Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

it's like the scans they're always a b-size drawing and it's like

You know, you can sit there and read a lot of this stuff. We are live and ready whenever you are.

Gina's on vacation.

I know. Welcome. Hey. How are you, John? Good.

Good. We do. Candidate. We do. Awesome. I know. I was thinking about that the other day, and I hadn't heard anything about it. Which is fine. I mean, now we know. Thank you. Okay. Are you ready, Jamie?

I am. Okay.

Call the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday, July 13th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Roll call, please.

Rocco Gonzalez. Mark Piontek. Here. Mayor Hagedorn.

Here.

John Borgman.

Here.

Ken Shear. Here. Chuck Watson. Here. Chad Briggs. Here.

Matt Coleman. Here. Mike Wood. Here. Aaron Beckman. Here.

Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

While we are chanting, I would ask for a moment of silence for L.B. Echo Camp Jr., who recently passed away Sunday, Saturday evening.

Thank you.

OK. First item on the agenda, approval of the minutes from the June 8th meeting. Everybody's had an opportunity to read them. I would entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Second. Motion made and seconded that we approve the minutes from June 8th. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Opposed?

Ayes have it. File number 26-0701, rezoning 1083 Beaker Road, R1A to R2 by MKMC Enterprise Properties. Aaron?

Yes, good evening, Commission. This is a rezoning request over here on Beaker Road. This is rezoning from R1A, which is our lowest density single-family zoning district, to R2. As you can see here, we've got a number of surrounding properties that are either R2 or R1C, the single family attached zoning district. So the proposal here is to, this is the only vacant lot on Beaker and the proposal is to build a duplex and they cannot do that with the current zoning. Talking about our comprehensive plan, this in our future land use map is categorized as type one residential countryside. which is described as follows. Countryside neighborhoods are medium to large lot neighborhoods, 7,500 square feet and larger with a mix of detached single family homes, attached villas in a spacious suburban setting, cul-de-sac street systems, curvilinear streets, optional sidewalks, street lighting, trees, private yards. And so, well, you know, duplexes are not a described, you know, use in this future land use category. Attached villas are, and they often have a very similar, you know, building type, you know, and there are several in the surrounding areas.

area.

Just to kind of zoom out a little bit here, I realized I jumped into that a little bit, but for our new planning commission members, because I don't believe we've had a rezoning since Ken and Matt have been on, but we reference the future land use map in our comprehensive plan to sort of decide if, you know, the recommendation to rezone is appropriate or not. So just some staff comments on this rezoning. It meets all the lot requirements for the R2 family zoning district, lot size, lot width, et cetera. There is no screening required from R2 to the R1. Let's see if we can see that. So this lot would be R2, no screening required from the R1A in the back. R2 is considered mid-density residential, so there's no screening required. And as you were able to see, most of the homes fronting Beaker Road are zoned R2 or R1C single-family attached. Staff recommend approval. This is kind of the prevailing use along this section of Beaker Road. NO CONCERNS THERE. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS?

IS THERE A STRUCTURE ON THAT LOT?

NO. NO. THAT LOT, THE HOUSE TO THE WEST IS BASICALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVE, IT GOES IN THERE AND THEN IT KIND OF CIRCLES AROUND THROUGH THAT LOT AND COMES OUT. SO THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT AS KIND OF A TURNAROUND.

YEAH, THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. If you want to state your name.

Yes, Matt McClellan here representing KMC Enterprise Properties. There is a shed existing on that lot. I have to check. I don't think there's electricity around to it. The plan is to keep that for storage purposes for now. Could potentially tear down in the future, not for sure exactly. Okay, thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions from commissioners?

Aaron, are we gonna have them divide it beforehand so they don't have to come back in the future?

They don't have to. They're not required to. This is just a rezone. If they choose to build a duplex, oh, I guess, you said you had some, we were talking, if you wanna share,

Sure, yes. The plan is to build two duplex 1,300 square foot each side, one car attached garages with additional side parking. So it's going to stay very similar to the existing other duplexes that are along Beaker Road.

Yeah, they're not required to subdivide the lot as we've seen in the past. So, you know, that's an owner decision. The city is not mandating that we, you know. With the R2 zoning, they could or another owner could do that in the future, though. But this is just a request, take the whole lot, turn it R2 to be able to build a duplex.

Yeah, but what Chad is kind of getting at is once you have the two buildings we the past that we've run into the shared the shared sewers and all those kind of things that you know if it's two separate Lots and Then they have to have two separate Sewer connections and everything like that. That's I think what Chad's alluding to it's like if it's one lot and they put two houses on that's why we've run into the past where we've had to go back and you know make the special circumstances because somebody's got a shared sewer line coming up to you know from the connection from the 2 buildings out to the main trunk and stuff like that that's the issue.

I would say that is a side effect of the greater issue with duplexes, duplex financing as a whole, you know, having multiple housing units on one single lot and the bank not really liking the way that they're condoed out due to, you know, the outfall from the Great Recession. We have, you are correct in that we have had issues with, you know, sewer lines, crossing properties, but we can put if that if and when that time comes, you know, we have language that we can put in the preliminary plat if they if they were to, you know, if this ever were to, you know, be subdivided into two separate lots, we have language we can put in that plat to allow across across access easement to get to that sewer as long as we have that.

So we don't have to put that in the amendment.

But I guess to your point at that time if it ever were to be subdivided, that's something that staff would require.

Okay, so Your intention now is to keep it as one lot. That's correct. Yes

Matt, do you anticipate people parking their cars and having to back them out onto Beaker Road?

That would be the plan for the additional concrete addition. We're going to add on to the existing with the one car length going into the one car garage. We're planning on adding an additional space there for one additional car or potentially a turnaround space. So there is that possibility, but right now with all the existing other properties there, most of them are all just one-car lanes into the one-car garage.

But as you probably know, being a realtor, the amount of Building that has gone on east of that area in the amount of traffic. There's a lot of significant increased on Beaker Road It's making it, you know more dangerous for people backing out onto that street and stuff to

Do you have room that you can make a T driveway there? I know down there.

I believe so. We would just take a look at it, but I don't think that's an issue. We spoke about either adding that additional parking space or doing a T turnaround driveway there. So one or the other we're probably going to be looking at. That would probably be helpful for it because even those lots are wider than the other duplex Individual things it should allow them to have should yeah, we should have ample space there I think it's it's set for 64 foot across the front I'm not for sure what that lot dimension across the front is of it I think right now the plans drawn and measure it were across across the front So there should be plenty of adequate space to add that that turnaround area cool. Thank you

Because I know just down the road we talked about that at another development where we had houses right alongside Beaker Road and that very same thing came up in our discussions. Just because of the increased traffic out there. Yeah, yeah.

About 100 feet. Yeah, so yeah, it'll be a good amount of space there for additional parking space or like I said a teacher and that I don't think that's an issue at all Just have to see what requirements are there with that has to be a certain size on that tea turnaround I'm not for sure if there's a certain specific size that's required or not.

I don't believe we I think we just say that it's required I don't believe and I could be wrong, but I don't I I My memory serves me correctly. I believe we just say there has to be, you know, until you turn around. Sure.

I thought it was 20, but I'm not sure about that. 20 makes sense, or 16 to 20, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions from commissioners?

Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? If not, would you want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Seconded.

Approve. Sorry.

Yes, to approve. I was seconding to approve.

Motion made and seconded to approve the rezoning of 1083 Beaker Road from R1A to R2. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. File number 260702, special use permit, 24 West 2nd Street, backlit cabinet sign, Tri-She Roots Salon.

Yes, good evening. So this is the first special use permit that is before this board after we made the change to require backlit cabinet, internally lit neon and electronic message display signs to get a special use permit. to be in the downtown historic area. So specifically we're talking about 24 West 2nd Street and the backlit cabinet sign, you can see it. This is from Google Street View. The sign without the new face is on Street View, but There's there's a photo later in the presentation. So Specifically for the the new members of the Commission just to go over These are the following factors that are allowed to be considered when deciding to recommend approval of special use permit special use permits compatibility of the proposal in terms of use and appearance with the surrounding neighborhood Comparative size and some of this stuff granted is not relevant because this is a sign but just you know for for Just a you know inform the the decision making here competitive compared excuse me comparative size floor area massive proposed structure in relationship to adjacent structures and buildings in the surrounding properties and neighborhood frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and the impact that they have the capacity of adjacent streets to handle and Increased traffic in terms of traffic volume, including hourly and daily levels. The added noise level created from activities associated with the proposed use. Requirements for public services where the demands of the proposed use are in excess of individual demands in terms of police fire protection, potential fire hazards created by the proposed use. Whether the general appearance of the neighborhood will be adversely affected by the location of proposed use. IMPACT OF NIGHT LIGHTING. THIS IS KIND OF A RELEVANT ONE TO THIS. I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL RELEVANT, BUT ESPECIALLY THE LIGHTING ASPECT OF IT. AND THEN THE IMPACT OF THE LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPOSED USE IN TERMS OF MAINTAINED LANDSCAPED use of buffers and screens, and then the impact of a significant amount of hard scaped surface area for buildings and other things. So that's just, you know, keep all that in mind when we're thinking about these next couple of applications. specifically talking about this back to this case internally this is the code section that requires backlit signs to backlit or internally lit signs to get require a special use permit and So it is within the, I guess, let me back up a little bit here, sorry. This map that you see right here is, it's a little kind of hard to tell here, but where my cursor is going right here, this is the downtown historic review area. And so all, normally how this functions is all sort of structural improvements, new signs, changing, paint colors on on buildings these are required to go before our historic preservation commission um you know to enhance the quality of uh downtown it's a uh non uh It's a mandatory review, voluntary compliance basis, but there are some things that reference this area that are baked into, in this instance, our sign code, which is where this comes in. So to give you a bit of backstory about this specific sign, it was an existing non-conforming sign downtown. Staff became aware of this sign when researching precedent for the 600 West Front variants. That was Elijah McClain's or Mongea Bella to allow them to have a backlit sign in the design review area. So we were researching present, what existing non-conforming signs are downtown already. And this one popped up, but it was not permitted. So staff got in contact with the owner. And knowing the fact that new rules were in development, staff gave the owner a grace period until the code amendment was passed last month, and then they applied for a special use permit as was required by our new rules. So some comments on this specific case. The lighting fixture has existed for over a decade, but the new cabinet was installed sometime after May of 2024. The special use permit is to ensure the new sign face is compliant with our code. We don't see any issues with allowing an existing sign to continue being lit as it has been for well over a decade. The sign meets all applicable special use criteria, and we recommend approval. The other thing I should mention is this sign went to Historic Preservation earlier this evening, and they are not, even though it was approved for design review, they do not like this style of cabinet sign as it is not very, You know his historically accurate or you know, particularly well done for you know Downtown so just a couple things of note here any questions for staff That sign has been there for a long time.

It's meat mark I mean it was some restaurant before that it's meat market for many years before that it's like that's been around for 40 years or more and

General question. So you mentioned Elijah McClain's. Is there other precedent for backlit signs like this? I don't see a lot of them.

There isn't. I know Whisper Internet on...

What's that street?

Elm. Thank you. There's also Understall Tire on Fifth Street. They have a backlit sign, and that's in the design review area. And I know the tire place, it's just down the street from there. It starts with a K. It's closed. Yeah, now. They had backlit signs. I haven't been by there at night, so I don't know if they're still lit. Those are some examples of oh and then on Jefferson there is the State Farm Sign at the corner of No, no just second second in Jefferson. Yeah, so I

So those did all, I mean obviously some of those are older.

Those signs, the difference between this sign and those signs is those signs have been in existence with their current face long before we even disallowed, because I guess an additional bit of context for you is Backlit signs and electronic message display signs were previously not allowed at all downtown in our design review area. But in either May or June, this commission recommended that we change that process to allow them in this area, but only via a special use permit. And so trashy routes, they did not apply for sign permit or get a special use permit. And we discovered them around the same time. So this is getting them into compliance. The sign has existed for probably eight months or maybe even a little longer.

So the purpose of that was just that there would be some eyes put on it. Sure. Totally get it.

So since the special use permit has been in use, it's never been denied. No one's ever been denied?

Well, this is the first one.

The first one. Yeah. Okay. Yep. That's what I was asking.

It's like, are we going to be consistent in what we're doing?

Now's the time to start.

We brought this as a self-inflicted wound here.

Well, and I think that as long as they're a backlit sign and not the LEDs, neon stuff that we have going on, I think we're okay with historically what's been going on. I would not want to see a... you know, neon light or something like we have up here on Jefferson Street sitting on the side of a building downtown. But I personally don't see any reason why this, I'm assuming they're using the same wattage bulbs or probably LEDs and current technologies, but it's a backlit sign, so it, We don't have any criteria for brightness. I know we've been through that Sure Yes, we we we have that we have that technology and I don't have the specific I

Lumen allowance or whatever it is, you know memorized offhand, but yeah, we we do have those those rules in place and we do have the Infrastructure to enforce that so that that technology would apply to these correct? Yeah, absolutely.

Okay Any other discussion from board members Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this I Ma'am, would you come up and state your name to the podium, please? Name and address.

Diana Johnson. I live right behind 514.

Oh, this is the next one.

Oh, okay. I just want to tell you, as long as that doesn't shine behind.

Well, the next application, so we'll get to you.

All right.

Okay.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this one at 24 West 2nd? Hearing none, then I would entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve.

Second. Motion made and seconded to approve the special use permit for 24 West 2nd, backlit cabinet sign at Tri-Sheet Roots Saloon. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Opposed? Ayes have it.

Next item, file number 260702, special use permit 514 West Front Street, backlit cabinet sign.

Yes, so this is asking for a special use permit for the same exact thing, except this time we are over on west front here in the Bryan River development at the former Driftwood 514 space here, zoned C3, and the applicant is proposing a sign for Pappo's Pizzeria. Here are some renderings of the sign on screen here. And some staff comments. It's next to a neon sign, which is not a Recommended lighting method in our design guidelines ie it's not out of character for the surrounding area So even though this sign kind of goes against our existing You know design guidelines. There's some some precedent that you know the surrounding area Also does not also this part of Front Street is not as you know, it's it's much more It attracts much more vehicle traffic than maybe pedestrian traffic because there's all that parking ways there and it's a bit disconnected from the rest of downtown. It may be visible from some of the nearby residential homes along front street there, but it will not be visible for the property owners in the rear along. I forget what that street is, but I and I got a couple of calls from from those folks who live up on back of the hill here. Let's see if I can. i got a couple of calls from these folks um right here who were just asking about uh the the sign um and uh they seem to be uh yeah so they were they were made aware uh the proposed sign meets all the applicable special use criteria and staff recommend approval any questions Oh, and I should say we had a good conversation at Historic Preservation about this sign, and the Historic Preservation Commission liked the design of this sign, and yeah.

But the sign itself, the border is a neon?

I'll let the applicant speak to that if you don't mind.

With the neon whole world and the different lighting terminology I think it's gotten there's everybody's saying something different it's just kind of getting confused and with backlit and front lit and backlit cabinet I mean this is just lighted letters it's not a backlit cabinet by any means the cabinet is non-lit but it has lighted letters on it And the border is LED neon. We don't do too much neon anymore, but neon is still, in some ways, a historical piece of art that, you know, I mean, Bank of Washington, Black Men's, I mean, neon is what downtown used to be lit with. And every once in a while, it's cool to a certain extent for accents, but... Papo's is this is their standard brand with their border the red border that they have over 13 locations that has this exact same brand standard and It will the the LED neon versus a true neon is not the same It will not have that same you can see the glare and the reflection on but it's it's an LED. It's LED. Yeah Very very rare that we use neon anymore, but the LED the nice thing about the LED is it's controllable you know that we can we can actually dim it if need be but you want with this and It's just a much softer light and I mean that sign right there is about 8 watts power so there's not that much coming from the color temperature we use like a 7,000 but it's It's not for the distance, the height, and the viewability. We're very cautious about, I don't want it. It's not what it's about. We're just going by what the customer uses at all their locations and their brand standards, and that's kind of where we're at. Questions?

So you did mention that it was dimmable? It could be, but it won't need to be. Won't need to be. OK. But if we found out that it needed to be, you would be willing to work with that?

I mean, your wall pack lights on the side of the building are going to be brighter than that sign. OK. So just to give you an example, if it's shining in the back parking lot, it's going to have more lumens or nits than that sign would ever do.

OK. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Thank you, Ben.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Now, ma'am, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion made and seconded to approve the special use permit at 514 West Front Street for backlight cabinet signs and zipping signs. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Ayes have it. John, quick question not related to this specific sign, and maybe this is a question for after the meeting. Again, the sugar fire sign and the neon, how did that happen?

That that was so at the time and where we've gotten back to this we required Neon signs to get a special use permit to be approved And it went through I believe it went through that that process at that time So I Went through the same process that this did so I can't give you any historical perspective there I believe I believe that's that's what happened.

I can I can dig into it if you're curious, but yeah Okay Next item on the agenda file number 26 0 5 0 2 code changes downtown parking regulations discussion recommendation for City of Washington

Yes, so continuing sort of this, you know, talking about our downtown parking regulations. I've put together some additional data that you all asked for, and I'll just kind of give Brief overview about where we're coming from and we'll jump right into the new stuff. So We're talking about this area the c3 central commercial zoning district mostly contiguous with downtown Washington Much of downtown Washington was developed before the invention of cars. So parking was not a consideration Businesses downtown do not need to provide a large amount of surface parking to get business, as most customers in this area park wherever there is availability and walk to their destination. If every business were to provide the same amount of parking as other parts of Washington, downtown would just be surface parking, and then it wouldn't really be downtown. It would be like anywhere else. This does not mean that parking is not needed downtown. We as the city have facilitated this need, providing free off-street parking across downtown, gives downtown visitors a place to store their vehicle as they walk to patronize various businesses. Provided shared parking also prevents the demolition of historic structures or surface parking. These historic buildings make downtown Washington unique, keep visitors coming back. For example, downtown is a pleasant place to be a pedestrian due to the street design, wide sidewalks, and businesses not having their own parking lots. And here's just a map of those parking lots. So what we're talking about specifically, just to reiterate, is this code section right here and How there is an exception for the c3 district that says that off street the off street parking ordinance shall not apply only to the reoccupancy of Existing buildings or structures not new buildings or structures. So if you're building on well Nothing downtown is a greenfield site, but either a field or a parking lot. You are required to provide the same amount of off street parking as you would be at 147. So last month you asked me to look into a number of cities and what they did for their downtown districts in terms of off street parking. One of those was Saint Charles, Missouri. And so for their central business district, off street parking and loading for all existing buildings, off street parking and loading requirements are waived for approved uses. All new construction shall provide one half of the parking and loading requirements in this article. And this part I thought was really interesting. All new construction that exceeds the maximum height requirements shall provide 100% of the parking and loading requirements contained in their off-street parking ordinance. So they're trying to preserve that historic feeling of downtown by I don't know if punishing is the right word, but having a more strict regulation in terms of off-street parking to disincentivize inappropriate infill or infill that is maybe too excessive for their central business district. And their historic commercial district here is much of the same. They just have a smaller maximum height of 2.5 stories as opposed to three stories. And here's just a photo of the existing character. I think most people on this board are familiar with St. Charles. So you know what this area looks like. And talking about infill with this set of codes. So this is the event center that was built in this historic commercial district zoning district. And so one space banquet centers in this zoning district are required to provide one space per 100 square feet of floor area. So total floor area, about 5,000 square feet. Normally, they're required around 52 parking spaces. In this zoning district, they're required to provide 26 parking spaces. Maybe I did my math wrong. Counted 23 off-street parking spaces. But as you can see, they try to minimize the curb cut here. They build to the front line, but they still have off-street parking. Something else to note here is that this is not in sort of the main commercial corridor. This is a bit further south than sort of what you would think of as downtown St. Charles, but it still is required to abide by YOU KNOW, THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO OFF STREET PARKING IN THIS LOCATION IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE DUE TO THERE NOT BEING ANY, YOU KNOW, SHARED USE LOTS CLOSE ENOUGH TO REALLY ABSORB THE PARKING DEMAND FROM THIS LOCATION. SO JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT INFILL LOOKS LIKE USING THESE REGULATIONS. You also asked me to take a look at Sedalia, Missouri. Off street parking is only required for single family and two family residential in C2. In C2 is this blue zone right here, which encompasses most of their downtown. Sort of interestingly, the Amtrak station and all of this part of downtown is zoned industrial and is not exempt from off-street parking regulations. But what I will say is there has not been that much infill. Sedalia has not seen as much infill as Washington has in the same time period, past 15 years or so. You also asked me to take a look at Boonville. Boonville has an interesting requirement here, which is uses in their central commercial district, C2, shall provide one parking space on the lot for each 1,000 square feet of floor space that is in excess of three times the lot area. So this is, in effect, another sort of height cap. If you're building over three stories, I've got an example here, if you're building a large building over three stories, you're then required to provide Certain amount of off-street parking in this case one space for each a thousand square feet so this is just an example taking you know a city-owned parking lot and What the parking calculation would look like, you know?

Yes, mm-hmm yes, yes, that's correct Well

No, no, they would not. This is starting. So if you build a two and a half story, or if you build a building that is 10,000 square feet, a two-story building, then you're exempt from parking regulations. But if you build over that... So it's not really, I'm saying it's in effect a height cap, but it's based on the floor area, which means that it is related to the height of the building in abstract. Ask me to take a look at Hannibal. Hannibal, they have uniform off street parking requirements across town, so nothing exciting there. And then for Cape Girardeau, uses and developments in their central business district are not required to provide off street parking facilities. And there also has not been nearly as much infill that has occurred in Cape Girardeau compared to Washington. And that's kind of where I wanna talk about a specific example and why regulations do not always mean that if the market is not in the same place as the regulations are, you're not going to get the desired result. And I guess what I mean by that is I have an example here. of some older kind of commercial buildings that were built to the street line. And then you've got some other buildings over here. And these were all demolished to build a, what was this? food pantry in sort of this the central business district of Cape Girardeau But as you'll notice this is any district with no required off-street parking, but they decided to build this big parking lot right here And so you might be asking yourself, well, why is that? I mean, well, the answer is, you know, they needed parking. And, you know, the market and the built environment dictate the amount of parking being constructed, i.e., there's no shared use parking that surrounds this site. It's a low density. There are single use buildings, often one story, residential or commercial zones. There are lots of other parking lots. It's not a very desirable location due to the excessive parking. Just talking about the pedestrian environment specifically, street widths, inadequate sidewalks, infrequent public transit. That's not really something applicable to Washington. it didn't make sense to not provide off street parking and so they didn't now in downtown washington it might be a little different but all this to say that you know we can change the rules but there are some parts of c3 as we've seen through the past 10 years with some of the infill development we've had where you know developers are still going to say hey we need off street parking here and uh just something to uh keep in mind as we you know move move forward in this this discussion So right before last month's meeting, John asked me to get some numbers specifically about the amount of parking available in downtown. So kind of just this is a slide breaking down those numbers. There are 1,051 private surface parking spots in the C3 Central Commercial Zoning District. Excuse me. This figure includes commercial, residential, institutional uses, churches, downtown Washington, who often limit these spaces to patrons.

Excuse me.

There are 730 parking spaces either outright owned by the city or available to the public through a lease. And there are around 753 on-street parking spaces in the zoning district north of Fifth Street. This does not capture on-street space capacity south of Fifth Street in the C3 district. So in total, there are around 2,534 surface parking spaces in this zoning district. This number here does not capture total parking capacity. I was not able, I didn't have time to capture the, number of garage parking spaces for example a lot of the you know new infill has garage spaces and there's some existing garage spaces um so this it's important to keep in mind that this 2 534 parking spaces that is just asphalt on the ground surface parking yes exactly see from Correct. Correct. So the parking capacity is greater than, you know, this this number that we're that we're seeing here. And so this means there are around 1500 parking spaces free and available for the public to use at any given time. And something that was also asked, Rocco asked at our last meeting was to determine the ratio of parking to parking availability downtown. And we've got some data for you about that specific thing. And so we use this tool, if you're not familiar, it's called Placer AI to learn the average number of daily visitors during a normal weekday and weekend. This is a tool which aggregates cell phone data to gather foot traffic numbers for market research. And so the next few slides show the average number of people downtown per hour each day of the week over the past six months. For you, the commission, to better understand when and how parking is being utilized. And so these first couple of graphs that I'll show include residents, employees, and visitors. And so here's the blue is the number of people downtown. And then the orange is available parking. Something to make clear about this is this tracks the number of people downtown, not the number of vehicles. As you all often know, there's a lot of families who go downtown. on well all the time but you know it's it's it's you know well there are single car you know users that's not everyone so just because there are a certain number of people downtown does not mean there are a certain number of cars downtown so the weekdays all have you know a pretty you know normal or you know they all have similar patterns in terms of visitation and And the busiest is on Saturday here, where we top out on your average Saturday at around 3 p.m. We get around, I believe, 2,600 people in our downtown. And, you know, just to emphasize again, you know, this does not mean that we have literally zero parking left downtown. This number includes people who live downtown. People who are employed downtown and people who are visiting downtown so everyone who is in the space at a given time And then also as I mentioned earlier the available parking metric Does not include you know a lot of those residents designated parking where they have specific garage spaces And then for Sunday, peaks out during the afternoon. And then we also were able to get some data on specifically visitors to downtown. So this is kind of a more accurate representation of a lot of our surface lots. that are being used and are sort of you know the primary You know cause of a lot of a lot of traffic so a very very similar patterns to All of all of the uses we can see you know the kind of one main difference here is Friday the visitor numbers are peaking in in the the evening whereas for you know The the everyone downtown it was kind of a more steady rise and There's Sunday as well lower than all the other days and so the average peak parking demand downtown 3 p.m. On Saturdays 2,608 people and then gathered some data from the Department of Transportation. You have an average of an occupant and a half. Obviously, you can't have a person and a half, but that's the average. You get around 1,700 vehicles for a total parking capacity of 2,500 SURFACE SPACES, DOES NOT INCLUDE GARAGE SPACES. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US IN TERMS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION? WELL, I GUESS I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, BUT TO GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION LAST MONTH, THIS COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH HIGH VOLUME USES BEING DEVELOPED DOWNTOWN. However, this commission also acknowledged our current parking regulations make it impossible for infill mixed-use development to occur given the amount of off-street parking that is required. And we brought up this building, well, I guess a lack of a building. Where's my, come on. right here on Main Street and how this is prime infill redevelopment, but because of our off-street parking regulations, that probably will not happen. So high traffic uses that were expressed are not achievable downtown without lot consolidation, as we have seen a fair amount of. One way to discourage high traffic uses while allowing sort of appropriate infill is to have parking requirements for buildings over a certain square footage, so like we saw in the Boonville example. So, tailoring that specifically to Washington, I gathered some data about the average lot size in this zoning district, and that's about 8,000 square feet. The height of buildings varies downtown, but most buildings are between two and three stories tall. This gives us an average floor area of 20,000 square feet or so. Take the average lot size times the average height of the buildings. So new development with a higher floor area than the total average floor area would be required to provide one space per 500 square feet of floor area. And then just because it's come up a lot, I got some updated numbers from the Greiffy's about their square footage and everything about the bowling alley development and under this new set of rules they would be required to provide 70 off-street parking spaces. However, given some of the information I've shown today, it is still staff's first recommendation to not require off-street parking downtown. The market has dictated adequate off-street parking for new development for downtown for the past three decades. There are 2,500 parking spaces plus in the C3 Central Commercial District with about 1,500 of those spaces free and available for the public to use at any given time. Downtown Washington does not experience nearly enough traffic on a normal day to justify requiring off-street parking for high volume uses. However, if the commission still feels it would like to regulate downtown parking, staff advise adopting the following regulations, moving parking downtown from a per use standard to a size standard that prevents excessive parking requirements for a small scale infill, but still adequately parks high volume users. So, for example, you know, 10,000 square foot versus a 5,000 square foot arcade. Drastically different parking calculation there. New development with a higher floor area will be required to provide one space per 500 square feet of floor area. So with that, I will open it up to questions and comments and we can have a discussion about this item.

So real real quick there in the back to your you know with that arcade thing you said it was they would require 70 spaces and stuff how many did they have under our current well when they did their

presentation about how many spaces did they have at that point in time do you when yeah at that point in time with the renderings they had provided they were required 400 some spaces with their up and that's something I probably should have checked is with their with their updated renderings I don't have that information with their updated renderings how many parking spaces they would be required under our current off street parking regulations so I don't have that information but yes.

Aaron, on your data that you're showing us from the PLACER AI folks, just so I'm sure I'm following along correctly. Sure. Is that like a yearly average?

This is a six-month average.

Okay. So that would include, we would have time periods in there when we've got school in session and stuff like that.

Yep, absolutely.

first of all thank you because I think that in disinformation this is what we need it's great job yeah that's exactly what I was looking for is some more information on that and doing the research to other communities too I think has given us a better feel for that than what we had when we first started talking about it so thank you for your work for that I'll see that you get compensated accordingly So any other questions from staff or from commissioners rather I and I'll just say I I know that having zero parking requirements has worked, but I don't know that we've had the development like the arcade coming down there that in the downtown area that's that was my initial concern too. We need to do something to maybe buffer that. Vehicle usage occupancy down there without making some adjustments for. And that's why I was kind of leaning more towards your second. option there to where you would require it based on the larger square foot a percentage of that and i think you said in this case it was 70. yeah that's correct i remember right from his discussion he said that between the parking lot that he had that he wasn't yeah he would be over he would be over that 70. and he would be over that 70 with another parking lot that he had purchased Which again probably falls into I'm assuming into those open free parking lots that you have on that map I'm sorry say that again the 300 parking spots or so that he was talking about that he had off-site to the southwest I believe Yes that included in the parking that you have on that map I Mean that's a that's a private lot.

They the they own that lot So but this so this so this portion of the lot the city has a shared lease agreement with the Bank of Washington and you know that's that's public parking but the the rest of the lot the rest of the US bank lot which is right here that is owned outright by the Greifes.

That's me there it is it's right there it's this one. Yes, that's the old US Bank part parking lot, you know, that was yes It's not included.

That's correct. Yes. Mm-hmm that would be my thought is we maybe ought to look at adopting the one that would require the if it's the larger buildings that would require I think that would give us some protection there a little bit I also went through and looked at the survey results that we did, which I thought was kind of interesting too, that it didn't seem like the businesses were really too concerned about not having enough parking for their patrons. So I thought that was a good feedback also.

John, I think I'm kind of in agreement with your direction. One of my concerns I've had all along has been It's not necessarily just the availability of parking. It's also the proximity and the location of the parking. Because one of the concerns I've had with larger scale development, whether it's the main, you know, Jefferson and Main property are a different property. One of the concerns I've had is that if you bring something in that requires, that has a large vehicle usage, which a use like the bowling alley would have or an entertainment use would have, folks are gonna park where it's most, where they can get the closest spot, right? So those businesses and those homeowners that are immediately adjacent to that area are gonna kind of bear the burden of most of that parking. And there may be parking, plenty of parking available across the railroad tracks or further down Front Street, but Main and Lafayette and over towards where the other side of the corner there where Clary just, you know, where they built their building. My concern has always been that those lots are gonna become constantly full and we're gonna have, we're gonna start having issues with owners. You know, the old Droege's lot, there's cones blocking those parking spaces off every day now. Right. So that's always been one of my concerns with this, more so necessarily than just the pure number of spaces. It's the concentration of requirement. It's proximity and just pure scale.

I drove through downtown probably after church on Saturday night, probably 6 o'clock on Saturday night, and went down Market Street. And I mean, they're parked in that residential area down there. There was something big going on, I guess, downtown, I'm assuming at the alley. And I mean, but they're down there in those residential areas. market street all the way up to second was pretty well full main street was full even you know east of market street and then i turned went downtown of course all downtown you know everything there at the andes and behind the andes and everything else was full too so you just i mean it's yeah it's the proximity to it but it's not always it's not just the off street parking it's the on street parking too and how far is that going to spread out if you had something down there that attracts more cars and if you

I may be a, you know, I'm kind of, I keep trying to say that, I keep trying to move the discussion a little bit away from Graffy's property. Right. Because it's, you know, I don't want to, I feel like I'm picking on them a little bit and it's really a bigger issue.

But there's no other property in downtown Washington that can probably handle something of that scale. So, I mean, whereas you try to get away from it, you're going to come right back to it because there's no other piece of property down there other than the two they own, which is the U.S. Bank parking lot and this piece of property. Yeah.

And then the other thing that happens if we just completely drop all parking requirements, if we go to zero parking requirements, not saying that they would do this, but what you could do then is you could then develop the U.S. Bank property as well. Right, I could go and I could build whatever I felt like on that as well. And you would lose the, in the long term, the parking that is the old Missourian lot, the old modern auto parking there, that would become building. Potentially the building or the property, the lot that was the old first bank, mercantile bank lot, that could become building. And you're not just gaining building and gaining employees and traffic, but you're also Losing spots.

It's kind of like a double right double-edged sword Yeah, there's if you look at that that three or four block area can there's several large lots in there where the old lumberyard used to be that could be built upon that would, like you said, flow out into the residential and other areas.

And I'd love to see some of that happening. I would love to see it happen. I'd like to see it happen, if I can have a magic, I'd like to see it happen at a scale that is more closely related to downtown Washington and not at a scale that's more maybe appropriate along the highway.

Yeah.

So how would you respond to that?

How would I respond to that? Well, I would say I would.

The no parking thing, I'm just curious. That was compelling, what I heard. How would you respond to that?

Sure. I would just say that I don't know that we necessarily have, you know, that a high volume use would, just based on the information that, you know. I mean, you know, the eye test is one thing, but when we have sort of, you know, definitive And I get that, you know, what the comments about, you know, the parking is not always going to be right next door. I understand that. But, you know, downtown is not the same as, you know, anywhere else in town. You know, it's it a lot of it was built without any sort of parking in mind. And is it necessarily a bad thing that downtown develops in a certain way with high volume uses? I mean, I don't think so. I think that we have more than enough parking capacity at any given time to absorb a lot of that demand. And just to emphasize this information, this is not number of vehicles that are downtown. This is people, not vehicles. I could see a case for, you know, the average Saturday, you know, maybe we're sort of venturing on, you know, there might be, you know, and all this to say, parking is not something that, you know, staff or the city at large doesn't think is an issue or a long-term need for downtown with development, you know, because um you know there are only so many people who take the amtrak that's how people get downtown so parking is a need but is it so much of a need to require each and every new development to provide um onerous uh you know uh parking to the level of you know suburban washington i don't think so but you know that's that that would be my response But I would I would just like to make this this clear and this board feels you know option two is great Let's go with it I'm happy, but I would just Encourage you to consider, you know the first option but whatever whatever is whatever is okay Well, we've been fortunate so far in for what Andy's done down there.

He's taken into account the parking and I'm not saying that there maybe wouldn't be another developer that could come in and say, well, I don't have to have any parking. I'm going to build this humongous building. And I'm just going to do it. And there's nothing in the ordinances that say anything different. Andy kind of looked out for his own people and the city, I think, in the way he did it. And I'm not 100% sure that every developer region. would necessarily be that in tune to it.

So what you're saying, John, is that well, I guess what it sounds like is if we could get traditional old school classic downtown commercial development, we'd be fine with no parking. But we're afraid someone big is going to come in, do something that we don't like. And what you're saying is we should come up with some kind of big protection to protect us against that. Let the small guy do his own thing.

But the big the big guy not not necessarily. But to just have some protection, some buffer, I would think it has. So if you had a big development that you wouldn't require the same parking that we had out at Walmart or places like that, but have something that you can at least

Which is which is what option to is, you know taking specifically tailor it to the average building square footage, you know of downtown Washington say hey if you're not going to build infill to this level you have to take into account that the vehicle.

I'm not saying we go this way, but there is a third option which is to regulate what's allowed to see 3.

And I started looking at that. You're all probably more familiar with the matrix than the magic use matrix than maybe I am. But that is kind of a confusing document in how it works. And it's so exacting about how some uses are called out. I mean, some uses are incredibly detailed in how they're called out. Absolutely is there's some funny ones in there. There's some I Think if I read it, right, I think with a special use permit we can make ammunition downtown. Yes There's a lot of funny ones Geez yeah, that's one there's I think there are some uses in there and I believe I I believe Mark brought this up at our last meeting that, you know, trying to regulate the uses would be maybe a better way to do this. One way or the other, again, I think it, I keep bringing up the word scale. I just, the size of things I think matters.

And I think that, you know, if we're extremely concerned about scale, I would argue to, you know, that having, you know, requiring development to provide off street parking above a certain square footage ceiling is a more effective way to do that than regulating uses. Because you can have a small scale arcade or a small scale meeting space in a building that is, you know, sort of traditional main street infill project you know banning the use or making it a special use because you know there's two lots where uh you know and granted we have heard we know that one is you know probably going to occur but you know saying we're going to regulate a use out of downtown because of you know two lots where this could happen is just not a good precedent to set in my professional opinion

I would agree on that. I agree. That's fair. I wasn't advocating for number three. I said we had a third tour. Sure. Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Yeah. But to your point, Ken, that's a separate discussion. And, you know, I want to take a serious look at the use table because there's a lot of things in there that, frankly, make no sense. So I agree. It needs to be looked at.

We can manufacture parasols downtown. There we go. There we go. Yeah. Yeah.

OK. Any other discussion or comments or questions from commissioners? So we basically have choice A and choice B to decide, right? Yep. Well, and I mean B. If we're going to go with the size, what's the size?

21,000, the way he has it written here, correct? Yep. If you didn't get option A, would that be your recommendation for size? That's a good size?

Absolutely. Yes. And just to reiterate, that is based off the average building square footage for downtown. That's not some just random number plucked out of nowhere. That's specifically tailored to this zoning district.

What does 21,000 feet look like?

21,000 square feet? I would say, yeah, yeah. Let's see. What's like a two-story... Oh, man. Let's see, how tall is, how many square feet is this? I don't have a good example offhand, but we can find one. This building's two stories, so.

So it would be 21,000 square feet total? Total square footage, yes. So there's no limitation on height?

Well, the height for C3 is eight stories, I believe.

That would be a pretty skinny building. Yeah. It would be. It would be. Well, you talked about Cape Girardeau. If you ever go down to Cape Girardeau, there's a building like that.

While Aaron is doing that, you guys, in my travels and talking to our citizens, a lot of them feel we're growing too fast. Streets too crowded. And they're very concerned about us us growing and So I try and give them my normal stump speech, which is yes, we need to grow Especially to the south and to the west where we're growing and as long as we take care of our downtown We're gonna be alright. That's why people come here to visit. That's that's one of the first things that And I use, there's a new downtown resident and we all know him if you watch PBS at all. His name is Patrick Murphy. He and his wife moved here about six, eight months ago simply to live downtown because it's such a cool place. And John, I get it. If we can manufacture or pass, design some type of ordinance or constraints to make us look like we look now, maybe a little more brick buildings. I can't tell you what it would look like, but as long as we have something like that, and right now, just off the top of my head, be seems to do that.

The let me ask you who's the age group that was ours.

I get it.

I get it changes hard for people are it's it's just that that's when I first moved here about 50 years ago. There was still a four-way stop at 47 and 100. Oh, yeah. And I was only 20 years old, and all the older people kept saying how this, I mean, we're not, Fifth Street's no longer the main through here. It's Highway 100. It's just bypassing everything. It's just we're growing too fast.

Yes. There was a light at 5th and Stafford. That was the only two you had in town. Yeah. No McDonald's.

Not to make the issue even more confusing, but that's what I do. uh... the other thing when i was reading some of the other communities parking ordinances for downtown several of them had thresholds were uh... with bigger developments were parking square where traffic studies kicked in and in light of some of our discussions about the fire department recently and access to streets and everything is there a concern about any of that sort of stuff if we start giving larger developments where we're talking about adding hundreds of cars on Saturday afternoon or does there need to be I don't I don't drive the street enough on Saturday afternoon to know if that's a concern or not.

Or is something with a type of shuttle or something like that that would move people around between the parking on the other side of the tracks and some of the other outer areas and stuff? You know, if you're going Bank of Washington, 14th Street parking lot and coming downtown and things like that.

And that's one of the things, as I was reading through stuff, that's one of the things I kept coming back to is a lot of the communities larger than us HAVE SOME FORM OF TRANSPORTATION.

EVEN HERMAN HAS A TROLLEY SYSTEM THEY USE BECAUSE OF THE SAME THING.

YEAH. I MEAN, IF THIS BOARD FEELS THAT, YOU KNOW, A TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THAT, YOU KNOW, LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT, We can add that. I frankly don't think it's necessary, but, you know, it's.

Not saying I think we have to do it. Sure. Just saying as I was reading these other downtowns, a lot of them would have at a certain threshold would have, you know, traffic studies required. Most of those were larger communities where you're going to be dealing with a lot higher volumes, obviously, than what we are. But it's still relevant.

The only thing I will say is downtown was much busier 30 and 40 years ago than it is right now. And we have more parking downtown than we did 30 or 40 years ago. So somehow, 30 or 40 years ago, we were able to survive without parking regulations with it being much busier with the Missourian, having people come to the Missourian all the time for papers, the Bank of Washington. People don't go to banks anymore. The US Bank is closed. They went to the US Bank all the time. We were much busier downtown than than we are today and we're wanting to put parking regulations then that's my 2 cents.

I don't think there should be any. You're not worried that someone will come in and buy up or take the US Bank property and turn it into something. I don't even know whatever.

I mean, frankly, even if even if they did, I still think we have the parking capacity to be able to know we need absorb that additional traffic. from the highest volume indoor entertainment. I mean, I don't know. I think that there's enough on-street parking and off-street parking that exists currently that we don't need to regulate it. if a developer feels that you know, oh I can't meet parking demand as you know has has been the case, you know in you know the past decade or so they will build additional parking but Well, you know So Aaron I can't tell from this c3 commercial zoning district is Cedar Crest in that No, it is not

I mean you have to remember we used to have the Elks Hall downtown. We had the Knights of Columbus downtown. I mean you had modern auto that was covered a parking lot. I mean we had a lot more going on downtown years ago than what we do now and we're wanting to put parking regulations in place.

And you just just to kind of I don't think I really you know I don't think I really hit this very hard when I initially went over this, but this is everyone who is downtown, not the number of cars, the number of people who are downtown on your average weekday that is well below the amount of surface parking that is available. um you know then that still includes you know now granted you know there there still is parking demand that is somewhat comparable to our uh you know at peak times but you know we're really under utilizing a lot of our existing parking during during the week you have to think that during the festivals you would expect that absolutely we can't plan for that absolutely i mean that's that's not what we're here for and that skews the numbers yes

But again, that's where you can still come up with shuttles and whatever to utilize more. If it gets to that point, you can sit there and utilize a shuttle of some sort to use more of the parking across the railroad tracks. Use Bank of Washington's off of 14th Street and utilize some of these outer lots and stuff.

You make a good point, Chad. I think you convinced me.

Can I ask another question? Yes, absolutely. Sorry, I feel like I know the least about this, but so the empty lots are being used and counted for these parking spaces that are available now. If there's no parking limits required anymore, are a bunch of these owners going to jump on that and all this extra parking that we think we have is going to go away because they're all going to get developed? I mean, I don't know who I guess we don't know who owns all these pieces.

Well, there's no parking regulations right now There's no well, I I guess for for new development. There is there is parking requirements I mean I DON'T SEE THAT BECAUSE A BIT OF HISTORY IS WE DID NOT, WE AS THE CITY DID NOT EVEN KNOW WE HAD OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS. WE WERE, WE OPERATED UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE DID NOT FOR THE PAST NINE OR SO YEARS. AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THIS YEAR THAT THE BOWLING ALLEY DEVELOPMENT CAME UP THAT WE REALIZED, AND THIS IS WHY THIS IS, OR I'LL JUST PULL UP THE, OH, GEEZ, OKAY. We didn't do enough careful reading, and instead of reoccupancy of existing buildings, we just thought, oh, any use downtown, there's no off-street parking required. So to your point, under an environment in which the development community, the city, thought there were no off-street parking regulations, you've gotten the development that you've gotten today.

So is there something we can do if we said no parking and we go with that and everything starts blowing up and it goes really good and then it gets out of control? Is there some way to scale that back after we've opened this up to no parking?

I mean, yeah, absolutely. We can change it. Yeah, we can change it. You're the Planning and Zoning Commission, and we have that authority.

Yeah. That's right. Yeah. The youngest one here, but I'm the old man sitting on the.

Oh, you're younger than me. Yeah, you're OK.

While we have this change in in in attention here, that's Bailey Kitchell. You guys should be sitting up here.

Oh, that's good. I was wondering who that was. Is that the newspaper?

Someone spying on us or something?

Any other discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion.

Could you specify your motion?

If he wants anything. OK. Then I'll make it. I make a motion that we follow your recommendation to keep the, I believe it's on the page. I don't have these numbers. It's under the C3 commercial zoning district. Exemptions to minimum off-street parking and loading space requirements. Exception for c3 no off street parking should be required for any use in the c3 central business district So you made the motion I made the motion I'll second that motion made and seconded that we follow Aaron's recommendation and Include the exemption for no off street parking should be required for any use in the c3 central commercial district. I All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? No. Where'd she go?

Jamie.

Jamie. Can we do a roll call vote, please?

Roll call vote? Yeah, we need a roll call vote.

You just need to record everybody's individual vote on the motion.

So just go down. We don't generally do it here. Yeah.

By individual and call for each individual's vote, please.

OK. Rocco Gonzalez?

He's not here.

That's right. Mark Piontek?

He doesn't vote.

Mayor Hagedorn?

Yes.

John Boardman? Yes. Ken Shearer? No. Chuck Watson? Yes. Chad Briggs? Yes. Matt Coleman?

No.

Mike Wood?

No.

By your vote, four to three, if I counted right, it passes. Great discussion, you guys. Yes, great discussion.

And this will go to Council, not at the next meeting, but at some point in August.

Okay, so. Mike, you ask a great question that can't, or I don't know. Did you ask it, Matt? Can this be changed if it blows up? And yes, it can.

Good. Not good that I, yeah, I just think that that's obviously good policy. Yeah.

Okay, we have one more item, I believe, on the agenda for Franklin County subdivisions.

Aaron?

Yes, I got two subdivisions that came in, one on Friday and one today. So they were not on your original agenda. But the first is subdivision off Jones Lane here. We're at intersect with Highway 100. And this is a two lot, three tract subdivision. let's see here you can see it's highway 100 and there's where the subdivision is there's the boundary specifically so you got one lot to lot and then three tracks no new road yes No new roads, utility easements are needed on this for the lots. And then just in our subdivision regulations, we don't promote flag lots, which is where we've got one lot sort of directly in front of another lot here that I assume they'll access from this little drive here. So we just don't promote that. I didn't have any comments. Specifically, I didn't know if this board did, but so.

Just for my information, even if we did have a comment, Franklin County doesn't really care.

Well, it's maybe a poor way to phrase it. It's not that they don't care, they just, they traditionally have not followed our recommendations.

Some of the things that we've traditionally have replied back on has been street widths and access and lot sizes, things like that. This really doesn't fall into any of those categories.

Well, and one of the issues is if it meets the county's regulations.

Yeah, they can't really do anything.

They don't really have any discretion whether to approve

Yeah, subdivision regulations are not discretionary like some zoning is, so. Let's check the box.

Yep. Is this within a mile and a half of the city limits? It is, just barely, but. I was gonna say, barely.

Yeah, I think, cuz in sports kind of extends out, that's probably from that point.

Isn't the schools that it's not ? Okay.

And then last one here, this is a 49-lot subdivision on South Highway A near the intersection with 4 Mile. I realize that's a little small here, but it's right by the intersection with North 4 Mile and 4 Mile and Highway A right there. And so this is 49 lots here, all single-family. They're all R1D compliant and will access Highway A using Broadmoor Drive, if you're familiar with where that is. This is just a sketch. They did not provide street width or how future development areas are to be utilized. There's a few future development areas here and here, which not indicated what those are. There's specifically open space right here, about 10,000 square feet of open space. And then there's what they describe as a linear park. Right here with some playground equipment and pickleball or tennis courts and some additional off-street parking spaces for the for this amenity They got on-site detention and then a lift station as well Staff comments are as follows the subdivision is self-contained not connected You know, there's a there's a pretty big farm to the east here that to you know, just in this row this proposed Well, either really, I don't know if their detention is negotiable, but to end this road here in a cul-de-sac or this in a cul-de-sac here when there's a lot of, you know, and when I say developable area, I mean like, you know, in 10 or 20 years or so, you know, to just end this road in a cul-de-sac to not anticipate future development there is irresponsible urban planning. and so that would be our recommendation is if they are required a stub instead of putting it right here to this other lot and these other homes that front highway a you know where you have to go through you know two three four property owners to actually make this connection directly from highway a it would be more beneficial for the long-term growth of this area to stub it out to the farm to the

east here or or to the south or to the north just they yes yes that is a bad intersections bad location the way it is I mean the state did make an improvement put a turn lane in there but that's not a good place to bring 49 more homes out of

Yep, yep, I agree. Another interesting thing about this subdivision is it does meet our, we have a requirement for open space when you subdivide over 30 acres of land. So it does meet that requirement, but don't know about the pavement or street width or sidewalks or anything like that, so. Yeah, so I guess I can show it on this. So here's the road here, and then it'll connect to this road. I'll just pull it up on Google Maps. How about that? I'm pulling up on Google Maps. OK. So we're right here. Here's the property. Here's Broadmoor Drive. So the road. And actually, I don't know if it's going to be on Broadmoor Drive. It wasn't indicated. But the whole property is like right here-ish. So Broadmoor Drive is on this property. So I guess they could, in theory, have direct access to Highway A. But that would be another one of our recommendations is to not have another drive off. to Highway A right next to Broadmoor Drive. You kind of want to facilitate all the access into one point instead of having multiple places where people are turning. So it'll come up here and then there'll be a cul-de-sac right here and then another cul-de-sac right here and then the Stub Street going right here through this property and potentially these two. And when I'm saying going through these properties, if the road ever were to be extended to allow additional access to Highway A. YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

JUST TO NOTE, IT'S RIGHT BY THE INTERSECTION.

IT WOULD BE RIGHT BY THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 4-MILE, 4-MILE HIGHWAY A. So those would be our recommendations. We plan on going to the sketch plan meeting. I don't know exactly when that is, but staff has an invitation. We will voice our comments there.

Do you need a signed letter from the commission?

That may be beneficial, yes. I will prepare one.

We've done that in the past. Sure. If you want to draft a letter in those points, could we email that out to the commission? When is your meeting with them?

I don't remember off, let me check my phone.

That's okay. But if you can, I think, put your comments together and then we can email that out to the commission and get a little feedback within a day or two and then we need to make any adjustments to that.

It's July 23rd.

It's next week. 10 days. We've got some time. I think if you can put that together and mail it out, and then we can just kind of give a reply back, yes, no, or what we need to add, and then go from there, since this is the last minute.

Yep.

Fair enough?

Sounds like a plan.

Okay. The only other thing I had thought about is that I think we need to address is the zero lot line issue and the setback from the street intersections. I believe our code currently is 60 feet.

30. Are you talking about the site distance triangle? Yes. We can put that on next month's agenda.

I believe we talked about once before. I believe it's 30.

Yeah, that's what I remember as well.

But either way, I think when you look at that, based on what the bowling alley is doing, that's what that came into discussion about, because 30 feet was pretty much, it takes a lot off of that building. And I think we ought to look at that.

Okay. Gotcha. I will have something for you next month.

Okay.

So, commissioners, anything else for tonight's meeting? Okay, and I would entertain one last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Motion made and seconded. We adjourn at 8.30. Thank you. Thank you, Jake.

Gina didn't train you on that then, huh? Everyone agrees or disagrees. We have to... Whenever there's b-size drawings