Feb 14, 2022 City Council on 2022-02-14 10:00 AM (Special Called Joint Meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission)

Good morning, and we are here for a joint meeting of the City Council on Planning and Zoning Commission. It is Monday, February 14th, Happy Valentine's Day. It is 10 a.m. We do have a quorum, so I'll call the meeting to order and then turn it over to the P&Z chair. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, good morning, everyone, and Happy Valentine's Day. With the quorum present with the Commission, I will call the Commission to order at 10 a.m. Great. And so we have one thing, one item on our agenda, and we'll follow the same kind of format. Well, we'll reverse the format. What I'll do is kind of defer to P&Z for questions first, and then we'll follow that up at each break or each point of questions. So the first item today is, and our only item is item A, ID 22036, receive a report and hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan update and the draft 2022 mobility plan for the City of Denton. Good morning. Happy Valentine's Day. Morning. Thank you, Vinnie, I think I know almost all of you. Thank you for, number one, coming together today. This is a very exciting time for our entire staff. I don't know that I've ever been in this type of scenario before where Planning and Zoning and City Council is all together, but what a great opportunity for us to share some of the updates and comments we've received from both of you and really work through those. So with that, I am going to get started. I'm going to share my screen and start this slideshow. There's always too many things on the screen. Alrighty, so myself, Nathan George and Pritam Deshmukh have worked together on this draft 2022 mobility plan update. Like I mentioned, I know in the meetings last week, both Tuesday and Wednesday, we received a number of comments. We thank you so much for your comments. I know you all know this. I know the comment and time to give comments has been happening for a number of years. I just want to remind you, there have been presentations dating back on the mobility plan all the way to 2019, so we've had lots of opportunities to come before Council and Planning and Zoning. I know there's been several presentations being that that was, in some cases, the more virtual world. I know today we're doing that hybrid world, but I don't believe that we would be moving forward in this process unless we had that input that we received from all of you. I know Eric has had a lot of questions, Commissioner Pruitt. We definitely appreciate that. I know there's been lots of questions from you, Councilmember Davis, and from each and every one of you that have given us this opportunity to come before you today. So I just want to move forward and talk to you a little bit about our overview. We're going to go through goal number one, safety first, previously goal number seven. Talk about some focus areas. We had a lot of comments that we had last presentation talking about some of those focus areas we wanted to look in at, and I'm thankful that you brought those up because staff did have that opportunity to go back and do a deeper dive and have made some modifications based on some of the comments we received, so I want to take the time to highlight those for you. I want to show you an example. I'm at the very end of a project that uses a more phased approach for construction just to kind of help everyone understand the overall goal, and then talk about some next steps. So in your backup, I know you received this as an ISR on Friday in your Friday report, and I know planning and zoning was also receiving a copy of it. So the first thing we heard from everyone was really to change, obviously, goal number seven to number one. I think we've all got that, but then work forward to have the language be more proactive, and I use the word aggressive, but I don't think that that's a negative term. I think it's the right term to use, and so we've worked through changing the order of which some of those strategies are aligned. We've also worked through updating objective number 1A and making that not have so much detail but then make sure that everyone understands that safety is the number one priority for planning, designing, and maintaining the Red Way infrastructure and the entire transportation network. I'll highlight a couple of more on strategy 1.1, and we really did talk about Denton's highest priority is protection of human life over other aspects involved in that planning and design operation. Strategy 1.2, we also changed, it said manage. We changed that word to design, evaluate, operate, and enforce safe speeds, and there are a few others that we work through. I will tell you, 1.4, we also worked through that acknowledge vulnerability of non-auto users and enhance safety through planning, design, evaluation, and operation of the transportation network. I'm not going to read every single one of these for you. Just wanted you to see the changes that we've made to the language, and if there's additional comments you have or additional changes that you might recommend, obviously, we'd like to hear those, but really wanted to take to heart what you told us and what your recommendations were and express that we did have that opportunity to go back and look and hope that we've met the mark with addressing some of those comments we received. I'm going to move off the specific goal because the next comments we received were in regards to looking at focus areas. As I mentioned, we're going to talk about three different focus areas. East Denton is interesting. Took the time to take the land use map and put that behind the actual mobility plan. I think it helps share the story a little bit better of what's going on in this area. As you can see, quite a bit of the land is within the ETJ. You can also see the city limits. Of course, there's large waterway structures through this area. I want to point out one thing that's really important, and we're going to deeper dive into this area through the series of slides, but one thing I really want to point out is if you look at it, the black road that you see here, the black road you see here, the black road you see here, and then, of course, Loop 288 that comes down to 380, which I hope that I'm on the right area. There I am because I can't see because there's this beautiful little thing telling me about zoom in my way. This 380 area here that then connects to Loop 288, and then also FM 2164. All of those are text art roadways. All of those are roadways that really, as we work through this entire process, we wanted to make sure that you understand there's not a whole lot of input or say that the city has minus one, and I'll show you the difference that's happened on that roadway. Just wanted to highlight that area. So, I'm going to move on to, and I guess, I'm sorry, I just pressed the next button, and from there, you can see, so now we've taken that opportunity to make those all very dark. So, like I mentioned, the 2164, 380, FM 428. This was the integrated corridor, you see Loop 288, you see 380, and then, of course, that connective piece that's to be constructed by text art between 380 and Loop 288. So, let's move on and go to the next area. So, the reason why I wanted to share this with you is so that you could see the original adopted currently, 2015 mobility plan, has a lot of different roadway networks, and it's shaped a little bit differently. The schematics and the graphics that you see are quite different. If you look at the current draft mobility plan that you can see, Cooper Creek was one of the roadways that had some questions about it, along with Hartley Field Road, and then also Collins Road. Also, this integrated corridor did not exist in that time of the 2015 mobility plan. So, for me, I'm very visual. It helps me very much to see these two compared side by side. I hope that helps you also, but you can see the drastic changes that have been made from the 2015 to the 2022 draft mobility plan. I next want to walk through and show you that we appreciate your comments, and the reason why I wanted to show this to you all side by side is after staff went back and reviewed and had a lot of conversations and talked about really what is the purpose of Cooper Creek Road, what is the purpose of Collins Road, and let's talk about that integrated corridor. We went back to our friends at Text Art and said, "Tell us a little more. Let's talk about this. This has been going through a feasibility study for a period of time." So what I present before you today are the changes that our staff would like to make for the revised draft 2022 mobility plan. That's a mouthful. So, as you can tell, of course, all these Text Art roadways still exist, right? The outer loop still exists, 2164 still exists, Loop 288, 380, the connective tissue between 380 and Loop 288, all of those are still Text Art roadways, same with 428. We all know that's the roadway that we all take to Aubrey. I'll be taking at 5 o'clock today to go watch my son play baseball in Aubrey. So what I will tell you is what we've learned, and I'm going to first highlight the road that we've highlighted in red, Text Art is no longer considering the integrated corridor. I know I've mentioned this a few times. They're focusing in on the outer loop, which is this roadway you see here, and then, of course, 380, which is this roadway you see here. So the improvements that Text Art is going to make in this area based on their traffic studies and the way that we understand it today is to connect this outer loop piece, which I showed you in the previous presentation, how that aligned directly with the roadway that is connected to Collin County. And then, of course, 380, Text Art is looking at making altercations to 380 as they anticipate up to 80,000 additional cars going through this area. I've been told it's comparable to the size of Richardson that they're anticipating with the growth to be along 380. So the modifications that Text Art will make are to that outer loop and that integrated corridor, I'm sorry, the 380. This gives us the opportunity on the integrated corridor to look at it through a little bit different lens because now it'll be a definition and a conversation between the county and the city. So staff went back and looked at it, reviewed it with our partners at the county and our partners at Text Art, and believe that the best thing to do at this time is to change that roadway classification from that interstate freeway that we previously showed to make that a primary arterial. Keep in mind, that's still 135 feet of roadway. It's still a six-lane roadway. I will show you an example of 135-foot right of way that was actually built to a smaller cross-section here later at the end of the presentation. But the primary arterial in this area obviously is still schematic in nature, but it does change it from that freeway classification to that arterial. The next roadway I want to highlight is Cooper Creek Road. After staff went back and evaluated, looked at the areas of which was in the ETJ, the areas where they were within the city limits, and also the cross-section looking at where it would be crossing creeks, et cetera, and the alignment. That feels like it's the best thing to make that instead of a primary arterial. As you can see, the recommendation would be to a secondary arterial cross-section, which is 110 feet right of way. It still provides that connectivity from 380 all the way due north. We obviously know we have 2164, and we have FM428 that are also getting to those areas outside of town, but we felt like it was best to lower that based on the data and the evaluation that we performed. And finally, as you can see, Harleyfield Road we have as that secondary arterial, but the other change that we made was to Collins. And on Collins, we felt like really based on the land use in that area, the location that it is, that it was best to evaluate that and change that from being a secondary arterial to being a collector. Those are the three major changes that staff has evaluated based on the comments we received to revise and send these comments back for our consultant to make those modifications to the mobility plan. Just to re-highlight, Cooper Creek Road from a primary arterial to a secondary arterial, Collins Road from a, right here, showing a secondary arterial to a collector, and then of course the integrated corridor no longer being a freeway, being a primary arterial. So we felt like with the comments that we received and the data that we did, the evaluation we did looking at, like I mentioned, the ETJ, the city limits and the growth patterns in this area and those connective pieces between the tech stock roadways, that that would be the best way to move forward. So I'm going to go from Northeast Denton, and as you can see, same thing again. Look at all of the tech stock roadway network that's in that area. I think you've heard me say this before, but when I started with City of Denton in 2001, the first time I was here, we had seven tech stock roadways that go through the city. We now have six, being that McKinney is now a city roadway, but you know, Denton is unique in the fact that it has so many roadways that are tech stock that actually go through the city. All righty. So the next focus area we wanted to look at is Southeast Denton. Same type of conversation, really looking at the focus areas. I know there's a lot of conversations about Morris Street, Woodrow, Shady Oaks, really in that area. And the purpose of this map is really to focus in on the fact that the majority of the roadways in this area are already classified. They're already shown to what their status is. They're not proposed roadways. I will tell you, they may not be functioning or constructed to their current classification, but that's where staff would evaluate a roadway like Morris, see that it's shown as a collector, and look at if there's modifications that need to be made to that cross-section to make it more of an alignment with what a typical collector cross-section would be. So just wanted to take that opportunity to show there's not a lot of proposed roadways in Southeast Denton. You know, the majority of them are roadways minus Dutchess, that's an extension from loop 288. The majority of those roadways are already existing and currently in their configuration. Moving on, wanted to focus in on Southwest Denton. As you are probably familiar with, this is the Hunter Cole development. Really what I want to hone in on here is just to mention to you that staff has ongoing conversations. We meet with Hunter on Mondays and Coles on Thursdays every other week. We have constant conversation with those teams. We're evaluating a lot of the roadways that they are bringing forward to us and looking at different changes that they're anticipating being made or that they recommend. But keep in mind, this is a master plan community that already has an agreement that's gone through the city. And so there are roadway networks that have to be constructed as a part of those agreements and a part of those processes. So anything that they bring forward that they want to make a modification on, we have to have that data to support it, including that traffic study information. I will mention to you two roadways that you see highlighted in red that are being removed. Obviously, this connection piece was an existing connection. When this new roadway is built right here, this is Underwood and 2449. So when you see this little connection piece, it did not make sense to keep that anymore. So we will be eliminating that because now the roadway will head north. The other roadway is this roadway that you see that abuts basically Robeson Ranch that separates Hunter, I'm sorry, the Hunter Ranch from Robeson Ranch. That was a roadway that staff was already removing from the overall documents. So just wanted to highlight that those two roadways are being removed. So this is the project I promised you at the end that I would show you. This is really a phased approach to construction of arterials. For those of you who don't know, this is Mayhill Road. And so really what I wanted to focus in on, it dedicated the ultimate right of way. For those of you who have driven it, you know what a beautiful roadway it is. Of course, I'm always going to say construction is beautiful because I love it. But we constructed that required sized facility that was based on the current capacity, right? So it is an ultimate cross section of a primary arterial. But as it's functioning today, it's constructed to that secondary arterial. And when we have that opportunity and when the opportunity exists based on the traffic demands and the needs in the area and the traffic studies that are created, then we have that opportunity to widen towards the median. So additional right of way won't be required. It still will be the 135 foot for the most part. There may be some additional right of way, of course, sometimes that are needed at intersections. But what I wanted to show you is we have that opportunity with the medians to actually restripe and make this a three lane in each direction, six lane primary arterial at the time that's necessary. So I thought this was a really good case study. And I appreciate our team really working to develop this and show it for you to show you. You can dedicate the ultimate right of way. You can have that line on the map that says eventually at some time down the road, this is going to be a primary arterial and you can have the data to support that it only needs to be a secondary arterial at this time. So just wanted to show you a real life situation that's happening today. So next steps, obviously, you know, it's critical that we work to a step to adopt the mobility plan so that we can work forward with doing those roadway impact fees. And we currently have that slated to bring back to you in the springtime. The Vision Zero framework, that's something we're working with pre-Tim on. And he's taking the lead on that between transportation planning and our engineering team. And we plan on bringing that back in the May, June timeframe. And then, of course, that citywide speed study, Nathan is leading that effort. And that's something that you will finally see come forward to you towards late summer, so August, September timeframe. So just explaining to you that I know a lot of the conversations we've had have been related to speed, Vision Zero, and ultimately knowing that in order to adopt the mobility plan and move forward, then the next steps will be really working through these three different big task items that our teams are working through. And with that, I will end the presentation. And there were several of us that are here and can answer any questions that you might have. And I appreciate the time. I do want to just mention to you that we're still obviously wanting to take any comments or questions that you have. That's what we're here for, is to listen to you, try to understand what your requests are, what your concerns are, and work through that process to get the mobility plan adopted. So I appreciate so much you taking that opportunity to join each other together on Valentine's Day and for us to take this time to have this meeting. So Mayor, I'll turn it over to you, sir. No, thank you very much. And so just as I turn it over to PNZ commissioners, I would just ask that we give, maximize the time we have with staff here and give direction. State an issue, state a suggestion as change, suggested change, adjustment, et cetera, et cetera, so that everyone at the dais and online can understand what you're proposing and react to that and try to drive toward consensus to then, again, move us towards adopting this. So again, if we can set aside some of the narratives for right now and focus on giving staff direction while they're here, and then we can get into those things later or in a different way. But while we have staff here, I'd love to get direction kind of pared down and give them next steps so that they can make adjustments and bring it to us for a vote. Commissioner Nellis? Thank you, Mayor. Becky, thank you to you and your team, as always, for working so hard on this. Commission questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. Some of these buttons work a little different than others. Just real briefly, is there any proposed change to that roadway classifications table within the mobility plan at this time from staff? Could you give me a little bit more information? It's that table that describes the function of different roadway classifications. Oh, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Their proposed width, their speed, that sort of thing. Sure. The blue one that has the white text? Yes. So like I mentioned during planning and zoning, we are not going to recommend changing that chart. What we are going to recommend is adding some additional, and I appreciate you bringing that up to me, adding some additional verbiage to explain that these are parameters of which typical designs are done, but that the actual traffic studies and actual design parameters are going to be put on that design engineer and have city staff input really through the evaluation process of those roadways. So those are really just kind of the bumpers, you know, kind of the standards that align with those standard details, but definitely going to add some verbiage at the end really to explain that that's the purpose of it, so it's not seen as thou shalt do X and B, so cookie-cutter, if that will help with the concerns. Yeah, I think that does. It was a very big departure from the similar chart that was shared with council at work session back in early 2020 that really kind of showed the difference of those roadway classification uses from a rural to a suburban to an urban context. So I wanted to make sure that that was going to be incorporated. Thank you. Absolutely, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, City Council. I did have a question about Hartley Field Road. Through many of our P&Z meetings with the development that's going on to the west of Hartley Field, many residents have come in front of us and sent us emails about not wanting to connect Hartley Field Road and make it a major thoroughfare, but did I hear correctly that that is what the cities want to do because the developers said they didn't have any plans in developing or connecting their neighborhood into Hartley Field? The current plan of the mobility plan is to show that roadway as a secondary arterial, which would be a 110 foot wide cross section that could be built to a two lane each direction or four lane total roadway. That obviously would be something that as that development comes through that staff will be evaluating and having those conversations based on the traffic demands in that area. Could they not, could the city not look at building that road just behind Hartley Field, just to the north of it? That's what many residents said because that neighborhood has already developed. It's a rural development. Kids are playing out in the streets and they don't want major traffic flow through their neighborhood. I mean, many of them spoke about that. Sure. Staff has that opportunity to evaluate the actual alignment of that roadway and where that actually will be located at the time that those developments come through. So if that is just a little bit north, I know there was a little bit of a gap in between the existing homes. If I'm remembering correctly what you're referring to, sir, there was a gap between where the existing homes were, where Hartley Field Road was, and then the development to the north of that location. So where that actual alignment goes for that roadway specifically, it's currently aligned in the existing roadway network that is in that area. That's a typical situation is to align an actual roadway with the existing line that's on the ground. But based on when that development comes through, we do have that opportunity to be flexible to move that roadway either north or south to align with what makes sense for that overall development. At this point, it's a schematic that shows that, yes, there is a need for a secondary arterial in that area, if that makes sense. It does. Thank you. But I just want, I don't know if y'all have heard all the people, all the people's comments that live in Hartley Field, but they are not wanting a major thoroughfare through their neighborhood. I'm just letting that be on record. Absolutely, sir. I appreciate that comment. If we need to make any adjustments based on those comments received, we will definitely look into that and make sure that if there's anything that needs to be adjusted, whether that's moving that roadway a little bit north, that we'll evaluate that. As I mentioned, it's just following that current alignment of that roadway in the area. So I appreciate you bringing that up. And thank you, thank you, the city for y'all's hard work on this. Yes, sir. Any other questions from commissioners? I do not see any mayor. I'm going to turn that back to you. All right. All right. And yeah. So council members, direction from council, council member McGuire, then mayor pretend Meltzer. Thank you, mayor. And just so you know, I think council member Beck and I were both using the screen to get in the queue. But first, I feel like I owe you and your staff, especially for Tom, an apology. I was speaking a little bit off the cuff. I was kind of distracted at our at our last work session. And although I think that, you know, I still sort of hold the I still do hold the concerns that I expressed. I also recognize that given the timeline, it's not realistic to expect you to respond to everything that I said at our last work session before we need to pass a mobility plan. So I you know, I apologize for kind of throwing that out there so flippantly. And I recognize that this is a living document that's going to continue to evolve. And I hope that as it continues to evolve, it will move closer to what I think is that community vision of, you know, moving moving a little bit farther away from the the suburban late 20th century hierarchical roadway design. I do think that that I mean, I see that you've taken those comments seriously in in the changes that you've made to Cooper Cooper Creek Road. So thank you for for for taking a look at that and seeing what you can do to address those concerns in a very short time frame. I sort of intuited that the that you were taking that phased approach to arterials and dedicating more right of way that was needed. It seems like you're also taking that approach on Hickory Creek Road. Would you say that that's true? In some situations, we are looking at doing that. Yes. Okay. How what kind of impact does do those wide medians have on pedestrian access or pedestrian crossings on those roads? Can you speak to that a little bit? Sure. I'd be happy to. Nathan, would you like to speak to that? I will let the expert speak to it. Thanks, Nathan George, also capital projects engineering, wide medians. So I would I'll say first that when I look at safety and intersection design, I'm looking at the the goal that I would have as a compact intersection. And when I say that, I mean, a lot of times when we have wide medians, it does create a challenge for a pedestrian cross street, the wider the intersection, the longer the crossing time, the longer the crossing time, the more impact that has on operations of the signal. So it's, you know, sort of a challenge for us as, you know, our traffic operations division who runs the timing on the signals to allow adequate time. So the wider the intersection, the more challenging it is to balance the needs of vehicles versus the needs of pedestrians. Those wide medians can be beneficial in a way. We want to have some space for refuge and it helps lower turning speeds. Medians tend to discourage drivers from cutting the corner, like if you have just a painted turn lane or something like that. So they might actually drive a little bit faster and a little bit more recklessly. So there are some benefits, but it's really a trade off at each specific location. And I would tend to prefer not having wide medians. So there's that, you know, four lane to six lane and the carving up of that space for future needs from a vehicular standpoint. And I think to your points, you know, across the board, what we really need to focus on is adapting our design standards to more of a complete streets approach, narrow lanes. That helps us make the intersections more compact, shorten up those crossings. People still maybe want to have those medians, but perhaps a little bit narrower. But it's really about trying to use different design variables to make the intersection more compact and that will make it safer. Thanks. >> So I hear that it's kind of a trade off. Are there opportunities maybe for altering the design of those medians to make them safe? You used the word refuge, a safer place for pedestrians to stand and wait? Are there opportunities there? >> Yes. So when we design an intersection, if there's a place of refuge, we call that a pass through median or a refuge median. So it's basically the crosswalk would go through the median. And that does provide a little bit of a safety enhancement. Typically, you want to have a little median in front of the crosswalk and that forces cars to turn a little bit more slowly. So it's, you know, depending on the design of the roadway, there are certainly opportunities to use that median as a safety feature and then maybe put some additional elements. The other challenge I'll point to is that if the intersection is very large, you may have to put some signal equipment in the median to make sure that if, you know, if somebody were to get stranded in the median, they'd have the ability to call the signal. So it would give them a walk if they're in the median. So that's another consideration to take that, you know, tends to prefer not having those really wide medians but more of a narrow median. >> Okay. Great. So thank you so much. I think my direction then is as broad as my direction always is, is that, you know, moving forward, I would love to see staff kind of balancing those concerns of, you know, acquiring right-of-way but also wanting to make it accessible to pedestrians and other folks who are not driving. >> Thanks. >> Okay. And so the screen's not working. I don't think they signed in. So I don't know -- I'm not seeing the buttons. So just -- you'll have to indicate by raising your hand. And so I have Mayor Pro Tem and then we'll come back to Councilmember Beck. >> Mayor, you'll have to have them raise their hand. I think it was difficult for them to get the screen set up for everybody. So if they'll just raise their hand. >> Right. Yeah. No, I don't -- I didn't even realize anyone was logged in to use that feature. So we're good. Mayor Pro Tem Elter? >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, thank you, Becky, you know, for giving us the drill down. I was particularly interested in doing that so we could see how mobility is integrated with future land use map. And mostly in terms -- with respect to the northeast and southwest, as far as whether they line up and agree in terms of the planned intensity of development. And I didn't really get that, so I'm hoping you can help a little bit. What I got out of your discussion on the northeast was that in a relook, you've sort of downgraded the planned sort of intensity of the roadways. But first of all, are they still being expanded from where they are? And how does that tie in -- let's just take northeast. How does that tie in to what the future land use map says about the intensity of development there? >> So if you're specifically talking about northeast, you know, that's the reason why I wanted to show you all of the ETJ and all of the TxDOT roadway network in that area. And, you know, explain to you where the city limits is. Because if you look at that area, the majority of the roadways, you know, in the far corner of that map, really are roadways that we're showing on our map to align with what the county thoroughfare plan would show and also with those connective tissues to TxDOT. You know, a lot of that area is really going to be areas of which are going to grow in the future. And we want to make sure we're in alignment with those future growths. But I would just mention that specifically in the northeastern section, the majority of that is really not within the city of Denton City limits. So we do feel like based on the land use map in that area, what we currently know, this is the reason why you see the mobility plan come back at least at a minimum every five years because land will change, land uses will change, growth will happen. And when those types of things happen, we want that opportunity to reassess the roadway network in that area. And so the reason why you see us changing those classifications of those roadways are based on current situations and current data that we know in those areas, you know, downgrading the classifications of those roadways or getting in alignment with those changes in the plan that TxDOT has made from those integrated corridor, outer loop, et cetera. Specifically in the southwest portion of town, you know, those are decisions that have previously been made through that master plan community that's gone through council. If I can put my hand up to LaBecky, with respect to southwest, my concern was you mostly focused on the coal hunter part, which is frankly, it hasn't come up as much since those communities were planned. But the discussions that I've heard at council were more about, again, kind of in the lower right part of that focus area, does the planned roadway expansion match the expected intensity of development? Because those are both northeast and southwest of areas where you repeatedly hear an interest in preserving rural fringe, and the concern is, does the mobility plan line up with that? So is that really in the future land use map or, you know, and as far as any amount of rural character in either of those areas, and is that what the mobility plan says? That really, to me, is the key question on both those quadrants. I mean, you hear it over and over that hardly feel, you know, those are still contributing rural areas. And feel free to answer, finish your last, it got truncated a bit, so if there's anything else to pick up from where you were that, you know, just feel free to complete your thought and then the additional questions. No, thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I was just going to mention that the southwestern area and the majority of that is a part of that hunter coal and those decisions have been made through those developer agreements. I will tell you that staff has evaluated based on the comments that we've received from hunter and coal and looked at if there's anything that needs to be modified in those areas. But I would say in general, Mayor Pro Tem, our goal is to be in alignment with the land use map. And we've looked at the mobility based on not only the land use map, multiple occasions, but then also really looking at some of those ETJ areas and seeing, you know, where those areas are that where the staff does have the opportunity to make the changes and not keep in mind, you know, in those ETJ areas, those are where the possibilities of those muds come in. And, you know, those decisions will be made through those efforts with collaboration with the county. And so, you know, I would say that to the best of our ability, if you see a particular area that's still concerning you or a particular area that you'd like for us to look at to or even get with you and discuss, we'd be more than happy to do so. So I feel comfortable with the information that's being shared. And I also understand, like I mentioned, that this is something that gets updated, you know, as even Councilmember McGuire mentioned, you know, it's a living document. It's a schematic in nature type document. And our goal is to as the land use changes or growth happens to continuously making modifications to the document. But, sorry, I'd be happy if there's a particular area that you're concerned about to sit down with you and go over that area. Well, I mean, we'll see if others have the same, you know, interest. I mean, I think this is this is that opportunity, you know, you're focusing on those areas, which is great. You know, I really just want to hear clearly how much intensity is of development. I mean, it's not just on you, you know, Becky. It's kind of jointly what's the look between development and you? How intense is the development that's expected? Does that line up with the road? Sure. And I'm going to let go ahead, David. I'm sorry. I just saw you hop on the screen. I was going to let Tina also talk a little bit about the comp plan in alignment with the lane use map and then also the mobility plan. Sure. And Tina will be able to better articulate this, I'm sure. But just in advance of Tina addressing the question, I think the point that Becky made on the muds, especially in the northeast, as we're looking at those textile roadways coming through and really kind of narrowing in on Cooper Creek and Collins, you know, downgraded those trying to really take that fresh look. What do we really need right now? What do we need over the next number of years? But we just don't have control. So we had the land use considerations for sure. We had the tech stock considerations for sure. But we just don't have that same level of control in those muds. And they're coming in that ETJ section right there. So that's just going to place demands on those roadways. But I'll hand it over to Tina. Thank you, David. And Tina Fergens, Deputy Director of Development Services and Planning Director. And just along those same lines, I was going to say it a little bit different way, but the challenge that we have Mayor Pro Tem is we're trying to balance the land use development that we know that is happening within that area. I mean, we see the growth pressures right now in the northeast quadrant of the city. So we're trying to balance that. We're also trying to balance that with the direction that we received from council, which is our desire to try to keep the character rural, agricultural and nature. But we know that our hands are tied to some extent. We had this conversation a lot last week with respect to the development within the ETJ. And when it comes to the ETJ, as you know, if we receive subdivision plots that comply with all of the remaining of our development standards, that we're obligated to approve them. We also have the challenge with the muds, as David also spoke to, and that could potentially form in that area. So if we do not plan for some sort of roadway infrastructure right now, then we're really setting ourselves up for bigger challenges later on. And we're trying to find the balance, right? So our team has further evaluated that area. We feel comfortable downgrading the north-south roadway down to the secondary arterial down from the primary. That's a little bit lesser right of way. As Becky illustrated, we try to design our roadways based upon the context of the development that's occurring within the area. But we have to be careful that if we limit ourselves too much right now, then we could potentially be setting ourselves up in future councils and planning and zoning commissions up with a lot greater challenge, because it's going to be difficult to try and go in and acquire additional right of way as those properties develop. So we're trying to look in our crystal ball and see what is the best decision that we can make right now. As Becky pointed out, we do have the ability to reevaluate the comprehensive plan and the mobility plan every 5 to 10 years. In this particular area, I know we've talked about doing area plans also, because we really see the future being in an area plan will allow for a little bit deeper dive analysis, so that hopefully we can look to see, do we need to make any refinements to any land use assumptions as well as address the roadway network based upon those land use assumptions as well. So it may not be the answer that you want to hear, Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer, but right now we're trying to do the best we can to balance the needs for the area based upon what we do know. It actually, you know, it is the answer, but I appreciate it that, you know, just a clear statement of what exactly is it we're trying to accommodate. So it's, it's muds that we can't control that will add intensity up there. And I appreciate your similar thoughts about expected land use intensity and how that matches or doesn't match, you know, the roads in the southwest. I'm not talking about, and I'm not talking so much about Cole Hunter, but the area that you keep hearing about, you know, around Hickory Creek. Well, and I would say the Southwest area is a little bit easier for us to be able to analyze and evaluate because the existing zoning is in place there, particularly with the Cole Ranch and the Hunter ranches that are there because all of that has already been titled. So we know what we're receiving there. Northeast area a little bit different because we have so much ETJ in that area. And so we're trying to balance what we see is happening in that area with what we know and how can we plan smart for the future in that area? Okay. Council Member Bet. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have, let's follow up. I'll take my questions out of work as I want to follow on from that thought train. So particular areas that I want to ask questions about sort of the alignments of potential right of ways and issues like that are this area that we just discussed, the 377 and the 35W corridor, it looks like from the future land use map, the density is a little higher. But when you go to the thoroughfare plan, the road network proposed, especially as you get South of Dania and Rose Lawn and stuff is sparser. And so it's a question, does that mobility alignment align with the more intense use towards the southern border in that corridor? So that's just east of Hunter Call and, but not all of it's part of Hunter Call, a lot of it's in independent development. So my question is, does the mobility alignment align with more intense future land use? And that really is a question. If it's sufficient, it's sufficient, but it just seemed like when you look at the rest of the areas where there's more density, the networks, like you just go east of there into the sort of due south, that's, you can see the, oh yeah, here we're adding roads, we're widening roads, blah, blah, blah, along 1830 and stuff. But just in that corridor, just South of Rose Lawn, between 377 and 35, it looked like the, I wasn't seeing the alignment of the orange with the thoroughfare map. And so maybe you can help me understand that. - And then I have a similar question for OAM 28. - Okay, so yes, what we have shown on the mobility plan and what we have shown on the comprehensive plan, we believe are in alignment with each other. So knowing what some of the existing development patterns that are happening down there in the southern portion of town, also take into consideration the existing entitlements in that area. We believe that we've matched that up to be appropriate between the mobility plan and the comprehensive plan. - All right, well, I hope you're right. I mean, one of the things that we're seeing in particular regions is choke points where we have insufficient roadways and too many single entrances. And I know we don't really do that anymore, but I think to the extent that we can avoid creating choke points in the future, I would sure like to do that. - Well, if you ask my team, what's the one soapbox I stand on on a regular basis, it's the access, right? And trying to ensure that we have, that we're trying to minimize those choke points and be able to get access into development. Part of the challenge that we have in our community, and this is no different in Denton compared to other communities that are experiencing growth. When you have, and our challenge is also coupled by the fact with all the text out roadways we have, because some of them don't have frontage roads on them, right? So they limit our ability for any further movement and connectivity. But what you find is that in communities that are still experiencing growth and development, what you have is that the infrastructure gets constructed and gets phased in. I mean, if we had unlimited amounts of money, we could go out and build all these roadways first and do some things that I've seen Frisco, where they've built six lanes divided arterials in areas that just have farmland on either side. But we're not in that position here in Denton to be able to go out and build all these roadways, right? And so we rely upon the development community in order to be able to assist us in developing our roadways. So our roadway network, unfortunately, is gonna be phased approach. Becky's team does a great job with their capital projects and planning that they have and trying to do improvements where we can. But we are going to have some pain points and that's gonna be as areas continue to experience some development, we're gonna have to partner with the developers to be able to get our roadways constructed in relation to that. And I had a similar question. Thank you. I appreciate that. And a similar question. If we look at the compare the bike ped plan to the thoroughfare plan along 28 near the new shelter. This is something that I remember Commissioner Smith and I asking about access south along 288 to get to those services, as opposed to going into the network looks like the thoroughfare map is along Audra. And so I guess, do we have sufficient south bike ped access? I see the bike plan has us going sort of in and out of Audra near the shelter. But nothing between the shelter and McKinney, and yet there's services up and down in there. So I guess, is that a place that we've overlooked? Or do we have a plan in mind and I can just rest comfortably? From a pedestrian perspective, the answer is we, we have put in a sidewalk project in our trip, proposed trip project application for this year. So that will address our pedestrian accessibility. From a bicycle perspective, we will need to add some lines to the map. I would say loop 288 has not been addressed, that's going to be a real challenge because loop 288, we're in the process of putting in sidewalks and then to recommend putting in bicycle accommodations as well is a higher level recommendation. So ideally we would make those accommodations as we deliver new projects, but if their sidewalk projects are not combined bike ped, that would then not address that need, if you will. And yes, the north-south activity, we have kind of the bike lanes a little bit west of there, but we don't have any tandem access along loop 288 proposed currently. Okay. Yeah, I, my, my, my, one, one micro-direction would be for then, then I, I would, I would ask staff to, to focus on that because we, we see pedestrian access up and down that green swath to go from serve Denton and other services that are in the, you know, the courthouse, blah, blah, blah. There's lots of little services in there that, that are used and, and, and I'd love to see us make sure that that is not a gap. It may not be a gap, but I would like maybe some, to just make sure. Yeah. I'll say if I could just offer Mayhill road is just off the map that I have in front of me, but that's our primary north-south bike and pedestrian access. So that provides our, what I would call our priority north-south access. We have a number of east-west branches that come off of that facility. So that will be sort of our highest order facility in the nearby area. The, the trip application will address the missing sidewalks. I actually took a photo on that corridor as one of my primary missing sidewalk areas in the city. It's one of the areas that really needs to be addressed. It is a text-out roadway, of course. So we're going in and filling in the gaps that were left by the roadway project, but it is a priority to make sure it's pedestrian accessible and we're, you know, we'll be focusing on making sure bicycle users know that Mayhill is going to be their priority facility, at least in the near term, until we can build out more of a network elsewhere. Yeah. And I understand that like in the future that Mayhill will be more and as we grow, it'll expand and we have the control of Mayhill and, and I hear that, you know, we're hitting all these text-out. Bec, Becky said this at the beginning of her presentation that our ability to do things on text-out roads is, is challenging. It remains a barrier. I get that. I, I, we, we do know that the, the, just as, you know, you know better than anyone in this room that people will just walk across the grass to make a path. People will walk and they're, people are going to do what they're going to do and, and I think we have to build in what, what they're going to do, you know, near and long term. So I don't, I, I'm not, I guess that's only sort of a micro direction. It just feels like a gap, but I ask that maybe we give a little attention to that. And then real quick, two more sort of conceptual questions and this might be, this next one might be Becky or Preetan and, and it seemed like from, if we're now prioritizing safety as in our, in our flat hierarchy, we're giving number one, a little boost to, to on priority in terms of our mobility planning and safety and, and it's potential that our roadway network speeds, you know, you, you heard a lot of in the council, at least, I don't know about P and Z, asking for those speeds to be where the possible minimums rather than, than averages or maximums. If that's the case and you still want to have flow, this actually goes back to Councilor McGuire's question. Don't we need, I understand this, the concept of having a hierarchical network and that's completely valid, right? But doesn't it need to mean that the, the, it's a hierarchical network of collectors, especially if we're lowering the speeds. If you want to keep up the flow, then we need a couple more collectors so that our collectors are not as widely spaced apart so that the flow is maintained at the lower speeds. And so that really is just a, that's a 100,000 foot view. I mean, that's a question of do we have sufficient flexibility to add additional collector capacity into our hierarchical network? Absolutely. And those are the things that we do when developments come through is evaluate if a collector's needed based on their traffic study in many areas. All the collectors may not be shown. We'd love to add additional collectors all over the map, but we want to wait and see how those areas develop and then add those collectors as needed. Cool, and then similarly, not similarly, but related to the text up problem, I mentioned a second ago, is there, is there something that the city needs to do to update our approach to getting these, these text out? Is there not, not our thumb on the scale, but is there, is there ways that, that we should anticipate interacting with text out to, to facilitate some of the needs that you, the citizens, you and your team identify, development team identifies, but we're unable to approach in the same way that we do our own roads. Is, is there something we need to be doing to facilitate that text out interaction? So loop 288 was constructed in 2004, 2005, 2006 timeframe. At that time, text dot did not have as a part of their design criteria to have sidewalks as a part of their overall construction of their projects. That is, that whole philosophy has drastically changed. As you see, if you drive down 2499, 2181, all of those roadway networks will have sidewalks. Where Nathan is working, and he can tell you this himself, we have conversations with text dot on a very regular basis, is working on the projects that have not began construction yet to add those additional pedestrian areas or add the side path type situations where they do allow for the bicycle traffic. Specifically on loop 288, it's been a very big concern of mine that the junction is way north and the Serve Denton is way south and there's not traffic lights in between. There's only a traffic light, you know, located at McKinney. That's the reason why when Nathan was working on the DCTA trip, I said let's look to fill in the gaps and get folks an opportunity to walk all the way down, cross this crosswalk at McKinney and walk back up to Serve Denton because I realize we need to provide that safe path. So there's things we're doing and looking at doing as a part of projects such as the DCTA trip. There's conversations we're constantly having with text dot. When they provide us a schematic, we're looking at that overall cross section. We're seeing if there's modifications that can be made. And this is what I've been talking about from the very beginning. We always focus in on the thoroughfare map, right? We always want to see where the roads are going to go. We always focus in on those lines, what those classifications are. But we have in my mind been able to have the opportunity by having Nathan on board with his expertise to take that to the next level, to make it the true multimodal document that our team is really working toward, allowing for those sidewalks and allowing for those bike paths. But I would say as far as the collaboration with text dot, they hear us loud and clear. Nathan's had multiple conversations and I feel comfortable with the direction that we're headed. And I will tell you there will be some projects that are already far enough down the road where we're making modifications or requesting modifications. There are things that happen from a text dot perspective with environmental clearance, et cetera. But anywhere we can make those changes, I'll give you an example. The 35 widening at Oak Street, Nathan and several other folks worked along with Gary Packen with Parks, obviously, worked to try to make some modifications so that folks will be able to go along under 35 from the hospital network along to the west side of town and making those modifications so that we had safe passages through there. It's a little bit change in philosophy, but definitely something that we're already having those conversations with text dot regularly when we have new roadways that are coming through. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Councilmember Davis. >> Thank you, mayor. Excuse me. I just want to weigh in quickly to say my direction is I'm very pleased with the changes that you've made. I think they're very responsive. You know, we're laypeople. Most of us, I can't think of any of us that have advanced degrees in engineering or career experience in planning roadway networks, much less designing cross sections for each of the myriad situations that a roadway will encounter. I like the phased approach a lot. It's not perfect. Nothing is perfect. Like Tina said, if we could have all the money in the world and could place Sim City and plan things out perfectly, but planning ahead with that phased approach, I like that our standard cross section for that size of facility includes side paths, substantial side paths. I like that we're taking that holistic approach. Even when we're doing 139 foot right away, we're planning ahead and taking that holistic approach. And then I like the downgrades that you've done in the Hartley Field Northeast Denton area because the thing that's been very helpful for me to understand through our conversations is that when I think primary arterial, I think Carroll Boulevard. I think driveways. I think businesses. I think, you know, a million cars coming in from all directions, but I've needed to change my thinking about some of the larger facilities we're talking about in this area and think of it more like 380 west of Jacksboro. In Denton, we may not want any kind of development along those big, bigger roads. In Denton, we may want big one-acre lots because that's what our flume says. But over in Salina and Krugerville and Aubrey, they're going to be building houses and muds. And over in Crumb and Sanger, they're going to be building houses and muds. And if we don't move those folks across our nice, open, rural fringe, then they're going to come down into the city or they're going to go north up into the new Super Worshen Road or the Super 428 that TxDOT is going to build. And those facilities aren't going to come from TxDOT nearly so soon as the facilities that developers may build as we approve them in the city. So I really appreciate you helping me reorient my thinking to moving people, not just around in those areas and not just the developments we have control over, but across our borders, across the city, and keeping them off of 380 and keeping them off of 428 and just moving them through. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Becky, one quick question. Obviously, it's come up a lot and I looked at the map and understand the border between the ETGA is right at Hartley Field Road, right? So who controls that road? The border is right on it. I just don't know how to read the map and for those following along. And I will have to tell you, I'll have to go back and look at exactly what is in the city and what is in the county. From my recollection, the last time this came up to Commissioner Anderson's comments that he made, I believe there's portions that are in the city and the county, but I would have to actually look specifically at that to tell you where the stops and start points are. But my recollection is that it falls in both jurisdictions, sir. Right. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Burke. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the opportunity to speak. Becky DeVine, you all are doing a terrific job and I'm so pleased at the learning that I'm getting with all of this. One of the things I did want to highlight and I wanted the folks out there to know is that the thing that's staying with me right now is that we have to rely on the development to the partnerships with the developers to plan these roads, have extensive conversation with someone that didn't know at one point I didn't know that you have to have the development in to get the roads. We always seem to want to think that the roads are going to come first, you know, why didn't they plan the roads? Why didn't they plan the roads? But the development has to be there. So you know, from the educational perspective, you know, that's something that we have to understand as citizens is that we the money is not there. The funding is not there until the development comes in and then we work and plan around that development. Did I say that right? Okay, good. The other thing is this is probably my personal issue that I have with roads coming up. I don't always agree and understand how we choose to put the plants and the trees and all of that in these in these medians and taking care of those plants and trees to grow. And I know it's a beautification thing. But the primary thing for me sometimes is the lighting. I don't understand how there's a lot of lights here and then there's no lights here and then there's some lights there and these different kind of lights. How does that all work for, you know, lay people like me that will drive down 380, we'll use 380 as an example, get up here to Texas Women's University and go all the way out to 288 and there's not a light anywhere to be seen and it's always we have to depend on those developments to get, you know, some lighting on the roads and then we go out and then there's an overabundance of lights. How does, how does, who's working on that? Who has a say in that? How can I complain to everybody in town if there's not enough lights here? You are making me have more gray hairs, I always, we speak, no I'm kidding. The light is a component that comes within the design parameter. So you know, really this planning focus is really more of a planning level document. So when these become from planning level documents into physical designs, it's part of the process that we look at and review to see if lighting is something that is needing to be evaluated. Now many of the roadways, in the roadway example that you gave, 380, we do have a bond project to do lighting along 380 that we're working through. It's just a future project that's a few years out in the queue. But I would tell you that that's something that we have to coordinate with TxDOT and just really a high level, the way that that works is through a photometric study to actually look and see what types of lights need to be installed where we have street light criteria just like you hear me talk about the transportation criteria and DME is responsible for that street light criteria. But we work very closely with them on street lights as our team is the one who really works through that process to add street lights as necessary when we're developing a road. I'll say my word, our goal is to use our holistic approach to make sure we're looking at water, sewer, drainage, roadway, sidewalk, bicycle, street light, etc. when we design a roadway. That's a new focus, that's a new thought process, that's something that we're working through the process. Many of the projects you see going on today, we're working to incorporate them if we can, but many of those are projects that have already the decisions have been made. So my goal is for us to start seeing that shift as we work through new projects as we move forward. A great example is the 2019 bond program on the residential streets. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. And then Commissioner Anderson has been waiting, so I'll let you. I appreciate that, Mayor. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Anderson, I will give the floor to you. Thank you, Chair. I do have a quick question if I understood this correctly. Are we really considering putting bike lanes on loop 288? I can have Nathan answer that, but what we are looking at is ways to incorporate and add bike lanes as necessary or as the need exists. That's a textile roadway, so that would be something that we would have to coordinate with them as a decision. I think to Nathan's point is it's something that we're currently evaluating and working through the process of having sidewalks along 288 for connective tissue from the junction all the way down and across, but bike lanes are something that would be addressed not specifically on the roadway itself. If that's the concern, it would be where could those be constructed and how could those sidewalks change to side path situations where bicycles would be able to be used those. But I'll let Nathan see if I missed anything and if he wants to add anything. Thanks for the question. Just to clarify our approach or I guess I'll call it our philosophy, last year TxDOT adopted a new bicycle accommodation policy that on major thoroughfares on their major roads, which is pretty much everything they have, that they would provide side paths to accommodate bicycles to pedestrian activity. We're going to follow suit in general for all of our designs. On a major road like at Loop 288 or any major road that we would call our thoroughfares collector or arterial, we will not have on-street bike facilities unless they're separated or protected in some way, which is just an acknowledgement that anybody who's out riding on those streets in general, if we want to appeal to a broader audience, they need to have that feeling of safety and comfort and that'll be more like Hickory Street if I can point to an example here in the city where we have those bollards separating traffic or as traffic gets higher speed or higher volume, maybe something more robust to separate folks from traffic or we're putting them into a high quality roadside facility like we're building on McKinney or you might see on other streets around town. Commissioner Anderson, you're muted. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, thank you again for that answer, but my concern is if you put it on Loop 288. We already have people trying to cross Loop 288, McKinney Street that had a pass, unfortunately had fatality accidents there and I thought that if we put bike paths on Loop 288, that's just asking for more trouble, but it's good to hear that you're putting it off the road, not on the road. Correct, yeah, and I will also point out there were some mapping issues based on some changes that were made that we still have some corrections to make to the map so you'll see in the final document that we'll be working on with the consultant, but if there's any lack of clarity in what you see on the maps, if it says bike lane, that will be corrected before the final version is adopted or put forward for adoption. Thanks. Okay, again, thank you guys for your hard work. Thank you, Nathan. Is there any other commissioners with questions? If I could just say just a minute, thanks, thanks. Just to concur with Councilmember Davis and I think some others on the downgrading of those roads, I think that's spot on in that area and what you always hear me talk about and I will talk about when we talk about the comp plan is small area plans and I've been wanting one for that area for so long and I think if we can focus on that, it will spell out further what that mobility in that area is going to be. So thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Any other councilmembers? Mayor Paltomelter? Yeah, I may be the lone voice, but you know, I might as well say it, if regarding the northeast, this is by way of direction, if we're not building for growth that we project in areas that we control, but we're, you know, I'm not that compelled by the idea that we should facilitate, you know, pave the way for muds that we don't control, you know, so I appreciate the downgrading, but I would say if we're not building for, you know, our needs, I'd do less and send those rations to southeast where we're already, you know, behind the definitions that we think are already needed for the, for, you know, the community that's already there. So that's, it may just be me, but that's me. Councilmember Aguar? Thank you. I was just a little bit concerned about the conversation around the junction and folks who might need to get from the junction to Serve Denton on foot. It's almost a mile from the junction to get all the way down to McKinney and then cross and then almost half a mile back up north to Serve Denton. That's a big burden, a place on pedestrians, and you know, I'm seeing that, what is that, prominence parkway there is just north of the junction, and that's going to be extended, it looks like. Are there any plans to signalize that intersection at prominence or is that like fully a text dot decision which intersections get signalized along 288? No, the signal has to meet warrant. We do know there will be a time that that signal actually will be one that will be installed and to your point, then they would go north and across and down. It's a fairly similar trek, but definitely a different way to cross. It's a lot shorter if you could go north. It's like, I mean, it's like a mile shorter if you can go north. No, I appreciate that. Currently with the way that we've evaluated it because there is not a signalized intersection there and there is not current funding to work through that process to have that signalized intersection. Also, that roadway is something that's being developed as a part of that development in that area. When that signal is installed and it already does meet warrants in that area, then that would be the improvements that would look to be made is from the junction to the north to connect to that Audra, although the roadway now makes a little bit different connection in that area or proposed connection and then go across to prominence and down. In that area, there's already some sidewalk that's constructed, so it would be filling in some of those gaps, another sidewalk in front of FEMA, maybe some sidewalk in front of the former DPS building, but then we would look to be filling in gaps in some of those areas to make sure that they had a clear path to get from point A to point B, but I'm going off memory, so that usually doesn't serve me well, but did work on the construction of loop 288 back in 2004, so I do have some knowledge of that area. That definitely would be something that's evaluated at that time and I will tell you that we've already had those conversations to talk about getting folks from the junction to serve Denton in the most expeditious manner. Currently, the way that we're proposing is like I mentioned before, but definitely when that signal comes there, I know another topic that's been brought up is the pedestrian hybrid beacons to allow folks to move across the roadway and TxDOT will not allow those roadways on their roadway network, so we will have to have a signalized intersection to allow for that safe passage from the western side of the roadway to the eastern side of the roadway. Okay, good. I'm glad to hear that there is going to be a signal. I'm real disappointed to hear that TxDOT is not allowing hawk beacons. I didn't realize that. Do you have a sense of what the timeline is for, yeah, that Audra prominence intersection becoming signalized with the development that's happening there? I do not. I will have to get back to you on that. That will be something I'll have to coordinate with Tina and their team based on what's happening in that area and we can evaluate that, but I don't have that timing in my mind. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. I mean, but just to pick up there, I think it is noteworthy though to point out currently people leave Monsignor King and have to walk all the way to the square to go to our Daily Bread and so we're condensing that quite a bit and also I think I'll take staff and this is not your department but other departments direction on ways to bridge that because I'm not optimistic that anything's going to happen from TxDOT anytime soon, but I think the great thing is we do contribute a huge amount to DCTA and there's a bus, you know, so there's buses that can just make loops there and then we obviously served it and works well with us and the community and we could then bus over, provide offices, you know, food pantry coordination and we can handle all that in-house with other departments without having to be subject to TxDOT's timing, their ability to meet our needs, that sort of thing. So one, it's a much shorter walk and then two, safety is a priority and I think it's key that we can use the buses to manage that. We can use kind of pooling of resources, offices, that sort of thing to bring served it into the junction, you know, if we have to in the interim. So I think that's something that is immediately when we open, we'll have a solve for that and we'll have a great plan in place and I think that's critical. I think I saw a hand, Councilmember Bett. I really applaud the Mayor's reminder about how important the bus is and I think, I know that all the staff is trying to incorporate mass transit. So I really appreciate the Mayor reminding us about the needs and the way the City can use the DCTA and the mass transit. In terms of a couple of micro directions that I'd like to emphasize, I concur with Mayor Pro Tem that I don't know that we need to be pre-building out road networks for MUDs and other areas, just being mindful of our mobility plan. So I would like to prioritize our land and mobility use in advance of the mobility planning for future MUDs and let them carry more of that burden if they're not going to participate immediately. You know, if you don't want to buy in NX and build in Denton, then that's one of the cons of putting your MUD out in the county. So don't expect us to necessarily prioritize you if that's what you're going to do. So I agree with that and then the last sort of micro direction, I'd like to just remind us as we're laying out the precise alignments of a lot of our mobility planning, and I know you guys do this, but to really be mindful of bridges that run over riparian areas and creeks, especially in the northeast Denton, and to a large degree Hunter Cole and there along Hickory Creek and down through South Denton, as we hit those corridors, we're seeing the impacts of not properly building bridges because we're having that emergency bridge rebuild down there in that southwest section right now where there's accidents and accidents and accidents. But let's just make sure and really, really be mindful of those sustainable sections that are environmentally friendly as well. So I'm just encouraging us on that one. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Mayor, if I could just jump in real quick and just to address Mayor Portin-Melter and Council Member Beck's points about kind of building those roads for the MUDs in the northeast because it's a really interesting discussion and something we had internally as we talked about downgrading those roads. I think an important thing to consider as well is by having them even at that downgraded stage on the mobility plan, we can then have them in the impact fee studies means we can have those future developments pay for those roads as opposed to waiting. If we wait and then the needs there, we lose that funding capability and you might be possibly asking the entire community to pay for those. So that's a reason to keep them on the mobility plan even at that downgraded state. Just obviously it's a trade-off, right, and I get the hesitation there, but that's some of the thought process that went into that. Okay. Thank you, David. Thank you. Anyone else on council? Any other questions? Seeing none. Any further questions on the commission? If not, then do you have any additional presentations? Obviously you have notes on the requested thoughts, changes, that sort of thing. Anything else from staff's perspective? No, sir. Not for my item. I'll turn it over to Ms. Fergens. Okay. Great. I think we'll take a, it's 1119, so let's take a 15 minute break, we'll be back at 1135. I was going to say lunch will be here at 1130. Perfect. So then let's stretch that a bit. So let's come back at 1150. And so in between time, if you have questions or other follow-ups, you can grab staff, talk to them in a minute, but we'll be back at 1150 at bring back lunch or finish lunch, whatever is your preference. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We will adjourn now at 1120. And good morning. It'll be afternoon in one minute. We are back and we are to the second portion of our meeting, but want to just give a heads up at the end. I'm going to ask and make sure from a council perspective that we're all clear on the questions we've provided and ask that we can find consensus to give staff approval to skip another presentation tomorrow so that they can prepare for next week's hearing with the consultant and get them kind of closed out. So at the end of this meeting, just to give you a heads up to be thinking about that, what else can we speak to to clear that out so that they can have a workday tomorrow versus presenting the same information again in preparation for next week's meeting. So that being said, I'll turn it over to Oh, and then so it's what's 12. We're back. And so I'll let you call. Thank you, Mayor. I will call reconvene the commission meeting at 12 noon. Great staff. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chairman Ellis. So I'm happy to be here again to talk about the conference of plan and we're hopefully narrowing down our conversations as we move towards finalizing the document. So with me, I have Ed Boyk with Matrix Design Group, so he and I are gonna be doing a tag team presentation. In fact, majority of it will probably be Ed, but and then also I have Ron Mangito on my team as well to assist with any questions that we have following up. What I would like to do is before we get into the more in depth in our presentation, I thought I'd start with the calendar slide first. We typically wrap up with that, but as you all know, we've had quite a bit of discussion and just wanted to put this on the forefront for your consideration. As we're moving into what I would like to think hopefully is the home stretch with respect to this particular project as well as the mobility plan. So obviously right now we're on February 14th and we had some great discussion earlier and our purpose this afternoon of our presentation is going to recap what we've heard from the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe we have consensus on pretty much everything that we've presented in a path forward. And so Ed's gonna go through all of that recap of what we've heard from both of these groups combined. And then with that, we do have teed up tomorrow afternoon with council in the event. We needed to have one last discussion. Hopefully with the information that we share with you today, that that will not be necessary. But if we miss something during our recap, then please let us know after Ed's had an opportunity to present the slides. But really we're liking to focus on our next steps then after this week is for our public hearing phase. So moving into adoption. So next Wednesday, February 23rd is when we anticipate having the public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is able to offer a recommendation on the comprehensive plan, then we would move forward to the City Council meeting on March 1st for your final action and adoption associated with the plan. Not only the comprehensive plan, but hopefully the mobility plan along with that. We added a couple of additional days to the calendar that might look of interest to you. So you've heard us say many times of the whole area plans discussion, how we've had area plans teed up for right after we get the comprehensive plan adopted. So right now we have that slated for March 9th with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is where we'll enter into that conversation about prioritizing areas that we believe should benefit from area plans. And then once the Planning and Zoning Commission's had an opportunity to have that conversation, then we'll bring forth their recommendations to the City Council for your consideration on April 5th, not 15th, the 5th, so we can get your direction. Because that will also be important as we move into budget preparation, because some of this will need some financial assistance to go along with completing the area plans. But with that, unless there's any questions regarding the calendar, I'd like to turn it over then to Ed Boyk, and he'll start with this presentation. And I would like to tee up just his comments that he's going to make as a result of some additional comments or questions that we received from Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer over the weekend. So Ed, if you're there, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Tina. Ed Boyk with Matrix Design Group, Mayor, Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm happy to be here and present these last, hopefully, items for the work session for this comprehensive plan update. And as Tina had noted, we did receive some comments just over the weekend regarding the same sustainability and how that relates to the comprehensive plan. And we wanted to reiterate that it's a major theme of the comprehensive plan. It's one of the four main elements that's retained in the comprehensive plan update, referenced probably eight times or more in the conservation and environmental element alone. But not only that, the sustainability aspects are touched on throughout the plan, whether environmental, energy, transportation, land use, parks, recreation, open space, and quality of life. So it is a major theme, the sustainability framework, the 2020 update is specifically referred to and identified as well. So it, again, just to reiterate, it is an important aspect of this plan and is a guiding influence as this plan has been prepared and updated. So moving on to the recap of what we heard. On this slide, we just want to make sure that we illustrate that we are hearing what the council and the commission have told us and we're responding to it. So I'm just going to run through these briefly. We confirmed that the vision statement was good. There was no additional comments and it reflects the vision of the community and the council and the commission. We heard that option two was preferred for the future land use map, and I have a slide coming up that'll show that. That shows a little bit more clarity about the authority within the ETJ and those muds that are either through an approved process or pending, moving through a process. The preferred pattern of land preservation, that plan was confirmed. We're going to place that in the plan and I'll talk about that in a future slide. A little bit of detail about the future land use map. There's really no additional changes that was confirmed by the commission. But importantly, we'll show that relationship between the future land use plan and some other plans that are within the document, such as the preferred pattern of growth in the focus area plans. Implementation, we got some good comments on that. We'll talk about that in the slide, as well as Tina alluded to, leaning towards area plans and then the actions in the implementation table, such as infill and redevelopment activities, how we can move forward with that. So I'm going to move on to the next slide and recap the comments we heard regarding the implementation. Council and the planning and zoning commission are both very interested in making sure that this plan was not just one that sat on a shelf, something that could be acted upon and move forwards of these actions, move forward as they should on an ongoing, short-term, midterm or long-term basis. The plan already has accommodations built into it. There's a series of principles that are found in chapter 10 to identify how the plan relates to other plans and policies, how it's to be used, how you should find conformance between the land use plan and the zoning map and so on. But principle five is the one that's very important because it talks about the city preparing and monitoring an evaluation report and using metrics as appropriate to measure that progress of the plan. This will give the city staff an opportunity to work with the planning and zoning commission to work together to actively implement, monitor, assess, and then report forward to the city council the performance of this comprehensive plan. So we're happy to make sure that it's widely known and then transparent that there are mechanisms built in place to take care of the measurement and the continued success of this plan. As I mentioned earlier, there was two different options for the future land use map presented to the city council and to the commission. Option one on the left was the original staff recommendation, but hearing the comments from both bodies, it made it very clear that option two was the preferred way to illustrate those municipal utility districts within the ETJs in Denton. Specifically, low density residential land use is illustrated for those LUDs that have been through an approval process or through a state legislative process and are moving forward for development. The ones which are outlined in pink are the ones that are conceptual. Denton's aware of them. They exist to some capacity, but they haven't moved through a formal approval review or state legislative process at this point. However, in the effort of transparency, they're illustrated on the future map so that the community and others that may use this may understand that while the long-term vision for Denton is to have these preferred preservation land uses, the rural and agricultural land uses throughout the ETJ, there are opportunities and possible situations where that could change depending if those LUDs, which Denton has limited authority for regulating, move forward. In conjunction with the future land use plan is the preferred land preservation plan. No changes are provided between what you've seen last time at the work session and this one, but we are going to include, based on your recommendation, the preferred land preservation plan within the comprehensive plan. It'll be right behind the future land use plan so that there's a clear understanding of the relationship between the future land use plan and this preferred land preservation plan and how they work with each other. Some additional actions will be included in the plan. These will be actions to add some clarification for policies, codes, implementation, consistency between plans, and will be implemented as appropriate to make sure that these different topics such as wildlife corridors, green space, connectivity, parks and trails, et cetera, tree canopy greater than 30%, all of these different things are important to the community, are clearly identified in the action table and the implementation, and will be moved forward and acted upon in the appropriate timeframes as per the comprehensive plan. So the final additional items, again, further evaluation is going to be conducted at this meeting to discuss the mobility plan and its relationship to the future land use plan. As I noted before, that preferred land preservation plan will be inserted into the comprehensive plan based on the comments that we have received. There will be actions will be enhanced as appropriate to make sure that it's very clear about how that preferred land preservation plan is to be used. And then as I noted before, the implementation metrics is another piece that we wanted to make sure was very clear that they will be prepared by staff, the metrics, they will be updated and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and provided to the council annually. And that is something that's already in the plan and helps to make sure this plan is not just that plan that sits on a shelf. The last several slides that I have, I'll flip between them just because the future land use plan and then the plans that follow have a relationship to each other. First, the future land use plan as a general high level sets the overall tone for the land use policy for the community. It's coordinated with existing plans including the parks plan and the mobility plan as we discussed earlier today, as well as it reflects in the more refined detail on planning that has taken place for say the master plan communities as well as showing those muds either through that are approved or not approved but potentially moving forward through the process. But because this is a high level general plan, it works in concert with plans such as the preferred growth scenario plan which is a little different than the future land use plan because this is a plan that helps to identify where those potentially more intense functions could occur like more employment uses or more community building or mixed use or intense development. The circles that were illustrated on there are not boundaries, they're kind of generalized areas that illustrate that these are these focus areas of downtown Denton that would have more intensity at the core and then potentially moderate out to a lower density on the outside so that those low density residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown are not necessarily overtaken and then become something that is not the vision of the community but it just establishes that this is a focus point. A couple have been added to this map in particular, a couple brown circles around the master plan communities to identify that these preferred growth scenario areas are areas where the city expects to see growth occur on the periphery, new areas, the green field areas, as well as the rest of this map is identifying those areas within the community where there could be more redevelopment or infill development. So it illustrates that balance of growth between those new master planned areas and those existing areas that can be enhanced and refined and provide a diversity of housing types and diversity of living arrangements for the community. The purple as noted before is expanded through the area near the west side of I-35 and 288 as well as on the northeast corner of that intersection as well. This is that area that was identified on the future land use map as a light industrial, it's really one of the employment focus areas in the community and it supports and complements the employment areas that are around or will be growing around the Denton Airport into the future as you can see on this map. So moving on to a little bit more focused, appropriately named the focus areas concept plan. This is a focused look at those areas in the community that are either existing today as those special or unique areas in Denton that should be focused on for additional planning and refinement. This has been something that was developed through the 2030 plan process and reaffirmed through the 2040 process. Since the last time you saw this we also, well actually during the last time you saw it there was identification of area planning areas that potentially could be pursued in the northeast part of Denton, southeast of downtown as well as that employment focus area at I-35 and 288. So among that all these different circular dashed areas illustrate those focus areas or areas where the area planning could be focused, not saying that these are the only ones, but those are the ones that were identified through the various community outreach process. The highlighted roadways are those corridor focus areas. So these could be areas that are those gateways or windows into the community that help to define the character of Denton and those could benefit from area or corridor planning that focus in on design or architecture or whatever to help brand the community and illustrate what Denton is to those that may be driving by or through the community or visiting the community for tourist purposes or work or living in the area. Those area plan areas that are identified through those circular dashed areas, they could be things that identify design and character and architecture and land use, it could support mixed use, it could support a single use, but it could be a variety of different things. But the important thing is that these three maps together work together to tell the story about how Denton should move forward from a general land use perspective to identifying those areas where more intense growth or future growth is intended or envisioned in regards to preservation and balanced efforts of growth between new and within the community and then those focus areas to say if we are going to focus growth or have those intense areas of growth, we need to think about ways that we can plan them appropriately to ensure that they reflect the values of the community, the vision of the community, and the character of Denton that is extremely unique so they can continue to be that way far into the future through the year 2040. So with that, I wanted to just go over the next steps that we're looking for at this point. As noted earlier, there could be an additional City Council work session tomorrow. I know that's up for discussion. If there is any discussion that's needed, that will be available. In the meantime, staff and Matrix will work together to edit the comprehensive plan and refine it to make that final version of it and have it ready to go for the public hearing process which will follow starting on the 23rd with the Planning and Zoning Commission and resolving with the City Council on March 1st. And this is the first steps to allowing for that more detailed discussion into prioritizing those implementation tasks such as the area plans, which Tina had alluded to, or not even alluded to but specifically mentioned, starting on March 9th and then continuing on April 5th with the City Council. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions or take and receive any comments you might have. And I'll also turn this back over to Tina if she has anything to add at this point. So thank you. Thank you, Ed. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Reynolds? Thank you, Mayor. Commissioners, any questions at this moment for staff or Ed? Okay. I don't see any at this time, so I'll turn it back to you. Great. Thank you. Council, direction for staff. Anyone? Seeing none. Councilor Betz? This is small and probably niggly, but why on the preferred growth map we're kind of using... This is so small and I feel silly for saying it. I was going to say, now are we policy level or are we getting into the weeds? No, no. It's for this document. No weeds at all. Okay. So the question I have is consistency in presentation for the public facing documentation and it seems like our focus map is different than the rest of our mapping layouts and I've actually... What brought this up is questions from citizens like, I don't understand this sort of blur and style doing the map. And so let me say it might be beneficial to make those mapping stylings consistent throughout the document to avoid citizen questions. You mentioned the preferred growth theory map or the concept map? Let me get to the right. Well, the preferred growth, I think, where we had the purple bars for industrial and shopping and I just was getting a lot of the stylings of it. No, I wasn't getting a lot. I've got a couple of questions so I thought I would bring it up since there was no substantial questions. And that is just in terms of education, outreach and community engagement, maybe if there's an opportunity to make those maps more consistent, I don't want to belabor this point just visually so that as they flip between the different maps, they understand they're looking at the same map over and over and over displaying different things and they know they're looking at Denton. But this is one of those things where I just think we could avoid questions to staff if we make them a little more consistent. Well, and I know we have on that preferred growth scenario map, I know we were making a quick adjustment to the map as a result of direction we received from council. And so we know we need to go back and clean up some of the editing. So if the concern was, well, how come the edges on this purple area are a little more fuzzy and shady compared to the area on the northwest quadrant or at I-35 and 2A? We know we can do a little mapping cleanup there. Those were some crude edits as a result of direction that we've gotten both from PNZ and council to try and move along our conversation so that we know we have some cleanup that needs to be done. You know, if the question though that you're receiving from the public though is the interrelationship between the maps, then so one of the challenge you have is the public's not then reading the words that are in the document also and seeing these maps in the context of the document. So that's where that additional explanation is within the comprehensive plan that explains the relationships amongst the maps. Also we're here as a resource. We continue to be a resource for educating the public. So if folks have questions, whether they're residents or property owners, they're looking to invest within the community, whatever the case is, that's where we as staff also serve as an educator in what the maps are trying to convey and what the document is saying. So I think it's all there, but if they're just looking at these maps individually as what you're getting in your presentations, then they're missing the context of how they're presented. And I will say just as a comment to that, that there's a common phrase in lots of documentation literature of RTFM and I'm not going to say what the F stands for. And I'll leave it to people to Google that in the safety of their privacy of their own homes. Because people simply look at the pictures and they don't follow the narratives. And so just be aware. I'm just trying to save us some future question time is all. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. Commissioner, one more time. Oh, you've got Mayor. Oh, Mayor, President Meltzer. Yeah. Thank you. Actually, not a question. Just gratitude. I feel like you've really listened and I think the plan is being improved through the dialogue. So just thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Barr. I think that this is, you know, very responsive to the feedback that we've all given. And in light of how responsive you all have been, I would feel comfortable skipping tomorrow's work session and just seeing this again at the public hearing. Okay. Thank you for that. See another request to speak, making sure I'm not missing anyone. Okay. Let me check. You good? Yeah. Commissioner, any questions? Okay. I don't see any. Yeah. I'll just say, you know, thank you again for all the hard work. The collaborative effort needed and welcome change to the comp plan. So yeah, it's exciting to be able to move this forward. Thank you. Yeah. And I'll say I appreciate Ed pointing it out and staff pointing it out as well, that annual look at it from a planning zoning perspective, really good. You know, that'll be good to make sure it's active and matches what we've been seeing. And forgive me if I've missed it. Is there anything we can do with respect to, did you have a chance to look into the loophole component with respect to zonings that, you know, kind of the one-offs to help us identify those? Right. So we have an action item within the comprehensive plan that speaks to evaluating the zoning for consistency with the comprehensive plan so that we can continue to look for those. And I think in the instance that you're speaking to, Haley was kind enough to give me a little background information on that, that I think the particular land use in question was actually allowed by right in that particular district, but what I would say is that if the zoning district that's in place is inconsistent with our comprehensive plan recommendations, then there's an opportunity for us to go back and take a look at that. But that goes back to that overarching action item that speaks to periodically evaluating our zoning to make sure it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you for that. Okay. So if there's anyone that is against giving staff a work day tomorrow to finalize this for public hearing, then you'd need to say so. Otherwise, I'm going to assume we don't need to hear the same presentation tomorrow. See none? Great. So that's the direction on both of those. So thank you all very much for your help. Do we have anything else? That's all we had on the agenda. So unless you have anything else- No, that's it, Mayor. Okay. I'm sorry? That's all that's on the agenda. Good. We're finished for today. Good, good. Ed, you do great work. I'm going to give you... No, I appreciate your team being responsive, the additional meetings, that sort of thing. So spinning up and scaling. So thank you very much for that. So then, Commissioner Ellis, anything? It's been... Commissioner Ellis, I used to serve on P&Z together, so this is nostalgic for you. It is. It makes me feel comfortable being next to her. Okay. But anything else you want to add before we... No, I think the only thing that I would like to add is, well, this is the first joint session in my five-plus years on P&Z that we've had. I would have liked to have seen this at the beginning of maybe after we heard it one time versus at the end, when we've had already so much discussion back and forth. I think we could have been super productive, even more so, at the very beginning of this type of plan. So I'll just say that. But thrilled to be here and, yes, wonderful to be sitting on the dais with you once again. Oh, me too. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Councilman Betts? Yeah, just because Commissioner Ellis brought that up, if in future planning sessions with future council, if we could do that, I mean, that's a beautiful comment because a lot of these concerns we had were early on and could have been addressed and not how did this go back and forth. And then I think that really would have been helpful to have a beginning, middle, and then a finalizer. And I love that. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. It was a great comment. Well, I'm glad you all are finding this to be receptive. I've utilized this strategy, if you will, or opportunity to get the groups together on some other projects, and it typically proved very beneficial on those. So I appreciate you all being receptive to the opportunity to have this joint meeting. And where it really can be beneficial is especially if we don't have agreement on certain areas. So I felt like our discussion day was very productive, and so I appreciate you all entertaining this approach, especially as we're moving into the final stretch on this project. But your comments are duly noted and happy to bring you guys together more often on some other projects in the future. Got it. Okay. Well, I think I'll let you close, and then I'll close this. That sounds good. I will adjourn the commission at 1227 p.m. Okay. Thank you. And I'll conclude the council work session at 1227 as well, and we'll be back tomorrow. Commissioner Ellis, feel free to come join us. We start at three. You can come hang out. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, Ed.