Jul 08, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-07-08 5:00 PM

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session meeting for Wednesday July 8th 2020. Seeing that we have a quorum I'll call this meeting to order of 5-0-1. The first item of business on the agenda will be our work session reports. We have two this evening and if you'll note on the agenda there is an item 3-1-A which is closed meeting and that's in response if there's any requirement to have a closed meeting in the work session report on planning. So we don't necessarily need to go into that but it's reserved for space if we needed to go into a closed meeting. With that being said Richard if it's okay with you I think we can just jump into the work session report. Okay we'll have Brian John go ahead and pull up his presentation and present on the Mobility Plan traffic signals. This is item 2A PZ 20-145. Good afternoon members of the Planning and Zoning Commission my name is Brian John I'm the city traffic engineer. I've actually got two presentations I want to give tonight. The first one will be on the Mobility Plan and just give you a quick update of what's been done and where we're going and then the second will be on some traffic signal installation and removal requirements or criteria. So the Mobility Plan is being updated well hopefully the end of this year beginning of next year we'll have a new adopted Mobility Plan. Our purpose tonight is kind of to introduce the Mobility Plan for an overview of the milestones what we've done and the type and amount of work that's gone into this effort. For our purposes this Mobility Plan for the first time in the history of Denton we are combining three plans into one. The thoroughfare plan which most people are familiar with that's the roads and the different colored lines on the map and some are dashed there that are not constructed yet but we're also incorporating the bicycle plan and a new pedestrian plan. So we have a we had a current bicycle plan that was a separate document we're rolling that into this Mobility Plan update really trying to integrate all modes of transportation into a single document. The only mode that we are not truly where we're addressing but we're not regulating is the transit and DCTA does a fine job of that and we're working very closely with them as they go through their master plan update as well. So the thoroughfare plan that element determines where the roads are going to be determines basically how wide they want to be what features might or might not be on them. The real intent is to preserve the right-of-way for future roadways so as people as the developers plat the property the Mobility Plan this thoroughfare plan element allows us to identify right-of-way that's going to be needed for future roadway extensions and we get to reserve that in form of dedication. It also helps us design roadway cross sections and identify elements such as bicycle facilities pedestrian facilities, street buffers that kind of thing into our street sections. The bicycle plan is exactly that it's a it's the same animal for bicycles as the thoroughfare plan is for vehicles. We try and identify bicycle corridors and the different types of facilities and where they are appropriate on a primary arterial versus a residential street and we recommend design standards for these facilities as well. The pedestrian plan again this is a relatively new element we're trying to identify gaps in the existing sidewalk network we're trying to prioritize projects where we've got roadways with that were constructed without sidewalks and identify the greatest needs and identify a an implementation plan for the city. This is all three of these plans once they're adopted put the city in a better position to leverage funding through the COG or through TxDOT as projects come online. So why are we updating this now we like to update this this plan and these three plans every five years at the most because development patterns change population increases and and as we move into the future we want to be able to respond and react to those patterns and changes. Part of our initial process was to identify our stakeholders and we've got internal and external obviously all the departments in the city such as planning, DME, fire, police, engineering, sustainability those are all major players in the development of these three plans. Our external partners at the ISD, the universities, the transit agency, the county, and the state also all participated in development of these three plans. So here's just a quick snapshot of the schedule to date. We started in May and worked through most of 2019 the letter half of 2019 with our stakeholders we had four public meetings again we had a focus group with bicycles and starting in December we began to bring this forward to council in a in the work session format our initial idea was to have one we're gonna end up having probably up to eight we've had five so far we've got at least two more and possibly a third so it's it's it's a lot of material and we decided to break it into smaller bits unfortunately tonight you get all of it in one dose. Some existing conditions these are I'm gonna go through these very fast we found that our average travel time to work is 24 minutes we've got 131 lane miles of congested roads and 18 and expected to increase that congestion index is expected to almost double by 2040. We've got 65 fatalities between 2014 and 2018 and as it would expected most of those are on our primary roadways. As far as our bicycle infrastructure we currently have 24 miles of trail you know 15.3 and you can read most of this I will share all this it's a lot of data to digest quickly but I'm going to focus on the safety and crash data the 131 bicycle related crashes between 2014 and 2018 that's a significant number and that's one of our major impetuses on this this plan is to provide safer bicycle facilities as well as pedestrian facilities. Again this is the pedestrian element 3,000 and 3,000 people in Denton walk to work that's a surprising number we've got a lot of pedestrian activity and then I'm going to go to the safety and crash date 161 pedestrian crashes between 2014 and 2018 and again we use the term crash now because the accident tends to infer that it's not preventable and we believe that that most are all of these crashes are preventable and that's again one of the goals of the mobility plan update is to identify areas where we can improve that safety for all modes. So some of our guiding principles again vision zero I'm not sure if you're familiar with this this is a worldwide it started in Europe and has moved into the United States basically vision zero road to zero vision zero Texas the idea is to design a roadway and bicycle pedestrian infrastructure that reduces or eliminates those crashes and those fatalities. Another guiding principle is that is the concept of complete streets and this is something that an organization called NACTO the National Association of Traffic Control officials has put out and this is a overarching vision of all roads need to serve all users so there is no roadway that should not are intended to should not be intended to serve bicycles and pedestrians we're trying to identify the users for each facility and provide an appropriate infrastructure for them. We had again those four public meetings the major points major feedback we received is we need to improve connectivity east west and north south we just we've got a lot of discontinuous roadways or offset roadways and it doesn't lend itself to comfortable travel and really getting across town. Again prioritize safety over congestion reduction this is again an overarching principle in the mobility plan update that we're going through right now. Bicycle pedestrian access during all project phases so we don't want to take something away just because we're rebuilding a roadway and wider sidewalks especially the downtown area or around the high pedestrian volume corridors. We had a meeting with the Commission's of the Committee on Persons with Disabilities and again this is their feedback. Sidewalks are our priority ADA requirements and then some specific Razor Ranch Convention Center just the total lack of sidewalks so these are we took all this feedback and went back and and programmed that into the update with the consultant. Similarly we had a bicycle plan focus group in September no surprise we need to significantly enhance our bicycle facilities our infrastructure is currently we rely a lot on on the share roads or shared lane the desire for separated or buffered or off-street facilities is very very much a popular requirement and we're we're incorporating those those desires into this mobility plan update. This just gives you an idea of the orange are it's this is kind of a comfort level offer for bicycle facilities and the orange is a discomfort so we've got on an off-street trail very very comfortable a lot of blue separated side path which is that wide 10 to 12 foot wide sidewalk parallel to our roadway again high comfort but when you get down into the bottom of that table with the share those the shared lane markings most of the riders are not comfortable using those facilities. We also did an online survey 384 survey responses primarily pushed out through social media and the website. The takeaways from that are it's just more options for transportation in general again focusing on that multimodal infrastructure design sidewalk bike and how do we get to transit and then also heard about some maintenance issues which is not really part of the mobility plan but it's good information that before we go and build a lot of new facility we need to make sure that the we maintain what we've got on the ground today and then again this addresses the gaps in the sidewalk and missing segments. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the the thoroughfare plan specifically and what is the thoroughfare plan we already talked a lot a lot of this the determines alignment to some degree we do have some some wiggle room as we move through implementation when we do the mobility plan we will identify what seems to be the logical path for roadway extensions or new roadways but as development actually occurs we'll do more of an engineering assessment and identify an exact corridor but again that right-of-way preservation is one of the most important elements or our functions of the thoroughfare plan and it positions us in the city a much better situation for external funding through the cog or through tech stock. So this is just to prove that in fact we are this whole process is identified in the local government code this is we have the right to develop these plans in the city limits and in the ETJ and preserve those corridors and identify that right-of-way dedication requirement. So this is the process that we went through we looked at the existing roadways and what the 2015 which is the last time we did an update what identified their ultimate width we identify some key connections and that's an important thing is we've got development happening that may not be contiguous who you have a roadway that's incomplete we need to make sure that we preserve that corridor so we can connect those two pieces of roadway. We looked at future roadways and established what we thought again was the best alignment and this last number four was really kind of the meat of some of the vehicular modeling. We developed a model and some there's a software program that allows us to identify basically how traffic will flow through and in and out of Denton and what our design year was 2045. So a little bit about roadway classifications the freeways we do not govern the freeways that's owned and operated by tech stop. So the bottom four categories principal arterial secondary arterial collector and local are really the purview of the city of Denton. So we've got right-of-way widths varying from 135 to 55 feet with capacity of 25,000 plus down to 5,000 so we identify each of these different categories of roadways so that we can identify the type and the size of roadway and the features that we want to incorporate into each corridor. So here's a little comparison of some existing design which is the top of the slide and the proposed design in this mobility plan update. We're recommending the removal of bikes on-street bike facilities for six-lane divided roadways. We just think that the volume and speed characteristics lend themselves much better to the side path which you can see the bottom slide and separating physically the cyclists and the motorists. Secondary arterials again you can see the existing design on the top and then we got a couple of different alternatives. One of the elements and one of the initiatives that we identified in this mobility plan update is it's to try and give ourselves flexibility so we've got some of these buffers and what we can incorporate the bike lane into the buffer maybe a wider sidewalk. It's kind of a flex zone so we know we need if this we're talking about a secondary arterial we need two lanes of vehicular travel in each direction and beyond that it's it's really dependent on context of the roadway so are we going through residential areas are we going through rural or an urban we want to have enough tools in our toolbox to address each of those different scenarios. The collectors are pretty much staying the same we've got two different options either a three lane section with the center left turn lane or two lane section with parking or bike lane again that flex zone allows us to do some different things in different contexts. So this is the travel demand modeling it really allows us to gauge the impact of future growth and we looked at a build-out scenario 2045 we took the land use plan and really tried to develop every developable parcel and we went through the process and identified what we thought would be generated from each of those tracks and it's really a four-step process so we identify the land use and that translates into population and employment and we generate trips based on that land use we looked at existing traffic patterns and the cogs regional travel demand model and we developed some trip distribution and mode choice assumptions and then we ran the software and we get a traffic what we call a traffic assignment which gives our projection 24 hour volumes for each of the roadways that are incorporated into the model so we we took the cog model we added to it enhanced it made it our own and we've got a very detailed model now and a very robust model for the city of Denton. Some other elements that play into this overarching mobility plan update we're looking at some roadway closures this is a UNT looking at Avenue C closure how does that affect parallel facilities and do we have enough roadway capacity on those facilities to carry that expect the traffic load we also did a one-way two-way analysis it's actually going to council understand now the 28th of this month oak and hickory locust and elm currently one way what happens if we convert those to two-way and do we again do we have enough capacity does that existing pavement cross-section give us enough flexibility to do what we need to do and then the last one is again associated with a university TWU is interested in closing a portion of Bell Avenue and creating a basically a pedestrian mall a large crossing between Chapel and Texas and so what happens to Elm and locust and Carol and Riddell if that piece of Bell is closed and that all rolls into do we what happens if bells closed and we go to a two-way scenario so we're it's it becomes a very intricate modeling process a lot of ifs and if what happens and and we've done a lot of analysis and we'll be sharing the findings of that with Council on the 28th so this is the draft there for plan and I've got a slide in here a little bit later that offers a link to the Walter P Moore website that that basically houses the plan as it sits not adopted yet but it incorporates all the comments from council today and staffs analysis as well so when we presented this to council because it was such a large amount of information we divide we broke it into five sections and I want to walk through one of those with you just as an example of the process that we looked at and and how we presented the information and some of the recommendations that are incorporated into the mobility plan update so we're looking at the northern part so the 2015 plan is on your left and the 2020 is on your right just as a comparison what you'll notice on the 2015 plan there was a lot of meandering roadways and a lot of smaller classification roadways in the 2020 plan we try to identify primarily the major corridors we wanted to identify more direct connections again goes back to that improved connectivity east west north south if you know you don't expect the road that you're on to end and be offset and so we went back and looked at what we could do to enhance that and here's a little bit better detailed again between the 2015 and 2020 and I want to go to the next one so these are some of the updates so Westgate Drive we're making some changes Thunderbird Drive new collector roadway and number three they're providing some connectivity that doesn't exist today each of these has some modification from the 2015 to the 2020 plan I don't need I don't want to get into details if if you want a more detailed presentation we can do exactly what we've done with council and bring it back and and really dig into the details but this just gives you an idea typically each of the five sections had about five to ten major changes that we discussed some are downgrades some are downsizing some are upsizing some are realignments but each of these is based on that travel demand model and the volumes that we expect for our 2040 scenario the next thing I want to talk about is a bicycle plan and again one of the overarching guiding principles that we have migrated to with this bicycle plan update is the FHWA bikeway selection guide and it really kind of identifies the the stress level where that that riders will feel on different kind of facilities and you can see that you know more than 50% of the riders pulled in this FHWA document are not comfortable with with bike lanes even on-street facilities they want separated facility with either a raised or some kind of a buffer or truly off street option so hey Brian can I interrupt you real fast and recognize commissioner back I believe has a question okay do I need to take the slide down no no we're all up yep thank you chair are we taking questions in these sections are we waiting to the end I'm fine taking questions as we go so okay if you before you move on to the bikes I had a couple questions about your overall sort of 10,000 foot view on the mobility plan that you just described in the previous slides and and your modeling is based on the future land use map the flume presuming that the development follows that but we've noticed the or I've noticed I shouldn't speak for the other commissioners I've noticed a quite a degree of variability from the future land use map and so if if your mobility plan is rolling out on the future land use map and we're not following the future land use map very tightly how does that affect your modeling well so we did it we did we accommodated or reflected in the land use plan the developments that are currently proposed and that have been obviously been constructed since the 2015 update obviously if the land use changes the trip generation changes and some of the characteristics of the roadway may change but right now that land use map is the best tool that we've got and that's one of the reasons why we update the model as frequently as we do every at least every five years because we are attempting to predict something that we cannot we cannot necessarily predict 100% accurately so if if we're only five years out then I think we can see those development trends and we work and again planning was was side we were side by side as we went through this process and and we made some modifications to the land use map or we saw that development trends changing but truly that's it's the best we can do is is to follow what our existing land use you know our comprehensive plan what it what it tells us what that the city's is expecting in a given area and if that changes in the next three to five years we can reflect that in the next update so so it would be your recommendation that in terms of pain and suffering for your department and this plan that we should follow the future land use map as closely as we can as we make decisions that would help your department so are you talking about the updating the mobility plan or are you talking about as we approve developments for the mobility plan in this specific case well and again I we can see some trends and land use changes but I don't mean for lack of a better word I don't have a crystal ball that tells me that somebody's gonna come in next week and develop 2,700 single-family homes where we had some mixed use or large lot development in our land use plan so I think as the as the properties come in if they request a zoning change then that's obviously going to be we require traffic impact analysis to make sure that what this mobility plan reflects or is requiring is going to provide adequate infrastructure so I think what's there we've got some some checks and balances if if the development is migrating away significantly from the mobility plan recommendation are there the assumptions then I think that traffic study requirement at the development stage is going to tell us whether or not we're gonna have adequate infrastructure so I it's still the best tool we've got if we see major changes we can incorporate those but on the flip side as development occurs if we see something that's just going to overwhelm the infrastructure that the mobility plan would recommend or required to be in place then I think that goes into the decision whether or not we're gonna approve that zoning change or intensity modification okay thank you mr. Pernetta yeah and to the point that you just made and I guess that the Commissioner Beckwith was kind of hinting toward you mentioned you know that there's been some updates since the last you know future land use map back in 2015 when you guys were looking at you know this draft of the mobility plan based on what y'all had seen in 2015 where there are many updates to things that you know that have been done in the city that kind of made y'all kind of jumped back with was there much drastic change it had to be made the mobility plan based on changes to the future land use map last time it was updated not significantly I think some of the major changes that are associated with this mobility plan update are actually being driven by our some of our external partners like text or some of our long our own long-range planning efforts one example and you can see it on the slide that I've got here on the far right hand corner you see a little dashed black line well that's something that text dot and the Cobb are looking at US 380 they're now talking about doing a direct connection to 288 that the controlled access section so that 380 the bulk of that traffic does not go through town and so that changes significantly some of the requirements and some of the needs for the traffic that's between 288 and 35 because now 380 doesn't have to carry all the through traffic and it's available to carry some of the other local traffic that currently might void it and use a parallel facility so most of the we didn't see a lot of change significant changes in the mobility plan due to land use changes because again we're doing a build-out scenario so everything all the developer land within the city limits and in the ETJ are in this model they're generating something so we may be off by a factor of you know a few hundred trips for a given acre or maybe a few thousand trips for a couple hundred acres but we're not we're not seeing a tenfold increase or decrease in the traffic generation so that really this mobility plan was able to simplify if anything else some of the roadway the connectivity but most of the major major changes are driven by either long range planning efforts of the city or the external partners okay great yeah because I think that was the concern I you know most of the things will come with the traffic study but I think the concern is just to make sure that if we deviate from the future land use map we're not gonna break anything but it sounds like you know that's not really something that's gonna happen right speaking right and most of the most of the changes that we see the deviations at least that I've seen I've been here a year now who are not in the on a grand scale so those those grand scale like coal hunter we see those coming years and years in advance and so we're able to identify plug those in and reflect the needs of that development in the mobility plan update again it's a living document we we may go through the formal process every five years but the consultant is able to make land use changes and roadway changes on the fly so even during those years between updates we've kind of got our finger on the pulse and we can see what the impact of any significant land use change or significant roadway change would be excellent that's all I've got thank you thank you commissioners hey Brian real fast before we go into the bicycle plan can Avenue C and Bell can the University shut those down without coming through a council process no okay we own the roadways we have three and and so what what what this plan is done is we we've studied them and determined the impact of those closures and again Avenue C is a little bit more straightforward but when you look at the bell closure rolling that in with the one-way two-way discussion then we start you know some complexity is introduced in the in the discussion but no they cannot close the they cannot close the roadways we own them and so that's why we're involved in that process okay perfect thank you very much I don't see any other questions so I guess we can go to the bike plan now okay so again back on this slide the 50 to 60 percent of the people really don't want to ride on the road so that's kind of what we heard that we've had lengthy discussions with council and our our plan is to roll out a bike plan of infrastructure that focuses on trails and side paths we just think that we can will always have some instances where we just don't have the right of way or we can't physically construct an off-street facility and we'll always have those areas where we need to share the road but for the most part we're moving into the off-street realm so and this is kind of highlights the current bike plan a lot of shared lengths that was five six seven years ago the share was very popular on-street bike facilities are better than no bike facility and at least there was some kind of designation that that was a no cars and in the intention and that offered the cyclists some increased level of safety so we're obviously not enough to make people comfortable riding on the road in those cases based on either volume or speed of the adjacent vehicles and so we're again we're moving to a separated bike lane or off-street facility all together these are the on-street and off-street again conventional bike lanes buffered bike lanes separated bike lanes so we just if you've seen the one on Hickory that's a buffered bike lane with the pylons we just put those in and we're going to try and deploy more and more of those as we are on our on-street facilities as we're limited to not being able to put in a site path and the two off-street categories are the side path that's at 10 to 12 foot wide sidewalk or trail which typically exists in a park setting so and this is again going back to our our bicycle focus group what we're in our public meetings what we heard is again that's strong interested in buffered and separated bike lanes let's we want a physical barrier between us and the car we need better options on major routes so how do we get across town not just from my house to the grocery store or you know this is not more of a commuter effort than a recreational bike ride and so again this shows you the proposed designs we've got multi-use trails our side paths and that top portion of the slide we've got the buffered or separated bike lane and then in an urban alternative where we just don't have the we don't have the real estate to put bicycles off-street because you don't want to put a bicycle on a five-foot sidewalk with pedestrians we're retaining the the standard bike lane and we're just going to enhance the width a little bit so we again trying to maximize the number of tools we've got in our toolbox and and treat everything as a context sensitive approach and put the appropriate the best facility that we can on each corridor and so here's the draft bicycle plan again I've got a link that well you can toggle between the roadway layer the bike layer the pedestrian layer and I'll share that with you at the end but this just gives you an idea of the connectivity that we're promoting or are recommending in this 2020 update so again this is an example of a little bit more detail this is that northern area again the 2014 plan where we had a lot of you can see the different on a lot of on-street the green will be in the trail primarily associated with parks and linear connections and then the right-hand side is just simply what's on the ground today and then again looking at the 2014 plan versus the 2020 plan a lot of significantly more off-street than we had before you can see the green on on Bonnie Bray and on Locust so we're again we're moving we're not going to we're not going to be able to do away with on-street we just again we're limited in in right away and real estate in some places but we want to move to that safer off-street condition and then this is just a little bit more of a zoom that you can see the significant amount more more green than the 2014 plan Krister back thank you chair Brian how and these flex zones and and that you you know I understand you critically need that for the flexibility of planning different kinds of avenues for pedestrians bikers and and and motor vehicles but it it strikes me on the cartoons and I know the tree was just a a cartoon tree representing sort of landscaping more than anything else but to what extent are is this mobility plan integrated with some of our environmental and sustainability plans because we don't want those necessarily trees ignored or counted for or against our overall environmental green corridor plans and and I'm worried that you will we'll put trash trees because we have to in our in those little flex zones because you need to be able to put them in take them out as the needs of the traffic change because those are going to be prioritized but yet it's I so I guess my question is to what degree are you integrating your flex zones in the mobility plan with the overall efforts of the tree efforts in our city so again sustainability was part of our internal stakeholder group so they've been at the table from day one I will say that the the tree selection is not going to be up to the developer or staff or table will be up to my staff we will defer to the forestry group and identify the appropriate size tree or type of tree for each each setting I think as we develop if the city is going to do a corridor reconstruction and we're going to include street trees then then obviously sustainability and parks or forestry will be at the table when we determine what kind how many what size etc I think this plan is really intended to preserve the space for those kind of features and and that goes really goes for all of the different types of whether it be street furniture that bike lane on street parking what we're trying to do is carve out enough space that we can accommodate whatever we would like to put into that area in an appropriate manner so we we've identified and I'm gonna go back to that four lane roadway we need two lanes of vehicular traffic in each direction we've narrowed those down to you know 11 foot lanes and narrower if we need to but outside of those four lanes of travel we've tried to you know within the within the right of way we've identified okay this can be a wide sidewalk with trees it can be an on-street bike lane it can be a shared use path the trees are not required I will say that most cyclist pedestrians like them they provide shade and some what of a buffer between the angular traffic but I don't so we're not trying to we're not precluding anything but we're not also requiring the street trees we're deferring to those other plans that you talked about the the green corridors and the sustainability to really govern what goes into that that flex zone that buffer space and so this next comments just real quick and that is you know it as your needs change for those corridors you know you can't have a large healthy Elmer Oak or something else lovely that would be in there because if it's in your flex zone you you know you can't be putting down roots and making a tree that inhibits your ability to the flex zone but at the same token I guess I encourage you strongly to work with your urban forestry guys and I know you will so that's just more of a comment than anything else thank you sure thank you thank you mr. Beck any other questions on the bike plan looks like Brian's about to head into the pedestrian plan I do not see any floors back to you Brian all right thank you pedestrian plan so the pedestrian plan again is something that's relatively new we we just went through and I'm going to touch on this briefly we just went through an ADA transition plan with a consultant that identified all of the substandard pedestrian facilities and features that need to be updated to accommodate the ADA requirements this document works with that transition plan but again the mobility plan is primarily a capital so we're looking at new sidewalks sidewalk gaps and how do we prioritize those and how do we provide pedestrian infrastructure literally on every street in town there's no street or I cannot think of one that should not have pedestrian infrastructure no another example I when I worked with the city of Carrollton we worked with tech start on some I-35 infrastructure upgrades and they wouldn't allow us to put sidewalks and now tech stop requires sidewalks they really want and that's that's the shift that I have seen and we're pedestrians and bicycles and other all modes of travel really should be treated equally so this plan is is this mobility plan is really set to identify those missing elements not the ones that are substandard that's a again that's going to fall back to that ADA transition plan where we bring everything up to snuff but this is this plan is it to identify roadways that don't have sidewalks or sidewalks that are discontinuous or large gap segments so we identified basically the existing infrastructure so primary arterial secondary material collector local and then the red is no sidewalk and the green is sidewalk on both sides so you can see just at a glance most of our roadways have no sidewalk so we've got a lot of infrastructure that's missing and subject to the recommendations of this mobility plan update once we've identified those missing segments then we need to identify how we prioritize and we did a fairly simple prioritization it's high and low but we looked at really citywide so again this goes back to that's not just a person walking through their neighborhood or maybe walking to the store they may be walking to work we have three thousand people that commute via foot so we looked at longer connections we looked at what we call safe route to school those those roadways within a quarter mile of the school to encourage and and provide ample opportunity for for children to walk to school instead of being driven or riding the bus so we really want to get out and that's a healthy lifestyle and that complete street element where we want to be able to get kids from home to school safely on foot and then sure commissioner Smith thank you chair the only thing I see the priority mythology on here the one thing that I think would be missing that I would encourage or just be talk to the parks and rec department I know Gary is has made it very clear that they're they're their biggest you know mission moving forward is trying to create you know 10-minute 10-minute walking capability to every citizen to a park and so I don't see that really being I think the quarter mile within school walk shed that kind of thing is great I think but I'd also like you guys to be able to reach out to the parks department see if they can identify maybe some areas that they don't have safe walking pathways to a park right and so we we are working with parks and they're in the process of doing their trails master plan okay and that's it is integrated into our with our consultant and their consultant we're sharing data so that we take a sidewalk to get to their trailhead and exactly the towards that end that you just described and that's a short walk to parks awesome thanks we're also working with DCTA on that again they're going through a master plan update look like everybody's updating their master plans right now and so we want to be in a position to serve with sidewalks first mile last mile their transit infrastructure and their transit transit facilities across the city and then identifying those corridor barriers and again University Drive is a good example of a pedestrian barrier there's a significant lack of safe pedestrian crossings and throughout that corridor so we're focusing on those areas as well so here's my pedestrian plan example this is the you'll see three or four different colors here the yellow this is our existing infrastructure so where you've got sidewalks on the ground not saying what condition they're in just we have a sidewalk either a four foot five foot maybe a six foot sidewalk this is what's on the ground today then this aqua marine this turquoise color these are sidewalks that are currently programmed either with projects that are under construction or going to be under construction that are under the city control so as we redo a body bray we're gonna add sidewalks if we've got some neighborhood and street projects we're adding sidewalks so that's that's what this is this is the known sidewalk infrastructure that's in the on the near horizon and then stepping back this is the mobility plan these are these are the missing pieces again this is not and we're not talking about existing or that that turquoise color that it's coming in a future project these are pieces that are that are unfunded that we identified that we need and we buy new things that that prioritization methodology red is high priority and the orange is low and that's very vague but we've we've got at least we have to identify what we think of them are the projects we need to address first because part of this mobility plan is going to be an implementation plan and so that's why we're prioritizing as we are so putting it all together again the goal is sidewalks on every street it's I think that's a that's a given that we move forward through this entire is the pedestrian element needs to be very robust so next steps as I said before we've we've still we're wrapping up with the council presentations but we've got another round after after that and council gives us their feedback then we'll go make the modifications to the plan with the consultant and then we'll take that back out to the public and right now we're we're looking at September October of this year for that next round of three to five public meetings and I think we're going to try and do one in for each of the five geographic areas and just be able to address concerns for all areas in case somebody cannot attend or make the meeting that covers their neighborhood or their area of interest and then November to December we'll take the input from the public and council again and mold it all into a final report and a final draft or a draft final third fair plan map mobility plan rather and then in January February of next year bring it back to council and hopefully March of 2021 move to adoption now planning zoning is in there somewhere as well but probably in that same January February time we'll bring this back as a more complete effort and get your feedback so that we can incorporate any final changes into that final document for March or April adoption so this is a slide that the one in red here is that I'm going to go ahead and click on it if I can this is the Walter P Moore site and they're our consultants they've been working with us it's a GIS based website okay well I know there it is okay I know the link works because I looked at it today so this is the plan as it sits today you can see a lot of our we reach pretty hey Brian looks like you're sharing your presentation not okay all right do that again so how do I oh there's new share oops yeah you'll need to unclean there we go I'm gonna I want to click this I want to do this and then I want to share own and do a new share right yeah can I do it I got to stop sharing and then share this one that way all right okay so now you can see this is the Walter P Moore website that's got the it's got all the plans on it right now we're looking at the mobility plan you can also toggle through that's the existing 2015 plan if you want to see them side by side there's the bicycle plan and the 2014 bike and then the pedestrian plan as well and it's gonna take a second cuz it yeah so this link is very helpful if you want to really kind of dig into some of the changes between 2015 and the 2020 update for all three modes except for the pedestrian there was not a previous plan but you can look at the 2014 bike plan and 2015 mobility plan and see what changes that we're proposing so with that I will take any questions that you have Christian back thank you chair Brian in a way of feedback on the the pedestrian plan just from folks in my area they're a little befuddled by the the they want sidewalks but they're befuddled by how to best work with the city on the temporary easements and right-of-ways and all that so to the extent that you could streamline simplify the process is feedback from people that have talked to me about they want sidewalks but they also don't want a pain in the keister so to the extent that you could make that simpler for them it would help put sidewalks at least in the Nottingham Woods area where you're currently developing sidewalks okay so that it is it is a challenge and a lot of times when you put sidewalks where sidewalks were not originally designed one of the biggest hurdles that we come across it's the yes you have the easements and maybe as temporary construction easement or maybe a sidewalk easement but you also have driveways that now you have to bench them and so but that'll all that will be vetted through the design process and so we'll have adequate opportunity to to streamline just like you say because it can get very cumbersome but point taken we can look at ways to minimize the impact and shorten the timeline I think you'd have easier compliance if you did that thank you any other questions for Brian and his mobility presentation I did not see anything thank you very much Brian okay again I did not share this it was not part of the attachments I will give it to Richard and he can make it this presentation available to that would be helpful all right so I feel have it distributed later today if not tomorrow morning at the very latest I do have actually one more it's getting a whole bunch of me today and this will be a lot quicker just a discussion on traffic signal installation and removal I believe there was a question on what allows us as a city to install or remove and maybe allow us not the right word but what requirements do we have to satisfy to install or remove a traffic signal and so if you ask any two traffic engineers crashes and visibility volumes schools and the truth is it's all of the above and even more so this is the document that we adhere to the Texas manual on uniform traffic control devices and it's chapter for highway traffic signals and I know it says highway but it's all traffic signals and then here's the actual text and and here's a translation so to install a traffic study basically we have to perform an engineering study of the traffic volumes pedestrian characteristics and just physical characteristics so an intersection and show that at least one if not more of the nine traffic signal warrants I'm going to go through those in a minute at least one is satisfied and similarly if an engineering study indicates that something has changed traffic volumes have dropped because we widened a parallel roadway or a major generator goes away let's see remembers reunion arena no longer exists you don't need as much infrastructure when something like that disappears so it's also incumbent on city to continually monitor those changes and perform those studies to determine whether or not those signals now no longer satisfy those warrants and really should be removed and replaced with something else so we just did this on Parkway we removed a couple signals and we're we're in the process of replacing with some additional in this case pedestrian infrastructure to make that a safer condition so there's nine up and I'm going through as quickly as I can I just want to give you an idea of what the MUT CD that manual and uniform traffic control devices initiates as a federal document and then the state of Texas has taken it tweaked it published it as a state document and a lot of our funding and compliance and or rather our funding is is key to our compliance to the document and the requirements that it provides so the first warrant is the eight-hour vehicular volume basically this is just say that if you've got eight hours where a Main Street just starves the availability of a side street to get access you can look at the installation of the traffic signal and on all of these volume warrants it's a combination of Main Street and Side Street so it's really looking at how does that traffic peak does it peak for long periods of time does it peak even higher for shorter periods of time so this eight-hour is a fairly low volume threshold but it has to be satisfied for eight hours of the day warrant two is a forearm and you see a pattern developing here so this is a slightly higher threshold that combination of Main Street and Side Street vehicular volumes but it only has to satisfy that for four years and we have a one hour so if you've got something that is just very very time specific large office building something that every day basically shuts you know that your side street generates so much traffic that it can't get out of the Main Street and you can use the peak hour warrant to justify the installation of traffic signal now I will say that the MUTCD says to use this sparingly and only on unusual conditions very specific conditions not because almost any driveway in town can satisfy the one hour or it is not that's not how it's intended to be used so more enforced pedestrian and this again is a combination of vehicular and pedestrian volumes the pedestrian volumes are fairly high my experience is you've got to have 200 people crossing in an hour for a couple hours in the day it's really this this is really intended for a more of a downtown type atmosphere where you've got a side street that has a again maybe it's an office building or some other kind of commercial retail development generates a lot of foot traffic I mean a lot of foot traffic and they need that signal to safely cross the Main Street. Warrant five is kind of a follow-on for that and that's a school crossing so these are school-age children from basically first grade to high school the requirement here is that you have to have at least 20 children crossing in an hour and that the nearest major intersection is more than 300 feet away with with traffic control so with that provides a safe like a traffic signal or an all-way stop that provides that safe crossing so this again is a identified for smaller streets around a school or we may have a school zone or a crosswalk mark and the children are using that to access the school. Warrant six coordinated signal system so one of the one of the goals of traffic engineering is historically has been to provide a smooth flow of traffic so we get this platoon where you you leave one signal you get the green and by the time you get to the next signal you get the green and it progresses on that has its pros and cons but this warrant is identified are designed to to serve those locations where you've got cross street traffic that might disrupt the platooning so we can we can better control how they enter the system we can better control the platooning of the traffic on the Main Street. Warrant seven again is crash experience five or more correctable crashes and those are correctable by the installation of a traffic signal so different kinds of T-bone crashes are correctable rear end crashes are not so in a 12 month period we have to have five or more correctable crashes and then we can use that warrant to justify the installation of traffic signal. Warrant eight roadway network and this is really where you've got major routes that come together and you want to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow on those major routes what you don't want to have is people migrating off of the major roadways onto secondary or tertiary roadways into neighborhoods because it's now faster to cut through the neighborhood than it is to stay on the Main Street because you can't get on to the if you want to make a turn you can't get onto the Main Street so you bypass that problem intersection using facilities that were not intended to design the traffic volumes and then warrant nine is intersection near a grade crossing that's a rail crossing typically within if it's within a hundred and forty feet of a railroad crossing on the major street and you've got a side street within that hundred and forty feet you can use this warrant to justify the installation of a traffic signal. So questions or comments? I do not see any. Oh Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Thanks Brian for the info. I actually asked for this to to come forward it was mainly because in a short period of time a while back when I had asked for this there were several signals that were removed so that was really my the the justification for my requesting the presentation was to understand how the city decides to remove them. So on that do you rely on someone asking you to look at an intersection? Is it something that is regularly done by staff to look at certain intersections? I'm just curious as to how that comes about. We revisit all of our signals every it's it's hard to say I mean some of them we don't need to I don't ever need to revisit Carroll at University I just don't but some of our our lower volume streets we do collect traffic data so we know when we've got some significant changes either increases or in this case decreases. So if the if the volumes have changed because again parallel facilities or or just traffic flow is taking a different route because we've improved it we look at probably three to five years I mean that's about a it's about average for us to look at whether or not these locations still meet warrants. I appreciate the info. Thanks for sharing. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. So jumping off from that at that point do you when you revisit a traffic study are you using live dynamic data from like embedded sensors or are you having to put out sensors and have human beings go out and do a traffic study? We do it both ways we have a lot of our intersections so give you a little background our detection is called grid smart and it's basically a fisheye camera and so we can with one camera we can see the entire intersection and they have developed a module and an algorithm that allows us to count cars left throughs and rights on all approaches which is fantastic data for us because we can literally count we have a rolling database of what's using each of those intersections so on those on those instances those locations we use the automated data where we don't have that where we have either radar or I don't think we have any intersections on loops anymore but where we have a different kind of vehicle detection than we do we have to go out and actually collect the data but we will always use current we will not base it on something two years old again if we're counting and to we're gonna analyze an intersection to determine whether or not it's still warrants we want to know we use the most current data that we can get and as you put in new traffic lights and do maintenance are you are you automating more and more or or is that just too expensive? No that's it is our it is our standard now it's just some of our older locations either the existing infrastructure the conduit under the ground or the cabling does not lend itself to the installation of these these new sensors but all of our new installations are using the video detection. Okay thank you any other questions for Brian on that? I do not see anything thank you so much for the presentations Brian. Thank you very much for the time. Richard would you do want to hop into the items and table the other work session report for now or is that high priority to get done this evening? No I think we can we can bring that back at the next meeting. Okay. That's okay with with the Commission. Is there any opposition to going a tabling item to be by Julie until next meeting? I don't see any opposition so let's go ahead and hop into our actual agenda for this evening. First item is approval of the minutes item 2. Is there any notations that need to be made on the minutes? All right seeing none we'll go to the consent agenda there's just one item 3a was there any questions that Kim could address for anyone on the consent? Commissioner Beck. Yes thank you chair. So the last time we saw this I think was last time and that was a denial and so I guess the applicant has cleaned up everything is that why we've got a yes on the consent agenda? That's correct. Okay I mean I guess it doesn't make any difference but because it's a single item on the consent agenda but I I kind of like to have this pulled for individual consideration. I mean it's the same it's a vote for consent or a vote for individual consideration so it's a little bit silly of me to do that but I don't want to vote against the consent agenda I'm I'm particularly concerned about the item itself. Okay that has been noted any other questions for item 3a? Okay moves us to item 4a these are individual consideration items there are three of these and that will complete our agenda for this evening but the first one is item 4a FP 20-0009B and this is Julie Wyatt she looks ready to go on this one. Sorry I was muted I'm Julie Wyatt I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. Okay so this is a this is a plat that you had that you saw last month they did request a an extension at last month's meeting and that extension was granted for tonight. They have not we still don't have a plat that has addressed the comments and the and the deficiencies within the plat so staff still recommends denial of the request. And Julie just for clarification there was some communication transmitted about this item can you let us know the difference in a conditional approval and a denial in terms of the requirements from the applicant or just the maybe just the the consequences or applications of those two different outcomes just so we are aware of what potential vote we can make this evening? Sure so the applicant did contact staff yesterday and asked that we reach out to you they are requesting a conditional approval and their representative will be calling in tonight to to discuss that with you but they are recommending a conditional approval with those conditions of all of those deficiencies. The Texas Local Government Code treats conditional approvals and denials much in the same way and that whatever whatever governing body grants that conditional approval still has to make sure those conditions are satisfied so it would still have to come back to you regardless of whether it was denied or conditionally approved and and so what the applicant would do in either instance is they would correct those deficiencies resubmit the plaque to staff for review to for us to confirm that that those corrections have been made and then we would place this item on a PNZ agenda within 15 days of us receiving that that resubmittal. At this time because we got the their corrections so late we did do a cursory review there are still some some deficiencies that we identified just kind of off the bat some easements that are aren't clearly dimensioned there's there's some other access easements that that need further attention so right now staff just believes it's not ready for for approval and so our recommendation still remains as the denial. Okay thank you for that clarification Commissioner Beck. So so that is as I understand thank you thank you chair thank you Julie so as I understand it this is more about a lack of sufficient information is in terms of what's been submitted to city staff is what's the basis for this we would basically have to be saying setting a precedent that we would allow insufficient information to come to staff and and with conditions rather than can adopt the proper levels of information coming to staff that's the concern that's why you're asking for the denial sort of thing. Staff just hasn't had an opportunity to review their their revisions yet and and so we feel like that that denial still needs to stay in place in this instance. Okay that makes sense to me thank you Julie. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair just a quick question I don't know if it's Julie or Richard or Cynthia on this one but can an applicant ask for a conditional approval I was very confused on that one I read I mean because it's like they submit it and in from how I had understood it or read it were the ones who approve with conditions so I was confused on that if someone could clarify I would love that. Mr. Chair I can respond I haven't seen the correspondence but like you said it is up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the determination whether the plat complies with with the DDC requirements and if you want to deny because of certain reasons or approve with conditions and the staff has made a recommendation to you. And then regardless it's coming before us again. If they resubmit right okay thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair so to Margie's point though or Commissioner Ellis's point though the the fact that they have to resubmit and repay fees to go through this now it is on the applicant because they got the paperwork in without enough time not sufficient time for the staff to review the make sure the easements and everything else were were correct and fit city code requirements but if we did an approval that an approval with conditions that they do satisfy staff's criteria that is acceptable Cynthia is what you're saying. The staff's recommendation is denial because of reasons how the local government code is written is that they would resubmit a plat and address those written comments and then it would come back to you again. But we could as a commission we could we could we could we could make a motion for an approval with the conditions that the items that were in question meet the code then the then the plot would be approved. Yes correct. Julie I mean is is there a reason why staff didn't make that recommendation versus making a denial just because you didn't feel comfortable with it? Well we got this information very late and so even all of the development reviewers that are typically review have not had an opportunity to review all of these so we really want to make sure that it met all of the criteria for approval. So you wouldn't even you guys there was not even enough time for you guys to retain a conditional approval recommendation it was just we've had no time to look at it we have no clue how close it is to being being correct so a denial is the best and safest suggestion. That's my I'm mainly I'm asking why why not if we're allowed to do conditional approvals why wasn't a conditional recommended versus just doing it the denial and you're just afraid that there is too much wrong with it then a denial is safer than okay. You know we really try to get plots through as quickly and efficiently as possible through through the review process and we we do try to ensure they get as many reviews as possible to address those comments. However in this instance there's just you know this was just that the second time we saw the plot they received the comments for us you know right after that first review and so we really just didn't have enough time to look for everything and feel comfortable with that conditional approval. What is the cost for a resubmittal and the timeline for resubmittal of a plot I mean how much how far back will this set the applicant if we just go for a denial? Let me look up the fees there there they would be treated equally we do have with that shot clock we we did add the those those deadlines those timelines that resubmittals that we take those resubmittals to make sure they coincide with planning and zoning Commission meetings. So can I interrupt really it might be worth clarifying regardless of there's a conditional approval or denial they still have to meet the requirements and be approved by P&Z. I don't know if I misunderstood Commissioner Smith or not but if we approve with conditions and they meet the conditions staff would not have the authority to approve that those conditions are met they still file and come back to P&Z either way. But if we deny them they would have to go through a brand new resubmittal process isn't that correct? If I can clarify we have submittals that are due every Tuesday so we got these submittals that that came in yesterday. What was submitted for this plat was not a formal resubmittal this was just a a courtesy or cursory review that they asked Julie to look at as a way to get the conditional approval so this was not formally resubmitted where it was distributed to all of the departments to to review. But I guess my question is is is there a cost in the timeline difference between what to deny and they have to go through the process all over again versus a conditional approval that's really the impetus of my question is that. And I understand that Chair that yes they have to come back in front of us and see it again it's not really so much that as it is do they have to start all the way back over if we give it denial versus conditional. I'm looking up those fees schedule. I'll concede the floor to Commissioner Beck in the interim. My understanding is I don't believe that they've submitted for a second review if it's part of a second review there would be no additional no additional fee. Okay either way Richard correct. Either way yeah and with a even with a conditional approval it's still coming back to to PNC once we review it. But denial does not does not impact the applicant or timeline wise other than a very small amount if anything. If they're on their second review it should cost them anything. Got it thank you that's all I needed to know. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I take the Commissioner Smith's point about you know we should be mindful of fees and to developers but at the same token the onus is not on the city or PNC to establish that fee schedule or those fees that the onus is on the applicant if I understand the process correctly. So and I would hate to set a precedent where the incomplete applications were sent to the city in sufficient time to review I think that's it's a terrible precedent to do conditionals on that ground so that's more of a comment than a question from Julie but thank you. Commissioner Granada. So either way this has to come back to us right. Not to seem excessively cheeky or anything like that is there anything that would keep us from saying it's a conditional approval and the conditions are that it meets staff's approval on the next come go around I mean. I don't know if TGC allows us to do that. Richard can you provide insight can we on this allow for a condition to be that staff approves it. I think it would have to be very specific to the code sections and findings. It sounds like Cynthia might want to weigh in as well. Mr. Chair the the DDC requires the Planning Commission to approve Platts so I'd have to come back. Okay thank you for that clarification. I know I think Julie is still looking at that fee structure maybe or is there any other questions that we can do we have for Julie? And I believe Richard answered the fee question. Okay great great. Your second review so correct. All right Julie thank you for that presentation and walking through the nuances of this approval process in the new era we kind of live in with this. Is there any other questions for Julie on this item? Okay seeing none we'll move to the next item of business which is item 4B FP 20-0010 and I believe Mark Laird is calling in on this is he the one presenting this evening? Good evening this is Mark Laird. This evening I have for your consideration Lot 1 Block 8 Quincy Court Edition. Staff has recommended approval and I stand for any questions. Any questions for Mark on this approval recommendation for approval? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Just actually I had a quick question as to why this was an individual and not consent is it is it because it's an ETJ or I was confused on that? You have to forgive me this is not one of the first go arounds for me. I must have placed it on the agenda incorrectly it probably should have been consent agenda so I do apologize for that. No worries thanks for the clarification. Any other questions for Mark on this item? Okay that moves us to our last item of discussion for the work session that's 4C PD 20-0001E. This item was extended or postponed from our June 3rd meeting it is Haley Zagorski's item for Sagebrook and as she presents this I just wanted to remind everyone to be mindful of time and so if we can get through the presentation that would be great and then just maybe leave some of our questions until the the the public meeting that might be beneficial for for timing but with that I will turn it over to Haley for presentation. Good evening Commissioners Haley Zagorski. I won't go through the entire presentation again because we've seen this a few times so Julie is actually advancing the slides for me so Julie if you could be on slide 22. I just wanted to call to your attention the the change in project boundaries here if you if you look on the map you'll see there's now a notch out of the western boundary of the property the total acreage included in this PD request has been modified from 146 acres to 143 that is due to those three acres on the western side are going to be transferred to the adjacent property owner rather than being included in this PD and Julie if you can go to the next slide I will quickly show you a comparison of the original layout versus where we are today so this slide shows the the original PD concept plan that you're all familiar with you can see the some of the key features being that central trail the the large amount of amenity open space on the south side this plan actually featured a total of fourteen point one nine acres that would be within the HOA as a HOA's maintenance is open space and then it featured 18 acres south of the brush Creek extension that would be transferred to the city to our parks department for a future trail system Julie if you can go to the next slide this shows the the layout that was presented on June 3rd that was ultimately not voted on the the key change here was that the alignment of brush Creek shifted the previous plan had a 1000 foot curve radius on that roadway this plan shows that reduced to 750 feet which is the the tightest curve for a road of this size that the city's criteria will allow that road is approximately 93 feet north of the barn so it does avoid aligning with the barn as the previous plan did this plan does avoid the the plugged gas well that circled in red and it still features that key central spine that would have the the pedestrian connectivity to the park as well as the open space is is generally maintained this one comes in just slightly lower at fourteen point oh nine acres of HOA space and did have a slight increase in the amount of acreage that would have been dedicated to the city at eighteen point three acres if you go to the next slide Julie and this this is the newest alignment the newest plan that's presented to you all today so largely the same the the roadway brush Creek's alignment is the same as the previous plan it's still about 93 feet north of the barn the area and that's outlined in purple there are those three acres that are excluded from the PD now as I mentioned those are going to be transferred to the ownership of the adjacent property owner and then the other key change here is with regards to all red road the adjacent property owner had some concern about the the intersection of all red and brush Creek aligning on their property so this shifts that road intersection onto the Sageport property so that connection between all red and brush Creek will be made within this PD this again maintains that that central pedestrian corridor it does feature some changes in the amount of open space there would be just under 13 acres that would be maintained by the HOA you can see there in that southern amenity center area that more lots has been added to to adjust for that loss on the western side of the property with the shift in brush Creek and the total amount that would be dedicated to the city south of brush Creek is is lower at 15.3 acres because that three acres being conveyed to the adjacent property owner Julie if you can go to the next slide I just wanted to call out that with this table that there are no changes to the proposed uses or the PD standards just the changes to the concept plan or what's being proposed next slide and again no changes in the dimensional standards that are proposed with this PD those all remain the same the changes are in the number of lots and the amount of open space one lot is lost from what from the original plan this latest plan features 490 lots as opposed to 491 the HOA open space is still above the city's minimum of 5% it comes in at 9% with this revised plan and then there is that change and reduction in acreage that would be dedicated to the city Julie if you could go to the next slide and then this table it was featured in your staff report that you received it just wanted to put it here today in case we needed it for conversation purposes this called out some of those changes and in more of a tabular format for you to compare so you can see the the road curvature was a significant change the the amounts of open space changed and then the amount of land that would be affected on the neighboring property also changed with the June 3rd and July 8th plans reduced the amount of acreage that the road would take up of the neighboring property from 6 acres to 1.5 acres and then the final slide I just wanted to highlight again the staff is still recommending approval of this plan the neighbor did remove their opposition to this you should have received a letter this afternoon from the neighboring property owner they are now in support of this July 8th version of the plan and staff is also in support and I'm happy to answer any questions now or at the public meeting Haley thanks for the presentation Mr. Smith has a question I believe yeah just a quick one Haley with the with the excluded chunk that's coming out of this that's being given to the adjacent property owner what is the total acreage that we're rezoning now it is now 143 acres as opposed to 146 thank you very much I know is in there but as you're going through thank you question Anderson thank you chair are the property owners that are receiving the three acres are they and we heard from them as well yes those are the anor the adjacent property owners that were opposing this previously and they are now in support well I'd like to give kudos to you guys for working with the property owners to resolve an issue instead of just keep bringing this back and denying it trying to do all this stuff kudos to you guys for working it out thank you Christian back real briefly is the latest plan I thought we couldn't put roads on top of the gas well is the latest plan the intersection is basically on top of the gas well Julie if you can pull up slide 25 for them that's the July 8th site layout if you're looking at the plan the the red circle that's on the map indicates the location of the well it is it is going to be within an HOA lot that it's located roughly in between the the knuckle and in the residential street and all red road where it would bisect the property so they they managed to miss the gas well with both all red and brush Creek okay so question I'm gonna maybe maybe you could look up because I'm gonna ask this later at meeting for the sake of time is is the distance that the engineers like to see of a gas well I mean we were previously told don't put the road anywhere near guess well which was one of the original plans and now we're basically close to being on top of it and so I'm gonna bring that up here in a few minutes and so if you want to prepare an answer for that question I'll take it at that time I can answer it now if you would like okay sure great but the short answer is there there is no standard for that our engineers because there's there's no standard there's not a lot of knowledge on this issue as we've talked about their request was that that the gas will not be underneath the pavement of the roadway and they did manage to to miss that with both roads so the the wellhead itself will be within that green space on the plan it is still within an HOA maintained lot so it won't be city right-of-way and it won't be under the pavement which was the the crucial piece that we were looking for there all right thank you Haley any other questions for Haley okay with that that concludes our agenda for a work session we are going to have a short recess just to kind of recalibrate I will have us all join back here at 640 for the public meeting and with that I will close the work session at 633 good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the plan and zoning regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday July 8th 2020 seeing that we do have a quorum I will call the meeting to order at 642 the first item of business is item 1 a and b that's to write a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag if the commissioners like to join me they can unmute themselves we'll do it collectively I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all honor the Texas flag sure I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible the next item of business is item 2 a consider the approval of the June 17th minutes Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for the approval of the June 17th minutes any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Cole Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Anderson aye the chair is also an aye minutes are approved 7-0 the next item of business is item 3a or the consent in general first item is 3a Commissioner Beck has asked that this item gets pulled from the consent and so that will reduce our consent agenda to zero and the item 3a will become our first individual consideration item so we'll take that item first so 3a is now the first item of IC it's PP 20 - 0 0 1 3a and Christian are back do you have any questions for Karina or staff no additional comments on that I do you want me to wait for discussion or for general comments yeah we can do is we can see if there is a motion and then we can come back during the discussion before the vote if that's good with you yes Christian Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Anderson I second the motion we have first and a second for approval of PP 20 - 0 0 1 3a it's time for discussion Christian are back yeah so I have real concerns about the the sort of integrity of this residential plot in the surrounding community in terms of the overall business diversity so I don't know that I agree with staff that it matches the joint 2030 plan I'm concerned about the the drainage plans that have seen in the backup materials in terms of mitigating future flood loss and flood damage and it feels like this is dropped in the middle of the lows the dump in the surrounding shopping and and with without mitigating risk or costs to to any of those surrounding elements including the the green corridor that it sort of represents in the shopping area so I can't good conscious the support this okay thank you commissioner Beck we do have a first and a second for approval is any other discussion on this item seeing none I'll call for a vote be a roll call Commissioner Cole I Mr. Smith I Christian Ellis I Christian back may kiss her pernetta okay Commissioner Anderson I the chair is an aye vote carries five to the next item of business is item for a FP 20 - 0 0 0 9 B and this item is presented by Julie Wyatt do we Julie do you want to bring up your presentation or see there's any questions or comments I know staff is recommending denial all right so yes this plot was originally I'm considered on June 17th they did request an extension at that time and and the plat is located along Teasley on the the west side of Teasley and staff is recommending denial as the Platts we received do not meet the minimum criteria and so I'm established requirements and I'll answer any questions I do believe the applicant is on the phone in order to answer questions as well great thank you very much Julie so any questions from the commissioners I have one question the applicant is available it'd be helpful to understand from from my perspective the process of a denial and approval with conditions seems to result in the same actions on on the applicant's end can I understand the desire for an approval with conditions versus a denial if you have a preference and why and if you are on the line if you could just state your name and address when you speak just we can identify you this is Amy Bissett can you guys hear me can Amy great thank you commissioners I appreciate your time this evening and I do want to explain to you why we've made that made this request to for you guys to consider an approval with conditions just to give you a very brief background and we started this project in 2018 it's a very unusual site with some some considerable constraints between court ordered easements and trees and a number of other things so we pursued an alternative development plan back in 2018 that was approved and then we have an approved preliminary plat and it approved civil plans we filed our final plat application in May and in around the 1st of June we had a significant change occur in that we had a regional originally planned for seven office buildings and we have one end user who was looking for a significant more amount significantly higher amount of square footage they wanted twenty thousand square feet which required enough changes to the site plan to warrant an amendment to the alternative development plan that was early June so we did request an extension on final plat which you granted on June 17th and the 30-day extension really ended up from our from our end in terms of real opportunity ended up being about five days because in order to be considered for approval today we had to resubmit five days after we were granted the the extension in June and so it just ended up in terms of a turnaround time we had hoped to come before you today with the alternative development plan as well as the changes to the final plat and the time was just super compressed due to the shot clock certainly has nothing to do with with anything that any of us could control other you know it's just how it worked with under the new law so in light of that we were put in a position where we had so we we have this 20,000 square foot user that is their counseling office and we need them to essentially commit to us that they are that they are taking this building for us to go through the amended ADP and the amended civil plans and so our arrangement with them was that the with with an approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the final plat tonight they would essentially commit to all of the other changes that need to come down the line so we I want you to know that we fully understand that when we made the request to Julie and to you guys we know that we have not been through a formal submittal process or recent mental process and we know that that's outside of of what would normally be the review requirements and we're not trying to circumvent those we've been going through those requirements on this particular project since 2018 so we want to comply with everything and we understand circling back to your question and chair we understand that approval with conditions and denial essentially have the same impact on us from a submittal and review standpoint it doesn't impact our timeline either way but what it does is it impacts our arrangement with the end user that's taking 20,000 square feet for a counseling office for them to fully commit to this change and so that that gives us the confidence that we need to go back through and make sure that everything gets changed to reflect city requirements that and the civil plans are revised accordingly and the plat is revised accordingly so we did our very best to accommodate or to respond to all of the staff comments and to bring the plat into compliance as quickly as we could and we were just simply up against a very short timeline and I do have Brad Andrews on the line I think he's still on hold that he is the property owner and developer and I think he'd like to have an opportunity to speak and answer any questions as well specifically Commissioner Ellis I know you asked earlier today about why you know why are we asking for this approval with conditions if the end result is the same either way in terms of timing and costs and we realize that it is Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so with that Amy is there any way to explain to your end user exactly what's going on here it's the same thing I mean you're still gonna have to come back we're still gonna have to see it and we're still gonna have to approve it so is there not a way to explain to the end user what you so nicely presented to us today which was answers to all of staff's questions it's just it's hard for me to to go against staff's recommendation here especially when they just have not reviewed you know what it is that you submitted to them yesterday I I understand Commissioner Ellis and I'm gonna let Brad answer your question specifically but before I hand it over to him and I do want to say that we you know we do acknowledge and understand that that it's the same process either way this was just a an arrangement that we had with the end user that and that put us in this position can we Brad oh he's there thank you yeah Brad Andrews 212 South Elm Street in Denton I appreciate the time this evening on the point of that it's gonna end up being the same timeline and and end result that was that was something that we did not understand until today and that may have just been our misunderstanding or maybe just even mine but it was it was my understanding that one of your options for the one of the options of the planning zoning commission would be to approve with condition you know work out those conditions and meet those satisfy all of those conditions and working with staff and as soon as those conditions were met with staff then it is then ready for filing that it would not need to go back to PNC and Amy did call me earlier this afternoon and told me that's not the case so I guess that does change things in some ways you know but that's that's what I've been telling our our client all this time is that that that would be the approach and so not sure how I got got off war on that is that not an option at this point it took to work with those work with staff to meet those conditions and not come back to PNC unfortunately we contemplated that in our work session this evening and concluded that's not an option the PNC is the authority the authority to approve that staff would not even if we tried to delegate that authority to them be able to to make that decision okay so again our misunderstanding on that we we have worked with other cities where that has been an option maybe it's a different interpretation of the law that so that was that was the route that we we were going down or the understanding that we had in kind of telling our clients that that approach so I know it seems well I understand the commissioners will do what you feel is in the best interest of the city and protect the the integrity of the process we do humbly and respectfully however still request that you work with us in this way and we'll be back the we've we've submitted and and received approval for numerous projects and plats in the city then we were here we were local we we certainly intended to do everything that we say we're gonna do and on top of this now that you get you get a chance to confirm it we come back anyway as strange as the request may sound it would be helpful in what we're trying to accomplish with this particular client if we can go this way so we do do respectfully request that you give that serious consideration thank you well Amy and Brad thank you for being available Commissioner Smith thank you so Amy I don't think I got a straight answer from what Margie had asked beginning which is are you saying that you will lose your end-user if it is a denial versus a conditional approval after after Brad had spoke it sounds like it it guys kind of came in tonight and but probably then your end-user probably assumes that tonight you could have moved forward but now knowing that no matter what you have to come back are you still saying that without a conditional probably you're gonna lose your you're gonna lose your client basically you're gonna lose your your tenant if I may speak to that that's unknown what what the the commitment that we made to them is that we would submit and and be on on the agenda tonight for the plaque to maintain the timeline that that that everybody had anticipated this project to be under and so their their commitment to us is that we'll go ahead and execute this lease they they executed the lease today based on our our being on the agenda tonight and so I can't I don't know I mean I don't want to tell you I'm certainly not trying to threaten you with hey we're gonna lose our client and that's your problem it's not your problem I understand that but that those are the promises that we met made to them tonight and I don't know honestly how it will play out from here obviously I've got some explaining to do based on the my misunderstanding of how this could play out I've got some explaining to do to them anyway so okay thank you very much I think if I can interject some some thoughts on this our Commission me personally have set through literal work sessions on trying to understand this new governmental code of platting and shot clocks and we can't deny a plat or all these different rules that we still are as clear as mud on how to interpret and use these and so I have a an issue that even the volunteer Commission who has been trained on this doesn't understand this to delegate the responsibility out to local developers to then try for them to defend or describe how to navigate this new local government code and so if it is the exact same burden and onus back on the city and the applicant to apply I know just in my personal and professional experience the idea of having a status of approved with conditions is monumentally different and extremely more interpretable than denial and then having someone defend what that denial means despite them saying it's the exact same it's it's it's a tough conversation to have with anybody to say it's a denial but really it is an approval with conditions if I don't I don't like the idea of me putting that on any person trying to develop and didn't when we as a Commissioner still going through work sessions on how to actually process the approval of these things and so it would be my desire and I obviously and fully respect staff's recommendation for denial but to facilitate the conversations left with the individuals trying to do business in our town I would prefer and I guess I just go ahead and make the motion to approve this with conditions and so that's my motion on the table Commissioner Smith a second we have a first and a second for approval with conditions Commissioner Beck yeah so I appreciate the thank you chair I appreciate that the chairs desire to make this easier on on our fellow citizens who are just trying to do their best to develop property under their control and and I appreciate that I I don't want to overburden my neighbors who are trying to develop these properties but I think it sets a it is the more conservative and sets the the more limited impact to say that we are going to follow the rules and and it's it may be unfortunate that in this particular case they're getting caught so I appreciate the chairs concern about that that this is cumbersome and and dropped in from the sky as it were this at the state level and and it's really impacting our neighborhood but at the same token we the staff hasn't had a chance to review these materials and I think that sets a precedent where you're saying well we're going to we're going to make a judgment call on something where the staff is not fully reviewed the materials and I think that sets a terrible precedent so I I I'm sympathetic and I'm very sorry for the applicant but I don't think I can support this in these kinds of conditions if the staff would review it then I probably if they supported it and it matched everything then then I might feel much more comfortable thank you chair sure Christian actually Christian put out real fast and I let Cynthia hop in to see if she has some context for us mr. chair I just wanted to point out or ask if if the conditions that you mentioned in your motion are the conditions in the staff report I I appreciate that clarification they are the conditions listed in the staff report Commissioner Smith are you okay with that clarification yes I am thank you Commissioner for being patient you know the floor that was gonna be my question so the conditions that we're voting on are going to be basically staff's conditions so so when this comes around because it's gonna have to come back right would that vote be contingent on them meeting the conditions in this report or whether or not they just meet the requirements period well I guess that my question is what are we setting ourselves up to have to approve when it comes back the expectation of my motion was that they meet the baseline of all approval necessary for to meet the technical requirements to approve okay okay I think that's all the question because ultimately like this comes down to like weird stuff that we have to do because of the shot clock and bizarre things that this imperfect law that we hate is wreaking on our town right okay all right is there any other Christian Alice yeah thank you chair just to further the discussion because I'm I'm super uncomfortable with it I mean I feel like we're circumventing our own process and we're going against our own staff with their recommendation I mean the way the law states is that we as a commission can set forth an approval with conditions and cite the conditions in this case we've literally had an applicant come to us requesting a conditional approval which to me seems backwards for the way the law is written and while I appreciate the difficulty in in having to explain to their client what was misunderstood I mean that's just part of doing business we all have clients we have to talk to and explain things to and sometimes that you know we're back to do a corner because we misunderstood something and it's it's on us to go back to our client and explain to them and I don't I don't feel like we should circumvent what our process is and circumvent our staff's recommendation because they need to go back and clarify something with their clients so and again it's not to try to to put a bigger burden that the issue is the same difference for them this is coming before us regardless I don't know why we want to circumvent our own process which staff work diligently to put in place when this shot clock became law and I think they've done a great job with with how they are managing plats being submitted and resubmittals and so I am I'm not comfortable with with emotion as stated good Richard just for point of clarification the conditions were not in the staff report I think the conditions were put in in the letter that was submitted by the by the applicants representative so for clarification on that point then the the implications of a denial and an approval with conditions ultimately though the threshold for approval is the same I would have to look at all of their conditions and how they align with the various items that that Julie has in her staff analysis that was found to be deficient if it is if for some reason one of those conditions missed a deficiency that that was determined by by Julian her staff analysis if that was not addressed in those conditions we could then not force them to comply they would only be limited to those conditions that were put in place by by PNC I don't I don't like that at all that's unsettling to me thank you for that clarification I was under the impression that yeah I was under a different impression yeah I think that was Cynthia's earlier comment she could correct me but that they would need to be very specific not this broad sort of broad approval or broad conditional approval understood things like clarification Christian Pernetta so just a couple of things so thanks Richard for bringing in that up so just to verify the the conditions are not staff conditions these are conditions requested by the applicant in their letter to us right that are part of the motion I guess is what I'm asking yeah it Julie did you have something yes Christian Pernetta that was my understanding prior to us going to a vote there might be a rescinding of a motion bear with me on that one Julie did you have something to add to that um no they were yeah it was requested by the applicant I don't I'm looking back through their email I don't see where they specifically laid out conditions it appears that they're essentially kind of requesting that condition that all staff comments will be addressed which is broad okay so and before we go to the part where we may or may not rescind the motion everything I just do want to take one second to grandstand for a second knowing that all the problems that we've had with you know things like the shot clock and everything this is a law that went back and went to place in the last session and knowing that these are all you know things that are lobbied upon to to the state to pass you know I would hope that things like this kind of go forward and there is lobbying at the next session to maybe revoke this refined it in some way so that way that these don't quite hobble us in our job going forward it seems like it was a very rush thing that was you know that while it was put forward to make sure that in the event of disasters like Hurricane Harvey people aren't left you know in the lurch it seems like for everyday things this is this winds up hurting our partners in town who are trying to build a better town so if you're out there listening here for developer please get with everybody else and see what we can do to make sure that this thing gets corrected in the next session thank you so I completely agree with the Commissioner pernetta I saw this as an opportunity for local authorities to to find a way to help local developers but it seems as though that the kind of the state wins again in this situation in terms of what we can do I I am going to withdraw my motion as much as I I would want to facilitate an easy conversation between the applicant and the tenants the ambiguity and and the applicant presenting conditions to us as Commissioner Ellis pointed out does change the process we have in place and and without those being reviewed I wouldn't be in good conscience knowing exactly what conditions that I would be in favor of and so back to Commissioner pernetta's eloquent grandstanding this is ridiculous and it continues to be ridiculous from the state mandate and needs to change but but knowing all the context Cynthia and Richard for helping out there with Julie's help I'm going to withdraw my motion Julie well I did want to add I apologize I look back through Amy's through Amy's request she did have some specific conditions I they're not something that staff is fully fully vetted once again because it's it's based upon deficiencies in the plot that we haven't reviewed but do you want me to read out what her requested conditions are or I I do not need them right out okay so with that the chair will entertain another motion Commissioner Beck I make a motion to accept staff's recommendation for denial as recommended by staff customer pernetta good I'm sorry doing I just wanted to interject mr. chair yeah I'm sorry if our commissioner back are you saying that you want to deny with the conditions or the reasons in the staff report I am saying I I make a motion to accept staff's recommendation as it has as it was conveyed to us okay so is that a how that the state law is written is that the Planning Commission has to deny for reasons specific reasons for those need to be in those reasons as identified in the staff report okay thank you Christian pernetta as much as it pains me to do this to the applicant I would second yeah we have a first and a second for denial any discussion yeah I don't need to talk anymore but this is not a fun vote I certainly for Brad and Amy who I hope so on the line hopefully that conversation goes well and the tenant holds that lease they you got executed today so wish you the best in that conversation we'll take this to a vote via roll call again this is a vote to deny so in I vote is vote to deny commissioner Cole Commissioner Ellis I customer back I customer pernetta I customer Anderson I commissioner Smith all right the chair is also an I the motion carries of denial seven zero next round of business is item for BFP 20 - 0 0 1 0 and this item is going to be presented by mark layered and mark as you come on the line if you can hear me I've just been asked that any time you speak since you're on the phone if you could just say this is mark speaking or just identify yourself on the onset of you speaking this be helpful for anyone watching along we know what that voice is good evening this is mark layered can you hear me we can great thank you this evening I have for your consideration the final plot of lot one block a Quincy court in addition this property is generally low is located at the southeast corner of Stewart Road and Luke 288 located here within the city of Denton staff recommends the approval of the plot and I stand for any questions you may have thank you very much Mark there any questions for this item okay seeing none the chair will entertain a motion the commissioner Anderson I make the motion to approve commissioner Smith second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a vote be a roll call commissioner Cole Mr. Smith I push your Ellis I push your back I push your pernetta I push your Anderson I chairs also an I motion carries seven zero next item of business is item 4c PD 20 - 0 0 0 1e this item was postponed at our June 3rd meeting is being brought back before us and I will turn the floor over to Haley's Agurski for presentation good evening Commission Haley's Agurski senior planner can you all hear me we can all right great so I won't go through everything in full detail again I'll just skim through those slides we went through at work session to highlight the changes so again the major change to this request is the the change in acreage that would be within the PD three acres on the western edge of the property have been removed from the PD request so we're at a total of 143 acres as opposed to the 146 that we previously looked at the the request would be broken down as 128 acres being initially zoned to PD to PD from the placeholder of our that was received after annexation and then 14.19 acres would be rezoned from the existing r6 designation to PD we can go to the next slide this this is the original layout that you all saw when this first came before you as a public hearing item this featured 491 lots 14 a 14.19 acres rather of HOA open space that the two main areas are shown in yellow on the map a larger amenity center with trails on the south side and then a smaller pond feature with trails around that on the north northeast side of the property the the area called that in blue is a central pedestrian corridor that would be a divided roadway with a sidewalk through the middle of it to facilitate pedestrian traffic going through this neighborhood to the future regional City Park that is north of all Red Road and then south of the extension of Rush Creek Road this plan featured about 18 acres of land that would be dedicated to the Parks Department for a trail extension that would connect to this neighborhood and be part of a larger network of trails throughout the city the area shown in red is the approximate location of a plug gas well and we can look at that location in a little more detail on the other plans as well so if we go to the next slide this was the the plan that was presented to you on June 3rd the major change here again is the alignment of Rush Creek Road the previous plan had that road terminating section that aligned with a barn on the adjacent property after negotiations with the the property owner and reanalyzing this the developer was able to tighten the curve on this roadway up from a thousand feet to the minimum of 750 feet so that moved the roadway about 93 feet from that barn so it would avoid that future intersection a few lots were lost on the west side of the property those were relocated near the amenity center on the south side but this does still feature those two main amenity areas as well as the central trail this plan has slightly less acreage within HOA control 14.09 acres and then the approximately 18.3 acres so slightly more acreage that would have been dedicated to the city and then if we go to the next slide this this is the final version of the plan that's been agreed upon by the neighbors it is much the same as the previous version again the road does miss the barn by about 93 feet the intersection of Allred Road and Rush Creek Road has been relocated on this plan so you can see a few less lots there on the northwest corner to clarify Commissioner Beck's question at work session the developer did provide me with some exact measurements the plugged well that's approximately in the red area is about 37 feet south of Allred Road and about 35 feet north of that knuckle within the residential street there so it is over 30 feet outside of both right of ways and within an HOA lot just to clarify that the other major change here is the area outlined in purple that's the the three acres that would be conveyed to the adjacent property owner and therefore are excluded from this PD request now and then the the totals just to compare open space again this plan does have less HOA open space at just under 13 acres and it it has three less acres 15.3 total that would be conveyed to the city approve it for the future trails if we can go to the next slide this is simply here to clarify that there are no changes proposed with this revised plan to the uses that would be permitted within the PD it would still be strictly a single-family residential as well as the typical accessory and temporary uses that we permit within our single-family districts and on the next slide this is just a breakdown again to show that there are no differences proposed within the dimensional standards the major changes here again that are shown on the plan is a slight reduction in open space from 10% to 9% that three acre reduction in open space to be conveyed to the city and then an overall loss of one lot so from 491 to 490 the next slide this again is just a breakdown of those three plans and how they compare the major changes are in bold so the the curve radius on on brush Creek has been shrank from a thousand feet to about 750 feet which is the city minimum this is slightly less desirable but it is still within the parameters for safety for a roadway of this size all three of the alignments avoid going over the gas well in terms of maximizing open space for the neighborhood the the revised plan does have slightly less acreage it goes from fourteen point one nine to twelve point nine six acres total that would be with an HOA control and then the the open space that would be conveyed to the city is reduced from eighteen point three to fifteen point three acres with the exclusion of that Western area from the PD that we looked at earlier some of the other considerations with the roadway that they were striving to meet with these plans was to keep the neighborhood intact and avoid bisecting it with that arterial roadway all three designs achieved that goal and then finally with regard to impact to the neighbors the original plan would have affected about six acres of the neighbor neighboring property with the road alignment both of the revisions take that number down to 1.5 acres this final plan also offers the neighbor the benefit of removing the all-red road intersection from their property and putting it on to the sage work property and finally with the the next slide just wanted to clarify that staff is still recommending approval of this plan the neighbor is no longer in opposition so so they achieve that goal of the postponements that we've been going through and staff is in favor of the the July 8th plan as it's been presented tonight and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you very much Haley commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so as I recall the the order of events that happened here and you sort of mentioned on the previous slide I'm not asking you to bring it up is the original all red road or sorry brush Creek Road expansion was put in place to come to avoid the floodplain crossing through the middle of this property and that put it to take over the the the neighboring property and when we had questions about that we were like well we don't want to cross the floodplain and we don't we can't remove it north because we'll we'll hit a gas well and then as we begin to massage this to take into the concerns of the neighboring property which I admit are very and very important we don't want to have impacts necessarily on the neighboring property but we move to a condition where suddenly now we're crossing into the floodplain and suddenly we're building I heard the numbers 37 and I can't remember the other but it doesn't really approximately the same we know we're basically building on top of a gas well which we said we couldn't do and you know I was when I my original question on three three meetings back or so was you know can't we just punch it through there and oh no we can't do that or the engineer doesn't want to do that so it feels like we're we're playing a little fast and loose with both our needs of our floodplain and our needs of our gas well the needs of our property adjacent property owners and then you know the you know the collecting all the the issues of you know what does it mean to have additional drainage potential damage by moving into the floodplain what does it mean to to you know why was the engineer concerned to build next to a gas well that wasn't ever really super clear we all agreed it was maybe not optimal but now we can do that we're not taking into a cost the the the costs or the development and the future costs for for Denton I'm not at all blind to this this property you know already road was you know used psychic circly to justify this property and and and a hundred coal and hundred coal was I mean so these things are being circularly used to justify each other and and I I think we need to follow our own guidelines or have really good clear rationale for you know why we can suddenly change those things and I I'm just not at all I don't think this matches our cost benefits I don't think it matches our drainage rules I don't think it matches you know good engineering plans you know we curved this a lot to go into the floodplain and get around the gas well and so curves are bad or and straights are good earn weight now curves are acceptable so I think there's a lot of fudging around the edges in order to make this development happen when we should have just had a clean plan to begin with and not just try to run a sidewalk up into the North Park so I can I feel very comfortable saying that I can't support the this this development for those reasons this is Haley speaking Commissioner Beck can I respond to a couple of those thoughts there yes I get again this is Haley speaking the road has not been shifted into the floodplain the if Julie if you could go to slide 25 please the July 8th layout it may be hard to see I'm not sure how well this comes through for you all but there is a dashed line a double dashed line actually that runs south of brush Creek through the the purple area on the plan that is the limits of the floodplain so the road the road has not shifted towards the floodplain it's actually shifted further away from the floodplain on the north the northeast or northwest side of the property so I just wanted to alleviate your concern there that the road is still not within the floodplain the reduction in floodplain acres that you saw being conveyed to the city is because of that area in purple that is instead being conveyed to the neighbor they are receiving some of the acres within the floodplain and and again with regards to the gas well I just want to reiterate there there is no standard for this anywhere within the country the concerns of our city engineer was that the the well not be underneath pavement in the it so that in the event the well has to be you know something goes wrong and it starts leaking or we have to access it for some reason to reseal the casing that that not be within the pavement of a city roadway so that the road wouldn't have to be shut down to do that and we would avoid any any potential risk of there being some sort of failure within the casing that could have affected the the paving itself and the safety of the road so the well is still well outside of the right of way of any city street to be at a residential street a collector or an arterial so it satisfies all of those concerns again the change here was was taking away the the preference that these curves be as broad and as gentle as possible because this will someday be a six lane roadway with high-speed traffic on it and and reducing that to the the bare minimum that we deem acceptable for safety standards which is that 750 foot curve radius shown on the plan so I certainly appreciate your concerns with how this was all massaged but there there was a great amount of thought and effort put into making sure that all of those safety concerns were still addressed and that the the flood plain is not affected by the roadway so just just one one little quibble with that and I think you guys do an excellent job so I'm not I'm not knocking the development office at all I think that you you did your best to make a plan that matched certain stakeholders but as I recall the original all-red road a plan was to go from approximately where the south end of the sidewalk was in the circle in blue to approximately where the barn is and so you may they would the road may not have shifted into the flood plain but it is shifted towards the flipped is that correct this is Haley again the then I would not say it's fair to say either road has shifted towards the flood plain Brush Creek Road shifted away from the flood plain since it shifted north of the barn which is right at the limits of the flood plain and the intersection of all red yes did move further to the east but it's it's nowhere near the flood plain itself it it's even further north from it than Brush Creek Road would be I'm not sure if that helps or not but again if you can see it on the plan that the very faint dashed line that is just to the the southwest of the barn is the flood plain limit I see those those dotted lines thank you for the clarification Julie can you go I think two slides back shows the original plan so that's the original one and so all red it looks like instead of going into the adjacent property now cuts through their own property and Brush Creek turns north a little bit quicker that's that's the significant changes in the roads it looks like okay thanks Julie is there any other questions for Haley Kushner Cole thank you chair Haley just do you happen to know what type of plugging they use was a mechanical or was it cement mud that not you know what they did this is Haley again yes I did pull the Railroad Commission report and they I believe it is a cement plug at least from my understanding of the plugging report the well is plugged at three different depths the the shallowest steps I believe is 20 feet below the surface but it has three separate cement plugs starting at that 20 feet and then progressing down through the the the various strata of gas and water to to ensure that there's separation between the groundwater and and the the shale layer featuring the the natural gas but I believe it was purely cement plugs thank you any other items so with that I just wanted to acknowledge that for this item we had zero people make comments using our online form there was zero in support of this item and zero against all these comment forms were emailed to all the commissioners and city secretaries to be recorded additionally there were zero people that called into our phone number to register their position there is neither any support or against but finally there is one person who has called in this evening to speak on this item so staff will be connecting to them now good evening caller you're live with the plan and zoning Commission can you please state your name and address for the record and you'll have four minutes to speak sure this is Eric Perrett 2111 Westwood Drive thank you for the opportunity I'll be brief just to summarize my thoughts that I've shared previously I don't really have an objection to the railway line that proposed for this application that my objection really comes from the fact that I don't think the fiscal analysis provided actually satisfies our long range plans call for long-term fiscal analysis which as I read it is intended to ensure that we don't have to raise taxes on our current residents in the future you know I as I look through what has happened it sort of seems like the de facto process is that a certain amount of land use is assumed that goes into the modeling for traffic studies that guides mobility plan assumptions then that drives infrastructure investments in order to make sure that we're not caught behind like we have in the past in certain areas but then that brings annexation and zoning change requests into those corridors when I look back at the broader area that this is in I see thousands of acres and is currently rural with no city services no nothing and I just kind of wonder what what's the future hold do we have a process in place to ensure that that development will actually pay enough taxes to serve it as I look through the the paragraph and a half of fiscal analysis included in the the backup report I can't imagine that staff would be proud to provide that if if they were called to do a rigorous long-term fiscal analysis of a development plan so I just really call for the Commission and staff to consider fulfilling the long-range plans call for getting a serious serious process in place in order to fulfill those desires of the long-range plan thank you thank you mr. Prude for calling in and I appreciate your letter to us earlier this week I read through the bulk of it and I thought it was really helpful especially your analysis of mobility and thoroughfare through what's currently flume rural which doesn't seem to be the future land use in actuality and we talked about that in a work session so I appreciate your insight Commissioner Smith thank you chair Erica we've heard you speak here on the Commission a couple of times and I think I've interacted with you a couple of times but if I kind of get your concern straight it sounds like the development of rural and adding roadways and city services to have to go into these rural areas that the tax rate that we have currently for residential property that amount of tax the amount of tax collected by the city in your mind for a long-term for a long-term fiscal analysis isn't sufficient enough to keep up with those services that's what you're essentially saying yeah I mean obviously I haven't done a rigorous study on this particular development so I can't state that it absolutely won't but it concerns me that we don't have a process to do that the fiscal analysis that I've seen the city do for for other large developments has been limited to save one lifecycle of the infrastructure and and then I just wonder okay what happens are we agreeing to let that infrastructure crumble and fail once it's gone or are we going to levy taxes to replace it gotcha thank you for your input I appreciate I was muting any other any other questions for Eric Prout Eric I appreciate you calling in this evening with that the chair will entertain any motions or further discussion the item commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a motion to approve Commissioner Anderson second the motion we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on this item Commissioner Ellis thank you just real quick comment to thank the developer for their patience and flexibility in this I think you know they came to the best possible scenario in the concerns that that were raised through the multiple times that this item was before us so kudos to them thank you I agree and I echo what Commissioner Anderson said earlier it's it's good to see in-depth conversation trying to find compromise for the sake of all parties so well done to staff applicant and citizens for being involved in the discussion with that we will take this vote by roll call Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Beck nay Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Pernetta chairs an aye motion carries 6-1 the next item of our agenda is item 5a it's a planning Zoni Commission project matrix I'll turn the floor over to Richard Kenoni for any updates and then the Commission for questions or additions just just briefly the only update I would I would have is we'll be bringing back the obviously the planning discussion for at the next PNC meetings we'll make sure that that is the only work session item on that agenda so we can have plenty plenty of time devoted devoted to that without be happy answer any questions great zoom and have any questions for the matrix or anything to add to the matrix going forward okay seeing none I will call this meeting to a close at 738 Oh Christian Anderson yes are you saying it can be said after you just messed up okay great so the meeting is now closed at 738 thank you