Dec 13, 2018 Traffic Safety Commission on 2018-12-13 5:30 PM

Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, December 13th, 2018, Traffic Safety Commission meeting. It is 533 and we do have a quorum. The first item on our agenda is presentations from members of the public. At this point, anybody from the public can make comments. You have up to four minutes. And is there anybody who wants to make public comment? Hello. Okay. Thank you. The previous agenda item that I'd like to ask about, I have no idea what it is, but it's a question that's been raised a lot, and I'm not sure what it is, but I think it's a good question. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. It's a question that's been raised a lot. >> Good evening. Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. I wanted to give you a little bit of background, start with saying that our meeting, this particular meeting, is typically the first Monday of the month. And it was moved because we were having a joint meeting between the city, the mayor, and TW, the chancellor of TW. And we were holding these, not necessarily quarterly, but every other month, every month, depending on how much information we have, to start a collaborative effort similar to what we've started with UNT. And as part of that first meeting, there was interest from TW to look at what happens with a closure. What are their master plans say and what are we as a city required? So we started down that path and we had a meeting a week and a half ago, the first week of December, with TW staff. And this is the presentation that was done on December 6th. And that's why this meeting was moved forward to this particular week. So they want to know as part of their big picture master plan, they want to see if Bell Avenue can be shut down, primarily because of a lot of pedestrian activity across Bell between their campus buildings and the new housing that's going on the east side of Bell. So they want to see what are the options, what is required, what is needed, what does the city want from our perspective, and how would they go about it, would there be a phasing plan, and what are the different aspects that we need to look at. So this is an overview of what we talked about, what's the purpose of the project, what methodology we're going to use, define the study area, it shouldn't be just focused on one particular segment, but look at a big picture. Cost, who's going to pay that cost, who's going to share the cost to do the study, and then last, what are the next steps. So the purpose is a joint integration of their master plan with cities future needs. This is a better way of understanding what the campus needs and provide for that, so that city can plan our infrastructure with this particular in mind so we, we have to determine the existing traffic conditions in and around that particular campus, that's the first step. We'll evaluate the feasibility, is it even feasible, what happens to the rest of the intersections, or even the rest of the streets, and then what are the improvements, if we move forward with Bell, what are the improvements that are needed to the adjoining streets, be it Elm, Locust, even up to Carroll, Riddell, name it. So this is the methodology, we'll go do data collection, a bunch of intersections, street segments, run some future numbers, which is forecasting their master plan, our city growth overall in terms of traffic, and then look at these different build out years, starting with existing 2040, and then conduct some alternative analysis. What if we shut down portions of Bell, what if, what if we provide part time access, you know, few hours of the day if we shut down Bell, what's going to happen, so that those type of alternatives will be analyzed, and then develop mitigations. So this is the area I just want to show you, if we are going to shut down Bell in this particular area, it will impact all these streets, Oakland, Locust, Elm, all the way up to Carroll, because Elm and Locust are not well connected, so there is no detour in between these to going back and forth, so even Carroll comes into picture. There's areas in this north neighborhood, especially this intersection, that will come into picture, we go all the way to, this is Mockingbird or Old North, which covers everything in this area, because if we close this, what are the impacts not only on Riddell, but there are some neighborhoods that have cut through streets. So we're encompassing the whole area, we'll look at it as part of the study. What are the costs? So we reached out to a consultant and asked them, so what do you think are the costs, they're in the ballpark range of $140,000 for this joint study. We are looking at ways to come up with the cost sharing. TW did mention that they don't have cash particularly in hand, but the other aspect they can look at is how do we share different things like sidewalk on Mingo. We need that area next to their fence, if they can move the fence and we can provide that, that's a cost benefit to the city, to the citizens, so we take that as their share or part in this study. So there are different ways of moving forward with this. Total cost is $140,000, this is just a start. So what will happen, this is a long term when everything, all the agreements are in place, we'll move forward with the study, but in the interim what they want to do is they want to calm traffic down in this particular segment and start setting the stage. So the first thing they're thinking about is a temporary roundabout at Chapel Drive. They already have a new access here across that goes into this new building that's under construction currently. So they're looking at how we can set up a temporary roundabout, guide people to start using it, students start learning about it, people slow down. Similarly, they'll put a temporary roundabout at College, which is where they can start diverting people off if need be and then calm traffic in between Chapel and College. So the main idea is to slow everyone down coming into the campus area and make it feel as if you're entering a different zone as opposed to, oh, it's just a straight cut through, going through the campus. Ultimately, also there's another roundabout at North Texas and this, I'm sorry, Texas Street and the reason for this one, the ultimate goal is to shut down Bell between Texas and Chapel and there is a new parking structure off of Oakland here. So any car that wants to come in and won't be able to go forward will use that roundabout to circle back and head either to the parking garage or head out onto Locus. So that's the idea of training people to understand, okay, this is the new setup in the interim, it'll work as a traffic calming device, slow people down, and then also train them that, yeah, this particular segment is going to be something different. So this is an interim and we're working with TWU to come up with ways of implementing this when we're moving forward. So these are the next steps and then questions. So that was the presentation that was given to TWU about this particular item and the reason this meeting was moved, I wanted to start the conversation with Traffic Safety Commission about this is in the horizon, this could go forward and happen, and it's just a beginning. So we want to make sure that you know what's going on and once the results of the traffic study come in, we'll definitely come back with a recommendation of what TWU needs to put in to make things work on Bell. Any questions? Yes. >> Could you make part of that study? >> Jim, we make sure to... >> Could you make part of that study the A-Train extension into the TWU campus? >> We can and we've had conversations with DCTA. There is no substantial movement in that particular aspect. There is a conceptual alternative in the TWU master plan, but it's not--and we'll work with TWU. If they're willing to include that in their master plan, it will definitely be included in the study. But I will leave it up to the feasibility aspect between DCTA and TWU. Just as long as it's considered. >> Yes. >> I do have a question. So somebody emailed me some questions, so I'm going to read it from what they sent me. And so their question is, if the road were closed, would it be open to pedestrians and people on bikes? >> Yes. That is our goal. >> Oh, okay. >> It'll be mostly bike and pet area. >> Okay. All right. And then she writes, if Belle Avenue cannot be closed, what are the plans to improve bicycle accommodations between College Street and University 380 all the way to Windsor? Currently, the bike lane ends on the uphill at College Street. You want to go over there and let--are you going? Okay. >> I know exactly what you're talking about. >> Okay. So I think there's an uphill right here that's where the--so that's exactly where the bike lane drops off. >> Right, yeah. >> And then it merges--so it merges and becomes--so this lane is fully usable by bicyclists as well as vehicles. >> Right, right. >> So right now, it's a shared use area and, yeah, our primary goal is to convert this particular area into more a bike-pet friendly area and keep the traffic out eventually once the study is done. But in the interim, once the roundabouts are put in, this area will be a combined flow area anyways because the roundabout will bring everything together and I think they can actually have slower speeds and drive on the same shared use path. >> Oh, okay. You think that that will slow people down? >> That will definitely slow people down. >> Right. Okay, because I'm kind of wondering too like I'm not on a bike. I don't--I have not done a lot of roundabouts so I'm kind of wondering how that's going to like maneuvering next to a car, how that would work but, you know. >> Yeah, I think typically cars enter a roundabout at about 15 to 20 miles an hour. It's not more than that and that's very low speed compared to some of the other streets that we have in this area. >> Mm-hmm. Okay, I think--let me make sure that I think that's--yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So I think the--it's interesting. So I worked in the building right there on the right for four years on the other side of the street, kind of to the right over here. There you go, just if you see it. Oh, there's old home. So I used to work there and so the thing that's interesting to me is I actually feel like this central part of campus, the street moves very slow. The lanes are narrow. There's lots of things to look at. It does all the things that skinny lanes do. It's right once you get off of those portions, particularly the downhill, is where I see it. So I think the roundabout would be a great way to slow this all down. But--and if TW really wants to shut down the street, I'm not opposed to it, but I also don't see it as a real problem because the car, if you've ever been there when classes are out, I mean, trust me, cars know to avoid it because you're just going to be sitting there waiting for people crossing the street for five minutes. Everyone's crossing and so I think people naturally know so. Yeah, I think that area, this is where it really becomes dangerous real quick because you have cyclists, pedestrians coming off and cars speed up real quick. It's the same problem we have off the square. So just--it's a really interesting plan. I'm just--I've never found a problem in the center part of the campus with cars. They're moving super slow usually. They're not gunning through that area. I think the speed limit changes right here and this is where you're already on the slope and you start accelerating. So this is exactly where it'll slow down and in the next round about it, North Texas will slow them down also. Yeah, that would be good because it wasn't several years ago. I thought a young woman was killed there. Yeah, that's where the fatality was. We have been registering complaints of the danger right before that happened because it is. It's dark. It was wide and dangerous, but yeah. Yes, and we are working on a lighting plan in this area too, street lights. And this is also part of connecting the downtown transit center to TWU is figuring out how to make those roads safer for pedestrian and cyclists. Okay, so this might just be a dumb nomenclature question, but will this be a roundabout or will it be a traffic circle? So we will try and put in a roundabout because ultimately we want to construct a roundabout. We still have to work out the details, but we've talked to TWU and actually Texas Street is a perfect location. If you give me a second. Well, wrong place. There we go. Actually, TWU has this corner. So they actually have enough space here to create that curve to come in. So a roundabout here will fit well and then we'll install the median. So this median, this turn lane is not required. So we'll install the splitter islands in the middle and only one lane goes through. So this intersection has enough space currently that we can convert the approaches into a roundabout. That's great. Is there a timeline that you're looking at? That's a good question. I think TWU is looking at can we get the study completed by next summer? And in the interim, let's start working on what's the cost, what are the pricing for this temporary roundabout. The stuff that we're talking about is more bolt down curbs, rubberized plastic that can be easily bolted down. And then once people get used to it and you want to implement the bigger or the permanent solution, then you can just pull it out. You start using it somewhere else. So that's the plan. Okay. Thank you. You just need us to chat about it, right? Yes. So it's more of a let's get the conversation started. Does anybody else have any questions or comments about? Where do you anticipate the northbound traffic coming from the south to divert to? I mean, are we going over to Oakland? So there are a couple of things. If the north-- if it's a cut-through traffic that goes to this neighborhood, most likely there is a decision point down here that they will use some of the other routes. But if they continue and they're at this intersection, they'll continue going on Mingo. And we are planning to looking at widening Riddell to a larger facility, to a four-lane street where-- and even in their master plan, they have a major entrance to the camp, TW campus in their ultimate master plan from Riddell. So Riddell becomes a major street. This intersection widens up and adds capacity, and that's how you would get into this neighborhood. There are other options. You can use Oakland and then hop on to Locust to go north. So there are different options. And, you know, traffic is like water. You'll find the path of least resistance eventually. Yeah, I figure that most people coming from the south would just-- if they're going to go north and they want to go to the east, they'll just hop on to Mingo right there at Bell. But I was thinking about the traffic that might be on Withers and Texas and also diverting over to Oakland and not-- trying not to-- I mean, there is going to be a parking garage. Yes. But not loading that street up because there is a lot of traffic there, too. So that's exactly what the study will determine is, yes, Oakland has-- currently has on-street parking available. So if we really need the capacity in the future and a lot of traffic has been diverted to Oakland, then what are the changes that we need there? Do we get rid of on-street parking or how do we compensate for that particular parking thing and then provide more capacity on Oakland? Two lanes in each direction or whatnot. Okay. Is Riddell going to be connected eventually? Connected to-- The north and south segments of Riddell? Here? Yes. Okay. It's a CIP project where Riddell is going to-- actually, it's-- yeah, it's going to swing across and then connect here. So it's going to be a 90-degree connection to Mingo. So there is-- it's currently under design. So, yeah, long-term good plans around this area. Yeah. And are you going to close Pertain when you do that? Pertain. Are you going to leave that open? So one of the-- there are several options, but one of the options is this will go around that way. Wayne can continue further and connect to Riddell. So we'll lose this crossing and then lose that crossing. And there will be only one crossing instead of two crossings at the railroad. Okay. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. Carry on. All right, that means we move on to item 2CTSC 18-049, which is to hold-- receive a report, hold discussion, and make a recommendation to city council for approval of ordinance to restrict on-street parking along the east side of Bernard from Willowwood to Acme Street. So this is one of the first ones for the parking. And there are several concerned resident requests as well as a request from council member or Mayor Pro Tem Ryan about this particular segment. This is segment of Bernard from Acme Street to Willowwood Street. So currently, the way it functions, this is 377, connects to 35. Majority of the traffic entering this neighborhood uses that access to go into the neighborhood. And one of the issues is currently on Acme, parking is prohibited both directions. It's a very narrow street. I think it's 25 or 26 feet wide. So parking is restricted on either side. There is no parking on both sides. When you get to this particular intersection, parking is allowed on both sides. And people start going north. There is commercial. After this first house goes, there is a commercial area. And then especially in the evening rush hour when people are returning, the major concern is there is only one lane available. It's currently 26 feet wide. With parked cars on both sides, you have less than 20 feet. You have barely that one car could fit in. So every once in a while, you have a car that's in front of you and then you have to back out in a driveway area or a space that's open. So that's what's happening. In the neighborhood, residents are really frustrated with this particular segment. And then once they hit Willowwood, which is this street, Willowwood is no parking on either side. So that portion, they're fine accessing. So right now, there is this small connector piece between Acme and Willowwood that has some serious parking concerns as far as access, safety, people not able to get into the neighborhood. And that's the reason we looked at it according to the fire code, as I mentioned in the AIS, according to fire code, if you have anywhere between 26 and 32 feet of street, you're only allowed to park on one side because according to the code, they need 20 feet clear. And then fire code requires at a minimum a six-foot parking lane. So this is a perfect candidate, this particular small segment is a perfect candidate for restricting parking on one side. And if the parking on one side is restricted, then the fire lane requirements are met. You have 20 feet on one side as well as it will alleviate safety concerns from the neighbors, especially when it starts getting darker early and early. So that's why at this point, staff is recommending that the commission approves moving forward and recommends approval to council for restricted parking on the east side of Bernard where majority of the frontage is commercial. Any questions? >> I guess the question I have is, and I think it's a great idea, but where do those people park then if they can't park over there? Is there other places for them to go? >> So that's a good question. This is a commercial frontage anyways. Bernard Street parking is allowed on the south side on both sides. And the street is, I'm not sure exactly the width of the street, but slightly wider than the north side. So, but this particular is a very highly used travel path. So it's a main connector for the whole neighborhood, especially when you have that one interchange. The other place that people connect is the full interchanges at North Texas. So if you see that this becomes a big entry point, and that's why given the flow of traffic and the volume, that's the reason it's been requested that we restrict parking on one side. Any other questions? And obviously these commercial uses, they're not using on street parking at nighttime anyways. >> Did we get any feedback from property owners? >> We have not received any property owner responses. We've contacted all these property owners that are fronting all of these on either side, and we have not received any feedback. I mean, we've already, we've done letters and door hangers in the past two weeks. >> Okay, any other questions, comments about this? Okay, so we're looking for, we're just discussing this. Are we going to make a-- >> Recommendation to the council. >> Make a recommendation. Make recommendation, okay. Does, and do I have a recommendation to move this forward? >> Excuse me real quick, is this a chance for him to get to speak, or? >> He's on. >> He's the next. >> Yeah, he's on next. Give him a call, find out if he wants to talk. Okay. >> It's just one side. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. >> Staff recommendation. >> Okay. >> I second it. >> And a second, everyone in favor? Right hand up. There you go. Okay, it's unanimous, that will go forward to council. So that brings us to item 2D, which is TSC 18-051, which is to receive a report, hold discussion and make recommendation to city council for approval of ordinance to restrict on street parking along the west side of Hinkle from Windsor to University Drive. Yes, this -- so when we wrote the AIS and our recommendation, we did not have the meeting that we had last night. We had a last night meeting. We -- staff met. There's a Hinkle Drive drainage project along Hinkle and Windsor area. So there are drainage improvements along this area as well as along Hinkle. And then this whole street will be repaved, Windsor and Hinkle. So that was the project. So we had a public meeting. And there is a brand new development going in here. So it was kind of a combo meeting. Just a quick background on that. We received feedback from residents about not wanting to restrict parking on Hinkle. And in that case, we want to let the commissioner know that we need to weigh that option at this point. It was not part of our AIS. So staff recommendation, what we can do is we can hold this item. We can come back later or we can make -- reject our recommendations that we don't want to restrict parking. So that's -- all these options are in the table. But I want to present the case in the light that there have been several concerns about the bicycle lane on Hinkle. I know the pavement conditions are not the greatest. Hinkle is in really poor bad -- poor conditions. And I don't think there was -- there's a -- it shows up here. But there was a bike lane installed on Hinkle next to a parking area. So there was a parking area marked a bike lane and another bike lane on the other side. What was happening is the cars were being parked in the bike lane. Drivers were driving in the bike and the parking lane. So there was not clear direction. People were confused what usage went where and there were a lot of complaints about what's happening. There was a very little understanding of -- so if you look at this striping, this is what existed at some point. So that's a parking area. That's the bike lane in the area. These are the two travel lanes and this is the second bike lane. So that's how it was striped. And for the longest time, people were driving using both the bike area as well as the lane. And then it was expected that the bicyclists should be driving in the parking area. So there was not clear understanding. There was some issues. Yes, the pavement is bad. So one of the options and alternatives we looked at as part of that project is what if we remove parking and create buffered bike lanes on either side? We looked at parking utilization. It's very low. There are a lot of these lots further down the street. As you can see, there's barely any parking that barely have any access. There's one house that has access. All the others in the subdivision have access to the cross streets. So if you look at some of these, one has that and then all of these have access here. So a lot of them park along these cross streets and that was the thinking behind our recommendation even before we had that public meeting. So the whole idea was to create buffered bike lanes on both directions, remove parking and two travel lanes. Given what feedback we received in last night's meeting, we're open to having a discussion and looking at things differently. If parking is required, then staff can work in that direction. >> Okay. I have a quick question for Preetam. How many people came to your meeting last night? >> How many were there, Tracy? About 50 or 60 people, I think. It was packed. It was really packed. >> All right. >> Very well attended. And I think we heard from four or five people that this parking is needed. So that's when we stepped back and said, okay, this is good feedback. >> Okay. All right. All right. Yes, please. And I'm going to make you do it all over again. State your name, your address. >> Yes, ma'am. Again, my name is Gary Dickens and I reside at 1201 Amherst Drive, which I don't know, can I use this? It's way down, way down the street from where this one's showing. >> Saying that there's limited or no very limited usage of the parking, I would agree in part, but it is used regularly. I don't know what you consider regularly. I don't park there every night, but I have family members that park there three to four times a week anytime I have visitors come to my house. Because where my house is located, I have a stop sign in front of my house and a mailbox. There's no parking in front of my house whatsoever. And so Hinkle allows parking legally for me to park. The problems that Hinkle has, I would say, is with the striping. The communication that's there, if you see on like this picture, they've included the parking lane and a bike lane, but because of the way it's striped, it's very vague and ambiguous. And then if it was clearly striped, I think people could see where the parking is allowed and where the bicycle path would be. I'm not against having a bicycle lane by any stretch. I think it's awesome. But removing the parking would create just a nuisance to myself and some of my neighbors. It's going to increase parking on the side streets in front of my neighbor's homes. There's going to be my friends and family and things like that that will be parking there. My neighbor across the street directly and myself, we do park on Hinkle on a fairly regular basis. So for me, I didn't know there was a meeting last night, otherwise I probably would have been there too. But that's just my opinion. I don't know if I'm missing anything, I think. That's our biggest concern is that by removing, by making it not legal to park there would just create a nuisance and just a problem. I mean, we can live with it, we'll find a way, but we'd like to avoid it if possible. Any questions that you want for me as a homeowner? Yes, sir. So I'm just curious, how crowded is the street that's on the side of your house? Amherst, the street Amherst is a very busy street because it's a cross-through street from university. So people turn off to get away from university either at Malone Street or Cornell or even down at Georgetown. And they'll use Amherst as a cross-through, so it's very busy. There's parking on both sides of the street, but like again, my neighbor has a mailbox and so there's limited access on his front. And with my stop sign and mailbox, there's not much access. We actually park one of our cars between my house and my neighbor's house, so I'm actually parking in front of their house fairly regularly. Well, every night. It is really. So if you had family over and wanted to park there, like on a regular basis, how far away would they have to park? Oh, a couple houses down maybe if they were parking. And we could park across the street in the parking lot, but again, that's not technically legal to have the towing signs, things like that. Because we're not we're not either going to the church or to the movie tavern, because that's the parking lot that's across the street from my house. So just I'm just thinking of all possible solutions, and I don't even know. Pretend might be really interesting to see what our various options are on that street. Do we are we ever able to negotiate with like a private parking lot that has availability during times or something like a case like this? Could they open it up or not tow if there's extra parking being used? Do we have any success with stuff like that? Yeah, I don't think we have any agreements with private parking lots. It becomes a liability issue for them to open it up to public and then safety concerns that they have. So the parkings, his house. So he's a damn hearse. If you just go further down that direction. So this this is my house here. And again, with the stop sign and the mailbox, there's no legal space to park because I'd be too close to the stop sign. So we park oftentimes between that first and second tree there. Plus, you'll see my trash bins in this picture. You can actually see the trash bins. That's where my trash and recyclables are put out on the street, as well as most of my neighbors along Hinkle. All put our trash bins and recycle bins, which would be in the parking lane if it's allowed to park. Well, so if we got rid of this swoopy curve, couldn't the potentially the stop sign move out like six feet towards the road? And then you would also have parking spots there, too. Would that be another solution to create spots or do we have to have swoopy curves? And that's that's consistent with our standards. The swoopy curves is a minimum radius required for turning vehicles. Trucks, larger trucks, larger vehicles, you won't be able to turn it. That curve changes and becomes a really angled corner. What do you mean? It looks like there's like a ton of room there. So if it was straight, came straight out, what would? So the turning from the other side into and turning out onto Hinkle. If you look at the double yellow line, a vehicle that is larger would not be able to make that without going onto the curb. They're very real to drag. So that's a minimum standard criteria for our curves. And the way they've changed the striping, you can see where they've moved the striping over for the lineage. And so there's plenty of lane space as far as there always has been. But now there's even more space for parking that would not cause any kind of hindrance with traffic because it should be a one lane either direction. And if you choose to change that, I'll come and protest that as well. Well, I'm just I don't know if the questions are specifically for you, but for whoever, right? As part of kind of the discussion. So yes. So what are the what are the options here? I mean, so right now is that I have another comment card. So let's go ahead and let's see if we can. OK, thank you. Hang tight. We might have more questions for you. But is Gail here? Gail Garber. OK. OK. So I have a comment card from Gail Garber, who resides at 1200 Meadow Ridge. She is she didn't check. Oh, she does not want to speak, but she's in opposition. Her comment is parking is used more during the summer and daytime than now. It real viewing now and an evening, not a good comp to use as data that is relevant. I personally have used parking on Hinkle multiple times. My work crews in my house use the parking. Also, both Good Sam and Brookdale have used the street parking in just the past two months. So we have two comments in opposition. I want to ask, like looking at Hinkle and I've spent time on my bike on Hinkle. And it's really it seems to me like Hinkle is two different ecosystems. We have this system that where the houses are and then we've got that stretch where cars speed up and where there has been a fatality years ago. There was a cyclist cycling fatality on Hinkle. And I'm wondering whether we could think in terms of bifurcating the treatment of Hinkle and the more northern part. Get the treatment that we're talking about removing parking, protected bike lanes. But then the section that's next to the residential areas, there will be some natural traffic calming with cars in the street. And it's true. If you're going to follow the rules and not park in front of the stop sign, then those houses lose some significant parking on the streets that they front. That's a thought. I know we don't have to make a decision tonight and there probably will be more meetings. So lucky you. So just so that, you know, yesterday's meeting included a big development going in. It's a residential development. So I think it'll mostly come in line with residential on either side, this particular north section. So it probably will change character soon and may require that parking as part of that. That's what we heard is the development may require parking on Hinkle. Could they, I mean, since we're going to get some fresh, you know, greenfield kind of dug up there, would some onus be on the development to provide more of a setback potentially including more bike and pedestrian infrastructure on Hinkle? They are putting in sidewalks on Hinkle. Okay. And as far as setbacks, I can't talk to about how much setback they have. It's more of a planning facet. I think that's some kind of-- that was kind of a dense development, I believe, that was going in there. What's the density there? NR3 development. Oh, okay. [ Inaudible Remark ] I'd like to get this sweater for the record that you have on your description. That's awesome. Okay. My name is Tracy Beck. I live at 611 Magnolia, which is in this area. Okay. I thought I could outrun this project. I worked at TextDOT. I opposed the neighborhood. And then I'm working at the city, and I'm actually not opposed to the neighborhood. And I had a lot more involvement. And my mother got me this sweater, which I was going to change out of. And I said, "I'll be on camera with the sweater that you bought me that she now doesn't remember buying me." So it's fun. Okay. So my great introduction. I attended the meeting last night, which we anticipated was going to be a CIP, the Capital Improvement Project, because it's been long awaited from all of the neighbors, including myself. And one or two people were very interested in hearing about that project in a very full room. And they said, "Let's hear about that fireside development," because there's been a lot of changes. There were going to be townhomes at one point. Then they turned into that they were going to be a senior development. And that was a huge point last night, was where did that senior development, senior living, not assisted living, but just gated senior community. So at that point, a lot of the residents last night saw what was originally fireside senior has now become fireside, a new development, which is just traditional NR3. NR3? Okay. So it's 107 homes, approximately, I want to say it was 30 acres. I might be wrong on the 30 acres. It may have been 40 acres. But it's a gross amount of the one, three homes per acre. They have a detention pond in it, which takes up some common area. They've got actually two ponds that are going in. So with that information, the residents last night have seen two different fireside projects. And they are confused as to which one is coming in, because they have the same name with two totally different developers, two totally different entities. And it's been over a couple of years. So there was a lot of information shared last night, as well as a lot of concern about traffic and such. So one of the things that came up with this development is that they've got one point of access on Henkel, and it's going to align with MIMOSA as proposed. The project's been approved. It's gone through platting, it's gone through zoning, it's on final plat. And if you're out there today, it's under construction. So the time to ask them to do anything additional, their traffic study didn't suggest anything significant. It sounds like a lot of homes, 107 homes. But in the reality, in the new neighborhoods that we see, that's not a lot of traffic. What we did with this new home, because it switched from a senior development into a traditional non-senior, is we opened up, I've got a little arrow. We opened up a second point of access up here. It was going to be a fire access only, because the original neighborhood needed two points of access. Our development code says do not access an arterial. So when the first neighborhood came in, we said you don't have enough traffic to warrant two points of access. To relieve some of that traffic with the new development, because there will be more traffic, we opened this up so that the majority of the people that need to go to the west, to the north, 35W, won't use Hinkle. They're going to have an outlet to go to Razor as far away from all of the neighbors on Hinkle. And then this driver right here is going to be as far south as possible, so anyone who doesn't want to go north will end up having to further south so that they have the least impact to all the neighborhoods, stay away from the intersections. One of the components that was brought up with this development is that we've changed our cross sections for our roadways. We mentioned earlier about the 32 feet of right of way for being the minimum amount for the fire trucks to access where we have no parking. The group here, when they came in, we had two different codes, and we said you're not going to be allowed to park on the street if you come in with this. So that's another factor that might come into play, is that the lots will be a little bit smaller than what's existing. There may not be as much parking on street that they need, so there could be some overflow onto Hinkle. The other item that was brought up last night in conversation was that we've got Brookdale as a senior development, as well as Good Sam on the east side. I can't see too far from here, so look at this screen. What was brought up last night, which I haven't observed because I'm usually here at the city, is that when there's activities, family night, there's not quite enough parking for Brookdale, so they'll actually use the street parking. And I don't observe that. I'm not there during the times. As well as Good Sam, I believe they have sufficient parking, but they're under construction now, so it's possible the equipment might be parking on the road is what people are seeing. But there are some opportunities for some input that we received last night that, as Preetam said, we weren't aware of when we made this recommendation. So the citizens have really helped us out, understand a little bit better what's going on during the day. It's not a traditional parking, and when you come home from work, you park on the street, or your kids are parking on the street. It's a slightly different use. So I'll be glad to answer any questions from anything, or I'll be glad to turn it back over. >> You said there was going to be an entrance off Hinkle from Mimosa? >> It's going to be right here. >> Okay. >> That's the one main point of access that will be, it's the point of access. >> So there will be no other streets north of that? >> No. >> Connecting into Hinkle? >> One connection to Hinkle, yes, sir, and then there was going to be one connection. Some of the conversations that were brought up, people are concerned about traffic cutting straight through Mimosa and getting to Carroll. They're upset with that a little bit, and they wanted to have it offset and have maybe the street mid-block. The problem with that mid-block is that people are, you've got the bicycle lanes, you've got the sidewalk connections and whatnot. We kind of want to line the streets up. It's desirable for traffic flow, it's desirable to control the complex points. So offsetting that, it isn't a traditional favored alignment. We understood what they were trying to get to, but if somebody's turning out here, they believe that if you offset the alignment, it'll slow them down from here. The opposition was on the other end of the street. They said, well, they'll just make up lost time and speed at the other end of my street. So we've opened up some neighborhood meeting discussions with them saying if we want to come back and look at traffic calming, this is a long stretch of road going through there. So they said that they were interested in some of our neighborhood meetings at Pre-Tem started over the past couple months. So just the one point. So there will be homes fronting Hankel? No, no, no, just one street, one street access. Okay. But no homes with driveways out onto Hankel? No, sir. Why do they need parking if that's going to be that one access? Inside the neighborhood, there won't be on-street parking. There's going to be limited on-street parking because the widths of the roadways they'll have, they're not going to be wide enough. As we were mentioning on Bernard, the road widths are not wide enough to allow for the fire. When they came through, we had a different cross section. They built and designed towards that. The design standards change where we said we would not permit, you can roll a curb, you can make it wider with a rolled curb. The response from the developer said it's too late to change anything. We're not going to widen it and we're not going to change our curb width. We'll just do no parking. So it was their choice to have no parking on their streets. But they'd have to walk out of the subdivision essentially to get to parking? Yeah. I'm also quite, I'd be interested to see how often that actually happens, right? Because people tend, especially when they're used to parking right in front of a place, not to park anywhere unless it's in front of that place. They would often give up going on their location as opposed to. I wonder if that, will that be used? I guess my bigger question too is one of the best ways to, if we're conceiving a traffic problem and other things, a great way to do it is to get people out of their cars and quit driving because cars are traffic. And so bike lanes would be one thing that would potentially help with this. And so I'm sure there's a solution here, but I would hate in a city like Denton where we just really don't have bike infrastructure hardly at all to totally lose it. So that's what I'm curious about is what solutions do we have? We can accommodate both to that end. The other thing I want to point out is this area is going to be completely updated through a parks project. There's going to be tennis courts, there's going to be, there's one tiny building here, there's going to be additional buildings and facilities. And they're going to have a parking lot internally. But if parking is allowed on this particular segment, it would support overflow parking for events or tournaments or what's going on. So that's the other angle to keep in mind that this would serve a purpose of attracting more people to this center as it grows. >> Okay, and there's parking on both sides of Hankel right now, right? >> Right now, it's parking is only on one side. >> Only on one side. >> Correct. >> It's on the west side. >> It's on the west side, correct. West side. >> And there's bike lanes on both sides there, right? >> Correct. >> Which of course we, I mean, I can't imagine most people know those are bike lanes based on the lines and everything. >> Right, right. >> It's very, I can see how it all would be confusing. Yeah, the striping is not very good. >> We'll make sure that it's done better once it's completed. >> What about, and I'm just, I don't know what the width of bike lanes have to be or what their requirement is there. Because I don't, I wouldn't expect this to be an especially high volume for biking. Is there the possibility where you have two-way bike lane going right next to each other, potentially with cars parked as a buffer between and then the two lanes on the other side? >> That's a possible option. One of the issues with two-way bike lanes is expectations at driveways and intersections. People don't usually look at, they only look one side or one direction. They don't look at the other direction. If you have a two-way, there's extensive signage, extensive education component associated. And then we have to make sure that it's done in a safe manner, so. >> Okay. >> Yes, it is a possibility, but it's much more involved. >> Because then you're also not, your bike, you're not going in the same direction as the traffic if you have it on both sides. [ Inaudible ] >> It seems like this is really still up in the air, right? I mean, the project, the possibility of the parking. >> Yes, based on the input that we've received, we may go a different direction and we may not come back to request restriction of parking. >> Okay. But it also seems like if the Hinkle is going to have a major facelift with that development over there on the west side, that there could be some good creative ways to really protect the bike lane while leaving parking where it serves the residents on the south side. Just, again, be creative along the way, but also protect the bike lane well. >> Correct. >> Yeah, I think you have an option here to be creative and create a demonstration project for future bicycle infrastructure. Like the bicycle lane by the curb with cars. >> With buffered car parking. >> With cars buffering or put in some bollards or whatever to make it protective. It's a good opportunity to do a demonstration project. >> Isn't there going to be, wasn't there going to be water mains put underneath there too? >> Correct. So it's a storm drain project. It's drainage. And then the streets will go in and redo the street pavements. >> Is there anything else you want to say? It sounds like we're just going to leave stuff for a while. >> Yes, and if there will be more public meetings, they will door hang. Yeah, leave your information with pre-tem. >> Yes. You can leave the information with Becky and then we can reach out to if there's anything happening in this area. >> Right. And you go into the record. So it will be official. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> So the direction is, yeah. >> Just hang loose. >> Table the item, yes. >> Right. Is that an official direction we can take? Hang loose and wait for, wait for what's going to happen. Yeah. Okay. That brings us, I really do think that we could do something really good with that. And something that could serve as a template for future development. >> All right. That brings us to ETSC 18-053, which is staff reports, including the matrix. >> Some of the items we've already brought forward and we want to take it off of the list. I want to quickly jump to the ones that we want to take off of the list. And then go into the ones that are here that we'll bring back in the next couple meetings. But number two, I think small area plan is almost wrapped up. That's what I heard in P and Z. >> The council has, it's been moved from council next week. >> Oh, okay. >> We were supposed to go to council. It was approved last night, six to zero at planning and zoning. We were supposed to go to council next Tuesday, but it has been withdrawn from the agenda. >> Okay. >> For next week. The hope will be we'll be back in January. >> Okay. But I did hear that there are several options as far as parking. They're creating parking zones and parking things. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So I think this Marietta Street in between Oak and Scripture is a perfect street for this particular plan to be implemented. So we can bring it back. But for now, I mean, it's been on the list for a while and we're closing the small area plan pretty much. >> Right. >> Okay. Old Alton Road. That was an issue where they were crossing Teasley across to get to Geyer High School. They were parking on Old Alton. A temporary city worked with TxDOT and installed a temporary signal and a pedestrian signal. And we're working closely with the ISD, Geyer principal, as well as TxDOT to monitor that operation for the pedestrians. So I would like to take this off. It seems it's been addressed. McKinney sidewalk. That's number six. That one is already on a list of projects. It's 2018 design sidewalk. I'm sorry, 2018 sidewalk package, which is currently under design and which will be going to construction early, middle to around summertime, I would say, early spring, late spring, early summer. And we're wrapping up certain design elements. But yeah, we understand that this sidewalk on McKinney right across from here is on it and will be designed and implemented soon. So I want to, I think it's already going to happen, but we can bring it back. If nothing happens in the next six months, we can talk about it. So we'll be on you. But number, item number eight, we've talked about the, we brought an item forward and we went through discussion. Why, why not? How you want to take that out? And then those are the ones that I want to take out. The station motors, number nine at McKinney. We have contacted enforcement. It is more on a community improvement services that they need to enforce it better. We are working on delineating the right of ways because it's, lines are blurred in that area where the actual property owner doesn't understand where their property line starts and they've striped it and marked it. It could be within a city right of way or so it's a bigger involved process to get through the right of way and understand who's owning what property instead of just going in and say, just remove your cars that are on the sidewalk. It's more of now we have to establish the right of way. So it's involved and it's taking a lot longer. So I'm just giving an update that that's where we're at. Temporary improvements to Hickory for bike lanes until the project is complete. I think we're looking at tabs or some other temporary paint. The project is under design which should go to construction pretty soon in the next three to four months. So hopefully we can get there but with the winter months it becomes a tough job to paint anything. It doesn't really catch. There are wet days so it becomes a, are you throwing your money away kind of deal. So it's I think and part of that was lighting. Yes. So lights are coming and then that intersection at Hickory and Carol. I think we're there was a resident meeting with council members. I think you were there. Okay. Organize that one. You organized. Okay. And part of the response was there are four intersections that are right. In fact, they're really low in lighting. And what we want to do is look at, at a minimum, how can we improve the intensity of the bulbs. I mean, put a larger bulb in there instead of 250 watt. How about 400 watt. I mean, that's a start. And then we'll see if there are other locations we can install lights when the feasibility of, for example, Bell and Hickory what's the feasibility of using the corner where Weldon used to be, because that's the darkest corner. That corner and the right of way is so close and narrow that we can install a pole there. So we're looking at feasibility in the long term. But in the short term we want to intensify all the lighting and there are several locations within the downtown area and there are several locations on the university that we're getting questions about. And I would, I would say that a lot of lighting is simply scale, because the lights are so high up on those poles that there's a lot of light up there. But there are, it's not pedestrian or bike or even really, you know, city vehicle city, you know, vehicular traffic scale, because you've got a lot of stuff going on up here, not as much going on down here. So, okay, we recently went to council with a light study. It was a feasibility for light street lighting along us 380. It was between I-35 and Mayhill, a 5.4 mile stretch, and we looked at how can we provide continuous lighting, and what are the, what's there today, and what needs to be there. And that's the study that was presented to council, the direction we received was to move forward with design, which is close to half a million dollars. So we can bring that item and present it to you to understand what are we doing. So I'll bring that item. If I can just briefly talk about why that meeting commenced real quickly, and I'd just also like to, on the record, give a lot of props to Keely Briggs, District 2, and Gerard Hutzabat, District 1, who met on a whim when, it basically came after concern. We had a citizen hit, crossing the street, hit and run. But anyone who's spent much time crossing that intersection at Carroll and Hickory knows it's dangerous, and there's a lot of pedestrian activity. There should be. It's between the square and UNT. We should want more than even there is. And so we brainstormed ways to make it safer. It is a really constructive meeting with a lot of ideas about possibilities. And a lot of things, you know, are good planning. And so it was really good. But we basically identified two areas as being really problematic for pedestrians that we actually control still. And that was from Oak to Mulberry on Carroll as being an area that how can we slow down traffic on those two basically two blocks where you're going to have way more pedestrians than the rest of that road and then from and then over by DCTA basically from you could probably from Mulberry to McKinney even there about slowing those two areas. So it was a really productive discussion. It was great. And I hope we can help in that. So I know that I think they wanted us to mention that in the meeting that they're working on that too. Yes. Thank you for organizing that one. Yeah, I always think that pedestrians and I cross at Hickory if I'm in my office and I come downtown for you to the development center for meeting. It's a quick 13 minute walk. But I always think that because of all the infrastructure at those cross at those crossings pedestrian pedestrians look out of scale. They look tiny. And so I understand that part of it is absolutely street with but I think there could be a lot of ways that we could start bringing it down so that we see things and we see people because otherwise everything that is so, you know, so tall. And then there's anybody people stand in there and you know when I'm standing there how tiny I must look. But if there are ways to start just bringing streetlights down bring you know more trees if possible. We, we had one of the people that came was a we two librarians come and they're tremendous researchers if you didn't know. And so one of the librarians she's at TWU she really prepared like did research and prepared an excellent report of options. That's just really helpful and imagining possibilities and so I'm not going to go over all those because that would take a while, but it's really incredible. It's probably like seven eight options good options to slow down traffic in those those blocks. So I hope we can move on those. So we are working on the rest of the items and we'll slowly bring these back as they become or agendize them so that we can have a bigger discussion or give you a quick update that will fix this or not fix this or why. So if there are any other items you want to add that's I was gonna make one clarification on seven. This is how long these things take right so that sushi business went out of business a while ago I'm sure everyone knows where that is but that's where yes it's just off of where the is it what's the breakfast place their Park Hill. I know you don't talk about yeah is it something like that. Yeah. So okay I just want to make sure you knew because that I know exactly what the location is and what we're working on that one is we're trying to look at designing and implementing 88 compliant Rams and we're conducting an 88 transition plan. It will be part of that because that plan will actually identify the cost and prioritize areas where it's highly used by and highly highly pedestrian active areas so that would give us enough ammunition if you may to move to council and say hey these are the areas we really need to focus on and need money for. So that's where we're at. For the for the new one I have one addition and one quick question. So the addition is a very almost the exact same thing as that one by the formerly by the sushi place where we're just mentioned across the street from Dusty's if you know where Dusty's is on. Yes it's on Elm right across the streets exact same situation short little island with no you know basically everything else around it you could get around on a wheelchair but you would literally just have to stop and roll into the street to get around it so it's the same situation. Very simple. I don't think but so it's directly across the street from Dusty's is where you can see that. And then one question Keely Briggs actually actually asked me to bring this up we talked about this on the square. Right now I think you have to press the button to do it. I've really noticed real delays like I've sat through two lights I walked up and maybe I pressed it right right before right before and I've been sitting through like two light cycles you're just standing there forever as pedestrian why cars are going and so I don't know if it's something we could look at she asked about even with that is there a possibility of it being more automatic or something so she wanted me to bring that up. So, yes she's brought that up. We're looking into actual ADA compliance laws because we, when we upgraded the intersections we made them a compliant meaning a visually impaired person comes up to comes up to the intersection, and he does not know which direction is going. So, it becomes a hassle for that particular person to figure it out if all the directions are moving all the time, and figure out which direction to cross so ADA compliance, make sure that once you hit the button the sound starts and you start receiving sound from the other end. And that's why so we're trying to find out if there is a middle ground where it can activate when an ADA or visually impaired person walks in, it can activate and do the whole audio thing. At the same time it can go into a continuous pedestrian place so we're finding out if by doing that, are we not, are we compliant or not compliant so we've asked the question once we find out well, I'll let everyone. Anybody else have anything one. I have a question I've been here on a short time so maybe this is probably already come up but I'm curious. When you're on a bike, and you come up to an intersection, and there's no one else around, I often rely on automobiles to trigger the signal for me. So, is there, isn't there something that can help along that line. Yes, some of the older signals in the in and around the unit area that don't have it yet. But the new detection system on all the intersections that we're now replacing picks up bike is not the loop based it's not the in pavement, but these are more of radar base so it, it just catches any movement it's motion based. So when you come in it doesn't matter the size is motion, and then there is a camera also associated with it so yes new intersections will catch a bike or smart smaller vehicle. The older ones were in the process slowly replacing them, but it's going to take a while to get all of the intersections. Good to know. Thanks. Have you ever jumped up and down. We're getting off balance here, simply because pre temp took off a bunch. Keep the balance. Keep the balance, but I'll add on more. Well as I observed a significant traffic accident at Old North University today. Okay. I was wondering how the report from the police is coming. I haven't today. Today's accident. Yeah, they had an accident this afternoon. It was pretty, pretty good one. I have not seen the report, but I can request it and provide a response as to what was the cause and what happened. I can provide that. Well, I'm not necessarily interested in that particular one, but you know we're wanting to get a report so that we can look at. Yes, all the areas that are being the type of accidents where they're occurring. Correct. If there's anything we can help with. So I've asked PD and one of the real issues with the way they have set it up. Their reports are not easily. They're scanned in. So you can't really search them as far as, okay, what type of accident, what really caused it. So someone really has to go in and create a report. Okay, this is what happened. So I have asked for an annual report or a incident location where there are more incidents. But when I got the information back, it didn't come with, what was the cause. So it's hard to come up with a solution if we don't know what is the cause or what type of accidents are happening. Are they broadsided? Are they head on collisions? Are they people failing to yield or people under influence? So we don't know the details when we get there. So I'm working with PD to get better information. That's why it's on the matrix, but I understand they're having some troubles with setting up the software. Once we have a report, I'll get an annual last, at least a year of data as far as what are the most, what are the locations where the accidents are very frequent. I think highest on the list was 380 at 35. And I think there's one on loop 288. So there were a couple on loop 288 actually. So those have high volumes and obviously they have high accident rates. Will this be sorted by motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle? Yes, exactly. So mostly I'm focusing on pedestrian and bicycle accidents. That way we start with that because those are most fatal or injury oriented ones. Okay, anybody else have anything? And with that, we will adjourn at 6.52. And that's it. See everybody in January.