you rolled out a 50% growth metric to the community, I think the feedback would be that's larger than they were anticipating. I think a lot of people like myself are in favor of some growth, but that might be a little larger. And I would anticipate that being a large source of discussion in the the following dates you you've identified.

Two side issues that pop into mind. Uh, one is, uh, is it possible that you can pass on to maybe to public safety? I I feel like we should have a in our monthly city newsletter a discussion of the emergency routes and how an evacuation would be handled in the future given lessons learned from the past. Um, I would love to hear more about that. I know that's a totally different department, but for the time being. Um, also, uh, we used to have a document. It was actually it might still exist buried in planning commission member kind of introductions and it kind of listed a hierarchy for you know zoning code different um development guidelines. Uh and so what I'm encouraged by is I I think we're going to end up with a comprehensive plan here that's more usable and relied upon than either of the past two that I've been um that I've dealt with. Um and so I think this is really good but I think it's also important for everybody to understand where this kind of fits in um as to which documents you know reign supreme and down from there. Um so that would be helpful I think for all of us. Um additional

I'll add my two cents um without talking too long here. I kudos to you guys a lot of work in this. I know you've been engaging with the consultant and a lot of internal resources for the last couple years. I do think that it is um I like how you put it, Jeeoff, a 95% product. Um a little bit of refinement needed, but it's it's in really good shape. Um I I don't know I don't know what you can take from this comment or or how it can even be applied. Um, but I I think a lot of the um information and the data that are contained within the plan can be taken in a number of different ways and and people are going to read what they're what they want to read out of it. Um, I think there is a way to read the plan that says, man, we're going to have 60% growth over the next 20 years and that's unsustainable and we're going to be, you know, fiscally, you know, going in the wrong direction and that's really unfortunate. And somebody else might read the plan and say, okay, there's there's an opportunity for, you know, a realistic maybe 20% population growth and housing development. And, you know, at least we're we're thinking about that now. um those perspectives, right? No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. Like there there are both of those perspectives contained in the plan. I think that however it can be contextualized and conveyed to the residents of Lewisville, um I would encourage you to find opportunity to continue to kind of recognize that there are multiple interpretations that can come from the same black and white text on the page. you know, we talk about this and and um you know, Commissioner Richie's point of of saying the metric of, you know,

housing units per acre, right? In terms of how we identify that growth, I say this taking full responsibility of having two kids who drive cars and park on the street. You know, in my culde-sac, at any given time, there are five or six cars parked on the street, not in garages or on driveways. That doesn't mean that the number of houses in my culde-sac have gone up or that the you know number of housing units has increased. It just means that there are more people living in in those houses and you know we could have the same population growth increase in Lewisville without having any more housing units. It would just become a whole lot more dense and we would have the same problems that are identified, you know, or or kind of talked about in terms of apprehension of of having that development. And so, you know, when I look at this, it's it's not a strategy for getting 60% growth in in 20 years. It's a plan to accommodate for what happens if that comes to fruition. Right? I I growing up in Colorado, I would drive up and down I25 when I was a kid and you were lucky to see another car between Colorado Springs and Denver. And now it's a completely different story. And I wish that the transportation planners back in the 70s and 80s had thought about, well, I wonder what happens if we have 400% more people here, you know, in 40 years and and we can, you know, not build the church for Easter Sunday, but plan for that potential growth. Like I see this as a good strategy to plan for the inevitability of more people and create effective mitigation strategies so that we get the good with the bad since it's always a balance point. So if you could just wrap that all up and put it in the plan that'd be great. Um you know again I don't know how you take that but but I think that a lot of it comes down to interpretation and messaging. And I think that that is just as important as

the content that's actually in the document. piggy back on that if I can and say I think that's a really good point and there may be a way to contextualize this just to say that this is not like this is the point of this document is to provide us a framework for if this much development is to happen in the future like we're not it's it's I think there you make a really good point that it's it can be read that way and it has been obviously read that way to say that we want 60% growth as opposed to we want to have plans and a framework in case in case we get to that point doesn't mean we're going to get there and that might there might be ways to say that upfront that makes that more clear that that's the purpose of this

completely agree and I am fully on board with planning ahead and making sure that you know if we're going to do it here's how we should do it in a in a thoughtful way to put to put my put a finger on it I think the documents presented as a 20-year vision so I think that could be the source of why people would read it that way you know this is a 20ear vision and then they flip ahead and see, oh, it's 50% growth. Well, that's not my vision. Well, that's what someone could say is what I mean. And so, I completely agree with what Commissioner Chroy is saying, but I think if it's being presented as a 20-year vision, I think we need to be I think the people of Louisville will be very interested, certainly if the planning commission and others going to be looking at it as a planning document for decision-m, it would be good to know what the current thought is of what that should be,

right? Is it a 20 year vision that we want that much growth or is it a 20-year vision to address how we do growth in the future? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Is the vision distinction making sense? Is the vision the process and how you would do it or is the vision the act the end result? I'm curious if you guys have any questions of us uh before we wrap. I don't have a question but I want to publicly acknowledge Jeff's effort on this. I mean, start starting in June and July of this year, you know, when we did our last check-in,

he's done an incredible job and, you know, bring bringing this close to the finish line, and he really honored all of the boards and commissions, all the public input, all the planning commission, all the city council input. It's a lot, and it's very complex. It's hard to sus out the most meaningful things and I think it was just just an amazing job to get us here to this point. So, I just want to thank him. Thank you. Yeah. Yes. One more comment. All right. Yep.

Sorry. Um, again, kudos to you all, but especially and this is a tremendous amount of work. And I really want to I think echo what Commissioner Choy was saying, right? I think that there's, you know, I think people are keying in on maybe kind of these like big numbers, but I think if you when you read the plan, there's a lot of backs stops in here. There's a lot of guidance. There's a lot of policies I think that will make sure that you know should this development occur in Lewisville that it's occurring in the right way in the right locations it's got the appropriate backs stops in conversation around infrastructure and compatibility and right and I don't think um as we all know I think you know the market is going to react to this plan in some way and I think if we've you know overcalibrated it this is this is an amendable plan right this is because this is a 20-year vision. If we, you know, recognize in a couple years like, oh my goodness, you know, we really overshot on this one thing or we're really struggling with something, we can we can fix these things, right? So, I I like the idea of the 20-year vision, but, you know, these are living documents, too. So, I guess I just throw that out as a little bit of a safety net. But, again, great work. I think it gets 95% of these things right, and we we're anxious to hear from everyone as it goes out to the public and see where this lands. So, thank you.

Great. Thank you. With that then I think we'll wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate your comments throughout the evening and email and we'll just jump into our next next issue here which is a little bit more formal. Yes. So, I will now open the public hearing on a request for a recommendation to city council for an amendment to the Lewisville Municipal Code, Title 17, to allow electric vehicle charging stations as a primary land use in the city's non-residential zoning districts and to update the approval process for these facilities. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public form for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. 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 commissioner staff. After this presentation, 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. Purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony is 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 or the applicant is a staff uh will be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. Planning commission will discuss the matter, may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table or continue to a specific 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 none, uh can you speak to notification, please? Yes, notification has been met for this case. And do we have any disclosures from planning commission? Seeing none, thank you.

Okay, so this is a fairly targeted uh amendment to title 17 of the zoning code. Um addressing EV charging facilities as a land use. Um and I'll get into the reasons why uh we need to do this code amendment. Um, at a high level, it allows EV charging facilities as a primary use in all of our non-residential zone [clears throat] districts as distinguished currently from predominantly being an accessory use. Um, and it doesn't establish an approval process that is primarily administrative for EV charging facilities um, as a primary use and an accessory use to some degree. We'll get into that. Um, and to clarify, there's no changes proposed to like the number of EV charging spaces required or the type or any of that. None of that substance is being touched. This is about the the land use itself and where it's allowed. [clears throat] So, in terms of the catalyst for this code amendment, there is a one of the many state laws um addressing EV charging. Um, uh, it specifically says that essentially cities have options for complying with the law. Um but it does explicitly say that the city has to take action on EV charging, provides some more flexibility. Um the house bill has a goal of reducing barriers to EV charging facilities. Um and at a high level requires clear land use regulations for all types of EV charging facilities, which we were close but not quite there in terms of complying with the bill. Um strongly encourages administrative approval abilities for EV charging facilities. In this bill, there's a basically the way the bill is set up, there's three compliance options for the city. One is to basically adopt a model code that the state has for EV charging, which is lengthy and complex. Another approach is to adopt our own sort of locally tailored regulations that meet the intent of the law, which is what we're proposing to do. And then another option would be for us to just fully opt out of it, which would be requiring a

resolution by council formally stating we don't want to do this. So, we're opting for option two, which is to locally tailor our regulations to um comply with the law. So, our current EV charging regulations as it relates to this amendment um in terms of the allowable uh it being an allowable land use, um we obviously permit them, but we really focus on them being an accessory use. So when you think about a large parking lot, underutilized EV charging facility going in or accessory to like the 7-Eleven, things like that, obviously allowed and mandated in some cases. Um the real issue is that in our current [clears throat] code, we if you wanted to do it as a primary land use, so if that was your own freestanding land use, this doesn't really exist yet regionally or really in Colorado and it barely exists anywhere I can find in the US, but it is an emerging trend. I'll show some images to have these more sort of primary facilities. Um, and so that's where the issue is in terms of defining it as a primary land use. Um, basically there's a short provision in the code that says that if it was a primary land use, we would consider it a gas station. And the issue with that is that we have a cap on the number of gas stations in the city currently. And so in effect, you could not build an EV charging facility as a primary land use currently. That's really the crux of the issue here. And so here's some images just giving you examples of what we're talking about. So on this table on the left is sort of what you commonly see today when you see it as an accessory use to a to a to a primary use. The images on the right are some examples of what uh as a primary land use an EV charging facility would look like. So it would operate similar to a gas station. You have a lot less of the impacts which we'll um get into a little bit. So some of the key elements of the proposal are again to allow EV charging

facilities as a primarily in use byite in our non-residential zone districts. Again, no change to the development and design standards that apply. So number of EV charging still the same. The design, the type still the same. All the other standards for like commercial, if it's commercial, would apply in terms of design, lighting, all of that. None of that's changing. Um, one of the big changes and to comply with the law, um, it does explicitly allow that if you were to do an EV charging facility as a primary land use, that would be an administrative approval of a PUD. So most, as you know, commercial development requires a PUD, public hearings, preliminary and final. This would explicitly allow within certain parameters EV charging as an administrative approval as long as there's no waiverss being requested, no variances, all the standards are being met and there's a size threshold of 1 acre I believe um in the ordinance for that as well. Another important element of this proposal is that so if you have an existing PUB and you want to put EV charging as an accessory use like in an underutilized part of your parking lot if that triggers a PUB amendment that PUD amendment would also be administrative every time with those c with those parameters around

and maybe I can ask a question at this point. So on that note, right, if somebody was building it as a standalone essentially a gas station, even I mean I haven't seen one yet, but if there was a convenience store associated with it, um maybe one acre they would push into that larger size and so it wouldn't become administrative at that point. And one of my driving concerns is light pollution um from the charging units themselves. It seems to have been popular lately for a lot of them to have a fair amount of light glowing from these units. Um, and so I'm a little concerned about that, especially when it comes to adjacency issues with residential in particular. Well, we c we certainly have lighting standards in the code and they would have to comply with that. Um, and so part of this is that you couldn't request any waiver or variance to any of those standards. It would automatically kick it into a public hearing process. But I don't think our code addresses that glow.

If you go back to the pictures there, maybe you can go back to that one and well, they're not nighttime photos. Kind of the one on the right is I think they're glowing green bottom right. But if you can imagine that even without the rooftop above it, um would you foresee that that could become administratively approved? Um can I ask a clarifying question? I think I I think you're talking about maybe some of these new EV chargers like the units themselves, not maybe like the sight lighting, which we have standards for, but like the units themselves oftent times have like bright LED strips around the edge so that people see them. Is that maybe more

the green? Yeah. The different colors we've seen for different uh operators. Okay. Happy to discuss that. I can I can keep going or we can have that as part of the discussion. I'm just curious how you would address that within an administrative PUD as opposed to if they had to come in front of us and we freaked out. I mean, it's it's I don't know our lighting standards as well as I should, but you know, certainly that it would have to comply with the light pollution and light spillover that we have in our code. And if it doesn't, then kick it into a public hearing process. I think our code requires all cut off lighting for commercial, but our our code has limitations,

right? These essentially function as as internally lit signs and they're not that I don't think the code would look at them as that even though that's essentially Yeah, I don't know that we would allow it. I mean, that's my initial reaction is I don't know that we would allow LED strip lighting or glowing um pedestals. They might have a screen on them

like like a gas pump, right? So, I I I think that might not be allowed. So, we would hold the same standard. I do think what's different and we will be updating our design standards as we've as we talked about is that what we've done with the PUDS honestly is we've pushed developments to do because we don't have like color temperature and we've pushed them to do lower level lighting than our CDDSG or I CDSG might allow.

So um it's a little more difficult to do that when it's a straight administrative approval and they're not asking for any waiverss. So, I would acknowledge that. Um, and I I would just say that not too not only a short few years ago, we tried to update for dark sky lighting and it wasn't adopted. So, we don't have a policy on dark sky lighting. I know we like it. Yeah. But we can't force people to do it. And our city council, at least just a few years ago, was not interested in adopting additional standards. Yeah. Yeah. And so I'm not even pushing it to dark sky. I'm pushing it to that glow.

So I I I do have a question though because I I probably agree with you be that I think the the sign standards and the illumination like limitations and requirements. Sorry, I'm still thinking back to the 4hour discussion we had about the sign last month. You know, I I I I think that that would probably still apply to these things if in the case of this But um and I and I think about that in terms of the context of any other scenario for a retail location, right? Would have to comply with those sign requirements, the sign standards. Why is it that these would be treated as gas stations as opposed to just some other you know retail category

are right now, right? But I'm saying why why why are they technically gas stations right now? Because that's all we have to go on. It's that's yeah that's how that's how the cookie crumbles. We've decided you're talking about it as a land use. Are you talking about it as a land use versus are you talking about the design that we apply to that between the two either as I mean as a land use that's just I mean that is what is in the regulations today. We explicitly say this is we're going to treat this the same as a gas station and for I don't know what the rationale was. We looked at operational characteristics similar you know we're always looking for uses that are similar. Sure. Um but the design standards would apply. Go ahead.

And honestly we've never had one. So we've never had to apply the code. So we're just speculating that that would be the next closest thing. No, that's what I'm looking at, too, is is if it was a gas station, we're going to be looking at traffic patterns. We're going to be looking at um different issues associated with the standard gas station. Um you know, 24-hour operations, concerns with adjacencies as it relates to that. Um, so I'm a little concerned that we might be jumping too far for because I mean I envision a future where we do have EV charging stations that are exactly like gas stations are right now without the gasoline.

Well, I mean, if you're Oh, go ahead. If you're Well, if you're talking about like you're talking about things that are are standards, right? So lane widths, access points, circulation, turning radi, those are all things that are codified standards that our engineers look at as part of a site plan review. It just would be done administratively versus in a public hearing process. And if they vary from any of those, so if they want to do something that is narrower in terms of a drive by or the queuing is different than what we allow, then that bumps it into the needing a public hearing. Mhm. If we didn't have a cap on gas stations, I don't think we would be allowing gas stations to be approved administratively.

I think we're looking at these as a different different land use per the state law we are trying to comply with, but also like operationally. It's cleaner. Um there's no fuel storage. There's no on-site attendant. Typically, they are they are a bit different. Yeah. Quieter. Yeah. But they could be like, oh, I don't know if that has a convenience store associated with it or not, but at some point in the future, they could include a standard buildout like a gas station with EV charging instead.

There's so many unknowns. I mean, I I personally had a hard time finding any examples of these anywhere um in America. These images are conceptual. These aren't real places. These are conceptual images of of proposals from companies is the best I could find. I think we've seen there's one down in uh uh Salida. It's in a parking lot, but it's a standalone thing and it has a cover like this. It's not as big as the one in this picture, but it has a cover like this. But I mean, they're rare. Well, no. I mean, there's one over in the Target parking lot that's similar to the bottom left photo, but that would be accessory, not primary. Bottom left photo is the accessory used. Yeah. I don't I mean, I don't know. I don't know who is that land still owned by Target. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. You would know. Thank you. I do wonder though I recall if I recall in our it may be just a a statement that you know like to commission and I had not even thought about this but you know we have regulations on our sign code for like internally illuminated cabinet signs and glare next to adjacent properties and for kind of like lighting standards for electronic message centers, right? So maybe just a a little bit of a thought that you know we treat these as you know if it's more than just like the the number you know where you're punching in your payment right that the standards for sign illumination apply. Yeah. Just Yeah. Yeah.

Something I think it's important be because um those companies will consider that part of their branding. It doesn't have signage language on them. That that glowing color and it's integral to the units that they install. They're not going to install a special one for Lewisville, but they may find a way to address that. Uh I mean, there similar there's the same thing over in the in the mall parking lot. Um that is similar to that. It's an accessory at that point, but it's Yeah, that So, all right. Sorry. So, sorry. Continue on.

Yeah. I um I don't think there's too many slides left here. Um we talked about most of this. Um started to talk about some of the impacts, positive impacts, right? More potential accessibility to EV charging facilities in the community. Um when you look at the comparison to a typical gas station, they are different. less odor, less um less noise. Um trips are a little bit different. There's no on-site attendant usually, things like that. No fuel storage on site. So, they're a bit different, a bit cleaner, um quieter. And then just to call out that we certainly have policies supporting this action from the city, primarily in the sustainability action plan to look at supporting these types of facilities. And I think that was about it. Yeah. In terms of the context. Um but yeah, we are recommending approval of the ordinance um for city council and happy to talk more about the issues with lighting or however you'd like to go with this.

Um yeah, I guess I am still hung up on that a bit. For example, right, there's a couple of outlets out lots in front of uh what are we calling now? Rocky Mountain, Tap and Garden, Ziggies, that right. So, if somebody wanted to build one of these there, uh, that light pollution could be a concern, uh, for 20, right? These are 24-hour operation. Um, so are is are you prepared to deal with that as currently proposed,

right? So, we do have the phototric standards in the CDDSG. So, that's what we'd apply, I think, in a similar way that you all do. And I, you know, I think that if it complies, it complies. And you would all probably pass that as well if it complied. It's only if they're not complying. Yeah.

Or asking for a waiver um that you know like the Red Tail Ridge pump station, right? Like they were outside of the bounds of the code. So you could not accept that and require that they change that. So staff would be doing the exact same thing that you're doing. um you know, if we weren't comfortable with it, uh or if if it was going outside of the bounds of the code, then I think it would go to a public hearing anyways. Okay. So I think the key is to have better design guidelines as well and dark sky standards ultimately. But I don't think that

you know we would have the same authority you all would have as far as saying yes or no to a lighting plan for this use or a gas station. Your decision is not subject to public input unless it's over an acre. Right. Yeah. I mean but but that's when we present those cases to you. you know, we're presenting that they're complying with the regulations, but if you get public input and says, I don't like the lighting, but it complies with the design standards, we don't have anything to pass it either. Yeah. Well, so then so I think that just raises an important component of code overhaul to address this directly maybe.

And I mean the the packet still identifies to right there's they're in the eventuality that someone does come along and say, "Hey, we want to have a primary land use for this EV charging station." There's still going to be notification. There's still going to be, you know, public awareness of it. And the way the package, if it's administrative, well, for for for any development, there has to be, you know, there will be a submission that anybody who is really interested in keeping tabs on is going to be made aware of as part of the administrative process. There's no public notification, right?

If if it Yeah. If there again, if there's no if it meets all the standards, no, there would not. And it's under one acre. No, there would not be public notification. Yeah. Okay. Well, I I was trying to bring, you know, attention to the the element in the way that it's written about, you know, director may require a PUD with public hearings if a proposed facility is determined to have the potential for major impacts. So there is a level of discretion where yes, you know, there's just got to be the recognition that Rob can do his job. Yeah. I mean, that's important to note that that provision is in there. Um the ability to sort of kick it up publicly at any point if you want to. Yes. Commissioner Haley,

can I poke a bit about the options space? Could you go back to the slide that had the you know the ways to comply with the House bill? So because I think there were three or four and I think we were with the tailored approach. So um am I correct in assessing that the locally tailor tailored is sort of the um the least aggressive form of of compliance. you know, because it sounds like the um I'm assuming that the adopting the model state regulations would be a lot easier than what we're describing now. Is that is that a fair assessment? where you could just sort of put it anywhere without [laughter]

um I would actually say it be I don't know that I don't know if I I would say it's it would be easier because the model code is complex and large and to to to bring that all into our systems and have it sort of fit is going to be really complex and also more complex to administer. I think that model code is more designed so you think about a statewide bill. It's it's got to cover places like Lewisville and places like Lyman and you know places that are presumably have no have none of the stuff on the books currently. So for the sake of discussion, could you help us understand what the what the for this approach the tailored approach because the way it's written it says that the tailored approach that meets the intent and minimum requirements of the of the House bill. Yeah.

Right. And so you've you've outlined what the criteria would be for administrative approval. Like are those the knobs the size? like what are the knobs that we can actually impose on this that would still meet quote the intent and minimum requirements of HB241173

these these bills like we're learning more and more it's really a moving target in terms of how hard the state is going to push to evaluate if our regulations actually meet the so like we're learning this with ADUs and other bills like there almost depends on the staff person you're working with if they feel it complies with the bill so it's a lot of unknowns with it but the bill does say um at minimum that we would like to see the primarily induced issue that we're talking about today and administrative approvals. Um I think our from our perspective our EV charging ordinance is further along and more progressive than most cities and so we already have that infrastructure in place in terms of mandating the number of spaces and the types and everything like that. So um I don't know if I'm answering your question. What I'm getting is like we can have a discussion on requirements and what can and can't, you know, pass the bar.

Doesn't have to be administrative approval. Yeah. Right. That's not a required aspect of state law. And what I'm poking at is what's what are the what are the requirements of what we can actually do and not do here? Because we can have a discussion of what we want, but what actually flies, right? Yeah. Well, but we don't have to have administrative approval for it to fly, though, do we? To meet in our current interpretation of state requirements.

Yeah. I mean it this is a pretty ambiguous uh bill and with these three paths because the the the sort of the third path is we as a city can opt out of it and say via resolution we're deciding to do nothing about this bill and that complies. So that tells you right there that there's not much of in terms of teeth it feels like in the bill to say well you're not complying because you're only doing this or that right but because yeah

I might take a different approach and say I am comfortable with administrative approval on these types of land use applications. I think to your point I don't know that I I can't think of any where I've seen this use as a primary access or a primary use on a on a lot where this is literally the only thing on a lot. I do though, and I hadn't thought of that, I do appreciate your comment about impacts from lighting. I don't think we're going to see significant impacts from traffic. And to your point, we have PUB criteria, you know, that talk about traffic and utilities and things like that. But I do think it might be helpful if it's not clear to staff, you know, how you would regulate the cabinet because I have seen them and they are very bright, right? And it is part of their branding. So, if it's not clear how you would make sure that that lighting isn't going to negatively impact folks, maybe even just a statement, right, lighting shall be, you know, not visible or buffered from adjacent residential, right? I think that could be something that you could add to this code if we don't already have those tools.

But, and I mean, I I I think I have an associated question or a question kind of along the same lines. So, you know, if part of the intention of this is to say, hey, we don't want these to be considered gas stations, which we're at our five, right? Or plus one. Did we add the plus one with the king super? Okay. We lost one, right? But that zeroed out, right? But that's Yeah. Yeah. I thought had an exception though. They do because it was an it was accessory

as an accessory. Sorry, that was that was an aside. Um, if if the intention is we don't want to treat these as gas stations, right? and we want to create a new land use um that doesn't currently exist right now. My my question kind of along the same lines is what you know the the the the packet says hey it has to meet you know development and design standards and it'll go through this administrative you know approval um like what are what are those standards what are those development you know which which of our current existing things are being applied to it because you know are we going to end up is there a potential where there's some sliver of land you know where you can fit two cars and There are two parking or two charging stations and you know that's the primary use and that gets developed and then we do run into some of these issues of like incompatibility or

sorry I think it would usually be commercial the commercial design standards and guidelines would apply. Yeah, it's going to be the commercial the sign code. So all those standards does that answer your question? Um, it would be the CDDSG and then which includes a lighting section and then the sign code apply. It doesn't apply to gas. It's it's a content neutral sign code. So, it applies to like structure types like canopies and things like and monument signs. And would all of that be defined in the update to title 17 we're talking about? Right. Yeah. So, no, but staff would be reviewing it with the same criteria that you review it. Okay.

So, it' be the the PUD criteria, the design guidelines, the sign code. Okay. Primarily, okay. And and then I I just I just also has to be commercial. And so what I wanted to mention too is I know you had your last study session with city council where we talked about the development code update. Mhm.

What what we talked about and what we're proc we're going to be processing here this year are interim development review standards that include significant extension of administrative approvals of commercial PUDs for single lots applying the same standards that you all apply and distinguishing that from PUDS for bigger developments. And so this is I just wanted to mention this is consistent with that concept that this is a minor development on a small lot. We have standards in place. If they agree to meet those standards, it could be done administratively. If it doesn't meet the standards, they have to have a public hearing and you all are reviewing it if they need waiverss and those types of things. Um, so I think that's, you know, something to think about just in the context of this is something we were all very comfortable and excited about a couple months ago when we had the study session.

Um, certainly we have work to do on our design standards and our design guidelines. That'll I think will give us a bigger level of comfort for doing administrative reviews that we need to get to as well. Thank you. But no. Uh, with that then is it

I have one I have one one very lawyerly thing to say about the about the definition of electronic vehicle charging stations and I don't know whether this is intentional and this is very nitpicky um but you say it means a designated parking facility with parking spaces that are provided. Is it do you mean to say it is a facility with parking spaces that are provided or is it a parking facility with parking spaces? I'm just I'm just looking at the red line right now. I'm trying to in my head right now the distinction between the two of those like how it's just it's it's very small and again this is just maybe I mean it doesn't matter. Is it a parking facility or is it a

facilities? Parking spaces. I think either I don't know which way to flip it. The better I would I would say I think you don't mean it to be a parking facility. It's not a parking lot, right? Or do we need to say it's a commercial facility with means a commercial facility with parking spaces that are provided with a dedicated branch circuit blah blah blah so that we're clear that the commercial standard would that make it? I'm looking at again this is 172170B definition. Yeah, I think that might be an important one. Yeah, I appreciate where you're going with that. Is the intent is to make sure that the wording is such that the commercial standards are insured to imply. Is that the Yeah, my intent is that I don't want it to be It's not a parking facility.

Yeah, it's a it's a it's a commercial facility with parking spaces that provide um right electric charging. It's a commercial facility where the primary activity is parking, right? [laughter] But it's not a parking lot. It's not a parking. Is that really parking though? No, the primary activity is charging. Right. Right. So that's why I don't want to call it a designated parking. I don't want to call it a designated parking facility cuz it's not that you're parking for a service. The service just happens to be right next to your car versus if you went into a shop or something. I don't know that parking even needs to be in the definition. I agree. Uh it doesn't really need to be, but um people park, but they park at a restaurant, they park at, you know, right?

And I don't think I have an appreciation for what the implications on the regulations are if it's parking. But I think the main thing is what you pointed to is that just make sure the commercial standards apply. Make sure it's clear that Yeah. Right. I don't know if you want to pull the language up there and look at it, but I'm looking at it on my screen. I think it makes sense to me. I think we we can amend we can amend the lang you could put it in your motion or we can just I think we'll end up amending it anyways because it is a very good point whether you put it in your motion or not. I don't I don't think we need it in the motion. I think you guys get it. I think you guys got it. I was just this is just the writer the the legal writer in me being like I don't want to have parking in there twice and maybe we don't need it in there at all. So

thank you. You never know that could have come back to bite us when we went to administer it a year from now. You know as a litigator I'm always looking for these little things that might that I'm arguing about for four years in a lawsuit. So [laughter] thank you. No, that's important. I really appreciate it. All right. Uh, with that, um, we still do have one person online, but, uh, Mr. Krenzor, if your hand is not raised, so I'm going to assume you do not wish to speak at this time. Um, we don't have any written public comments regarding this, so we will just move into that's your closing statement. No closing statements.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll now close the public hearing. Planning Commissioners will deliberate on their evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Why don't we begin at the far left? Um I'm comfortable with um the broad language in the draft. I don't know if you all feel like we need more clarity around, you know, a condition to maybe further refine the standards related to like neon lighting on these things or if that's something you'll look at in the future draft. But other than that, I think I'm comfortable with it. All right. Thank you. I think I'm good. I appreciate you clarifying that the commercial standards apply. Commissioner Basket.

I'm also comfortable with the staff proposal. Commissioner Haley, I'm comfortable with it. I will admit that I was sort of I had a harder time with this one given that it was it seems sort of a nebulous concept as it pertained to what requirements and and codes it would fall under. I think the discussion helped um alleviate those concerns. So, I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hunt.

I am also comfortable with this and also um cognizant of the fact that this is likely going to be an iterative process as more of these things likely come in the future. Hopefully come in the future. I love to see um the state and our city trying to provide more um space for or the possibility for these kinds of charging stations. I think that's the way to make electric vehicles the wave of the future. Um, and with the language change I talked about, I think I'm definitely in support of this.

Thank you. I'm also in favor of at this time. Uh, thanks for addressing the parking parking with facility use. No, that's that's important. That's free lawyer that's free lawyer time we got. So, I appreciate that very much. Um, so with that, I'd uh entertain a motion. Move to approve resolution one series 2026. Thank you. A second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Okay. Um, Commissioner Richie, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Troy, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Vice Chair Basket, yes. And Chair Brown,

yes. Thank you very much for all of your work on that as well. Do we have any staff comments or anything else? Planning Commission comments for anything else upcoming? Seeing none, a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you.