Feb 24, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-02-24 5:00 PM

>> If anyone has any questions regarding the plots on the consent agenda, we'd be more than happy to address those. I think they're relatively straightforward. Maybe not. Go ahead. >> Commissioner Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. I just was hoping, Mike, could you run us through the timeline of the item C, the final plot of block A of the Hickory Creek Shopping Center? I was just a little confused about that timeline as well. >> Right, okay, so two meetings ago, we had the conveyance plot. >> Yes. >> Which broke up the Hickory Creek Center into five lots. And the last meeting, we had the preliminary plot of lot four and lot eight. And this is the final plot of just lot eight. So all they want to build on is lot eight. >> Perfect, thank you. And I had missed the last meeting, so that would make sense . Okay, thank you. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Yes, also, I guess I wasn't on the PNZ when this Recur rier States was approved. Can you just give me a quick, what the heck's going on here ? Which item? >> Item E on. >> Oh, the Recurrier States. This is a property in the ETJ. They have two lots. Typically, you don't only see those because they're minor plots of staff approval. But in this case, they have one lot that doesn't have any furniture on a public road. And per the local government code, that has to go to Planning and Zoning Commission. It can't be approved by staff. So that's the only reason it's here. >> So it looks like one lot is just sitting in the big middle of the- >> Yeah, this family is doing the block in the middle is for them. And the outside lot is going to be for one of their parents . >> Okay, okay, thank you. >> Okay, no other questions on the consent agenda? Move on to our work session reports. We've got our work session report. The item A, PC 16-039. I think Julie's going to get an opportunity to finish this for us finally. >> Yes, thanks for having me back. Okay, so I promise I know how to work a computer. Okay, we got most of the way through. So I think I'm just going to go straight to bike counts, because we kind of went through most of this. If anybody has any questions before I start. Okay, okay, so we undertook bike and pedestrian manual counts this year. We did it in conjunction with the National Bike and Pedest rian Documentation Project. They're a group who work with also planning and design and also the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They've been doing this since about, I think it's 2004, 2005. And their goal is to have a clearing house of data for bike and ped use. There's not a whole lot of data that people collect on it. We have traffic data for vehicle usage for years and years and years, decades. But not a lot for ped and bike data. So they want to sort of start that project going. And you essentially just use volunteers to manually count bicycles and pedestrians at locations that we choose across the city. Like I said, there's a lack of data, so we want to start the data collection for Denton. So we do have census data, which is great, but it only tracks commuters. We want to also track people who are riding to go to the grocery store, go to the movies, go to the square. Essentially people who are riding for other utilitarian trips, not just to get to work. We also want to be able to do before and after studies. We want to be able to see, okay, we put in this bike infrastructure. Are people using it more now? If we had charros before, but now we put in a bike lane because that was warranted. Are we getting more bicyclists? So we want to be able to track how a project is doing. So based on what the National Bike Ped Project does, they set count dates in September. That's a good time frame generally. People are back in school, so they pick a week in September . It's usually the second week. We did ours the week of September 14th. And you count for two hours during the peak time. So you count on a weekday and on a weekend. Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, those days are statistically the same. You don't want to count on a Monday or a Friday. And then you count on a Saturday or Sunday. We used all volunteers. We asked them over social media if they wanted to be a volunteer. They signed up. They were trained. We had training sessions here. We also had a training session at the Civic Center. So they learned how to do the counts. We did screen line counts, which is the most basic. You essentially put a imaginary line across the street. And anybody who crosses that line in either direction, you count them, either as a person on a bike, a pedestrian, or other. Other is somebody who is on their rollerblading. That's about it for other rollerblader. They're not really pedestrians. >> Unicycle. >> Unicycle would count as a bicyclist. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And every, so I think we had eight volunteers and we had 14 locations across the city. There are definitely some pros and cons to doing bike counts this way. We like that we're able to involve the community. They feel involved. They get to count. I get to interact with them. That's really great. When we're counting it ourselves, we're allowed to collect extra data. So we can count gender, which we did this year. You can count helmet use. That's not something we counted this year, but it's something we can obviously add in the future. Gender is a really good thing you want to be tracking. It's fairly known that more men ride bikes than women. And so the goal is always to get more women riding, because that means you're probably doing something right if women are choosing to ride their bike. Women in general are more risk averse, and have different roles than men in general, if we're talking stereotypes in general. So yeah, if you can get women bicycling, that's always really good. There are definitely some drawbacks to doing the manual counts as well though. You're limited on your duration and the location of your counts. Again, we only have so many volunteers. We can't count everywhere we'd like to count. There's also a lot of effects by the weather. It actually rained and we had to cancel one of our count dates, and that's never fun. There's also just human error. We train them, but they could mess up, possibly they couldn 't show up. I had some people who had to cancel, cuz life happens. So there's pros and cons to doing it. There's also other ways we like to do it, which I'll talk about near the end. Here's where we chose to count. We chose them based on where we have projects coming up and where we know there is high use, such as Congress. We know we're gonna be doing some bike infrastructure there this year. You see location number three is Malone. We'd planned to do a road diet on Malone, but found out that there's a street project, a wastewater project going on. So that project's delayed till 2017, but we counted there. Other locations we counted, you can see where we have infrastructure right now or planned infrastructure. Six, we counted on Bonnie Bray, cuz as you know, Bonnie Bray's gonna be expanded. So we just wanna get some before and after counts at that location to see what's going on there. Here's our raw data. And I show this to you cuz I want you to know that this is good data to have and it's really just a starting point, but the data is limited. You only count for two hours and then you extrapolate from that data. So you can see that we actually only counted a total of 173 people. And we counted 435 pedestrians. So it's good data, we definitely wanna build off of it. But again, it's not continuous data, it's very limited and small. >> Commissioner Dettowitz. >> On your pedestrians and your bikers, could it be that the same person counted on three or four days when you got to your total number of bikers? >> What do you mean? >> If somebody would road, your count was done on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. >> We did count it on Tuesday and Wednesday. >> Tuesday and Wednesday, okay. And then you counted again on Saturday, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And Sunday. >> Could the same person be counted four times a day? >> Yeah, these are individual people, I guess they're trips . Well, no, these are individual, that's how many people we counted. You're right, they could be the exact same person. >> Okay. >> If they travel that route every day. >> So that goes back to the pros and cons of the survey done. >> Well, same thing if you're counting vehicles. You can still count the same vehicle every day, because they're traveling that same route every day. >> Right, as long as you identify trips and not people. That's what I'm suggesting. >> Right, these ones are definitely, well, these are a person crossed, we consider that. >> All right. >> You've crossed a trip. >> So I'm just questioning- >> If you cross again because you're coming home, that's a trip as well. >> I understand. >> But you get the same person. >> So I'm just looking at vernacular, so it's a trip. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, so you can see the numbers, you're right, we like doing this. We want to build off of this data, but it's lacking in robustness. So the bike pad project, the national bike pad project, they give us extrapolation worksheets. And that's what I use to do the projection. So they give us these Excel worksheets and we input all of our numbers and do some fancy math that they've honed over the years. They've been doing this since 2004. So they've been doing it for a long time and they've honed their numbers and this is what we use. So these are our projections, again, they're based on a very small sample size. But first I want to point out Oak and Welch, we counted there. Kind of on Oak Street, so people who are crossing on Oak Street at Welch. You can see that they had the highest numbers for bicycl ists and pedestrians, which is sort of obvious. It's not by UNT, lots of bikes and peds at that area. Second, we want to highlight Locust and Sycamore. So we counted on Locust at Sycamore and that was the second highest for pedestrians. It's a high area for people walking. You can see it's about even for weekday and weekend for people who are walking on Locust, which is good. That's what we expect for the downtown area. Wanted to highlight for bicyclists, Congress and Coy and then Malone and Broadway. These each are the next highest for bicyclists and those are areas that we are planning to put bike infrastructure either this year or next year. So we really like having this before data. >> Commissioner Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. So I'm looking at the Malone and Broadway numbers and I'm thinking about like my husband who commutes to UNT daily with our three year old in the trailer behind him. But because the traffic is so fast on Malone, people go 40 in a 30 at least, right? It's a long stretch there. And there is no dedicated bike lane or anything there. They typically will ride up and down Gober. So I'm wondering, have you looked at any like some of the maybe the heat mapping apps that are out there that cycl ists are already using that are showing the trips that they 're taking and the routes that they're taking. That you could maybe then also incorporate to some of these bike counts to get a clear idea of not only how many cycl ists are on Malone and Broadway, but how many cyclists are riding in that general area in the general direction to kind of get a more robust count for what we're looking at. >> Right, that's a good point. We haven't looked at Strava or MapMyRide or anything like that. Generally, I have to pay for that data. It's just not something we've looked into at this point. But it's good to note that people will take an alternative route if they don't have a bike accommodation there currently like Malone. So that's a road that we have designated as a good candidate to do a road diet on. So then you would have a bike lane. And so hopefully, once there's a bike lane, people would then choose to take that route instead of- >> Gober. >> Gober, yeah. >> But my point just more generally is that this data is out there. >> Right. >> Yes, it may cost something to get that data, but there's also, I just think that that data would be really important for us to have as we're looking towards the future. >> Right. >> That said, Denton's a really tech savvy town, so there might be another way for us to get that data without having to pay some sort of membership fee. But I think that it would give us a more accurate count of where people really truly are riding, because people may not be comfortable riding on Malone and they may be taking the side streets. >> Right. >> If you're not sitting on the corner of Gober and wherever, you're going to miss 50 riders that morning who don't feel comfortable going on Malone. >> Right. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah, no, that's a very good point. Yeah, again, I mean there are limits to like Strava data as well. Sometimes it's people who have self-selected as a bicyclist . But it's still very good data to have, so we could look into that. >> Yeah, I would encourage that. I think it would give us a clearer idea of not only where, maybe not specific routes that they're going, but point A to point B data. >> Right. >> Yeah? >> Yeah. >> Okay, thanks. >> Thank you. So that's about it for projections. Again, this is only the first year. It's just trying to set a baseline. As years progress, we'd like to be able to see the numbers increase based on what we're doing, not just infrastructure wise, but education and encouragement. So- >> I have a question before you- >> Go for it. >> I may not have followed the chart correctly. I saw the single asterisk and the double asterisk for projections. But on the ones that are like Locust and Sycamore, are those numbers projected also, or are they somewhat off of the count? >> No, these are all projections. Sorry, the ones that have asterisks, those means they had, I think they had two count dates. And so I averaged the Tuesday and the Wednesday. The other ones, I'd have to average because I'm only counted on one day. >> So all of this got some kind of a projection- >> Correct . >> Data in it, because I was looking at it when I went week day 68, how did you get 540? But if it's some kind of a formula- >> Right, there's a formula. >> I got you. I thought the formula was just on the, maybe on the double asterisk and the single, I couldn't follow how- >> No, sorry, and I forgot to include the asterisks in here , that was my bad. Yeah, that meant that we had two days of data and it was averaged. >> Okay. >> And again, we only had so many volunteers, so not every location was able to get two weekday counts and two weekend counts. >> So you really got a couple things going on. You've got some averaging of some of your data. And then, no matter whether it was averaged or not, then there's some kind of a projection formula- >> Right. >> That you take, whether it's an average number or whether it was an actual count number that then creates a type. >> Correct, yeah. And that's the same process they use when they do average daily vehicle counts for roads. Of course, they're using continuous data. They put the pneumatic tubes on the road and they're counting cars. So the data is better to do a production off of as opposed to we just counted for two hours. >> To follow up, did you have any traffic counts that we can look at just to kind of see on some of these roads? Here's what car traffic count is, here's what pedestrian, here's what bikes would get some kind of a feel. Are these really heavily traveled roads for vehicles, people, and cyclists? Or are they not and some of the, I guess, Amber brings up a good point about maybe on some of these, instead of having a bike lane in a heavily traveled road. >> Right. >> It might even make more sense to have it on a side street where- >> Right. >> There's less vehicle traffic and accidents and those types of things. And I don't know if that's something that anybody's talked about. >> Yeah, that's a good point on the bike plan to take that into consideration. So we have lots of roads that parallel major roads that we 've put back accommodations on. Like Carroll, it's a very busy road, likely won't have back accommodations. But there are a lot of great parallel streets that can get you there. So you can go on Allis, you can go on Coyote, you can even go on Fulton or Bryan and they'll get you the same north south direction. >> I think that's a win for the cars and the bicyclists. Everybody can get where they need to go and it's probably safer. And you have some feedback on that? >> Well, yeah, thanks. >> Commissioner Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. I would say as a woman, I would feel safer riding on Gober. My husband, however, if he didn't have our three year old behind us, I can't speak for him. But I would think that he would just want to take the straight shot. That's where the cars go. That's where the people want to go. It's the easiest shot from where we live to his office. And so I certainly don't want to disenfranchise riders like that who have just as much right to be using the road as anyone else, whether or not they're in a car. But I think to be able to build bike accommodations on the heavily traveled areas. And perhaps, and I'm glad that you're doing these bike counts too, because after Malone gets that road diet, I'd be really curious to see, has ridership gone up? People will still be traveling the side streets as they feel comfortable. But to create accommodations on the major roads that people want to be traveling on anyway, I think it's our duty as a city to do that. So if that, did that answer your inquiry? Yeah? >> Yeah, I just wanted to- >> Yeah, I mean, I think there's pros and cons in both avenues. But I certainly wouldn't want to just say, well, Gober runs north south, so we don't have to do anything on Malone. Do you know what I mean? >> I'm suggesting maybe if you do it on Gober, that it's a less heavily vehicle traveled road, that it may be safer for bicyclists, and then it doesn't get into, we've got one lane that's exclusively going to be a bike lane, whether it's used or not. And some of the heavily trafficked roads stay vehicle. And if there's a parallel, that maybe is a share-o or a bike lane, and those types of things. That it's kind of, at least an initial look to me is maybe a little more of, I don't know the right word, but it's just another alternative of how to solve this issue. >> Yeah, and I feel like there's room for both, honestly. And that kind of brings me to one of my questions, if I may . >> Sure. >> So this board and many city boards typically will revisit documents that have come, been adopted by city council. This document is now five years old. We're just now starting to implement, well, we've been implementing some things, but we're really starting to see some progress moving forward kind of now, now that our waste water projects and our road projects are getting taken care of, we can now finally build this bike plan. What's your sense, do you think that this document is truly representative of what we need currently as a city and where we're going? Is this something that we maybe need to reconvene another bike plan task force to look at and see is Gober a better route than Malone, or are there routes that are missing? And I think having data like this and having some of those heat mapping apps would give us a better idea. When we overlay that on the bike plan that we currently have, is the bike plan meeting our needs? So what's your sense? >> Yeah, that's a really good question. Our bike plan is it was adopted in 2012, it was four years ago, but the bulk of the work would have been done in 2011. So yeah, it's about five years old. We have discussed updating it, most plans you would update in about five years. And right now is the time to do that, we're in the middle of budget session. So anything that's not currently budgeted, such as money for a bike plan, we ask for it right now. So that's something that's discussed. >> Commissioner Dudowitz. >> I'm sorry to interject, but I didn't want this other conversation to get away from me, at least a dive from loneliness. But both bring up good issues. My point of view is a sense of yes, we need the bicycle lanes and we need to make sure that they're safe. And it makes sense, but it makes sense that it doesn't disrupt one or the other. So bicycle lanes- >> Right, our goal is to make them work well together. >> Together, exactly. because I've seen situations and read situations where the bike lanes took over and you took lanes away from traffic and then had bottled up car traffic, which is a bigger proportion of the commutes. To the expense of, I mean, give the bikes more room, less for the cars. As long as we have a balance and it works so that not one or the other is impeded, I think it's fine. And I think we need them. So the conversation was looking at routes where is it safer or put them on side situations, maybe better. But I also understand, you have the straight line and it makes sense. As long as it doesn't take away from the other aspect of the traffic as well. That's my point of view and I've seen in some cities where it's gotten out of hand and backed up traffic and other things. Maybe they should ride their bike to work. >> That's not going to happen. Maybe people who ride their bike should take a car, a car pool. >> Well, I think, and that was a little tongue in cheek, but I think that the two can coexist. And so I'm curious, do you think that the bike plan needs to be revisited? Is this something, are we seeing some conflicts kind of down the road or the lanes that we have built already? Have there been conflicts? Do we need to kind of revisit this? >> Right, there haven't been conflicts as of yet. We've done a couple of road diets so far. And the road diet, again, just to clarify, road reconfig uration generally is you're taking a four lane roadway and you put it into a two lane roadway, continuous turn lane, and then you have bike lanes on either side. We did that on Windsor and we did it on Highland. And those have both been working really well right now. And also, we don't just do a road diet on any four lane road. We look at it, we look at turning movements, we look at the daily traffic volumes. And we see how is it going to work in the larger grand scheme of our roadway network. So we wouldn't ever do it if it was going to bottle up traffic. We have models that we can run that says, no, if we took a lane away here, this would cause a bottleneck. And if it would, we wouldn't do it. But lots of times, road diets are very effective. Many, many cities have done them. They're a proven safety measure from the FHWA. And Malone was recognized as a good option to do a road diet. For our bike plan, yes, I'd love to visit updating it. There are some things we could change. ASHA came out with a new guide in 2012, which missed, so the bike plan misses a few of those updates. >> I think Commissioner Beck was first. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Fire away. >> You'll come back to you. >> We brought up Windsor and I kind of figured that's what Frank was talking about. But I noticed, and I'm curious, why do you have a Sherman and Dover route here? Because Dover's just a side street. >> Right, we counted on Sherman, but the cross street was at Dover. So Sherman is a nice route for people who are what I'd call the weekend warrior. They're going out to ride their bike out on the FM roads. So I was just curious how many people are riding out there on Sherman. >> So Dover's kind of an end point then? >> Well, Dover was just a good street to be like, that's where we're at. >> To make the count. >> So I knew where we were counting on Sherman. >> Okay, but curious too, why didn't we do a count on Winds or? We did do that road diet there. >> You're right. So there's no before data for Windsor. That was done in 2013, 2014. There's no before data for that. But I am planning on doing counts on Windsor this spring with some automatic counters that we can borrow from the COG. >> Okay, good, thanks. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> Commissioner Riddle. >> Thank you, Chair. So as we're talking about possibly revisiting the bike plan , is that the purview of PNZ? Is that, I believe traffic safety is kind of the overseers of the bike plan. I mean, who would maybe give direction for that? Just to revisit it and make sure that it's the right document for where we are and where we're going. >> If I remember, and this is, I wasn't obviously here when we adopted it. I think engineering, they didn't have a bike ped coordinator. Engineering took charge of that, and then they created the bike task force or focus group. And then they presented, so they came to PNZ, I think, to two work sessions. They went to Traffic Safety Commission, they went to Mob ility Committee, and then once they all gave input, then they went to City Council. So that would be an undertaking that, it would mainly be myself and probably Noreen Housewright, the engineer who worked on the bike plan the first time. >> So would there be, so we would not be looking at like reconvening like a citizens group like we did five years ago. >> No, I think we probably would. Once we got funding to do a new bike plan, we'd probably have to go through a consultant just because staff time. And then we would, I imagine we'd once again get a task force together of stakeholders who would help guide the project. >> Would that direction come from City Council or would that come from, as you mentioned, many different committees in there? I guess my concern is this document is five years old. >> Right. >> We're now building things. We adopted, our goal is no longer AASHTO standards but NACTO standards as per the 2030 comprehensive plan. Like are we, is everything matching up? I think this would be a good time to revisit it. We finally have a bike ped coordinator. Welcome to town. I'm super glad you're here. So how do we, where do we go from here to make sure that this is the right document? Which committee needs to give that direction? >> I imagine City Council would have final say. I don't think it'd be P and Z. >> Dang it. >> I can, may I interject? >> Last. >> Yeah. >> Last staff to give some direction. >> Since it's a component of the mobility plan, it has to go through the dual hearing. I think it's the dual hearing process. So it would start here, and once it's recommended to hear, you would recommend it, and then City Council would pass final. >> Commissioner Dotto. >> It's a test that would be initiated by the mobility committee, but then it would come back to PC. >> I see. >> But I, if I may be right. >> Commissioner Dotto, is she back? >> Then I think she's onto something here with anything else. She can ask as a commissioner that this be visited and ask the appropriate staff to give us a direction. Because I've done that and that's something else, and I think it's very appropriate for, it's five years old. Let's ask the appropriate people to, is this something we should be looking at and who should do it? >> If it is the will of the commission to revisit this and look at what options we have, are any revisions pertinent? And if you have a succinct recommendation, then Julie can then take forward to her committee. And then they can get the ball rolling from there, and then it would come back, as Jennifer mentioned, to a public hearing process. >> Yeah, I mean, I would like to see that. >> Commissioner Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. I think the timing is right. We just recently approved the mobility plan. We've got a new comp plan. We've got a bike pedestrian coordinator. I think that now would be a good time to, so I would like to see this come back to us eventually. >> Right, well, we are talking about updating it. So my plan was I was going to submit a budget package to get the funding to update our bike plan. That's something that goes on right now during the budget season. So we submit budget supplementals, I want to say it's in May. And then, you know, city council votes on our budget, and then in October we get a new budget, depending on if city council approves my budget package. >> Right, okay. >> Commissioner Dottowich. >> I think by what you heard from this commission, we would endorse that. Maybe you could go to city council and say planning and zoning has endorsed an update. Can it be funded? So that would be something that you could hang your hat on and have some leverage that this commission is suggesting that you follow that. So, Mike? >> That would be, yeah. It's been my plan, so that's great. I'm glad we're all on the same page. >> How much? >> I like it. >> Okay. >> I'm done talking now. Thank you. >> Okay, so here's some census data. Like I said, census data counts just those commuting to work. So I went and used the census data. It's the 2014 American Community Survey Means of Transportation to Work. And this is how we compare to some other places. So you can see the US, we are better than the US. Like nationally, those are national numbers. We're better than our state as well. We're actually a little bit better than Dallas, so that's exciting. Here we are compared to other Texas cities. It's worth it to note that Austin and Richardson are both recognized as bicycle friendly communities from the League of American Bicyclists. You can see that we have a higher mode share. Okay, actually, I should clarify. This is mode share of everybody who commutes to work. So the census has different categories, either you drive alone, you carpool, you take transit, you walk, you work from home, or you bike. And this is our mode share of those people who commute to work, and this is those groups that walk or bike. So you can see that we have 0.9 people who, percent of our commuters who bike, and 3.8 of our commuters who walk. We are slightly better than Richardson, we're better than Fort Worth a little bit as well. So that's just us compared to them, in case you were curious. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you. Just for clarification, so like 0.9% of the 100, roughly 120,000 people that you have? >> Not the entire population, just the working population. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, I don't have that number, but I do have it in charts that I downloaded from census. But it's not entire population, it's only people who are 16 and over. Those who would go to work. >> 16 and over. >> Correct, so this is just commuting to work, it's not like people who are riding their bike to school or. >> No. >> Yeah. You can see Portland, which is kind of the national standard along with Minneapolis and Chicago. They have a very high mode share. They have 6.3% of their commuters that bike to work, which is fairly impressive. I also want to highlight Bellingham, Washington. It's a city that's just a little bit smaller than Denton, it doesn't have a college. And they have not the best weather. It's very rainy there, and so it's just, I bring this up to point out that weather doesn't often play a large factor in those who choose to bike or walk to work. Here's data that's just for Denton, so I took the American Community Survey data over the years to see what Denton looked like with our bike and walk mode share. And you can see we've actually been declining just a little bit. I'm not a demographer, I don't quite know why that is. Could be that gas prices have gone down, perhaps it's, you know, many choices, who knows. But we did have a high of 1.7 back in 2009. And we're still actually fairly good on people who walk to work. So, these are definitely numbers I think we can increase. That's my job too, and you know, make sure these numbers are increased. >> Gas prices were the highest in 2009. >> Yeah, and I imagine that probably played a role in, yeah . As I mentioned earlier about getting better data, you know, we count with volunteers. We love using them, but the data is very limited. So, there are these mobile count units. The COG has them. They have two that they can loan out to different municipalities in the North Texas region. And we did use some back in September to count on Mingo. I know that lots of cyclists use Mingo, but lots of cycl ists is very anecdotal. What is lots of cyclists? And I'm sorry I didn't include a slide, but it was actually a fair amount of cyclists on Mingo. For a road that is not very friendly to cyclists, there were a surprising amount. And if you look at the bike count report, there's actually a graph in there of the cyclists who are using Mingo. So, I just wanted to get a count. I borrowed these from COG. We really liked using them. There's a little bit of a learning curve on getting them installed, but we got it to work out. And we'd like to use these more. I plan to use these this spring to count some locations in the spring and the summer. But we would also like to purchase a unit ourselves so we can start our own bike count program of getting continuous data. So, this data, we can put these tubes out there and count for two weeks all day, all night, 24 hours instead of just two to two hours and then try to extrapolate from there. So, I'm also going to be submitting a budget package to purchase a mobile count unit for ourselves. But until then, I will be able to use them from the COG to do some counts this spring and summer. And that is the end. So, does anybody have any questions? I left Beverly plenty of time. >> Commissioner Hussbett. >> I was making notes. I wanted to make sure we got to the end. So, pardon me. I'm going to go back. >> Go back. That's fine. >> But it's okay. So, I wanted to make sure I understood the goals. So, I go back and I look at the goal statement and the first and second goal. What jumps out to me and kind of talked about pathing before. Well, let me back up. First, I'm curious, it doesn't seem like there's connectivity, right? So, for example, you put loop 288 in so that people can get from one side of the city to the other. Kind of a seamless, if you're going to go to the other side of this city, you can use loop 288 to get there. And this seems kind of, I'm curious, has there been any Efforts in making sure what we're doing connects so that we don't have a lane on Malone that ends. And then you got to go another six, seven, eight blocks to another ride. >> Right. >> What is the plan ultimately? So, if I look at an overlay and say, here's the plan. Here's where most people, if they're commuting to UNT, they 're commuting to TW. >> Right. >> Here's a path that we've kind of gradually implemented that then achieves that goal and kind of covers the city. So, I'm curious about that, but in addition to that, looking at the goals, Goal 2 talks about promote and the increase and use of safety of bicycling, walking, so on and so forth. So that to me jumps out because I think it's important to note, if we're trying to increase, that means we have new users. New users. >> Correct. >> May not be as comfortable on busy streets, which takes me to, I would much prefer something like you have going through next to the rail station. I mean the rail. >> A separated trail? >> Yes. I just think that's, cars run into cars, right? I mean, that's just a fact. So, cars are going to run into bikes. I mean, it just, it's, but if you put them on a trail, they 're safe. If I'm a new user, my daughter's a new user, we're comfortable going there and just riding wherever we're going. And so I think that's, so those two go hand in hand. Connectivity and trails, because then you can kind of make a path that covers the city, that keeps cars and safe and bikes, bicyclists safe as well. I mean, I don't know if that's popular, but it just, when I look at the goals, and if I'm new, I'm not going to be in a hurry to jump on anything, you know, that's risky, if you will. >> There's a broad range of cyclists out there, and there's what we call the interested but concerned group, which is probably what the group you would fall into. Those people want to ride their bike, but again, they're like, I don't know, do I feel safe? I know I can ride my bike on the trail and I feel safe there, but what about on the roads? Oh no, that's so scary. Those are the kind of people that want to have a bike lane, a dedicated bike lane, want a protected bike lane or a buffered bike lane. And that's how you, that's the best way to get new riders is building that infrastructure for them. But you also have to teach them how to use those. So that's a part of my job is education and encouragement. So we have city bike rides, if you're not comfortable on the streets, I would recommend you come to one of our sponsored bike rides and ride with a group first. We always ride on the streets to get yourself comfortable. I do believe that cars and bicyclists can cooperate safely on the road together. We don't, there don't have to be accidents. The Netherlands has so many cyclists and they don't have accidents with cars. It's possible, it's definitely possible to do it, you just have to build the right infrastructure. So we're working on a network, as you can see, so this is our bike plan. Sorry, I didn't bring my printed copy this time, I have a big one. But we, this is our network that's supposed to connect our streets together on a bike network. Obviously a network doesn't happen overnight. We're funded $200,000 each year, that's not going to give us our entire network in three years. So at first I started out little bits and pieces here based on, well we're doing a street project here, let's piggyback on that. And we're kind of now getting to a point where we're picking up those pieces of connecting our network together. And I actually have a slide from another presentation that will show that better. So you can see here, pre-bike plan, that's what we had for bike accommodation. And it really wasn't the best. It wasn't even bike lanes or, you know, Cheros on Jago, Sh ady Oaks right there was just to share the road sign. Then the bike plan, this is what we look like right now. We've been slowly adding pieces together to create a network. And then our projects for this year adds even more connectivity. So we're building our network road by road, and we're finally getting to a point, you know, where we've been doing infrastructure for, you know, three, four years of building a much more connected network. But it takes a little bit of time. >> Can it continue? >> Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Well, I just wanted to make sure. >> Go ahead. No, no. I got a lot. >> Okay. Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you. I couldn't agree more that if we had dedicated paths that would be the best possible thing for us. But it appears like with a $200,000 a year budget that there's no way we can do that. So apparently what we're trying to do here is work with existing roads and this limited budget to try and make that connectivity. >> Right. You know, my job is on street infrastructure of getting people using their bikes for active transportation. Parks does a lot with our off-road trails like the rail trail and our trails within our parks. We want to work together so that it creates a network so you could use the rail trail and then use city streets to get to where you want to go. Lots of cyclists want to ride on the street as well, though . Lots of times we can't build a rail trail everywhere, you know. But it works well for what it is right now and for what it serves, the people that it serves. And they're great. People love them. >> I agree. I agree. Thank you, sir. Yes. >> Commissioner Hatchboth. >> Thank you, sir. And so that takes me to in the goals objectives here. It touches on a public-private partnership. And so could you tell me what you've done in that regard? Because I'm almost thinking, if I go to Target corporate office and say, are you willing to invest or donate or have naming rights for this particular segment of a private trail, it's Target's trail. With that, it's on every map, it's signed. Are you willing to take some of your ad dollars, especially in a climate today where most people aren't watching commercials. They're fast-forwarding for them. I mean, my kindergartner would absolutely melt if she had to watch a commercial. I mean, she doesn't see them. I mean, so I think those type retail agencies are looking to do something different. And I'm curious if we've approached them to get additional funds in a creative way. >> I can't speak to naming for trails. Again, I don't work with our trail system. The Parks Department would be the one to work with Target or some home office if they wanted to name a part of a trail. I don't quite know if we would have people name segments on our streets. But we could look for partnerships for education activities . So I've worked with UNT and TWU, some local bike shops, we 've worked with them to promote Bike Month. And that's where a lot of my public and private partnerships go towards. As far as funding the actual bike infrastructure, we've worked with UNT. They helped pay for a few things, I think, on Highland Street. But I don't think we could actually have somebody name a segment on a street. I don't know of anybody who's done that. >> And then one last thing, please. I think, it's okay if I'm wrong, but you gave an example of where, New Zealand? >> I'm sorry, the Netherlands and Amsterdam, where they have cyclists. >> I'm more of a practical application type person. So give me a state, give me something in the US in this area that avoids accidents. >> I think you gotta, so in the legal industry, you have to have something that's on point, right? So you have, I can't in Texas cite a New York law and kind of support it. So I'd really like to get, let's compare apples to apples just because it helps me understand. I mean, I get it, there's a bigger picture. I just, I'm narrow focused like that. >> Right. >> What in this area tells you that there are cars, and I know they can, but I'm just saying there's going, my statement was simply there are accidents. >> Right. >> And it's unavoidable in my humble opinion. So that being said, what in this area leads you to think you can avoid all accidents? >> Well, avoiding all accidents may have to take away human error at some point, which is not possible. You're right, accidents will happen. But we have to do our best to prevent them from happening, so we do that by building safe infrastructure. We engineer for bad judgments in behavior. We do it all the time, we build our roads so they have certain curves so that you're not going to get into an accident. We do that with our bike infrastructure as well. You're either going to build a protected bike lane or you 're going to have a buffer so there's a little bit more separation between somebody driving their car and somebody riding their bike. It's definitely possible. It's also just educating the public that we're all people. We're not motors, we're not cyclists, we're people who choose these different ways of getting around. And if we can just be safe and kind to everybody on the roadway, pay attention to them and create everybody like people, I think that goes a long way to making us safe as well. But there have been numerous cities and states that adopt Vision Zero policy statements. And then as staff and community, we work towards making that happen of Vision Zero, no accidents. I think Utah adopted one. I want to say Portland has a Vision Zero plan of having zero accidents and fatalities. >> Okay. >> I can get more info if you want. I'm sorry I don't have any right here with me, but. >> No, no, it was more just an insight into our look into kind of another perspective, right? I mean, I just wanted to share kind of my approach. It's very, very one dimensional, if you will. It's simply, I tell my daughters when we were kids and my kindergarten now, hey, let's get out on the curbside. And we'll deal with the occasional car that's driving on the sidewalk. But we don't have to, it's like you, to have a myriad of rules that say, hey, get out, look both ways, this, that, and the other. That's effective, but it's also just as effective to say, let's just deal with the car on occasion that ever drives on the sidewalk. But we'll be on the sidewalk and kind of take that approach . >> Correct, yeah. >> That's my approach to the, I think there's an opportunity pathing wise that would then also take the brunt of the traffic and then use the streets intermittently. And I think that would increase. And so that's, I understand that's the parks department. >> Right. >> And so I may see what opportunities are there because I've seen the, I mean that is just absolutely great, the rail trail to go from Denton to across the bridge. I mean that's phenomenal. >> Right. >> And you don't have to worry as much about those intersections you have, stop signs you have. >> Right. >> An opportunity to look both ways. It's kind of a clearly marked thing, so thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome, yeah. The goal is to make it safe for everybody to ride their bike on the street. I've gone to elementary schools and done safety presentations so that kids learn from a young age how to be safe on their bike. I just don't want people to be scared of their bikes. I want them to feel safe when they're riding, to not have to be fearful of it. >> Absolutely, thank you. >> Commissioner Bribble. >> Thank you, Chair. One more thing I'd like to add, if we do get an opportunity to see this again, and I hope we do. I know technically the name of the original document is the comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan. >> Right. >> It's not really a pedestrian plan. We don't have proposed sidewalk projects on there. In fact, I recall when city council was visiting this document, I had asked Councilman Rodin to ask a question about, they were doing a workshop session on it. How do people cross Hickory Street safely? This was before the Grand Street project that they did. And he was about to ask that question, but because he was leading, what we were hoping for is to lead up to this question, where are the sidewalks in this plan? >> Right. >> And the answer from the consultant was basically this is more of a bike plan. And it is really more of a bike plan. >> Right. >> And we have a challenge, high school students getting hit trying to walk to Ryan High School. And I know that the city's working on getting control over McKinney Street so we can, anyway. >> My general question is, I'd really like it if we could look at also pedestrian accommodations in the future bike and pedestrian plan. You have counts for pedestrians. We have a higher percentage of pedestrians than cyclists who are commuters. So I'd like to see that come to us in the next go around. Where are we building sidewalks and where do we need them? >> Right, yeah, and sidewalks is obviously a much larger issue than just myself. We do all of our streets department, various engineering departments. >> This would be a good time though to tackle that. >> Right, I agree, yeah. And the name, my boss absolutely hates the name. >> There's no pedestrian stuff in there. >> And I just call it the Denton Bike Plan because it's a very long name. But yeah, that's definitely something we're going to tackle . Hopefully, we get funding to update the plan that it won't have this awful name. >> Or that if it does, it does actually address pedestrian issues. >> It absolutely needs to be a separate pedestrian plan. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other questions for Julie? >> Well, thank you. Good job. >> Thank you, everybody. >> We've got one other item for work session. We do have food this evening, so I think what we're going to do while we're changing and getting ready for our next work session, let's take a break and get food. We're going to take a break here at 554. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Session, our next report at 602, and our next item is going to be item B, PZ 16-040. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Tonight, I'm presenting a report and a discussion item about the anticipated Denton Development Code Amendment Project. So just to kind of give you some background, this staff is currently exploring the option of hiring some professional services support to do a more comprehensive, a very comprehensive code amendment project that includes reformatting the code, reorganizing the code, and some general updates and clean ups that are really needed in the code. But tonight's presentation is really more focused on some staff initiated updates. We have some new staff that have really taken a close look at the code, kind of measured it against other codes that we've worked with and codes that we've learned about and at our professional development conferences. And so we've really, and then worked with the staff to really identify some of the more pressing amendments that are in order at this time. So I'd like to go through some of the things that we're proposing to bring to you in upcoming months. Just before we get started, we typically attend a lot of professional development conferences. And of course, we do a lot of benchmark studies. But a typical feature at a conference is a developer presentation. And we see those in our planning magazines and our websites that we visit for professional development. And of course, these presentations that we attend at conferences are pretty important. I usually attend those and they're a regular feature. Because I always want to hear what the development community has to say about process improvements. And I've sometimes brought that back to communities I've worked with and tried to integrate their comments into making the process more effective. So these, what we have before you are just a couple of examples, Planner's Web. And a couple other examples of some presentation slides that I requested after I came back. Said, hey, can I have your presentation and maybe use some of your slides? And they provided those to you. When I go to those conferences, we do see some reoccurring themes. And some of those include developers continually artic ulating the need for an understandable process. We need to know what it begins with, what it ends with, and we need to know what that timeline looks like. And we need to know that staff is competent in that timeline. Again, it comes up that they want predictability. They want to know that it's going to go the way it's intended, that we can stick to our timelines. They want consistency in interpretations of the code from multiple staff members if their project spans the turn up staff turnover. Or if they end up with a different project reviewer. And again and again, they repeat that they want flexibility . They want some flexibility in the code. Not so much that they can do whatever they want, but this is good and this is also good. You can do one or the other whatever works for you. And this is a repeated theme. At the national conference, our former APA president talked with multiple national developers who talked about the need for administrative approvals. It's possible to get those integrated into the code when possible. So I'll talk a little bit more about that. Again, just to highlight some of the things that we routinely hear about. The need to encourage flexibility within the code. This is good, this is good, and this is also good. You pick what works for you, developer. And this is another presentation at a national conference that in flexible processes sometimes stifle creativity and eliminate the potential for good urban design, strict standards sometimes eliminate that chance to really achieve a better and a higher site development standard. But more importantly, and this is one that really had an impact on me, and it's a summary piece that came from the planners web. Are you strangling your development community? But actually this really reiterates some stuff that I've heard at multiple conferences. Successful processes can be extensive, but it's okay if they're clear. They can be very extensive, but if they're clear, developers will respond to that. The expectations can be high. It is not the regulations that scare them away, it's the uncertainty. But if they're known, the regulations, then it conveys a certain confidence to developers. And reviews can be deliberate, but they can also be timely. So let us know what the timeline's going to be to make that happen for us. Working with staff, we have identified some potential code amendments that we'd like to bring forward to you. Again, these would be staff initiated code amendments. We look towards a larger project at some point, and we will talk more about that in the future. But these are some things as some of the new planners who are new to the team have sat down through the DRC process and identified and things that we have found really are problematic in the code. So just to talk about some of the challenges that we've identified, there are some unclear standards in the code. We have some staff here tonight that could probably give you a host of examples, but just a couple examples would be buffering. There's a couple different interpretations. Is it the use? Is it the zone? Historically, it's been the use in the community. I think I sat down with Jennifer and made a compelling argument that it's use and zone, because the language isn't clear. It's hard to tell what section is a clause of another section, and you could make a compelling case either way. And it really depends on the interpretation of whoever at that point is making that decision. Another example would be articulation. We call for non-residential articulation. We don't give any sort of standards for that. What does a projection look like? How much should it project? What does a recess look like? Architectural features, how often should they repeat? These are typical things that you find in other codes that give guidance to staff. But also give guidance to the developer. What's the staff going to expect? Let's bring it to them every time. Inconsistent standards. We have standards in our code that conflict with our design criteria manuals, which also stipulate how site layout should occur. And these manuals are used in tandem. They're more specific than the code, but there's conflicts. An example would be perimeter fencing. Higher standard is called for in the design criteria manual than it's called for in our debt and development code. And that created a little discussion at one DRC, which one should we go with? And one has the better standard, but one is the prevailing document. There's unclear standards. Another inconsistency is parking lot screening. We have a standard if parking is in front, but we have an overall standard for parking against the right of way. Which one is at play? When you have both at the same time, there's been different interpretations on that. There's a whole host of inconsistent standards that I could cite and staff could spend a good bit of time looking at. Atypical language. Our special exception language in our code that is not part of our non-conforming section, which basically exempts anything that was non-conforming at the time of the adoption of the development code from the non-conforming status. This is very atypical. Some cities like to slowly bring non-conforming uses into the fold and make them conforming. They have maybe generous grace periods. They have trigger tables that slowly integrate those uses back. I've not seen a city that gives a sort of special protection to those uses that can go on and even allow an expansion of the use. This is really an atypical code example. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Excuse me. >> Yes, sir. >> Beverly, sorry. >> Yes, sir. >> Can you give us an example of conforming and non-con forming? What were you talking about? >> For example, if you had a building that was, let's just say, all metal in a commercial district, in one of our commercial districts, and there was now the zoning at the time that it was built. It may have been okay. We may not have had a standard for metal in that particular corridor. Maybe it's an important corridor that we maybe wouldn't want to see that type. But it's a use, let's just say it is a kennel that's located on an important corridor in the city and maybe that use is no longer allowed. We allow that use to have to, that particular use to even grow on site and to have special status. Typically cities that have non-conforming uses that maybe aren't compatible with the vision of that new zoning district or the way the city's going or how that road is developing and maybe it's a lot of residential occurring there. Typically cities will say, okay, we have a new code now. You are non-conforming use. You are grandfathered. That doesn't take away your right to operate. But if you expand, we're going to take a look at that and you may or may not be able to expand your use. And if you do, if you expand your building, you have to bring it into compliance with our development standards. So it takes a look at those uses that might have been legally cited at the time. But then new code revisions that reflect the comp plan or reflect the changing corridor or changing surrounding properties. It lets those slowly eventually either drop away or change or when they do change they have to come into compliance. We don't require that. >> Okay, great, thank you. >> Some other, I think, atypical language is our parking schedule doesn't match our table of uses. Typically, parking lines up very closely so that if you have this particular use, restaurants, the table of uses lines up exactly with your parking table. We sometimes have to do some kind of guess work about what applies and where in our parking ratio requirements for the city. because it doesn't line up exactly with all the uses. Overlays in most communities are used to just elevate standards. They're typically for corridors or special districts. We've used those a little differently in this community. And you might see those in a interstate overlay or a special district. And we've used those kind of more site specific. And that's really atypical for a lot of communities, how we 've identified overlays. And then not developer friendly. I know we have a lot of elements in our code that we allow for some variation, but what developers want is some predictability. You may recall recently we brought to you the Dent municipal electric standards, which incorporated some routinely requested requirements from the public and from staff and ultimately from this commission. They were typically approved when the sites were brought forward. So we said, we keep approving the same thing over and over again. Let's just get this integrated into our code. We have an ADP process. I can think of at least three times in my short time here that I've sat in the DRC. And I've had developers say, we'll do whatever you say. We want to do front parking, we'll do whatever you say, we 'll screen it. We will put all the landscaping you want. Don't make us do the ADP. We don't have a mechanism to do that. But we keep requiring the same things. And integrating those standards, those frequent flyer standards into our process will add some predictability. Yes, this is okay. But this is also okay if you do it this way. And maybe making that subject to conditions or limitations. Giving the developer that sense that they don't have to run the gauntlet every time. But that we have a higher development standard if you choose this alternative. Parking is another example. Allowing for giving bonuses for parking to be oriented towards the rather than mandating that parking all be in the rear. Say, well if you're going to put it in the front, it's going to be limited to this. And it's going to be landscaped with interior, median, and terminal parking islands. If you drop to the rear, we'll drop some of that landsca ping requirement. Giving some bonus and flexibility, letting the developer make the call and how he wants to do that. There's buffering that has, I know Fort Worth has a point system that they are trying to achieve an intensive and effective buffer. And the developer has to achieve a certain number of points . If he has a good masonry guy, he may integrate wall and landscaping. If he can move dirt, he may want to berm and double his intensity of his landscaping. The point is to get a good buffer and they have built in some flexibility into their code rather than mandating a strict standard on that. I'm not going to go through each one of these. It's just an overview of some of the, actually I'm going to go through each one of these but not on this slide. Overview of some of the things that we are proposing and I 'll just kind of go through those. And this is just to kind of give you all a heads up. Each of these, when we bring these forward, will be fully developed. We will go through with work sessions and bring these amendments forward and look for direction from this commission about how to best implement some of these things. These are just some of the things that are on our radar and I'll go through these one by one. The I-35 widening project. There are several cities impacted by this. One of the cities that I came from was impacted by this. Lewisville was impacted by this. The top right hand corner, you can see that Lewisville adopted an ordinance that deals with the remainder that's left. They have distinguished between majorly impacted sites and minorly impacted sites and that has been used. They actually stipulate, I just read their ordinance today, that if it's a majorly impacted site, TextDOT's going to pay this much to the property owner. And they lay that out very clearly. The community I was in, I got calls regularly from TextDOT and from property owners saying, what are you going to make us do? And the answer is, what our code says is what they do. Lewisville says you're fully going to comply and here's a timeline for doing that. And if you're impacted and you need a variance, here's how that process, if your site limitations prevent full compliance, here's how we're going to process that. So they have an ordinance in place. Temple went a step further. They're impacted, nearly the entire city is impacted, the entire corridor through the city is impacted. But they took it to another dimension. They said, we're going to take this opportunity to take what has been essentially an industrial corridor and we're going to do some place making here and we're going to change the way we look. And they put a pretty onerous overlay in place that has standards that are stricter than they are in different parts of the city. Taking that opportunity to put their best foot forward, saying here's what people are going to drive through. People are going to decide, make decisions about what our community is about. We're going to put some pretty strict standards about artic ulation, architectural, landscaping, and a method for dealing with sites that aren't completely compliant. So a couple cities have gotten ahead of that. We can ask for full compliance. We need to come up with a method for dealing with sites that can't comply and perhaps explore the possibility of an overlay. So these are some things that we can take a look at and to a certain degree improve the negotiations that occur between property owners and textiles. When we have a consistent standard that's clearly out in the code, our code is silent about it. In some cases, we have said you don't have to comply because you're affected by the widening. That has actually been some staff direction in the past. We do have the authority to ask for full compliance. We probably should look for better compliance. >> Commissioner Dadovich. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes sir. >> Don't we have a subcommittee set up to work on this issue? The issue of ordinance, not ordinance, zoning where it has been impacted by the 35 widening? There were three of us that were supposed to be on a sub committee. >> I think that's just in some of the rezoning in the city. >> City initiated. >> City initiated. >> Yes, city initiated. >> Zoning. >> Zoning with regard to the 35 project. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Correct. Absolutely, there is the committee that's leaving next week , in fact. And that will give you an opportunity, it's an avenue to discern what land parcels need to be brought into compliance with the comp plan as it relates to zoning. What Beverly is discussing with you is creating a corridor or an overlay district with specific design criteria and mechanisms. The question is, does our subcommittee work in conjunction with this or help in any way? >> What you would be looking at is a zoning perspective. Do you want, does the city want to initiate zoning on a specific, correct? >> Okay. >> And I hope for an overlay, but I think at the minimum we need to address how we deal with that. Because right now we don't have a consistent standard and so it definitely impacts negotiations, what we ask for. Because they, TextDOT will reimburse them based on what city requirements are. So getting consistent standard and addressing in our code is pretty important. >> Can I ask you a question? >> Yes sir. >> Has the time kind of already passed on that since a lot of the right of way has already been acquired for 35? >> I think there is still, I understand that the acquisition is getting close to complete, but there are still some acquisition occurring. But as redevelopment occurs, I think we can still use this overlay. It is such an important corridor for the city. It is the most important corridor. There is visitors and commuters and travelers passing through our city every day. So I think that it needs to, if it is not the most visible corridor, it certainly is up there. >> And 377 is probably the next one. >> Absolutely. Plan development. We had it. I don't know that we effectively used it. We got rid of it. >> The staff is hoping to bring it back. And let me just talk for a second about how it can be used. I've worked in communities where it's been used poorly and I've seen where it's been used well. And I think it's all in the code, how you write it. And you use it to elevate standards. It is, we have a master plan community which allows for large scale developments to basically incorporate some flexibility, drop. Everything can be on the table with the plan development. You decide that in your ordinance. Dimensions, uses, all types of things can urban design. All kinds of things can be addressed and adding a degree of flexibility. Our surrounding communities have this. They are using this and I'll talk in a minute about how they're using it. Right now in our code, we allow for sites that are greater than two acres to drop dimensional, not all of them, but some of the dimensional requirements. But what we didn't get was the corresponding increases in open space and better urban design. We let them drop dimensions, but we didn't get the better urban design, the place making aspect that can come with it . The natural resource protection, the respect for the top ography of the land, we didn't get any of those ones, we just dropped the dimensions. Developers are worried about yield. Plan developments can help us to achieve the same yield and work with them to respect the topography and the natural resources that are located on the property. The other thing that has come up many times is that straight zoning does not allow us to fully explore better urban design. I can think of a couple of occasions and one that's going to be before you very soon. The developer is basically being pushed to a higher zoning category. He only wants one aspect of it, he doesn't want the full aspect of it, he just wants to do one more story. But he's going to be pushed to the full degree to a higher intensity zoning. We do not have a mechanism, nor should we, to condition zoning. Plan development allows us to look at the site comprehensively and say, all right, let's see what do you want and what can we get? We want a better relationship with the street. We want to see a little bit more amenities on the site. Let's work through this and get a better urban design with this. So offsite compatibility can be addressed and the limitations that are inherent with straight zoning can also be addressed. We talk about mixed use, we talk about it all the time. It's in our comp plan, we embrace the idea of mixed use. Plan development allows us to deal with the offsite compatibility issues and to tackle things from a form base. Rather than always looking at use, then operations, and then form at the bottom, we flip it on its ear and we take a look at form first and say, how can we make this work? How can we start to mix these uses horizontally and make our community drop some of those trips, vehicle trips and maybe even bike trips and let people get to the places they want a little quicker, a little easier and mitigate for the offsite and compatibility. Plan development can help us with that. And so we're hoping to bring it back. So just for those of you who aren't familiar with it, it allows us to drop some of the dimensional or general zoning requirements for the site, including development elements and in some cases uses. That depends on how we write it. It goes through the entire process of a rezoning. So when you do a plan development, you do the notification. It is essentially rezoning. It has been supported by the courts. It is a frequently used tool. On the upper right hand corner, you can see the Lake Shore PUD in Austin, Texas has some transit orient development, a good mix of residential, non-residential. It's a 20 acre project. It could not be done here in Dutton. It doesn't meet the 150 acre of contiguous property and single ownership threshold. It could not be done. So we have two standards. We have a 300 acre requirement and we have a 150 acre requirement, but it has to be under single ownership. So that could not be done. That Lakeview PUD could not be done. The canals at Grand Park in Frisco, Texas. It potentially could be done if it was all under one single ownership. Some of the plan developments I've processed have not been under a single ownership. They have been under multiple ownerships as they bring that together and we've had to have multiple property owners enter into the plan development as they work through it. So some of these things, I think, could ultimately be great tools. And then again, the big one, I think, we dropped dimensions , but we didn't get corresponding increases in open space. Conservation development or cluster development, you may have heard of it. It allows the same yield, but it allows the developer essentially to concentrate and drop dimensions. I think it creates an overall better community. I think it ultimately creates a more livable space for the residents and generates the same yield, which is essentially what I think developers want to see. It works with the land. It's a tool that isn't often used and we don't have a tool for encouraging it anywhere in our code. Alternative development plan, I mentioned that earlier. What is the intent of the ADP? It's really to elevate standards. It's really to achieve better urban design and provide some flexibility, some relief to the property owner. Again, we have some frequent flyers. The front parking orientation is a frequent flyer. The building oriented towards the street. We have some that come through. I'd say I looked back all the way to, I think, the last three years and I'd say probably 30 to, I think, 40%. We had some withdrawals of the request had to do with front parking orientation, parking, I mean, building oriented towards the street and then front parking. These were some typical concerns that people brought and we recommend the same remedies. And you typically have been in agreement and have approved the same remedies, which is better material design of the building, maybe three sided architecture, better landscaping. All these things have been routinely approved. If we can, if these sorts of requests can be addressed by better site design, can we codify that and make those subject to administrative approval? This is good, but this is good too. And maybe this third option is also good, find one that works for you, developer. And what you see is the advanced auto parts and this is an example of, I think they asked for both things. The front building orientation and also the parking located in the front of the building. And you can see that there was a pretty nice landscape plan was put in place and pretty nice looking auto parts store, I think, if you were to compare it to others and other communities. I think it looks pretty sharp and we treat that through an ADP. Non-residential material requirements. Currently the DC exempts industrial uses from the material requirements allowing metal to be allowed. There's some exceptions to that depending if it's located within 200 feet, I think, of a collector and a minor arter ial. But essentially, it exempts them from the material requirements required in the code. So we do get industrial uses to ECI, ICG, ICI, all industrial or allow for industrial uses. Which are pretty, located pretty close to some of the city 's most important gateways. Again, it's about place making. Do we want, is this how we want to present our community? And the idea that we need to basically develop more context sensitive material requirements for our community and maybe decide where this is appropriate and take a look at that. Non-residential building requirements don't address new engineered materials. I was asked to make a determination about cementitious s iding. I looked through the list. I said, none of these are cementitious siding. I don't know how we can say that, that it's allowed. There's nothing in the list. The list is very clear. And then the same day I heard that the preservation board was considering it, I said, good grief. Well, if they're looking at it, then how can we say that? And we kind of, I think, made a different determination because it was too hard to stand on that ground. We don't look at engineered materials. There are some, I think, you can address percentages, whether they should be allowed. Most codes have talked about EFAs, have talked about cement itious siding. Other split block tilt wall, these sorts of things are not talked about in our code. These are common building materials. We need to take a look at how we can maybe think of where those are appropriate. And the most important thing, I think, is that our building materials standards are really not context sensitive. What is essentially appropriate for a neighborhood commercial district or a neighborhood service district is not what you want to look for along a major arterial or on an interstate. They look different, they should look different. So looking at that in a context sensitive way, neighborhood commercial should fit in with the neighborhood in scale, in material, in form, in set back. It's different, you can use different types of products on an interstate, and you should. Some folks might say, you know, siding is appropriate in neighborhoods. Some folks might say, that's not really appropriate for the interstate. There's probably maybe tilt wall, maybe different types of products are more appropriate. So taking a look at context sensitive development standards for our non-residential districts is pretty important, and you can see the difference in these images. This was a request from Commissioner Briegel, and apparently something staff supports the idea of integrating bike parking into our development standards. This of course will encourage and support alternative modes of transportation, bicycling, and pedestrian. But more importantly, I think it'll help to accommodate the growing population that already exists in here that is utilizing cycling to get to their destination point. So encourage a mode shift in our community, but also accommodate the existing cyclists. And I put an interesting bike rack there, because I thought that kind of was sharp looking. Use table, we need to take a look at our use table and integrate new uses that are common development requests. We get some, one of the big ones is auto storage. I think Peter Belt may have multiple facilities here, but we get this idea that they're, this is just a place where we hold them before we customize them. We have a commercial parking lot, and we have auto sales. We just don't really, where do we put it? It's neither. So we have to make some calls, and this is something that's usually in the transportation section, a lot of use tables. Office warehouse comes up a bit. We have warehouse, which is a distribution, and we have office. But we see, and it's a pretty common thing in business parks to have a warehouse that has an office, and we need to figure out how we can put that, where we can put that. Manufactured housing, is it a land lease community? Is it a single manufactured home on a site? What are the standards? We don't reference HUD code. Manufactured housing, which is a staple in most codes, making a distinction between what is approved by HUD and what is an acceptable manufactured house. We don't have current language when it comes to dealing with manufactured housing, and we haven't looked at it that way. Assisted living, we still call it elderly housing. This is an area that is going to continue to grow in importance in this community as we have baby boomers matric ulating into different types of facilities. We need to get our ordinances lined up with state and federal regulations as they relate to group homes, assisted living, these sorts of things. We have some good standards that the state has some guidance that the state has given us, and sometimes in case there's been some federal guidance we'd love to legal to help us. Get those a little bit more closely aligned with standard language, typical language, and state and federal language. I just want to throw this in, and I hope this isn't too preachy or anything, but ultimately the code is designed to do placemaking. This is what our code is for. What is that? It's a unique collection of qualities and characteristics, something that is distinctive in your community. Something that when someone drives in, they know they're in Denton. Yes, I know Denton has a wonderful sort of urban grittiness to it, and I wouldn't want that to change in any way. But where is that urban grittiness, uniqueness appropriate? Is it appropriate on our interstate? Is it appropriate in our new subdivisions? So really figuring out how we want to brand our community. It's not about, you certainly want to respond to market forces. I think our code doesn't necessarily do that. Always be aware of what the market's driving. But then to a certain degree when you incorporate that flexibility, you use your standards to sort of brand those that are coming to your community and say this is our standard. This is what makes us unique and distinctive. Put our best foot forward on our corridors. People make decisions every day about where to put their businesses, where to live, where to shop. Based on the impressions they get when they drive through our gateways, this is our most important place. So place making needs to occur. I put the word dividend because there was an article that actually called it the place making dividend. Because I think it yields economic development and I think that they work in tandem together. Quality development brings quality development. And I think this is, we don't have a timeline for these. I think we're going to start to work on them one for one. I think the I-35 one is kind of pressing. And I think I presented that one at least towards the front . So, but as we bring these forward, we'll have more thorough discussions to address all of these. And hopefully be able to get your guidance and support as we move these staff initiated updates forward in the code and incorporate them as part of a larger code update process. So I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. >> Commissioner Denowitz. >> I'd just like to say I really enjoyed this and liked the direction. And if we need to push this forward faster, I think it's not soon enough. Because everything you said is exactly what I'm hearing from this community. And it was refreshing to hear your presentation. Thank you. >> Commissioner Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. >> I absolutely agree. That was a really great presentation. My mind's going like a million miles a minute right now. Just like I've got all these great ideas. I'd like to think they're great ideas. I've got a lot of ideas. I'm wondering how the public might have an opportunity to chime in with some of the ideas that they may have. We're going to obviously see this come to us, but as staff is coming up with suggestions as well, is there a place where people, just whoever, could give you some more ideas? I have so many in my head. Where do we go? >> Well, I know code amendments all require public hearings , so certainly there's that opportunity. And they don't have the same notification because they really are affecting the entire code. But every time we bring a code amendment, as we did with the DME process, we do go ahead and work with the normal public hearing process. In addition to that, with each code update that you bring, it's always, and it's been my experience, to really work with stakeholders on it. If it is stakeholders likely to be impacted, certainly we 'll work with the development community here to vet some of these ideas as we work through. Some of them have even prompted us on some of these things, when can you do this and when you do, can you bring it, as we'd like to talk about it. And plan development is one, and the ADP administrative stuff. So those things that incorporate more flexibility are things that have been invited from our development representatives. But working with community stakeholders is, you know, an effective party. Other departments, very important also, and helping identify who their stakeholders are as well. Anticipate working very closely with legalists, we bring these forward to make sure that we use the best language and the most appropriate language. And then, of course, look to you to guide us any other additional stakeholders that we could incorporate into each set of events might have a different group and we would look to maybe some guidance as we move forward. >> Would there be a, sorry. >> Continue. >> Would there be a possibility of, obviously, the red line versions and what not will end up in our backup. But that really only gives us and the public, you know, a couple of days to kind of look it over before we either workshop it, in which they don't have an opportunity to really participate, or the public hearing process, which is kind of farther down the line. So as staff is working on drafts, could that be maybe posted to the city website somewhere with a link of just, you know, let us know your thoughts or chime in here. What are we missing? What do you like? What don't you like? Just so that we can really get a really good conversation from as many stakeholders as possible. Is that? >> I'll let Manal address that. I'm not certain. >> Yeah, Manal wants to jump in. >> Thank you, Mr. Bruegel, and obviously the rest of the commission. One of the takeaways from Beverly's presentation tonight is that the development community is actually willing to work with the ordinances. The issue is that the ordinance is sometimes a little conv oluted and it's difficult to find the right information in the right place. So when it comes to what are we doing with the DDC, what are these code amendments that we're bringing forward, or these piecemeal code amendments that we're bringing forward ? We're merely to address to a great degree information that is perhaps littered throughout the ordinance and we're making it more concise. So you're not taking away anything from that. We are enhancing it where we've heard from our development community through our development review committee meetings , through conversations, through reconnaissance meetings with our development community. The effort and the intent right now that you have seen before you today is actually on a very expeditious path. We want to get these amendments done very, very quickly. We have all seen them. Our team that has been working here for many, many years too. We just haven't had that opportunity. We also understand that the workload is extensive, yet we understand the importance of moving forward with these. One of the things that Beverly mentioned, prefacing her presentation, was we're going to have an overhaul review or an overview review of the Denton Development Code. That will more than likely occur through consultancy. That being said, that opportunity will be available. So when we talk about is the land use missing or is this happening? In this instance, what Beverly is bringing forward to you, let's use the ADP for example, is the intent of the ADP is very clear in the DDC. Yet you have to read several pages to determine what that intent is. So why don't we make it more concise, understand, in fact, Commissioner Taylor at one point had said, why is the intent of an ADP is to have a higher criteria associated with, if you're compromising something, how are you going to offset that and what is that criteria? And we understand that clearly too. But there's some aspects of it that don't need to come before the PNZ. So let's streamline what actually comes before the PNZ. Let's streamline how someone comes in through the process and what they have to do ultimately to secure their certificate of occupancy. So that opportunity that you want will be available when we do the comprehensive review of the Denton Development Code. In this instance, I would really look to the Planning and Zoning Commission to work collaboratively with us to at least get these moving forward so we can start introducing ordinances that are concise and bringing things together from the DDC. And again, the DDC was adopted in 2002. I'm sorry, was I wrong? >> No. >> 2002. And this is a good opportunity to now go ahead and move forward. But the standalone amendments that we want to bring forward , we would recommend that you help us move those through to City Council expeditiously. And please, if they have any questions, please feel free to address those with them too. >> And if I could just one more point. >> Sure, continue. Commissioner Bruegel. >> And I also, I do agree with Commissioner Jodowich that I think it's the I-35 thing that really needs to get addressed. I recall a couple years ago we had a lunch with City Council, it was like two years ago. And we're like, let's move forward on this I-35 thing. And then it was like crickets. So I really, this really needs to happen. So I second that. >> We brought that up. >> And we're very aware of the matrix that we've established. In fact, I foresee that matrix being, I don't think it will continue in the force that it's continuing now. Because we're going to be bringing forward a lot more to you and the purview of the PNZ will in reality be the pur view of the PNZ. Happy to see it move forward. >> I want to make a comment. I think it's right on spot to have the stakeholders, development community. I know sometimes that's a pushback sometimes. I think those are the people that are in this all day, every single day. They do it in lots of different areas. I think they bring lots of times very good ideas. I think it's, to your point, critical to do it in a very timely manner because as Denton continues to grow, people that are familiar with working with Denton may be more familiar with some of the intricacies and areas that we have flexibility in our code. But a lot of the people that are not typically working in Denton, that may be in Dallas or other places that are coming in here, totally unfamiliar with it and then we're having issues. And so I agree. I think it's a very timely thing that needs to move forward as quickly as possible. And I'm glad to hear that it brings some of the developers into that process to help them. Because ultimately, that's who this is for. To make their jobs go as expeditiously as possible, have successful projects, and hopefully do some more. So I think it's a great idea and I look forward to seeing it soon. Commissioner Dedowitz. >> Just lastly, I think the matrix that you brought up needs to be looked at constantly and reprioritized. And here is a situation where we think this needs to be brought up higher. Yeah, so conclude this. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> With that, we've run a little bit long. We wanted to get through this presentation. I'm going to close our work session at 641. And let's try to, we have a very short schedule tonight. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February the 24th, 2016. It is 646 and this meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present. I call our meeting to order. And our first order of business is to give the pledge to the US and the Texas flag. Please stand. >> We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. The territory and republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag. >> I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God , one indivisible. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Our next item on our agenda is approval of our minutes. And I'm going to make a note, point of order, that this is our January 27th, 2016 minutes, it's not in our agenda that way. Chair will entertain a motion. [BLANK_AUDIO] Commissioner Hussman. >> Move we approve. >> Okay, Commissioner Dudowitz. >> I second. >> Okay, Chair has a first and a second, any discussions? Any changes? Okay, seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. [BLANK_AUDIO] Motion passes five to zero. Next item is our consent agenda. [BLANK_AUDIO] Commissioner Beck. >> I motion we approve the consent agenda. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Commissioner Dudowitz. >> I second. >> I have a first and a second. Any discussion on consent agenda items? [BLANK_AUDIO] Seeing none, call for a vote on the board. [BLANK_AUDIO] Motion carries five to zero. [BLANK_AUDIO] Next item of business is our public hearings. And at this time I'm gonna open the public hearing for Z16- 0001. I'll turn over to Manal for who's gonna present or we just gonna go ahead and table that, okay? >> The applicants requested a continuation so we'd have to open the public hearing and that the next PNC, at the requested PNC date it would be an IC item. >> Okay, at the request of the applicant this agenda item has been continued to March the 9th and at this time I will close the public hearing and we will reopen at that time and that will move us to concluding items in our project matrix. [BLANK_AUDIO] Anybody have any concluding items or want an update on project matrix? Okay, seeing none at 6.50 I will close our meeting tonight. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]