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