WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.160
 Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Planning and Zoning

00:00:03.160 --> 00:00:08.660
 Commission work session meeting for Wednesday July 8th 2020. Seeing that we

00:00:08.660 --> 00:00:16.060
 have a quorum I'll call this meeting to order of 5-0-1. The first item of business on the

00:00:16.060 --> 00:00:19.640
 agenda will be our work session reports. We have two this evening and if you'll

00:00:19.640 --> 00:00:25.680
 note on the agenda there is an item 3-1-A which is closed meeting and that's

00:00:25.680 --> 00:00:31.200
 in response if there's any requirement to have a closed meeting in the work

00:00:31.200 --> 00:00:35.120
 session report on planning. So we don't necessarily need to go into that but it's

00:00:35.120 --> 00:00:40.120
 reserved for space if we needed to go into a closed meeting. With that being

00:00:40.120 --> 00:00:44.760
 said Richard if it's okay with you I think we can just jump into the work

00:00:44.760 --> 00:00:50.360
 session report. Okay we'll have Brian John go ahead and pull up his presentation

00:00:50.360 --> 00:01:00.040
 and present on the Mobility Plan traffic signals. This is item 2A PZ 20-145.

00:01:00.040 --> 00:01:06.680
 Good afternoon members of the Planning and Zoning Commission my name is Brian

00:01:06.680 --> 00:01:10.160
 John I'm the city traffic engineer. I've actually got two presentations I want to

00:01:10.160 --> 00:01:14.520
 give tonight. The first one will be on the Mobility Plan and just give you a

00:01:14.520 --> 00:01:17.960
 quick update of what's been done and where we're going and then the second

00:01:17.960 --> 00:01:21.760
 will be on some traffic signal installation and removal requirements

00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:31.520
 or criteria. So the Mobility Plan is being updated well hopefully the end of

00:01:31.520 --> 00:01:35.480
 this year beginning of next year we'll have a new adopted Mobility Plan. Our

00:01:35.480 --> 00:01:38.880
 purpose tonight is kind of to introduce the Mobility Plan for an overview of the

00:01:38.880 --> 00:01:44.120
 milestones what we've done and the type and amount of work that's gone into this

00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:51.500
 effort. For our purposes this Mobility Plan for the first time in the history

00:01:51.500 --> 00:01:55.600
 of Denton we are combining three plans into one. The thoroughfare plan which

00:01:55.600 --> 00:01:59.600
 most people are familiar with that's the roads and the different colored lines on

00:01:59.600 --> 00:02:03.520
 the map and some are dashed there that are not constructed yet but we're also

00:02:03.520 --> 00:02:08.440
 incorporating the bicycle plan and a new pedestrian plan. So we have a we had a

00:02:08.440 --> 00:02:12.960
 current bicycle plan that was a separate document we're rolling that into this

00:02:12.960 --> 00:02:17.920
 Mobility Plan update really trying to integrate all modes of transportation

00:02:17.920 --> 00:02:24.600
 into a single document. The only mode that we are not truly where we're

00:02:24.600 --> 00:02:29.800
 addressing but we're not regulating is the transit and DCTA does a fine job of

00:02:29.800 --> 00:02:33.280
 that and we're working very closely with them as they go through their master

00:02:33.280 --> 00:02:40.320
 plan update as well. So the thoroughfare plan that element determines where the

00:02:40.320 --> 00:02:45.240
 roads are going to be determines basically how wide they want to be what

00:02:45.240 --> 00:02:50.120
 features might or might not be on them. The real intent is to preserve the

00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:54.760
 right-of-way for future roadways so as people as the developers plat the

00:02:54.760 --> 00:02:59.160
 property the Mobility Plan this thoroughfare plan element allows us to

00:02:59.160 --> 00:03:03.480
 identify right-of-way that's going to be needed for future roadway extensions and

00:03:03.480 --> 00:03:10.920
 we get to reserve that in form of dedication. It also helps us design

00:03:10.920 --> 00:03:16.560
 roadway cross sections and identify elements such as bicycle facilities

00:03:16.560 --> 00:03:23.680
 pedestrian facilities, street buffers that kind of thing into our street

00:03:23.680 --> 00:03:30.200
 sections. The bicycle plan is exactly that it's a it's the same animal for

00:03:30.200 --> 00:03:35.640
 bicycles as the thoroughfare plan is for vehicles. We try and identify bicycle

00:03:35.640 --> 00:03:38.960
 corridors and the different types of facilities and where they are

00:03:38.960 --> 00:03:45.760
 appropriate on a primary arterial versus a residential street and we recommend

00:03:45.760 --> 00:03:51.760
 design standards for these facilities as well. The pedestrian plan again this is a

00:03:51.760 --> 00:03:57.840
 relatively new element we're trying to identify gaps in the existing sidewalk

00:03:57.840 --> 00:04:04.120
 network we're trying to prioritize projects where we've got roadways with

00:04:04.120 --> 00:04:10.080
 that were constructed without sidewalks and identify the greatest needs and

00:04:10.080 --> 00:04:16.680
 identify a an implementation plan for the city. This is all three of these

00:04:16.680 --> 00:04:23.600
 plans once they're adopted put the city in a better position to leverage funding

00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:29.840
 through the COG or through TxDOT as projects come online. So why are we

00:04:29.840 --> 00:04:35.000
 updating this now we like to update this this plan and these three plans every

00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:39.800
 five years at the most because development patterns change population

00:04:39.800 --> 00:04:46.400
 increases and and as we move into the future we want to be able to respond and

00:04:46.400 --> 00:04:55.160
 react to those patterns and changes. Part of our initial process was to identify

00:04:55.160 --> 00:04:59.720
 our stakeholders and we've got internal and external obviously all the

00:04:59.720 --> 00:05:04.520
 departments in the city such as planning, DME, fire, police, engineering,

00:05:04.520 --> 00:05:08.920
 sustainability those are all major players in the development of these

00:05:08.920 --> 00:05:15.400
 three plans. Our external partners at the ISD, the universities, the transit agency,

00:05:15.400 --> 00:05:19.600
 the county, and the state also all participated in development of these

00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:24.720
 three plans. So here's just a quick snapshot of the schedule to date. We

00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:31.440
 started in May and worked through most of 2019 the letter half of 2019 with our

00:05:31.440 --> 00:05:37.720
 stakeholders we had four public meetings again we had a focus group with bicycles

00:05:37.720 --> 00:05:42.680
 and starting in December we began to bring this forward to council in a in

00:05:42.680 --> 00:05:46.720
 the work session format our initial idea was to have one we're gonna end up

00:05:46.720 --> 00:05:52.240
 having probably up to eight we've had five so far we've got at least two more

00:05:52.240 --> 00:05:58.200
 and possibly a third so it's it's it's a lot of material and we decided to break

00:05:58.200 --> 00:06:04.520
 it into smaller bits unfortunately tonight you get all of it in one dose.

00:06:04.520 --> 00:06:09.500
 Some existing conditions these are I'm gonna go through these very fast we

00:06:09.500 --> 00:06:15.760
 found that our average travel time to work is 24 minutes we've got 131 lane

00:06:15.760 --> 00:06:20.440
 miles of congested roads and 18 and expected to increase that congestion

00:06:20.440 --> 00:06:30.440
 index is expected to almost double by 2040. We've got 65 fatalities between 2014

00:06:30.440 --> 00:06:37.160
 and 2018 and as it would expected most of those are on our primary roadways. As

00:06:37.160 --> 00:06:43.120
 far as our bicycle infrastructure we currently have 24 miles of trail you

00:06:43.120 --> 00:06:46.600
 know 15.3 and you can read most of this I will share all this it's a lot of data

00:06:46.600 --> 00:06:53.260
 to digest quickly but I'm going to focus on the safety and crash data the 131

00:06:53.260 --> 00:06:57.880
 bicycle related crashes between 2014 and 2018 that's a significant number and

00:06:57.880 --> 00:07:05.800
 that's one of our major impetuses on this this plan is to provide safer

00:07:05.800 --> 00:07:11.480
 bicycle facilities as well as pedestrian facilities. Again this is the

00:07:11.480 --> 00:07:15.880
 pedestrian element 3,000 and 3,000 people in Denton walk to work that's a

00:07:15.880 --> 00:07:19.680
 surprising number we've got a lot of pedestrian activity and then I'm going

00:07:19.680 --> 00:07:24.560
 to go to the safety and crash date 161 pedestrian crashes between 2014 and 2018

00:07:24.560 --> 00:07:32.120
 and again we use the term crash now because the accident tends to infer that

00:07:32.120 --> 00:07:37.880
 it's not preventable and we believe that that most are all of these crashes are

00:07:37.880 --> 00:07:42.680
 preventable and that's again one of the goals of the mobility plan update is to

00:07:42.680 --> 00:07:47.560
 identify areas where we can improve that safety for all modes. So some of our

00:07:47.560 --> 00:07:51.560
 guiding principles again vision zero I'm not sure if you're familiar with this

00:07:51.560 --> 00:07:59.560
 this is a worldwide it started in Europe and has moved into the United States

00:07:59.560 --> 00:08:06.880
 basically vision zero road to zero vision zero Texas the idea is to design

00:08:06.880 --> 00:08:14.840
 a roadway and bicycle pedestrian infrastructure that reduces or

00:08:14.840 --> 00:08:19.320
 eliminates those crashes and those fatalities. Another guiding principle is

00:08:19.320 --> 00:08:23.520
 that is the concept of complete streets and this is something that an

00:08:23.520 --> 00:08:29.400
 organization called NACTO the National Association of Traffic Control officials

00:08:29.400 --> 00:08:36.920
 has put out and this is a overarching vision of all roads need to serve all

00:08:36.920 --> 00:08:45.640
 users so there is no roadway that should not are intended to should not be

00:08:45.640 --> 00:08:50.880
 intended to serve bicycles and pedestrians we're trying to identify the

00:08:50.880 --> 00:08:56.680
 users for each facility and provide an appropriate infrastructure for them. We

00:08:56.680 --> 00:09:01.960
 had again those four public meetings the major points major feedback we received

00:09:01.960 --> 00:09:07.000
 is we need to improve connectivity east west and north south we just we've got a

00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:12.280
 lot of discontinuous roadways or offset roadways and it doesn't lend itself to

00:09:12.280 --> 00:09:19.360
 comfortable travel and really getting across town. Again prioritize safety over

00:09:19.360 --> 00:09:23.800
 congestion reduction this is again an overarching principle in the mobility

00:09:23.800 --> 00:09:28.920
 plan update that we're going through right now. Bicycle pedestrian access

00:09:28.920 --> 00:09:33.440
 during all project phases so we don't want to take something away just because

00:09:33.440 --> 00:09:37.920
 we're rebuilding a roadway and wider sidewalks especially the downtown area

00:09:37.920 --> 00:09:44.640
 or around the high pedestrian volume corridors. We had a meeting with the

00:09:44.640 --> 00:09:48.800
 Commission's of the Committee on Persons with Disabilities and again this is their

00:09:48.800 --> 00:09:56.600
 feedback. Sidewalks are our priority ADA requirements and then some specific

00:09:56.600 --> 00:10:01.680
 Razor Ranch Convention Center just the total lack of sidewalks so these are we

00:10:01.680 --> 00:10:07.200
 took all this feedback and went back and and programmed that into the update with

00:10:07.200 --> 00:10:15.360
 the consultant. Similarly we had a bicycle plan focus group in September no

00:10:15.360 --> 00:10:21.280
 surprise we need to significantly enhance our bicycle facilities our

00:10:21.280 --> 00:10:26.400
 infrastructure is currently we rely a lot on on the share roads or shared lane

00:10:26.400 --> 00:10:35.940
 the desire for separated or buffered or off-street facilities is very very much

00:10:35.940 --> 00:10:43.200
 a popular requirement and we're we're incorporating those those desires into

00:10:43.200 --> 00:10:52.640
 this mobility plan update. This just gives you an idea of the orange are it's

00:10:52.640 --> 00:10:57.920
 this is kind of a comfort level offer for bicycle facilities and the orange is

00:10:57.920 --> 00:11:03.120
 a discomfort so we've got on an off-street trail very very comfortable a

00:11:03.120 --> 00:11:08.520
 lot of blue separated side path which is that wide 10 to 12 foot wide sidewalk

00:11:08.520 --> 00:11:12.400
 parallel to our roadway again high comfort but when you get down into the

00:11:12.400 --> 00:11:17.000
 bottom of that table with the share those the shared lane markings most of

00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:22.120
 the riders are not comfortable using those facilities. We also did an online

00:11:22.120 --> 00:11:29.200
 survey 384 survey responses primarily pushed out through social media and the

00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:35.680
 website. The takeaways from that are it's just more options for transportation in

00:11:35.680 --> 00:11:40.800
 general again focusing on that multimodal infrastructure design sidewalk

00:11:40.800 --> 00:11:47.340
 bike and how do we get to transit and then also heard about some maintenance

00:11:47.340 --> 00:11:50.680
 issues which is not really part of the mobility plan but it's good information

00:11:50.680 --> 00:11:55.840
 that before we go and build a lot of new facility we need to make sure that the

00:11:55.840 --> 00:12:00.120
 we maintain what we've got on the ground today and then again this addresses the

00:12:00.120 --> 00:12:05.120
 gaps in the sidewalk and missing segments. So I'm going to talk a little

00:12:05.120 --> 00:12:09.520
 bit about the the thoroughfare plan specifically and what is the thoroughfare

00:12:09.520 --> 00:12:14.760
 plan we already talked a lot a lot of this the determines alignment to some

00:12:14.760 --> 00:12:21.720
 degree we do have some some wiggle room as we move through implementation when

00:12:21.720 --> 00:12:26.680
 we do the mobility plan we will identify what seems to be the logical path for

00:12:26.680 --> 00:12:31.040
 roadway extensions or new roadways but as development actually occurs we'll do

00:12:31.040 --> 00:12:35.660
 more of an engineering assessment and identify an exact corridor but again

00:12:35.660 --> 00:12:38.920
 that right-of-way preservation is one of the most important elements or our

00:12:38.920 --> 00:12:46.160
 functions of the thoroughfare plan and it positions us in the city a much

00:12:46.160 --> 00:12:53.040
 better situation for external funding through the cog or through tech stock. So

00:12:53.040 --> 00:13:02.320
 this is just to prove that in fact we are this whole process is identified in

00:13:02.320 --> 00:13:08.000
 the local government code this is we have the right to develop these plans in

00:13:08.000 --> 00:13:13.580
 the city limits and in the ETJ and preserve those corridors and identify

00:13:13.580 --> 00:13:18.840
 that right-of-way dedication requirement. So this is the process that we went

00:13:18.840 --> 00:13:23.880
 through we looked at the existing roadways and what the 2015 which is the

00:13:23.880 --> 00:13:27.800
 last time we did an update what identified their ultimate width we

00:13:27.800 --> 00:13:31.400
 identify some key connections and that's an important thing is we've got

00:13:31.400 --> 00:13:37.320
 development happening that may not be contiguous who you have a roadway that's

00:13:37.320 --> 00:13:42.480
 incomplete we need to make sure that we preserve that corridor so we can connect

00:13:42.480 --> 00:13:47.760
 those two pieces of roadway. We looked at future roadways and established what we

00:13:47.760 --> 00:13:54.760
 thought again was the best alignment and this last number four was really kind of

00:13:54.760 --> 00:14:01.320
 the meat of some of the vehicular modeling. We developed a model and some

00:14:01.320 --> 00:14:07.200
 there's a software program that allows us to identify basically how traffic

00:14:07.200 --> 00:14:13.200
 will flow through and in and out of Denton and what our design year was 2045.

00:14:13.200 --> 00:14:17.760
 So a little bit about roadway classifications the freeways we do not

00:14:17.760 --> 00:14:22.620
 govern the freeways that's owned and operated by tech stop. So the bottom

00:14:22.620 --> 00:14:27.360
 four categories principal arterial secondary arterial collector and local

00:14:27.360 --> 00:14:32.960
 are really the purview of the city of Denton. So we've got right-of-way widths

00:14:32.960 --> 00:14:39.600
 varying from 135 to 55 feet with capacity of 25,000 plus down to 5,000 so

00:14:39.600 --> 00:14:44.080
 we identify each of these different categories of roadways so that we can

00:14:44.080 --> 00:14:49.200
 identify the type and the size of roadway and the features that we want to

00:14:49.200 --> 00:14:55.760
 incorporate into each corridor. So here's a little comparison of some existing

00:14:55.760 --> 00:14:59.800
 design which is the top of the slide and the proposed design in this mobility

00:14:59.800 --> 00:15:05.600
 plan update. We're recommending the removal of bikes on-street bike

00:15:05.600 --> 00:15:10.840
 facilities for six-lane divided roadways. We just think that the volume and speed

00:15:10.840 --> 00:15:14.600
 characteristics lend themselves much better to the side path which you can

00:15:14.600 --> 00:15:21.320
 see the bottom slide and separating physically the cyclists and the

00:15:21.320 --> 00:15:26.720
 motorists. Secondary arterials again you can see the existing design on the top

00:15:26.720 --> 00:15:30.300
 and then we got a couple of different alternatives. One of the elements and one

00:15:30.300 --> 00:15:35.000
 of the initiatives that we identified in this mobility plan update is it's to try

00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:40.640
 and give ourselves flexibility so we've got some of these buffers and what

00:15:40.640 --> 00:15:45.040
 we can incorporate the bike lane into the buffer maybe a wider sidewalk. It's

00:15:45.040 --> 00:15:49.880
 kind of a flex zone so we know we need if this we're talking about a secondary

00:15:49.880 --> 00:15:54.480
 arterial we need two lanes of vehicular travel in each direction and beyond that

00:15:54.480 --> 00:15:59.600
 it's it's really dependent on context of the roadway so are we going through

00:15:59.600 --> 00:16:04.640
 residential areas are we going through rural or an urban we want to have enough

00:16:04.640 --> 00:16:11.520
 tools in our toolbox to address each of those different scenarios. The collectors

00:16:11.520 --> 00:16:17.220
 are pretty much staying the same we've got two different options either a three

00:16:17.220 --> 00:16:21.880
 lane section with the center left turn lane or two lane section with parking or

00:16:21.880 --> 00:16:26.280
 bike lane again that flex zone allows us to do some different things in different

00:16:26.280 --> 00:16:33.840
 contexts. So this is the travel demand modeling it really allows us to gauge

00:16:33.840 --> 00:16:40.520
 the impact of future growth and we looked at a build-out scenario 2045 we

00:16:40.520 --> 00:16:46.240
 took the land use plan and really tried to develop every developable parcel and

00:16:46.240 --> 00:16:53.000
 we went through the process and identified what we thought would be

00:16:53.000 --> 00:16:59.320
 generated from each of those tracks and it's really a four-step process so we

00:16:59.320 --> 00:17:04.240
 identify the land use and that translates into population and employment

00:17:04.240 --> 00:17:13.160
 and we generate trips based on that land use we looked at existing traffic

00:17:13.160 --> 00:17:19.840
 patterns and the cogs regional travel demand model and we developed some trip

00:17:19.840 --> 00:17:26.800
 distribution and mode choice assumptions and then we ran the software and we get

00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:31.920
 a traffic what we call a traffic assignment which gives our projection 24

00:17:31.920 --> 00:17:39.360
 hour volumes for each of the roadways that are incorporated into the model so

00:17:39.360 --> 00:17:45.880
 we we took the cog model we added to it enhanced it made it our own and we've

00:17:45.880 --> 00:17:52.600
 got a very detailed model now and a very robust model for the city of Denton. Some

00:17:52.600 --> 00:18:00.360
 other elements that play into this overarching mobility plan update we're

00:18:00.360 --> 00:18:06.960
 looking at some roadway closures this is a UNT looking at Avenue C closure how

00:18:06.960 --> 00:18:11.360
 does that affect parallel facilities and do we have enough roadway capacity on

00:18:11.360 --> 00:18:16.400
 those facilities to carry that expect the traffic load we also did a one-way

00:18:16.400 --> 00:18:20.880
 two-way analysis it's actually going to council understand now the 28th of this

00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:26.580
 month oak and hickory locust and elm currently one way what happens if we

00:18:26.580 --> 00:18:31.760
 convert those to two-way and do we again do we have enough capacity does that

00:18:31.760 --> 00:18:36.240
 existing pavement cross-section give us enough flexibility to do what we need to

00:18:36.240 --> 00:18:41.560
 do and then the last one is again associated with a university TWU is

00:18:41.560 --> 00:18:46.840
 interested in closing a portion of Bell Avenue and creating a basically a

00:18:46.840 --> 00:18:56.680
 pedestrian mall a large crossing between Chapel and Texas and so what happens to

00:18:56.680 --> 00:19:02.760
 Elm and locust and Carol and Riddell if that piece of Bell is closed and that

00:19:02.760 --> 00:19:07.720
 all rolls into do we what happens if bells closed and we go to a two-way

00:19:07.720 --> 00:19:14.840
 scenario so we're it's it becomes a very intricate modeling process a lot of ifs

00:19:14.840 --> 00:19:20.000
 and if what happens and and we've done a lot of analysis and we'll be sharing the

00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:25.560
 findings of that with Council on the 28th so this is the draft there for plan

00:19:25.560 --> 00:19:32.740
 and I've got a slide in here a little bit later that offers a link to the

00:19:32.740 --> 00:19:39.600
 Walter P Moore website that that basically houses the plan as it sits

00:19:39.600 --> 00:19:44.120
 not adopted yet but it incorporates all the comments from council today and

00:19:44.120 --> 00:19:51.560
 staffs analysis as well so when we presented this to council because it

00:19:51.560 --> 00:19:57.260
 was such a large amount of information we divide we broke it into five sections

00:19:57.260 --> 00:20:04.680
 and I want to walk through one of those with you just as an example of the

00:20:04.680 --> 00:20:09.080
 process that we looked at and and how we presented the information and some of

00:20:09.080 --> 00:20:12.040
 the recommendations that are incorporated into the mobility plan

00:20:12.040 --> 00:20:18.280
 update so we're looking at the northern part so the 2015 plan is on your left

00:20:18.280 --> 00:20:23.600
 and the 2020 is on your right just as a comparison what you'll notice on the

00:20:23.600 --> 00:20:30.880
 2015 plan there was a lot of meandering roadways and a lot of smaller

00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:37.560
 classification roadways in the 2020 plan we try to identify primarily the major

00:20:37.560 --> 00:20:43.240
 corridors we wanted to identify more direct connections again goes back to

00:20:43.240 --> 00:20:49.080
 that improved connectivity east west north south if you know you don't expect

00:20:49.080 --> 00:20:54.040
 the road that you're on to end and be offset and so we went back and looked at

00:20:54.040 --> 00:21:00.440
 what we could do to enhance that and here's a little bit better detailed

00:21:00.440 --> 00:21:07.480
 again between the 2015 and 2020 and I want to go to the next one so these are

00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:13.240
 some of the updates so Westgate Drive we're making some changes Thunderbird

00:21:13.240 --> 00:21:17.920
 Drive new collector roadway and number three they're providing some

00:21:17.920 --> 00:21:25.680
 connectivity that doesn't exist today each of these has some modification from

00:21:25.680 --> 00:21:30.240
 the 2015 to the 2020 plan I don't need I don't want to get into details if if you

00:21:30.240 --> 00:21:35.040
 want a more detailed presentation we can do exactly what we've done with council

00:21:35.040 --> 00:21:39.800
 and bring it back and and really dig into the details but this just gives you

00:21:39.800 --> 00:21:44.720
 an idea typically each of the five sections had about five to ten major

00:21:44.720 --> 00:21:50.000
 changes that we discussed some are downgrades some are downsizing some are

00:21:50.000 --> 00:21:55.800
 upsizing some are realignments but each of these is based on that travel demand

00:21:55.800 --> 00:22:02.000
 model and the volumes that we expect for our 2040 scenario the next thing I want

00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:06.800
 to talk about is a bicycle plan and again one of the overarching guiding

00:22:06.800 --> 00:22:13.160
 principles that we have migrated to with this bicycle plan update is the FHWA

00:22:13.160 --> 00:22:21.640
 bikeway selection guide and it really kind of identifies the the stress level

00:22:21.640 --> 00:22:28.720
 where that that riders will feel on different kind of facilities and you can

00:22:28.720 --> 00:22:36.200
 see that you know more than 50% of the riders pulled in this FHWA document are

00:22:36.200 --> 00:22:39.880
 not comfortable with with bike lanes even on-street facilities they want

00:22:39.880 --> 00:22:46.800
 separated facility with either a raised or some kind of a buffer or truly off

00:22:46.800 --> 00:22:50.360
 street option so hey Brian can I interrupt you real fast and recognize

00:22:50.360 --> 00:22:55.000
 commissioner back I believe has a question okay do I need to take the slide

00:22:55.000 --> 00:23:01.880
 down no no we're all up yep thank you chair are we taking questions in these

00:23:01.880 --> 00:23:10.240
 sections are we waiting to the end I'm fine taking questions as we go so okay

00:23:10.240 --> 00:23:16.960
 if you before you move on to the bikes I had a couple questions about your

00:23:16.960 --> 00:23:21.480
 overall sort of 10,000 foot view on the mobility plan that you just described in

00:23:21.480 --> 00:23:26.880
 the previous slides and and your modeling is based on the future land

00:23:26.880 --> 00:23:34.480
 use map the flume presuming that the development follows that but we've

00:23:34.480 --> 00:23:38.080
 noticed the or I've noticed I shouldn't speak for the other commissioners I've

00:23:38.080 --> 00:23:46.000
 noticed a quite a degree of variability from the future land use map and so if

00:23:46.000 --> 00:23:50.880
 if your mobility plan is rolling out on the future land use map and we're not

00:23:50.880 --> 00:23:55.680
 following the future land use map very tightly how does that affect your

00:23:55.680 --> 00:24:04.040
 modeling well so we did it we did we accommodated or reflected in the land

00:24:04.040 --> 00:24:10.760
 use plan the developments that are currently proposed and that have been

00:24:10.760 --> 00:24:18.480
 obviously been constructed since the 2015 update obviously if the land use

00:24:18.480 --> 00:24:24.480
 changes the trip generation changes and some of the characteristics of the

00:24:24.480 --> 00:24:30.720
 roadway may change but right now that land use map is the best tool that we've

00:24:30.720 --> 00:24:36.560
 got and that's one of the reasons why we update the model as frequently as we do

00:24:36.560 --> 00:24:44.320
 every at least every five years because we are attempting to predict something

00:24:44.320 --> 00:24:51.920
 that we cannot we cannot necessarily predict 100% accurately so if if we're

00:24:51.920 --> 00:24:56.520
 only five years out then I think we can see those development trends and we

00:24:56.520 --> 00:25:01.600
 work and again planning was was side we were side by side as we went through

00:25:01.600 --> 00:25:07.880
 this process and and we made some modifications to the land use map or we

00:25:07.880 --> 00:25:15.480
 saw that development trends changing but truly that's it's the best we can do is

00:25:15.480 --> 00:25:21.320
 is to follow what our existing land use you know our comprehensive plan what it

00:25:21.320 --> 00:25:28.360
 what it tells us what that the city's is expecting in a given area and if that

00:25:28.360 --> 00:25:32.600
 changes in the next three to five years we can reflect that in the next update

00:25:32.600 --> 00:25:37.680
 so so it would be your recommendation that in terms of pain and suffering for

00:25:37.680 --> 00:25:43.640
 your department and this plan that we should follow the future land use map as

00:25:43.640 --> 00:25:50.560
 closely as we can as we make decisions that would help your department so are

00:25:50.560 --> 00:25:53.880
 you talking about the updating the mobility plan or are you talking about as

00:25:53.880 --> 00:26:00.460
 we approve developments for the mobility plan in this specific case well and again

00:26:00.460 --> 00:26:10.120
 I we can see some trends and land use changes but I don't mean for lack of a

00:26:10.120 --> 00:26:13.480
 better word I don't have a crystal ball that tells me that somebody's gonna come

00:26:13.480 --> 00:26:20.200
 in next week and develop 2,700 single-family homes where we had some

00:26:20.200 --> 00:26:26.600
 mixed use or large lot development in our land use plan so I think as the as

00:26:26.600 --> 00:26:31.040
 the properties come in if they request a zoning change then that's obviously

00:26:31.040 --> 00:26:35.900
 going to be we require traffic impact analysis to make sure that what this

00:26:35.900 --> 00:26:42.440
 mobility plan reflects or is requiring is going to provide adequate

00:26:42.440 --> 00:26:47.800
 infrastructure so I think what's there we've got some some checks and balances

00:26:47.800 --> 00:26:57.320
 if if the development is migrating away significantly from the mobility plan

00:26:57.320 --> 00:27:02.160
 recommendation are there the assumptions then I think that traffic study

00:27:02.160 --> 00:27:07.160
 requirement at the development stage is going to tell us whether or not we're

00:27:07.160 --> 00:27:12.700
 gonna have adequate infrastructure so I it's still the best tool we've got if we

00:27:12.700 --> 00:27:17.640
 see major changes we can incorporate those but on the flip side as

00:27:17.640 --> 00:27:22.600
 development occurs if we see something that's just going to overwhelm the

00:27:22.600 --> 00:27:27.640
 infrastructure that the mobility plan would recommend or required to be in

00:27:27.640 --> 00:27:32.080
 place then I think that goes into the decision whether or not we're gonna

00:27:32.080 --> 00:27:36.880
 approve that zoning change or intensity modification okay thank you

00:27:36.880 --> 00:27:44.200
 mr. Pernetta yeah and to the point that you just made and I guess that the

00:27:44.200 --> 00:27:48.720
 Commissioner Beckwith was kind of hinting toward you mentioned you know

00:27:48.720 --> 00:27:52.080
 that there's been some updates since the last you know future land use map back

00:27:52.080 --> 00:27:58.360
 in 2015 when you guys were looking at you know this draft of the mobility plan

00:27:58.360 --> 00:28:05.720
 based on what y'all had seen in 2015 where there are many updates to things

00:28:05.720 --> 00:28:10.600
 that you know that have been done in the city that kind of made y'all kind of

00:28:10.600 --> 00:28:14.800
 jumped back with was there much drastic change it had to be made the mobility

00:28:14.800 --> 00:28:21.880
 plan based on changes to the future land use map last time it was updated not

00:28:21.880 --> 00:28:25.520
 significantly I think some of the major changes that are associated with this

00:28:25.520 --> 00:28:31.580
 mobility plan update are actually being driven by our some of our external

00:28:31.580 --> 00:28:39.560
 partners like text or some of our long our own long-range planning efforts one

00:28:39.560 --> 00:28:43.360
 example and you can see it on the slide that I've got here on the far right hand

00:28:43.360 --> 00:28:49.000
 corner you see a little dashed black line well that's something that text dot

00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:56.920
 and the Cobb are looking at US 380 they're now talking about doing a direct

00:28:56.920 --> 00:29:03.800
 connection to 288 that the controlled access section so that 380 the bulk of

00:29:03.800 --> 00:29:12.480
 that traffic does not go through town and so that changes significantly some

00:29:12.480 --> 00:29:18.000
 of the requirements and some of the needs for the traffic that's between 288

00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:23.360
 and 35 because now 380 doesn't have to carry all the through traffic and it's

00:29:23.360 --> 00:29:27.880
 available to carry some of the other local traffic that currently might void

00:29:27.880 --> 00:29:32.480
 it and use a parallel facility so most of the we didn't see a lot of change

00:29:32.480 --> 00:29:36.400
 significant changes in the mobility plan due to land use changes because again

00:29:36.400 --> 00:29:43.560
 we're doing a build-out scenario so everything all the developer land within

00:29:43.560 --> 00:29:49.920
 the city limits and in the ETJ are in this model they're generating something

00:29:49.920 --> 00:29:57.040
 so we may be off by a factor of you know a few hundred trips for a given acre or

00:29:57.040 --> 00:30:01.680
 maybe a few thousand trips for a couple hundred acres but we're not we're not

00:30:01.680 --> 00:30:08.240
 seeing a tenfold increase or decrease in the traffic generation so that really

00:30:08.240 --> 00:30:13.560
 this mobility plan was able to simplify if anything else some of the roadway

00:30:13.560 --> 00:30:19.840
 the connectivity but most of the major major changes are driven by either long

00:30:19.840 --> 00:30:24.600
 range planning efforts of the city or the external partners okay great yeah

00:30:24.600 --> 00:30:27.080
 because I think that was the concern I you know most of the things will come

00:30:27.080 --> 00:30:31.040
 with the traffic study but I think the concern is just to make sure that if we

00:30:31.040 --> 00:30:35.040
 deviate from the future land use map we're not gonna break anything but it

00:30:35.040 --> 00:30:38.940
 sounds like you know that's not really something that's gonna happen right

00:30:38.940 --> 00:30:43.680
 speaking right and most of the most of the changes that we see the deviations

00:30:43.680 --> 00:30:49.880
 at least that I've seen I've been here a year now who are not in the on a grand

00:30:49.880 --> 00:30:54.720
 scale so those those grand scale like coal hunter we see those coming years and

00:30:54.720 --> 00:31:02.560
 years in advance and so we're able to identify plug those in and reflect the

00:31:02.560 --> 00:31:07.680
 needs of that development in the mobility plan update again it's a living

00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:12.280
 document we we may go through the formal process every five years but the

00:31:12.280 --> 00:31:17.880
 consultant is able to make land use changes and roadway changes on the fly

00:31:17.880 --> 00:31:23.360
 so even during those years between updates we've kind of got our finger on

00:31:23.360 --> 00:31:29.000
 the pulse and we can see what the impact of any significant land use change or

00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:34.320
 significant roadway change would be excellent that's all I've got thank you

00:31:34.320 --> 00:31:38.560
 thank you commissioners hey Brian real fast before we go into the bicycle plan

00:31:38.560 --> 00:31:45.440
 can Avenue C and Bell can the University shut those down without coming through a

00:31:45.440 --> 00:31:52.360
 council process no okay we own the roadways we have three and and so what

00:31:52.360 --> 00:32:00.720
 what what this plan is done is we we've studied them and determined the impact

00:32:00.720 --> 00:32:05.480
 of those closures and again Avenue C is a little bit more straightforward but

00:32:05.480 --> 00:32:09.400
 when you look at the bell closure rolling that in with the one-way two-way

00:32:09.400 --> 00:32:15.640
 discussion then we start you know some complexity is introduced in the in the

00:32:15.640 --> 00:32:18.980
 discussion but no they cannot close the they cannot close the roadways we own

00:32:18.980 --> 00:32:26.120
 them and so that's why we're involved in that process okay perfect thank you very

00:32:26.120 --> 00:32:29.640
 much I don't see any other questions so I guess we can go to the bike plan now

00:32:29.640 --> 00:32:36.660
 okay so again back on this slide the 50 to 60 percent of the people really don't

00:32:36.660 --> 00:32:40.920
 want to ride on the road so that's kind of what we heard that we've had lengthy

00:32:40.920 --> 00:32:45.560
 discussions with council and our our plan is to roll out a bike plan of

00:32:45.560 --> 00:32:52.960
 infrastructure that focuses on trails and side paths we just think that we can

00:32:52.960 --> 00:32:57.400
 will always have some instances where we just don't have the right of way or we

00:32:57.400 --> 00:33:03.840
 can't physically construct an off-street facility and we'll always have those

00:33:03.840 --> 00:33:08.240
 areas where we need to share the road but for the most part we're moving into

00:33:08.240 --> 00:33:16.160
 the off-street realm so and this is kind of highlights the current bike plan a lot

00:33:16.160 --> 00:33:21.040
 of shared lengths that was five six seven years ago the share was very

00:33:21.040 --> 00:33:25.520
 popular on-street bike facilities are better than no bike facility and at

00:33:25.520 --> 00:33:30.960
 least there was some kind of designation that that was a no cars and in the

00:33:30.960 --> 00:33:37.560
 intention and that offered the cyclists some increased level of safety so we're

00:33:37.560 --> 00:33:43.080
 obviously not enough to make people comfortable riding on the road in those

00:33:43.080 --> 00:33:49.200
 cases based on either volume or speed of the adjacent vehicles and so we're again

00:33:49.200 --> 00:33:58.480
 we're moving to a separated bike lane or off-street facility all together these

00:33:58.480 --> 00:34:03.600
 are the on-street and off-street again conventional bike lanes buffered bike

00:34:03.600 --> 00:34:08.600
 lanes separated bike lanes so we just if you've seen the one on Hickory that's a

00:34:08.600 --> 00:34:14.960
 buffered bike lane with the pylons we just put those in and we're going to try

00:34:14.960 --> 00:34:21.960
 and deploy more and more of those as we are on our on-street facilities as we're

00:34:21.960 --> 00:34:26.320
 limited to not being able to put in a site path and the two off-street

00:34:26.320 --> 00:34:32.080
 categories are the side path that's at 10 to 12 foot wide sidewalk or trail

00:34:32.080 --> 00:34:40.120
 which typically exists in a park setting so and this is again going back to our

00:34:40.120 --> 00:34:43.920
 our bicycle focus group what we're in our public meetings what we heard is

00:34:43.920 --> 00:34:47.680
 again that's strong interested in buffered and separated bike lanes let's

00:34:47.680 --> 00:34:53.840
 we want a physical barrier between us and the car we need better options on

00:34:53.840 --> 00:34:59.560
 major routes so how do we get across town not just from my house to the

00:34:59.560 --> 00:35:06.200
 grocery store or you know this is not more of a commuter effort than a

00:35:06.200 --> 00:35:17.160
 recreational bike ride and so again this shows you the proposed designs we've got

00:35:17.160 --> 00:35:24.080
 multi-use trails our side paths and that top portion of the slide we've got the

00:35:24.080 --> 00:35:29.400
 buffered or separated bike lane and then in an urban alternative where we just

00:35:29.400 --> 00:35:36.120
 don't have the we don't have the real estate to put bicycles off-street

00:35:36.120 --> 00:35:39.920
 because you don't want to put a bicycle on a five-foot sidewalk with pedestrians

00:35:39.920 --> 00:35:44.880
 we're retaining the the standard bike lane and we're just going to enhance the

00:35:44.880 --> 00:35:49.000
 width a little bit so we again trying to maximize the number of tools we've got

00:35:49.000 --> 00:35:53.880
 in our toolbox and and treat everything as a context sensitive approach and put

00:35:53.880 --> 00:36:00.240
 the appropriate the best facility that we can on each corridor and so here's

00:36:00.240 --> 00:36:04.760
 the draft bicycle plan again I've got a link that well you can toggle between

00:36:04.760 --> 00:36:08.200
 the roadway layer the bike layer the pedestrian layer and I'll share that with

00:36:08.200 --> 00:36:12.400
 you at the end but this just gives you an idea of the connectivity that we're

00:36:12.400 --> 00:36:19.720
 promoting or are recommending in this 2020 update so again this is an example

00:36:19.720 --> 00:36:27.520
 of a little bit more detail this is that northern area again the 2014 plan where

00:36:27.520 --> 00:36:34.200
 we had a lot of you can see the different on a lot of on-street the

00:36:34.200 --> 00:36:37.180
 green will be in the trail primarily associated with parks and linear

00:36:37.180 --> 00:36:41.260
 connections and then the right-hand side is just simply what's on the ground

00:36:41.260 --> 00:36:49.080
 today and then again looking at the 2014 plan versus the 2020 plan a lot of

00:36:49.080 --> 00:36:56.160
 significantly more off-street than we had before you can see the green on on

00:36:56.160 --> 00:37:04.240
 Bonnie Bray and on Locust so we're again we're moving we're not going to we're

00:37:04.240 --> 00:37:07.640
 not going to be able to do away with on-street we just again we're limited in

00:37:07.640 --> 00:37:12.880
 in right away and real estate in some places but we want to move to that

00:37:12.880 --> 00:37:18.520
 safer off-street condition and then this is just a little bit more of a zoom

00:37:18.520 --> 00:37:25.800
 that you can see the significant amount more more green than the 2014 plan

00:37:25.800 --> 00:37:33.200
 Krister back thank you chair Brian how and these flex zones and and that you

00:37:33.200 --> 00:37:36.360
 you know I understand you critically need that for the flexibility of

00:37:36.360 --> 00:37:43.880
 planning different kinds of avenues for pedestrians bikers and and and motor

00:37:43.880 --> 00:37:49.940
 vehicles but it it strikes me on the cartoons and I know the tree was just a

00:37:49.940 --> 00:37:55.440
 a cartoon tree representing sort of landscaping more than anything else but

00:37:55.440 --> 00:38:00.480
 to what extent are is this mobility plan integrated with some of our

00:38:00.480 --> 00:38:06.800
 environmental and sustainability plans because we don't want those necessarily

00:38:06.800 --> 00:38:12.280
 trees ignored or counted for or against our overall environmental green corridor

00:38:12.280 --> 00:38:17.640
 plans and and I'm worried that you will we'll put trash trees because we have to

00:38:17.640 --> 00:38:21.760
 in our in those little flex zones because you need to be able to put them

00:38:21.760 --> 00:38:26.200
 in take them out as the needs of the traffic change because those are going

00:38:26.200 --> 00:38:33.680
 to be prioritized but yet it's I so I guess my question is to what degree are

00:38:33.680 --> 00:38:41.600
 you integrating your flex zones in the mobility plan with the overall efforts

00:38:41.600 --> 00:38:47.540
 of the tree efforts in our city so again sustainability was part of our

00:38:47.540 --> 00:38:52.480
 internal stakeholder group so they've been at the table from day one I will

00:38:52.480 --> 00:38:59.960
 say that the the tree selection is not going to be up to the developer or staff

00:38:59.960 --> 00:39:08.840
 or table will be up to my staff we will defer to the forestry group and identify

00:39:08.840 --> 00:39:16.080
 the appropriate size tree or type of tree for each each setting I think as we

00:39:16.080 --> 00:39:20.080
 develop if the city is going to do a corridor reconstruction and we're going

00:39:20.080 --> 00:39:25.840
 to include street trees then then obviously sustainability and parks or

00:39:25.840 --> 00:39:31.960
 forestry will be at the table when we determine what kind how many what size

00:39:31.960 --> 00:39:42.880
 etc I think this plan is really intended to preserve the space for those kind of

00:39:42.880 --> 00:39:47.240
 features and and that goes really goes for all of the different types of

00:39:47.240 --> 00:39:52.600
 whether it be street furniture that bike lane on street parking what we're trying

00:39:52.600 --> 00:39:58.880
 to do is carve out enough space that we can accommodate whatever we would like

00:39:58.880 --> 00:40:05.080
 to put into that area in an appropriate manner so we we've identified and I'm

00:40:05.080 --> 00:40:09.880
 gonna go back to that four lane roadway we need two lanes of vehicular traffic

00:40:09.880 --> 00:40:14.480
 in each direction we've narrowed those down to you know 11 foot lanes and

00:40:14.480 --> 00:40:22.640
 narrower if we need to but outside of those four lanes of travel we've tried

00:40:22.640 --> 00:40:26.920
 to you know within the within the right of way we've identified okay this can

00:40:26.920 --> 00:40:31.040
 be a wide sidewalk with trees it can be an on-street bike lane it can be a

00:40:31.040 --> 00:40:36.840
 shared use path the trees are not required I will say that most cyclist

00:40:36.840 --> 00:40:43.000
 pedestrians like them they provide shade and some what of a buffer between the

00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:47.800
 angular traffic but I don't so we're not trying to we're not precluding anything

00:40:47.800 --> 00:40:54.160
 but we're not also requiring the street trees we're deferring to those other

00:40:54.160 --> 00:40:58.640
 plans that you talked about the the green corridors and the sustainability

00:40:58.640 --> 00:41:05.280
 to really govern what goes into that that flex zone that buffer space and so

00:41:05.280 --> 00:41:10.400
 this next comments just real quick and that is you know it as your needs change

00:41:10.400 --> 00:41:15.360
 for those corridors you know you can't have a large healthy Elmer Oak or

00:41:15.360 --> 00:41:19.480
 something else lovely that would be in there because if it's in your flex zone

00:41:19.480 --> 00:41:26.240
 you you know you can't be putting down roots and making a tree that inhibits

00:41:26.240 --> 00:41:30.360
 your ability to the flex zone but at the same token I guess I encourage you

00:41:30.360 --> 00:41:33.880
 strongly to work with your urban forestry guys and I know you will so

00:41:33.880 --> 00:41:37.520
 that's just more of a comment than anything else thank you sure thank you

00:41:37.520 --> 00:41:42.800
 thank you mr. Beck any other questions on the bike plan looks like Brian's about

00:41:42.800 --> 00:41:47.640
 to head into the pedestrian plan I do not see any floors back to you Brian

00:41:47.640 --> 00:41:54.800
 all right thank you pedestrian plan so the pedestrian plan again is something

00:41:54.800 --> 00:42:00.480
 that's relatively new we we just went through and I'm going to touch on this

00:42:00.480 --> 00:42:05.360
 briefly we just went through an ADA transition plan with a consultant that

00:42:05.360 --> 00:42:11.760
 identified all of the substandard pedestrian facilities and features that

00:42:11.760 --> 00:42:19.800
 need to be updated to accommodate the ADA requirements this document works

00:42:19.800 --> 00:42:26.800
 with that transition plan but again the mobility plan is primarily a capital so

00:42:26.800 --> 00:42:32.280
 we're looking at new sidewalks sidewalk gaps and how do we prioritize those and

00:42:32.280 --> 00:42:36.200
 how do we provide pedestrian infrastructure literally on every

00:42:36.200 --> 00:42:41.480
 street in town there's no street or I cannot think of one that should not

00:42:41.480 --> 00:42:46.000
 have pedestrian infrastructure no another example I when I worked with the

00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:51.920
 city of Carrollton we worked with tech start on some I-35 infrastructure

00:42:51.920 --> 00:42:54.960
 upgrades and they wouldn't allow us to put sidewalks and now tech stop requires

00:42:54.960 --> 00:42:59.320
 sidewalks they really want and that's that's the shift that I have seen and

00:42:59.320 --> 00:43:05.480
 we're pedestrians and bicycles and other all modes of travel really should be

00:43:05.480 --> 00:43:12.440
 treated equally so this plan is is this mobility plan is really set to identify

00:43:12.440 --> 00:43:17.600
 those missing elements not the ones that are substandard that's a again that's

00:43:17.600 --> 00:43:20.400
 going to fall back to that ADA transition plan where we bring everything

00:43:20.400 --> 00:43:25.600
 up to snuff but this is this plan is it to identify roadways that don't have

00:43:25.600 --> 00:43:32.960
 sidewalks or sidewalks that are discontinuous or large gap segments so

00:43:32.960 --> 00:43:39.160
 we identified basically the existing infrastructure so primary arterial

00:43:39.160 --> 00:43:45.200
 secondary material collector local and then the red is no sidewalk and the

00:43:45.200 --> 00:43:50.200
 green is sidewalk on both sides so you can see just at a glance most of our

00:43:50.200 --> 00:43:55.560
 roadways have no sidewalk so we've got a lot of infrastructure that's missing and

00:43:55.560 --> 00:44:04.160
 subject to the recommendations of this mobility plan update once we've

00:44:04.160 --> 00:44:09.400
 identified those missing segments then we need to identify how we prioritize

00:44:09.400 --> 00:44:15.440
 and we did a fairly simple prioritization it's high and low but we

00:44:15.440 --> 00:44:20.640
 looked at really citywide so again this goes back to that's not just a person

00:44:20.640 --> 00:44:24.560
 walking through their neighborhood or maybe walking to the store they may be

00:44:24.560 --> 00:44:29.680
 walking to work we have three thousand people that commute via foot so we

00:44:29.680 --> 00:44:35.000
 looked at longer connections we looked at what we call safe route to school

00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:42.920
 those those roadways within a quarter mile of the school to encourage and and

00:44:42.920 --> 00:44:48.040
 provide ample opportunity for for children to walk to school instead of

00:44:48.040 --> 00:44:50.880
 being driven or riding the bus so we really want to get out and that's a

00:44:50.880 --> 00:44:54.800
 healthy lifestyle and that complete street element where we want to be able

00:44:54.800 --> 00:45:02.120
 to get kids from home to school safely on foot and then sure

00:45:02.120 --> 00:45:08.480
 commissioner Smith thank you chair the only thing I see the priority mythology

00:45:08.480 --> 00:45:11.600
 on here the one thing that I think would be missing that I would encourage or

00:45:11.600 --> 00:45:16.360
 just be talk to the parks and rec department I know Gary is has made it

00:45:16.360 --> 00:45:21.000
 very clear that they're they're their biggest you know mission moving forward

00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:25.880
 is trying to create you know 10-minute 10-minute walking capability to every

00:45:25.880 --> 00:45:32.600
 citizen to a park and so I don't see that really being I think the quarter

00:45:32.600 --> 00:45:36.240
 mile within school walk shed that kind of thing is great I think but I'd also

00:45:36.240 --> 00:45:38.840
 like you guys to be able to reach out to the parks department see if they can

00:45:38.840 --> 00:45:44.080
 identify maybe some areas that they don't have safe walking pathways to a

00:45:44.080 --> 00:45:50.360
 park right and so we we are working with parks and they're in the process of

00:45:50.360 --> 00:45:56.200
 doing their trails master plan okay and that's it is integrated into our with

00:45:56.200 --> 00:45:59.920
 our consultant and their consultant we're sharing data so that we take a

00:45:59.920 --> 00:46:06.520
 sidewalk to get to their trailhead and exactly the towards that end that you

00:46:06.520 --> 00:46:11.800
 just described and that's a short walk to parks awesome thanks we're also

00:46:11.800 --> 00:46:17.080
 working with DCTA on that again they're going through a master plan update look

00:46:17.080 --> 00:46:21.040
 like everybody's updating their master plans right now and so we want to be in

00:46:21.040 --> 00:46:27.000
 a position to serve with sidewalks first mile last mile their transit

00:46:27.000 --> 00:46:31.760
 infrastructure and their transit transit facilities across the city and then

00:46:31.760 --> 00:46:39.560
 identifying those corridor barriers and again University Drive is a good example

00:46:39.560 --> 00:46:45.480
 of a pedestrian barrier there's a significant lack of safe pedestrian

00:46:45.480 --> 00:46:51.080
 crossings and throughout that corridor so we're focusing on those areas as well

00:46:51.080 --> 00:46:55.600
 so here's my pedestrian plan example this is the you'll see three or four

00:46:55.600 --> 00:46:59.360
 different colors here the yellow this is our existing infrastructure so where

00:46:59.360 --> 00:47:03.760
 you've got sidewalks on the ground not saying what condition they're in just we

00:47:03.760 --> 00:47:08.180
 have a sidewalk either a four foot five foot maybe a six foot sidewalk this is

00:47:08.180 --> 00:47:15.320
 what's on the ground today then this aqua marine this turquoise color these

00:47:15.320 --> 00:47:21.040
 are sidewalks that are currently programmed either with projects that are

00:47:21.040 --> 00:47:25.240
 under construction or going to be under construction that are under the city

00:47:25.240 --> 00:47:31.640
 control so as we redo a body bray we're gonna add sidewalks if we've got some

00:47:31.640 --> 00:47:35.240
 neighborhood and street projects we're adding sidewalks so that's that's what

00:47:35.240 --> 00:47:40.400
 this is this is the known sidewalk infrastructure that's in the on the near

00:47:40.400 --> 00:47:48.760
 horizon and then stepping back this is the mobility plan these are these are

00:47:48.760 --> 00:47:53.760
 the missing pieces again this is not and we're not talking about existing or that

00:47:53.760 --> 00:47:59.240
 that turquoise color that it's coming in a future project these are pieces that

00:47:59.240 --> 00:48:04.720
 are that are unfunded that we identified that we need and we buy new things that

00:48:04.720 --> 00:48:11.920
 that prioritization methodology red is high priority and the orange is low and

00:48:11.920 --> 00:48:19.840
 that's very vague but we've we've got at least we have to identify what we think

00:48:19.840 --> 00:48:23.480
 of them are the projects we need to address first because part of this

00:48:23.480 --> 00:48:28.600
 mobility plan is going to be an implementation plan and so that's why

00:48:28.600 --> 00:48:36.720
 we're prioritizing as we are so putting it all together again the goal is

00:48:36.720 --> 00:48:45.640
 sidewalks on every street it's I think that's a that's a given that we move

00:48:45.640 --> 00:48:51.560
 forward through this entire is the pedestrian element needs to be very

00:48:51.560 --> 00:49:00.680
 robust so next steps as I said before we've we've still we're wrapping up

00:49:00.680 --> 00:49:07.440
 with the council presentations but we've got another round after after that and

00:49:07.440 --> 00:49:12.800
 council gives us their feedback then we'll go make the modifications to the

00:49:12.800 --> 00:49:16.120
 plan with the consultant and then we'll take that back out to the public and

00:49:16.120 --> 00:49:20.720
 right now we're we're looking at September October of this year for that

00:49:20.720 --> 00:49:25.480
 next round of three to five public meetings and I think we're going to try

00:49:25.480 --> 00:49:31.680
 and do one in for each of the five geographic areas and just be able to

00:49:31.680 --> 00:49:38.880
 address concerns for all areas in case somebody cannot attend or make the

00:49:38.880 --> 00:49:44.160
 meeting that covers their neighborhood or their area of interest and then

00:49:44.160 --> 00:49:50.280
 November to December we'll take the input from the public and council again

00:49:50.280 --> 00:49:57.960
 and mold it all into a final report and a final draft or a draft final third

00:49:57.960 --> 00:50:03.320
 fair plan map mobility plan rather and then in January February of next year

00:50:03.320 --> 00:50:10.480
 bring it back to council and hopefully March of 2021 move to adoption now

00:50:10.480 --> 00:50:15.200
 planning zoning is in there somewhere as well but probably in that same January

00:50:15.200 --> 00:50:21.800
 February time we'll bring this back as a more complete effort and get your

00:50:21.800 --> 00:50:28.160
 feedback so that we can incorporate any final changes into that final document

00:50:28.160 --> 00:50:37.960
 for March or April adoption so this is a slide that the one in red here is that

00:50:37.960 --> 00:50:44.360
 I'm going to go ahead and click on it if I can this is the Walter P Moore site

00:50:44.360 --> 00:50:48.520
 and they're our consultants they've been working with us it's a GIS based

00:50:48.520 --> 00:51:03.720
 website okay well I know there it is okay I know the link works because I

00:51:03.720 --> 00:51:09.280
 looked at it today so this is the plan as it sits today you can see a lot of

00:51:09.280 --> 00:51:16.000
 our we reach pretty hey Brian looks like you're sharing your presentation not

00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:43.080
 okay all right do that again so how do I oh there's new share oops yeah you'll

00:51:43.080 --> 00:52:07.400
 need to unclean there we go I'm gonna I want to click this I want to do this and

00:52:07.400 --> 00:52:14.200
 then I want to share own and do a new share right yeah can I do it I got to

00:52:14.200 --> 00:52:23.600
 stop sharing and then share this one that way all right okay so now you can

00:52:23.600 --> 00:52:28.000
 see this is the Walter P Moore website that's got the it's got all the plans

00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:38.000
 on it right now we're looking at the mobility plan you can also toggle

00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:43.320
 through that's the existing 2015 plan if you want to see them side by side

00:52:43.320 --> 00:52:52.880
 there's the bicycle plan and the 2014 bike and then the pedestrian plan as

00:52:52.880 --> 00:53:03.360
 well and it's gonna take a second cuz it yeah so this link is very helpful if you

00:53:03.360 --> 00:53:08.520
 want to really kind of dig into some of the changes between 2015 and the 2020

00:53:08.520 --> 00:53:12.980
 update for all three modes except for the pedestrian there was not a previous

00:53:12.980 --> 00:53:19.280
 plan but you can look at the 2014 bike plan and 2015 mobility plan and see what

00:53:19.280 --> 00:53:29.320
 changes that we're proposing so with that I will take any questions that you

00:53:29.320 --> 00:53:36.640
 have Christian back thank you chair Brian in a way of feedback on the the

00:53:36.640 --> 00:53:45.120
 pedestrian plan just from folks in my area they're a little befuddled by the

00:53:45.120 --> 00:53:50.480
 the they want sidewalks but they're befuddled by how to best work with the

00:53:50.480 --> 00:53:56.160
 city on the temporary easements and right-of-ways and all that so to the

00:53:56.160 --> 00:54:00.560
 extent that you could streamline simplify the process is feedback from

00:54:00.560 --> 00:54:04.560
 people that have talked to me about they want sidewalks but they also don't want

00:54:04.560 --> 00:54:09.880
 a pain in the keister so to the extent that you could make that simpler for

00:54:09.880 --> 00:54:15.080
 them it would help put sidewalks at least in the Nottingham Woods area where

00:54:15.080 --> 00:54:20.720
 you're currently developing sidewalks okay so that it is it is a challenge and

00:54:20.720 --> 00:54:29.200
 a lot of times when you put sidewalks where sidewalks were not originally

00:54:29.200 --> 00:54:34.760
 designed one of the biggest hurdles that we come across it's the yes you have

00:54:34.760 --> 00:54:38.920
 the easements and maybe as temporary construction easement or maybe a sidewalk

00:54:38.920 --> 00:54:44.000
 easement but you also have driveways that now you have to bench them and so

00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:49.320
 but that'll all that will be vetted through the design process and so we'll

00:54:49.320 --> 00:54:53.920
 have adequate opportunity to to streamline just like you say because it

00:54:53.920 --> 00:55:00.800
 can get very cumbersome but point taken we can look at ways to minimize the

00:55:00.800 --> 00:55:05.720
 impact and shorten the timeline I think you'd have easier compliance if you did

00:55:05.720 --> 00:55:16.880
 that thank you any other questions for Brian and his mobility presentation I

00:55:16.880 --> 00:55:23.160
 did not see anything thank you very much Brian okay again I did not share this it

00:55:23.160 --> 00:55:26.640
 was not part of the attachments I will give it to Richard and he can make it

00:55:26.640 --> 00:55:34.920
 this presentation available to that would be helpful all right so I feel

00:55:34.920 --> 00:55:41.340
 have it distributed later today if not tomorrow morning at the very latest I do

00:55:41.340 --> 00:55:53.400
 have actually one more it's getting a whole bunch of me today and this will be

00:55:53.400 --> 00:55:57.680
 a lot quicker just a discussion on traffic signal installation and removal

00:55:57.680 --> 00:56:06.000
 I believe there was a question on what allows us as a city to install or remove

00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:10.640
 and maybe allow us not the right word but what requirements do we have to

00:56:10.640 --> 00:56:16.280
 satisfy to install or remove a traffic signal and so if you ask any two traffic

00:56:16.280 --> 00:56:21.880
 engineers crashes and visibility volumes schools and the truth is it's all of the

00:56:21.880 --> 00:56:28.600
 above and even more so this is the document that we adhere to the Texas

00:56:28.600 --> 00:56:34.040
 manual on uniform traffic control devices and it's chapter for highway

00:56:34.040 --> 00:56:38.440
 traffic signals and I know it says highway but it's all traffic signals and

00:56:38.440 --> 00:56:49.480
 then here's the actual text and and here's a translation so to install a

00:56:49.480 --> 00:56:54.640
 traffic study basically we have to perform an engineering study of the

00:56:54.640 --> 00:56:58.120
 traffic volumes pedestrian characteristics and just physical

00:56:58.120 --> 00:57:03.960
 characteristics so an intersection and show that at least one if not more of

00:57:03.960 --> 00:57:07.560
 the nine traffic signal warrants I'm going to go through those in a minute at

00:57:07.560 --> 00:57:13.360
 least one is satisfied and similarly if an engineering study indicates that

00:57:13.360 --> 00:57:17.400
 something has changed traffic volumes have dropped because we widened a

00:57:17.400 --> 00:57:27.240
 parallel roadway or a major generator goes away let's see remembers reunion

00:57:27.240 --> 00:57:31.960
 arena no longer exists you don't need as much infrastructure when something like

00:57:31.960 --> 00:57:37.640
 that disappears so it's also incumbent on city to continually monitor those

00:57:37.640 --> 00:57:41.960
 changes and perform those studies to determine whether or not those signals

00:57:41.960 --> 00:57:46.120
 now no longer satisfy those warrants and really should be removed and replaced

00:57:46.120 --> 00:57:52.400
 with something else so we just did this on Parkway we removed a couple signals

00:57:52.400 --> 00:58:01.120
 and we're we're in the process of replacing with some additional in this

00:58:01.120 --> 00:58:09.400
 case pedestrian infrastructure to make that a safer condition so there's nine

00:58:09.400 --> 00:58:12.440
 up and I'm going through as quickly as I can I just want to give you an idea of

00:58:12.440 --> 00:58:19.840
 what the MUT CD that manual and uniform traffic control devices initiates as a

00:58:19.840 --> 00:58:25.240
 federal document and then the state of Texas has taken it tweaked it published

00:58:25.240 --> 00:58:32.120
 it as a state document and a lot of our funding and compliance and or rather our

00:58:32.120 --> 00:58:37.340
 funding is is key to our compliance to the document and the requirements that it

00:58:37.340 --> 00:58:42.320
 provides so the first warrant is the eight-hour vehicular volume basically

00:58:42.320 --> 00:58:47.400
 this is just say that if you've got eight hours where a Main Street just

00:58:47.400 --> 00:58:54.040
 starves the availability of a side street to get access you can look at the

00:58:54.040 --> 00:58:58.760
 installation of the traffic signal and on all of these volume warrants it's a

00:58:58.760 --> 00:59:03.120
 combination of Main Street and Side Street so it's really looking at how does

00:59:03.120 --> 00:59:08.120
 that traffic peak does it peak for long periods of time does it peak even higher

00:59:08.120 --> 00:59:12.720
 for shorter periods of time so this eight-hour is a fairly low volume

00:59:12.720 --> 00:59:18.940
 threshold but it has to be satisfied for eight hours of the day warrant two is a

00:59:18.940 --> 00:59:22.560
 forearm and you see a pattern developing here so this is a slightly

00:59:22.560 --> 00:59:26.560
 higher threshold that combination of Main Street and Side Street vehicular

00:59:26.560 --> 00:59:33.100
 volumes but it only has to satisfy that for four years and we have a one hour so

00:59:33.100 --> 00:59:39.680
 if you've got something that is just very very time specific large office

00:59:39.680 --> 00:59:46.760
 building something that every day basically shuts you know that your side

00:59:46.760 --> 00:59:50.520
 street generates so much traffic that it can't get out of the Main Street and you

00:59:50.520 --> 00:59:55.040
 can use the peak hour warrant to justify the installation of traffic signal now I

00:59:55.040 --> 01:00:00.120
 will say that the MUTCD says to use this sparingly and only on unusual conditions

01:00:00.120 --> 01:00:06.040
 very specific conditions not because almost any driveway in town can satisfy

01:00:06.040 --> 01:00:12.400
 the one hour or it is not that's not how it's intended to be used so more

01:00:12.400 --> 01:00:17.840
 enforced pedestrian and this again is a combination of vehicular and pedestrian

01:00:17.840 --> 01:00:23.360
 volumes the pedestrian volumes are fairly high my experience is you've got

01:00:23.360 --> 01:00:28.040
 to have 200 people crossing in an hour for a couple hours in the day it's

01:00:28.040 --> 01:00:34.080
 really this this is really intended for a more of a downtown type atmosphere

01:00:34.080 --> 01:00:40.320
 where you've got a side street that has a again maybe it's an office building or

01:00:40.320 --> 01:00:43.920
 some other kind of commercial retail development generates a lot of foot

01:00:43.920 --> 01:00:49.400
 traffic I mean a lot of foot traffic and they need that signal to safely cross

01:00:49.400 --> 01:00:56.000
 the Main Street. Warrant five is kind of a follow-on for that and that's a school

01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:01.840
 crossing so these are school-age children from basically first grade to

01:01:01.840 --> 01:01:05.720
 high school the requirement here is that you have to have at least 20 children

01:01:05.720 --> 01:01:10.400
 crossing in an hour and that the nearest major intersection is more than 300 feet

01:01:10.400 --> 01:01:14.600
 away with with traffic control so with that provides a safe like a traffic

01:01:14.600 --> 01:01:18.520
 signal or an all-way stop that provides that safe crossing so this again is a

01:01:18.520 --> 01:01:24.880
 identified for smaller streets around a school or we may have a school zone or a

01:01:24.880 --> 01:01:30.520
 crosswalk mark and the children are using that to access the school. Warrant six

01:01:30.520 --> 01:01:37.240
 coordinated signal system so one of the one of the goals of traffic engineering

01:01:37.240 --> 01:01:43.680
 is historically has been to provide a smooth flow of traffic so we get this

01:01:43.680 --> 01:01:49.760
 platoon where you you leave one signal you get the green and by the time you

01:01:49.760 --> 01:01:54.560
 get to the next signal you get the green and it progresses on that has its

01:01:54.560 --> 01:02:00.440
 pros and cons but this warrant is identified are designed to to serve

01:02:00.440 --> 01:02:05.160
 those locations where you've got cross street traffic that might disrupt the

01:02:05.160 --> 01:02:11.080
 platooning so we can we can better control how they enter the system we can

01:02:11.080 --> 01:02:16.200
 better control the platooning of the traffic on the Main Street. Warrant seven

01:02:16.200 --> 01:02:20.000
 again is crash experience five or more correctable crashes and those are

01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:24.360
 correctable by the installation of a traffic signal so different kinds of

01:02:24.360 --> 01:02:30.320
 T-bone crashes are correctable rear end crashes are not so in a 12 month

01:02:30.320 --> 01:02:34.720
 period we have to have five or more correctable crashes and then we can use

01:02:34.720 --> 01:02:39.480
 that warrant to justify the installation of traffic signal. Warrant eight roadway

01:02:39.480 --> 01:02:45.040
 network and this is really where you've got major routes that come together and

01:02:45.040 --> 01:02:49.920
 you want to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow on those

01:02:49.920 --> 01:02:54.120
 major routes what you don't want to have is people migrating off of the major

01:02:54.120 --> 01:02:58.600
 roadways onto secondary or tertiary roadways into neighborhoods because it's

01:02:58.600 --> 01:03:01.920
 now faster to cut through the neighborhood than it is to stay on the

01:03:01.920 --> 01:03:05.800
 Main Street because you can't get on to the if you want to make a turn you can't

01:03:05.800 --> 01:03:10.720
 get onto the Main Street so you bypass that problem intersection using

01:03:10.720 --> 01:03:14.840
 facilities that were not intended to design the traffic volumes and then

01:03:14.840 --> 01:03:18.720
 warrant nine is intersection near a grade crossing that's a rail crossing

01:03:18.720 --> 01:03:25.320
 typically within if it's within a hundred and forty feet of a railroad

01:03:25.320 --> 01:03:28.480
 crossing on the major street and you've got a side street within that hundred and

01:03:28.480 --> 01:03:32.920
 forty feet you can use this warrant to justify the installation of a traffic

01:03:32.920 --> 01:03:46.000
 signal. So questions or comments? I do not see any. Oh Commissioner Ellis. Thank you

01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:49.680
 Chair. Thanks Brian for the info. I actually asked for this to to come

01:03:49.680 --> 01:03:54.000
 forward it was mainly because in a short period of time a while back when I had

01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:58.040
 asked for this there were several signals that were removed so that was

01:03:58.040 --> 01:04:03.200
 really my the the justification for my requesting the presentation was to

01:04:03.200 --> 01:04:11.320
 understand how the city decides to remove them. So on that do you rely on

01:04:11.320 --> 01:04:15.720
 someone asking you to look at an intersection? Is it something that is

01:04:15.720 --> 01:04:19.880
 regularly done by staff to look at certain intersections? I'm just curious as

01:04:19.880 --> 01:04:27.640
 to how that comes about. We revisit all of our signals every it's it's hard to

01:04:27.640 --> 01:04:31.200
 say I mean some of them we don't need to I don't ever need to revisit Carroll at

01:04:31.200 --> 01:04:37.520
 University I just don't but some of our our lower volume streets we do collect

01:04:37.520 --> 01:04:42.840
 traffic data so we know when we've got some significant changes either increases

01:04:42.840 --> 01:04:47.760
 or in this case decreases. So if the if the volumes have changed because again

01:04:47.760 --> 01:04:53.160
 parallel facilities or or just traffic flow is taking a different route

01:04:53.160 --> 01:04:58.120
 because we've improved it we look at probably three to five years I mean

01:04:58.120 --> 01:05:02.680
 that's about a it's about average for us to look at whether or not these

01:05:02.680 --> 01:05:09.640
 locations still meet warrants. I appreciate the info. Thanks for sharing.

01:05:09.640 --> 01:05:16.560
 Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. So jumping off from that at that point do

01:05:16.560 --> 01:05:23.120
 you when you revisit a traffic study are you using live dynamic data from like

01:05:23.120 --> 01:05:28.920
 embedded sensors or are you having to put out sensors and have human beings go

01:05:28.920 --> 01:05:33.220
 out and do a traffic study? We do it both ways we have a lot of our

01:05:33.220 --> 01:05:41.860
 intersections so give you a little background our detection is called grid

01:05:41.860 --> 01:05:46.200
 smart and it's basically a fisheye camera and so we can with one camera we

01:05:46.200 --> 01:05:51.680
 can see the entire intersection and they have developed a module and an

01:05:51.680 --> 01:05:55.680
 algorithm that allows us to count cars left throughs and rights on all

01:05:55.680 --> 01:06:00.520
 approaches which is fantastic data for us because we can literally count we

01:06:00.520 --> 01:06:06.640
 have a rolling database of what's using each of those intersections so on those

01:06:06.640 --> 01:06:11.680
 on those instances those locations we use the automated data where we don't

01:06:11.680 --> 01:06:17.560
 have that where we have either radar or I don't think we have any intersections

01:06:17.560 --> 01:06:22.240
 on loops anymore but where we have a different kind of vehicle detection than

01:06:22.240 --> 01:06:25.920
 we do we have to go out and actually collect the data but we will always use

01:06:25.920 --> 01:06:32.560
 current we will not base it on something two years old again if we're counting and

01:06:32.560 --> 01:06:36.800
 to we're gonna analyze an intersection to determine whether or not it's still

01:06:36.800 --> 01:06:42.000
 warrants we want to know we use the most current data that we can get and as you

01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:46.640
 put in new traffic lights and do maintenance are you are you automating

01:06:46.640 --> 01:06:51.600
 more and more or or is that just too expensive? No that's it is our it is our

01:06:51.600 --> 01:06:56.760
 standard now it's just some of our older locations either the existing

01:06:56.760 --> 01:07:01.120
 infrastructure the conduit under the ground or the cabling does not lend

01:07:01.120 --> 01:07:05.920
 itself to the installation of these these new sensors but all of our new

01:07:05.920 --> 01:07:14.120
 installations are using the video detection. Okay thank you any other

01:07:14.120 --> 01:07:20.240
 questions for Brian on that? I do not see anything thank you so much for the

01:07:20.240 --> 01:07:28.080
 presentations Brian. Thank you very much for the time. Richard would you do want to

01:07:28.080 --> 01:07:33.800
 hop into the items and table the other work session report for now or is that

01:07:33.800 --> 01:07:37.880
 high priority to get done this evening? No I think we can we can bring that back

01:07:37.880 --> 01:07:42.560
 at the next meeting. Okay. That's okay with with the Commission. Is there any

01:07:42.560 --> 01:07:49.600
 opposition to going a tabling item to be by Julie until next meeting? I don't

01:07:49.600 --> 01:07:54.720
 see any opposition so let's go ahead and hop into our actual agenda for this

01:07:54.720 --> 01:08:02.320
 evening. First item is approval of the minutes item 2. Is there any notations

01:08:02.320 --> 01:08:09.720
 that need to be made on the minutes? All right seeing none we'll go to the

01:08:09.720 --> 01:08:14.120
 consent agenda there's just one item 3a was there any questions that Kim could

01:08:14.120 --> 01:08:21.600
 address for anyone on the consent? Commissioner Beck. Yes thank you chair. So

01:08:21.600 --> 01:08:30.080
 the last time we saw this I think was last time and that was a denial and so I

01:08:30.080 --> 01:08:34.360
 guess the applicant has cleaned up everything is that why we've got a yes

01:08:34.360 --> 01:08:46.360
 on the consent agenda? That's correct. Okay I mean I guess it doesn't make any

01:08:46.360 --> 01:08:52.880
 difference but because it's a single item on the consent agenda but I I kind of

01:08:52.880 --> 01:08:58.680
 like to have this pulled for individual consideration. I mean it's the same it's

01:08:58.680 --> 01:09:02.440
 a vote for consent or a vote for individual consideration so it's a

01:09:02.440 --> 01:09:07.840
 little bit silly of me to do that but I don't want to vote against the consent

01:09:07.840 --> 01:09:15.440
 agenda I'm I'm particularly concerned about the item itself. Okay that has

01:09:15.440 --> 01:09:24.560
 been noted any other questions for item 3a? Okay moves us to item 4a these are

01:09:24.560 --> 01:09:28.600
 individual consideration items there are three of these and that will complete

01:09:28.600 --> 01:09:36.080
 our agenda for this evening but the first one is item 4a FP 20-0009B

01:09:36.080 --> 01:09:47.240
 and this is Julie Wyatt she looks ready to go on this one. Sorry I was muted I'm

01:09:47.240 --> 01:09:57.080
 Julie Wyatt I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. Okay so this is a this is a

01:09:57.080 --> 01:10:04.520
 plat that you had that you saw last month they did request a an extension at

01:10:04.520 --> 01:10:12.680
 last month's meeting and that extension was granted for tonight. They have not we

01:10:12.680 --> 01:10:17.700
 still don't have a plat that has addressed the comments and the and the

01:10:17.700 --> 01:10:21.800
 deficiencies within the plat so staff still recommends denial of the request.

01:10:21.800 --> 01:10:27.360
 And Julie just for clarification there was some communication transmitted

01:10:27.360 --> 01:10:35.960
 about this item can you let us know the difference in a conditional approval and

01:10:35.960 --> 01:10:40.280
 a denial in terms of the requirements from the applicant or just the maybe just

01:10:40.280 --> 01:10:44.200
 the the consequences or applications of those two different outcomes just so we

01:10:44.200 --> 01:10:49.760
 are aware of what potential vote we can make this evening? Sure so the applicant

01:10:49.760 --> 01:10:55.840
 did contact staff yesterday and asked that we reach out to you they are

01:10:55.840 --> 01:11:01.880
 requesting a conditional approval and their representative will be calling in

01:11:01.880 --> 01:11:07.000
 tonight to to discuss that with you but they are recommending a conditional

01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:12.320
 approval with those conditions of all of those deficiencies. The Texas Local

01:11:12.320 --> 01:11:16.040
 Government Code treats conditional approvals and denials much in the same

01:11:16.040 --> 01:11:24.120
 way and that whatever whatever governing body grants that conditional approval

01:11:24.120 --> 01:11:29.840
 still has to make sure those conditions are satisfied so it would still have to

01:11:29.840 --> 01:11:35.280
 come back to you regardless of whether it was denied or conditionally approved

01:11:35.280 --> 01:11:40.720
 and and so what the applicant would do in either instance is they would correct

01:11:40.720 --> 01:11:46.440
 those deficiencies resubmit the plaque to staff for review to for us to confirm

01:11:46.440 --> 01:11:50.880
 that that those corrections have been made and then we would place this item

01:11:50.880 --> 01:12:00.040
 on a PNZ agenda within 15 days of us receiving that that resubmittal. At this

01:12:00.040 --> 01:12:05.240
 time because we got the their corrections so late we did do a cursory

01:12:05.240 --> 01:12:09.840
 review there are still some some deficiencies that we identified just

01:12:09.840 --> 01:12:14.640
 kind of off the bat some easements that are aren't clearly dimensioned there's

01:12:14.640 --> 01:12:20.720
 there's some other access easements that that need further attention so right now

01:12:20.720 --> 01:12:27.120
 staff just believes it's not ready for for approval and so our recommendation

01:12:27.120 --> 01:12:32.200
 still remains as the denial. Okay thank you for that clarification Commissioner Beck.

01:12:32.200 --> 01:12:38.120
 So so that is as I understand thank you thank you chair thank you Julie so as I

01:12:38.120 --> 01:12:46.600
 understand it this is more about a lack of sufficient information is in terms of

01:12:46.600 --> 01:12:52.760
 what's been submitted to city staff is what's the basis for this we would

01:12:52.760 --> 01:12:58.400
 basically have to be saying setting a precedent that we would allow

01:12:58.400 --> 01:13:04.800
 insufficient information to come to staff and and with conditions rather than can

01:13:04.800 --> 01:13:10.800
 adopt the proper levels of information coming to staff that's the concern

01:13:10.800 --> 01:13:16.120
 that's why you're asking for the denial sort of thing. Staff just hasn't had an

01:13:16.120 --> 01:13:21.520
 opportunity to review their their revisions yet and and so we feel like

01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:25.920
 that that denial still needs to stay in place in this instance. Okay that makes

01:13:25.920 --> 01:13:32.240
 sense to me thank you Julie. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair just a quick

01:13:32.240 --> 01:13:36.280
 question I don't know if it's Julie or Richard or Cynthia on this one but can

01:13:36.280 --> 01:13:40.520
 an applicant ask for a conditional approval I was very confused on that one

01:13:40.520 --> 01:13:45.620
 I read I mean because it's like they submit it and in from how I had

01:13:45.620 --> 01:13:51.320
 understood it or read it were the ones who approve with conditions so I was

01:13:51.320 --> 01:13:58.660
 confused on that if someone could clarify I would love that. Mr. Chair I can

01:13:58.660 --> 01:14:04.600
 respond I haven't seen the correspondence but like you said it is up

01:14:04.600 --> 01:14:09.600
 to the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the determination whether the plat

01:14:09.600 --> 01:14:18.460
 complies with with the DDC requirements and if you want to deny because of

01:14:18.460 --> 01:14:24.760
 certain reasons or approve with conditions and the staff has made a

01:14:24.760 --> 01:14:32.080
 recommendation to you. And then regardless it's coming before us again.

01:14:32.080 --> 01:14:44.640
 If they resubmit right okay thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair so to

01:14:44.640 --> 01:14:48.480
 Margie's point though or Commissioner Ellis's point though the the fact that

01:14:48.480 --> 01:14:51.920
 they have to resubmit and repay fees to go through this now it is on the

01:14:51.920 --> 01:14:55.680
 applicant because they got the paperwork in without enough time not sufficient

01:14:55.680 --> 01:14:59.360
 time for the staff to review the make sure the easements and everything else

01:14:59.360 --> 01:15:05.160
 were were correct and fit city code requirements but if we did an approval

01:15:05.160 --> 01:15:12.520
 that an approval with conditions that they do satisfy staff's criteria that is

01:15:12.520 --> 01:15:16.080
 acceptable Cynthia is what you're saying.

01:15:18.200 --> 01:15:23.760
 The staff's recommendation is denial because of reasons how the local

01:15:23.760 --> 01:15:31.760
 government code is written is that they would resubmit a plat and address

01:15:31.760 --> 01:15:37.800
 those written comments and then it would come back to you again. But we could as a

01:15:37.800 --> 01:15:41.840
 commission we could we could we could we could make a motion for an approval

01:15:41.840 --> 01:15:48.180
 with the conditions that the items that were in question meet the code then the

01:15:48.180 --> 01:15:56.040
 then the plot would be approved. Yes correct. Julie I mean is is there a

01:15:56.040 --> 01:15:59.880
 reason why staff didn't make that recommendation versus making a denial

01:15:59.880 --> 01:16:03.800
 just because you didn't feel comfortable with it? Well we got this information

01:16:03.800 --> 01:16:10.280
 very late and so even all of the development reviewers that are typically

01:16:10.280 --> 01:16:15.360
 review have not had an opportunity to review all of these so we really want to

01:16:15.360 --> 01:16:19.680
 make sure that it met all of the criteria for approval. So you wouldn't even you

01:16:19.680 --> 01:16:23.560
 guys there was not even enough time for you guys to retain a conditional

01:16:23.560 --> 01:16:27.160
 approval recommendation it was just we've had no time to look at it we have

01:16:27.160 --> 01:16:31.840
 no clue how close it is to being being correct so a denial is the best and

01:16:31.840 --> 01:16:39.040
 safest suggestion. That's my I'm mainly I'm asking why why not if we're allowed

01:16:39.040 --> 01:16:42.360
 to do conditional approvals why wasn't a conditional recommended versus just

01:16:42.360 --> 01:16:46.240
 doing it the denial and you're just afraid that there is too much wrong with

01:16:46.240 --> 01:16:54.680
 it then a denial is safer than okay. You know we really try to get plots through

01:16:54.680 --> 01:16:58.960
 as quickly and efficiently as possible through through the review process and

01:16:58.960 --> 01:17:04.320
 we we do try to ensure they get as many reviews as possible to address those

01:17:04.320 --> 01:17:10.440
 comments. However in this instance there's just you know this was just that

01:17:10.440 --> 01:17:16.680
 the second time we saw the plot they received the comments for us you know

01:17:16.680 --> 01:17:20.960
 right after that first review and so we really just didn't have enough time to

01:17:20.960 --> 01:17:25.680
 look for everything and feel comfortable with that conditional approval. What is

01:17:25.680 --> 01:17:29.680
 the cost for a resubmittal and the timeline for resubmittal of a plot I mean

01:17:29.680 --> 01:17:33.960
 how much how far back will this set the applicant if we just go for a denial?

01:17:33.960 --> 01:17:40.120
 Let me look up the fees there there they would be treated equally we do have with

01:17:40.120 --> 01:17:46.080
 that shot clock we we did add the those those deadlines those timelines that

01:17:46.080 --> 01:17:49.400
 resubmittals that we take those resubmittals to make sure they coincide

01:17:49.400 --> 01:17:55.040
 with planning and zoning Commission meetings. So can I interrupt really it might be worth

01:17:55.040 --> 01:17:59.840
 clarifying regardless of there's a conditional approval or denial they

01:17:59.840 --> 01:18:06.280
 still have to meet the requirements and be approved by P&Z. I don't know if I

01:18:06.280 --> 01:18:10.720
 misunderstood Commissioner Smith or not but if we approve with conditions and

01:18:10.720 --> 01:18:15.080
 they meet the conditions staff would not have the authority to approve that those

01:18:15.080 --> 01:18:20.720
 conditions are met they still file and come back to P&Z either way. But if we

01:18:20.720 --> 01:18:24.400
 deny them they would have to go through a brand new resubmittal process isn't that correct?

01:18:24.400 --> 01:18:30.080
 If I can clarify we have submittals that are due every Tuesday so we got

01:18:30.080 --> 01:18:34.760
 these submittals that that came in yesterday. What was submitted for this

01:18:34.760 --> 01:18:40.760
 plat was not a formal resubmittal this was just a a courtesy or cursory review

01:18:40.760 --> 01:18:45.520
 that they asked Julie to look at as a way to get the conditional approval so

01:18:45.520 --> 01:18:51.040
 this was not formally resubmitted where it was distributed to all of the

01:18:51.040 --> 01:18:57.920
 departments to to review. But I guess my question is is is there a cost in the

01:18:57.920 --> 01:19:02.120
 timeline difference between what to deny and they have to go through the process all over

01:19:02.120 --> 01:19:07.760
 again versus a conditional approval that's really the impetus of my question

01:19:07.760 --> 01:19:11.180
 is that. And I understand that Chair that yes they have to come back in front of us

01:19:11.180 --> 01:19:14.440
 and see it again it's not really so much that as it is do they have to start all

01:19:14.440 --> 01:19:21.800
 the way back over if we give it denial versus conditional. I'm looking up those fees schedule.

01:19:21.800 --> 01:19:36.840
 I'll concede the floor to Commissioner Beck in the interim. My understanding is I don't

01:19:36.840 --> 01:19:41.080
 believe that they've submitted for a second review if it's part of a second

01:19:41.080 --> 01:19:46.040
 review there would be no additional no additional fee. Okay either way Richard

01:19:46.040 --> 01:19:51.360
 correct. Either way yeah and with a even with a conditional approval it's still

01:19:51.360 --> 01:19:56.520
 coming back to to PNC once we review it. But denial does not does not impact the

01:19:56.520 --> 01:20:02.800
 applicant or timeline wise other than a very small amount if anything. If they're

01:20:02.800 --> 01:20:06.800
 on their second review it should cost them anything. Got it thank you that's all I

01:20:06.800 --> 01:20:13.560
 needed to know. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I take the Commissioner Smith's point

01:20:13.560 --> 01:20:18.360
 about you know we should be mindful of fees and to developers but at the same

01:20:18.360 --> 01:20:23.800
 token the onus is not on the city or PNC to establish that fee schedule or those

01:20:23.800 --> 01:20:30.040
 fees that the onus is on the applicant if I understand the process correctly. So

01:20:30.040 --> 01:20:35.560
 and I would hate to set a precedent where the incomplete applications were

01:20:35.560 --> 01:20:40.040
 sent to the city in sufficient time to review I think that's it's a terrible

01:20:40.040 --> 01:20:43.960
 precedent to do conditionals on that ground so that's more of a comment than

01:20:43.960 --> 01:20:50.080
 a question from Julie but thank you. Commissioner Granada. So either way this

01:20:50.080 --> 01:20:55.720
 has to come back to us right. Not to seem excessively cheeky or anything like

01:20:55.720 --> 01:21:00.600
 that is there anything that would keep us from saying it's a conditional

01:21:00.600 --> 01:21:08.280
 approval and the conditions are that it meets staff's approval on the next come

01:21:08.280 --> 01:21:18.520
 go around I mean. I don't know if TGC allows us to do that. Richard can you provide insight

01:21:18.520 --> 01:21:25.200
 can we on this allow for a condition to be that staff approves it. I think it

01:21:25.200 --> 01:21:30.000
 would have to be very specific to the code sections and findings. It sounds

01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:35.920
 like Cynthia might want to weigh in as well. Mr. Chair the the DDC requires the

01:21:35.920 --> 01:21:43.360
 Planning Commission to approve Platts so I'd have to come back. Okay thank you for

01:21:43.360 --> 01:21:50.560
 that clarification. I know I think Julie is still looking at that fee structure

01:21:50.560 --> 01:21:58.660
 maybe or is there any other questions that we can do we have for Julie? And I

01:21:58.660 --> 01:22:02.080
 believe Richard answered the fee question. Okay great great. Your second

01:22:02.080 --> 01:22:07.400
 review so correct. All right Julie thank you for that presentation and walking

01:22:07.400 --> 01:22:12.440
 through the nuances of this approval process in the new era we kind of live

01:22:12.440 --> 01:22:17.000
 in with this. Is there any other questions for Julie on this item? Okay

01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:23.360
 seeing none we'll move to the next item of business which is item 4B FP 20-0010

01:22:23.360 --> 01:22:28.240
 and I believe Mark Laird is calling in on this is he the one presenting this

01:22:28.240 --> 01:22:46.520
 evening? Good evening this is Mark Laird. This evening I have for your

01:22:46.520 --> 01:22:51.460
 consideration Lot 1 Block 8 Quincy Court Edition. Staff has recommended approval

01:22:51.460 --> 01:22:58.700
 and I stand for any questions. Any questions for Mark on this approval

01:22:58.700 --> 01:23:04.640
 recommendation for approval? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Just actually I

01:23:04.640 --> 01:23:09.080
 had a quick question as to why this was an individual and not consent is it is

01:23:09.080 --> 01:23:16.080
 it because it's an ETJ or I was confused on that? You have to forgive me this is

01:23:16.080 --> 01:23:22.000
 not one of the first go arounds for me. I must have placed it on the agenda

01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:25.880
 incorrectly it probably should have been consent agenda so I do apologize for

01:23:25.880 --> 01:23:31.760
 that. No worries thanks for the clarification. Any other questions for

01:23:31.760 --> 01:23:39.120
 Mark on this item? Okay that moves us to our last item of discussion for the work

01:23:39.120 --> 01:23:47.000
 session that's 4C PD 20-0001E. This item was extended or postponed from our

01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:53.160
 June 3rd meeting it is Haley Zagorski's item for Sagebrook and as she presents

01:23:53.160 --> 01:23:57.720
 this I just wanted to remind everyone to be mindful of time and so if we can get

01:23:57.720 --> 01:24:03.400
 through the presentation that would be great and then just maybe leave some of

01:24:03.400 --> 01:24:09.160
 our questions until the the the public meeting that might be beneficial for for

01:24:09.160 --> 01:24:17.120
 timing but with that I will turn it over to Haley for presentation. Good evening

01:24:17.120 --> 01:24:21.920
 Commissioners Haley Zagorski. I won't go through the entire presentation again

01:24:21.920 --> 01:24:26.560
 because we've seen this a few times so Julie is actually advancing the slides

01:24:26.560 --> 01:24:32.920
 for me so Julie if you could be on slide 22. I just wanted to call to your

01:24:32.920 --> 01:24:36.760
 attention the the change in project boundaries here if you if you look on

01:24:36.760 --> 01:24:39.360
 the map you'll see there's now a notch out of the western boundary of the

01:24:39.360 --> 01:24:44.600
 property the total acreage included in this PD request has been modified from

01:24:44.600 --> 01:24:51.840
 146 acres to 143 that is due to those three acres on the western side are

01:24:51.840 --> 01:24:56.440
 going to be transferred to the adjacent property owner rather than being

01:24:56.440 --> 01:25:03.160
 included in this PD and Julie if you can go to the next slide I will quickly show

01:25:03.160 --> 01:25:08.240
 you a comparison of the original layout versus where we are today so this slide

01:25:08.240 --> 01:25:12.480
 shows the the original PD concept plan that you're all familiar with you can

01:25:12.480 --> 01:25:16.600
 see the some of the key features being that central trail the the large amount

01:25:16.600 --> 01:25:21.640
 of amenity open space on the south side this plan actually featured a total of

01:25:21.640 --> 01:25:26.840
 fourteen point one nine acres that would be within the HOA as a HOA's maintenance

01:25:26.840 --> 01:25:31.880
 is open space and then it featured 18 acres south of the brush Creek extension

01:25:31.880 --> 01:25:36.200
 that would be transferred to the city to our parks department for a future trail

01:25:36.200 --> 01:25:43.480
 system Julie if you can go to the next slide this shows the the layout that was

01:25:43.480 --> 01:25:47.480
 presented on June 3rd that was ultimately not voted on the the key

01:25:47.480 --> 01:25:52.040
 change here was that the alignment of brush Creek shifted the previous plan

01:25:52.040 --> 01:25:56.680
 had a 1000 foot curve radius on that roadway this plan shows that reduced to

01:25:56.680 --> 01:26:02.080
 750 feet which is the the tightest curve for a road of this size that the city's

01:26:02.080 --> 01:26:07.680
 criteria will allow that road is approximately 93 feet north of the barn

01:26:07.680 --> 01:26:12.280
 so it does avoid aligning with the barn as the previous plan did this plan does

01:26:12.280 --> 01:26:16.120
 avoid the the plugged gas well that circled in red and it still features that

01:26:16.120 --> 01:26:20.120
 key central spine that would have the the pedestrian connectivity to the park as

01:26:20.120 --> 01:26:24.640
 well as the open space is is generally maintained this one comes in just

01:26:24.640 --> 01:26:29.720
 slightly lower at fourteen point oh nine acres of HOA space and did have a slight

01:26:29.720 --> 01:26:32.800
 increase in the amount of acreage that would have been dedicated to the city at

01:26:32.800 --> 01:26:39.320
 eighteen point three acres if you go to the next slide Julie and this this is the

01:26:39.320 --> 01:26:43.720
 newest alignment the newest plan that's presented to you all today so largely

01:26:43.720 --> 01:26:48.160
 the same the the roadway brush Creek's alignment is the same as the previous

01:26:48.160 --> 01:26:53.560
 plan it's still about 93 feet north of the barn the area and that's outlined in

01:26:53.560 --> 01:26:57.400
 purple there are those three acres that are excluded from the PD now as I

01:26:57.400 --> 01:26:59.880
 mentioned those are going to be transferred to the ownership of the

01:26:59.880 --> 01:27:05.240
 adjacent property owner and then the other key change here is with regards to

01:27:05.240 --> 01:27:10.560
 all red road the adjacent property owner had some concern about the the

01:27:10.560 --> 01:27:14.760
 intersection of all red and brush Creek aligning on their property so this

01:27:14.760 --> 01:27:19.840
 shifts that road intersection onto the Sageport property so that connection

01:27:19.840 --> 01:27:24.920
 between all red and brush Creek will be made within this PD this again maintains

01:27:24.920 --> 01:27:29.400
 that that central pedestrian corridor it does feature some changes in the amount

01:27:29.400 --> 01:27:33.200
 of open space there would be just under 13 acres that would be maintained by the

01:27:33.200 --> 01:27:37.680
 HOA you can see there in that southern amenity center area that more lots has

01:27:37.680 --> 01:27:42.360
 been added to to adjust for that loss on the western side of the property with

01:27:42.360 --> 01:27:46.840
 the shift in brush Creek and the total amount that would be dedicated to the

01:27:46.840 --> 01:27:51.580
 city south of brush Creek is is lower at 15.3 acres because that three acres

01:27:51.580 --> 01:27:56.000
 being conveyed to the adjacent property owner Julie if you can go to the next

01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:01.260
 slide I just wanted to call out that with this table that there are no changes to

01:28:01.260 --> 01:28:05.960
 the proposed uses or the PD standards just the changes to the concept plan or

01:28:05.960 --> 01:28:12.560
 what's being proposed next slide and again no changes in the dimensional

01:28:12.560 --> 01:28:16.920
 standards that are proposed with this PD those all remain the same the changes

01:28:16.920 --> 01:28:21.360
 are in the number of lots and the amount of open space one lot is lost from what

01:28:21.360 --> 01:28:27.320
 from the original plan this latest plan features 490 lots as opposed to 491 the

01:28:27.320 --> 01:28:31.920
 HOA open space is still above the city's minimum of 5% it comes in at 9% with

01:28:31.920 --> 01:28:36.120
 this revised plan and then there is that change and reduction in acreage that

01:28:36.120 --> 01:28:42.520
 would be dedicated to the city Julie if you could go to the next slide and then

01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:46.320
 this table it was featured in your staff report that you received it just wanted

01:28:46.320 --> 01:28:49.760
 to put it here today in case we needed it for conversation purposes this called

01:28:49.760 --> 01:28:54.320
 out some of those changes and in more of a tabular format for you to compare so

01:28:54.320 --> 01:29:00.320
 you can see the the road curvature was a significant change the the amounts of

01:29:00.320 --> 01:29:05.040
 open space changed and then the amount of land that would be affected on the

01:29:05.040 --> 01:29:09.560
 neighboring property also changed with the June 3rd and July 8th plans reduced

01:29:09.560 --> 01:29:12.800
 the amount of acreage that the road would take up of the neighboring property

01:29:12.800 --> 01:29:19.440
 from 6 acres to 1.5 acres and then the final slide I just wanted to highlight

01:29:19.440 --> 01:29:23.880
 again the staff is still recommending approval of this plan the neighbor did

01:29:23.880 --> 01:29:27.040
 remove their opposition to this you should have received a letter this

01:29:27.040 --> 01:29:30.280
 afternoon from the neighboring property owner they are now in support of this

01:29:30.280 --> 01:29:34.120
 July 8th version of the plan and staff is also in support and I'm happy to

01:29:34.120 --> 01:29:36.720
 answer any questions now or at the public meeting

01:29:36.720 --> 01:29:41.080
 Haley thanks for the presentation Mr. Smith has a question I believe yeah just

01:29:41.080 --> 01:29:44.280
 a quick one Haley with the with the excluded chunk that's coming out of this

01:29:44.280 --> 01:29:47.920
 that's being given to the adjacent property owner what is the total acreage

01:29:47.920 --> 01:29:55.960
 that we're rezoning now it is now 143 acres as opposed to 146 thank you very

01:29:55.960 --> 01:30:00.280
 much I know is in there but as you're going through thank you question

01:30:00.280 --> 01:30:04.720
 Anderson thank you chair are the property owners that are receiving the

01:30:04.720 --> 01:30:11.320
 three acres are they and we heard from them as well yes those are the anor the

01:30:11.320 --> 01:30:15.280
 adjacent property owners that were opposing this previously and they are

01:30:15.280 --> 01:30:19.320
 now in support well I'd like to give kudos to you guys for working with the

01:30:19.320 --> 01:30:22.920
 property owners to resolve an issue instead of just keep bringing this back

01:30:22.920 --> 01:30:26.280
 and denying it trying to do all this stuff kudos to you guys for working it

01:30:26.280 --> 01:30:33.720
 out thank you Christian back real briefly is the latest plan I thought we

01:30:33.720 --> 01:30:38.040
 couldn't put roads on top of the gas well is the latest plan the intersection

01:30:38.040 --> 01:30:44.040
 is basically on top of the gas well Julie if you can pull up slide 25 for

01:30:44.040 --> 01:30:52.280
 them that's the July 8th site layout if you're looking at the plan the the red

01:30:52.280 --> 01:30:56.000
 circle that's on the map indicates the location of the well it is it is going

01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:00.000
 to be within an HOA lot that it's located roughly in between the the knuckle

01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:04.360
 and in the residential street and all red road where it would bisect the

01:31:04.360 --> 01:31:07.800
 property so they they managed to miss the gas well with both all red and brush

01:31:07.800 --> 01:31:17.000
 Creek okay so question I'm gonna maybe maybe you could look up because I'm

01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:21.680
 gonna ask this later at meeting for the sake of time is is the distance that the

01:31:21.680 --> 01:31:27.040
 engineers like to see of a gas well I mean we were previously told don't put

01:31:27.040 --> 01:31:30.640
 the road anywhere near guess well which was one of the original plans and now

01:31:30.640 --> 01:31:35.080
 we're basically close to being on top of it and so I'm gonna bring that up here

01:31:35.080 --> 01:31:39.160
 in a few minutes and so if you want to prepare an answer for that question I'll

01:31:39.160 --> 01:31:45.520
 take it at that time I can answer it now if you would like okay sure great but

01:31:45.520 --> 01:31:50.120
 the short answer is there there is no standard for that our engineers because

01:31:50.120 --> 01:31:52.880
 there's there's no standard there's not a lot of knowledge on this issue as

01:31:52.880 --> 01:31:57.000
 we've talked about their request was that that the gas will not be underneath

01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:01.600
 the pavement of the roadway and they did manage to to miss that with both roads

01:32:01.600 --> 01:32:06.840
 so the the wellhead itself will be within that green space on the plan it

01:32:06.840 --> 01:32:10.840
 is still within an HOA maintained lot so it won't be city right-of-way and it

01:32:10.840 --> 01:32:14.080
 won't be under the pavement which was the the crucial piece that we were

01:32:14.080 --> 01:32:25.040
 looking for there all right thank you Haley any other questions for Haley okay

01:32:25.040 --> 01:32:31.280
 with that that concludes our agenda for a work session we are going to have a

01:32:31.280 --> 01:32:38.640
 short recess just to kind of recalibrate I will have us all join back here at 640

01:32:38.640 --> 01:32:49.080
 for the public meeting and with that I will close the work session at 633 good

01:32:49.080 --> 01:32:52.200
 evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the plan and zoning regular meeting

01:32:52.200 --> 01:32:57.320
 scheduled for Wednesday July 8th 2020 seeing that we do have a quorum I will

01:32:57.320 --> 01:33:05.200
 call the meeting to order at 642 the first item of business is item 1 a and

01:33:05.200 --> 01:33:09.760
 b that's to write a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag if the

01:33:09.760 --> 01:33:13.240
 commissioners like to join me they can unmute themselves we'll do it

01:33:13.240 --> 01:33:19.000
 collectively I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and

01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:26.320
 to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with

01:33:26.320 --> 01:33:41.560
 liberty and justice for all honor the Texas flag sure I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible

01:33:41.560 --> 01:33:47.200
 the next item of business is item 2 a consider the approval of the June 17th

01:33:47.200 --> 01:33:52.180
 minutes Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval

01:33:52.180 --> 01:33:56.800
 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for the approval of the June

01:33:56.800 --> 01:34:03.840
 17th minutes any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call

01:34:03.840 --> 01:34:10.840
 Commissioner Cole Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Beck

01:34:10.840 --> 01:34:17.260
 aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Anderson aye the chair is

01:34:17.260 --> 01:34:25.480
 also an aye minutes are approved 7-0 the next item of business is item 3a or the

01:34:25.480 --> 01:34:30.320
 consent in general first item is 3a Commissioner Beck has asked that this

01:34:30.320 --> 01:34:36.220
 item gets pulled from the consent and so that will reduce our consent agenda to

01:34:36.220 --> 01:34:42.480
 zero and the item 3a will become our first individual consideration item so

01:34:42.480 --> 01:34:51.800
 we'll take that item first so 3a is now the first item of IC it's PP 20 - 0 0 1

01:34:51.800 --> 01:35:02.360
 3a and Christian are back do you have any questions for Karina or staff no

01:35:02.360 --> 01:35:09.600
 additional comments on that I do you want me to wait for discussion or for

01:35:09.600 --> 01:35:15.520
 general comments yeah we can do is we can see if there is a motion and then we

01:35:15.520 --> 01:35:19.280
 can come back during the discussion before the vote if that's good with you

01:35:19.280 --> 01:35:24.960
 yes Christian Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval

01:35:24.960 --> 01:35:29.480
 Commissioner Anderson I second the motion we have first and a second for

01:35:29.480 --> 01:35:34.400
 approval of PP 20 - 0 0 1 3a it's time for discussion

01:35:34.400 --> 01:35:41.000
 Christian are back yeah so I have real concerns about the the sort of integrity

01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:45.700
 of this residential plot in the surrounding community in terms of the

01:35:45.700 --> 01:35:50.480
 overall business diversity so I don't know that I agree with staff that it

01:35:50.480 --> 01:35:57.680
 matches the joint 2030 plan I'm concerned about the the drainage plans

01:35:57.680 --> 01:36:02.880
 that have seen in the backup materials in terms of mitigating future flood loss

01:36:02.880 --> 01:36:09.800
 and flood damage and it feels like this is dropped in the middle of the lows the

01:36:09.800 --> 01:36:19.200
 dump in the surrounding shopping and and with without mitigating risk or costs to

01:36:19.200 --> 01:36:24.720
 to any of those surrounding elements including the the green corridor that it

01:36:24.720 --> 01:36:29.920
 sort of represents in the shopping area so I can't good conscious the support

01:36:29.920 --> 01:36:35.000
 this okay thank you commissioner Beck we do have a first and a second for

01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:40.760
 approval is any other discussion on this item seeing none I'll call for a vote

01:36:40.760 --> 01:36:49.440
 be a roll call Commissioner Cole I Mr. Smith I Christian Ellis I Christian back

01:36:49.440 --> 01:37:00.640
 may kiss her pernetta okay Commissioner Anderson I the chair is an aye vote

01:37:00.640 --> 01:37:09.200
 carries five to the next item of business is item for a FP 20 - 0 0 0 9 B

01:37:09.200 --> 01:37:14.640
 and this item is presented by Julie Wyatt

01:37:16.520 --> 01:37:23.360
 do we Julie do you want to bring up your presentation or see there's any

01:37:23.360 --> 01:37:32.400
 questions or comments I know staff is recommending denial all right so yes this

01:37:32.400 --> 01:37:37.480
 plot was originally I'm considered on June 17th they did request an extension

01:37:37.480 --> 01:37:46.080
 at that time and and the plat is located along Teasley on the the west side of

01:37:46.080 --> 01:37:52.200
 Teasley and staff is recommending denial as the Platts we received do not meet

01:37:52.200 --> 01:37:56.960
 the minimum criteria and so I'm established requirements and I'll answer

01:37:56.960 --> 01:37:59.920
 any questions I do believe the applicant is on the phone in order to answer

01:37:59.920 --> 01:38:05.760
 questions as well great thank you very much Julie so any questions from the

01:38:05.760 --> 01:38:14.160
 commissioners I have one question the applicant is available it'd be helpful

01:38:14.160 --> 01:38:19.560
 to understand from from my perspective the process of a denial and approval

01:38:19.560 --> 01:38:26.880
 with conditions seems to result in the same actions on on the applicant's end

01:38:26.880 --> 01:38:33.200
 can I understand the desire for an approval with conditions versus a denial

01:38:33.200 --> 01:38:39.400
 if you have a preference and why and if you are on the line if you could just

01:38:39.400 --> 01:38:43.720
 state your name and address when you speak just we can identify you this is

01:38:43.720 --> 01:38:49.200
 Amy Bissett can you guys hear me can Amy great thank you commissioners I

01:38:49.200 --> 01:38:53.920
 appreciate your time this evening and I do want to explain to you why we've made

01:38:53.920 --> 01:38:59.080
 that made this request to for you guys to consider an approval with conditions

01:38:59.080 --> 01:39:05.720
 just to give you a very brief background and we started this project in 2018 it's

01:39:05.720 --> 01:39:11.520
 a very unusual site with some some considerable constraints between court

01:39:11.520 --> 01:39:16.760
 ordered easements and trees and a number of other things so we pursued an

01:39:16.760 --> 01:39:22.540
 alternative development plan back in 2018 that was approved and then we have

01:39:22.540 --> 01:39:29.040
 an approved preliminary plat and it approved civil plans we filed our final

01:39:29.040 --> 01:39:37.360
 plat application in May and in around the 1st of June we had a significant

01:39:37.360 --> 01:39:43.640
 change occur in that we had a regional originally planned for seven office

01:39:43.640 --> 01:39:49.920
 buildings and we have one end user who was looking for a significant more

01:39:49.920 --> 01:39:53.680
 amount significantly higher amount of square footage they wanted twenty

01:39:53.680 --> 01:39:59.640
 thousand square feet which required enough changes to the site plan to

01:39:59.640 --> 01:40:06.120
 warrant an amendment to the alternative development plan that was early June so

01:40:06.120 --> 01:40:13.080
 we did request an extension on final plat which you granted on June 17th and

01:40:13.080 --> 01:40:19.520
 the 30-day extension really ended up from our from our end in terms of real

01:40:19.520 --> 01:40:25.480
 opportunity ended up being about five days because in order to be considered

01:40:25.480 --> 01:40:32.840
 for approval today we had to resubmit five days after we were granted the the

01:40:32.840 --> 01:40:39.000
 extension in June and so it just ended up in terms of a turnaround time we had

01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:44.200
 hoped to come before you today with the alternative development plan as well as

01:40:44.200 --> 01:40:49.400
 the changes to the final plat and the time was just super compressed due to

01:40:49.400 --> 01:40:53.840
 the shot clock certainly has nothing to do with with anything that any of us

01:40:53.840 --> 01:41:00.240
 could control other you know it's just how it worked with under the new law so

01:41:00.240 --> 01:41:07.440
 in light of that we were put in a position where we had so we we have this

01:41:07.440 --> 01:41:14.880
 20,000 square foot user that is their counseling office and we need them to

01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:21.900
 essentially commit to us that they are that they are taking this building for

01:41:21.900 --> 01:41:27.880
 us to go through the amended ADP and the amended civil plans and so our

01:41:27.880 --> 01:41:34.920
 arrangement with them was that the with with an approval from the Planning and

01:41:34.920 --> 01:41:39.520
 Zoning Commission on the final plat tonight they would essentially commit to

01:41:39.520 --> 01:41:46.000
 all of the other changes that need to come down the line so we I want you to

01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:51.000
 know that we fully understand that when we made the request to Julie and to you

01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:55.200
 guys we know that we have not been through a formal submittal process or

01:41:55.200 --> 01:41:59.440
 recent mental process and we know that that's outside of of what would normally

01:41:59.440 --> 01:42:06.240
 be the review requirements and we're not trying to circumvent those we've been

01:42:06.240 --> 01:42:12.480
 going through those requirements on this particular project since 2018 so we want

01:42:12.480 --> 01:42:16.880
 to comply with everything and we understand circling back to your

01:42:16.880 --> 01:42:22.680
 question and chair we understand that approval with conditions and denial

01:42:22.680 --> 01:42:28.320
 essentially have the same impact on us from a submittal and review standpoint

01:42:28.320 --> 01:42:34.800
 it doesn't impact our timeline either way but what it does is it impacts our

01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:39.960
 arrangement with the end user that's taking 20,000 square feet for a

01:42:39.960 --> 01:42:46.200
 counseling office for them to fully commit to this change and so that that

01:42:46.200 --> 01:42:52.040
 gives us the confidence that we need to go back through and make sure that

01:42:52.040 --> 01:42:59.280
 everything gets changed to reflect city requirements that and the civil plans

01:42:59.280 --> 01:43:04.360
 are revised accordingly and the plat is revised accordingly so we did our very

01:43:04.360 --> 01:43:10.680
 best to accommodate or to respond to all of the staff comments and to bring the

01:43:10.680 --> 01:43:16.280
 plat into compliance as quickly as we could and we were just simply up against

01:43:16.280 --> 01:43:22.100
 a very short timeline and I do have Brad Andrews on the line I think he's still

01:43:22.100 --> 01:43:26.280
 on hold that he is the property owner and developer and I think he'd like to

01:43:26.280 --> 01:43:29.560
 have an opportunity to speak and answer any questions as well

01:43:29.560 --> 01:43:34.560
 specifically Commissioner Ellis I know you asked earlier today about why you

01:43:34.560 --> 01:43:39.640
 know why are we asking for this approval with conditions if the end result is the

01:43:39.640 --> 01:43:46.800
 same either way in terms of timing and costs and we realize that it is Commissioner

01:43:46.800 --> 01:43:52.560
 Ellis thank you chair so with that Amy is there any way to explain to your end

01:43:52.560 --> 01:43:57.760
 user exactly what's going on here it's the same thing I mean you're still gonna

01:43:57.760 --> 01:44:01.800
 have to come back we're still gonna have to see it and we're still gonna have to

01:44:01.800 --> 01:44:07.640
 approve it so is there not a way to explain to the end user what you so

01:44:07.640 --> 01:44:12.520
 nicely presented to us today which was answers to all of staff's questions it's

01:44:12.520 --> 01:44:19.400
 just it's hard for me to to go against staff's recommendation here especially

01:44:19.400 --> 01:44:23.440
 when they just have not reviewed you know what it is that you submitted to

01:44:23.440 --> 01:44:30.040
 them yesterday I I understand Commissioner Ellis and I'm gonna let Brad

01:44:30.040 --> 01:44:40.120
 answer your question specifically but before I hand it over to him and I do

01:44:40.120 --> 01:44:43.480
 want to say that we you know we do acknowledge and understand that that

01:44:43.480 --> 01:44:48.600
 it's the same process either way this was just a an arrangement that we had

01:44:48.600 --> 01:44:57.040
 with the end user that and that put us in this position can we Brad oh he's

01:44:57.040 --> 01:45:02.640
 there thank you yeah Brad Andrews 212 South Elm Street in Denton I appreciate

01:45:02.640 --> 01:45:08.440
 the time this evening on the point of that it's gonna end up being the same

01:45:08.440 --> 01:45:14.680
 timeline and and end result that was that was something that we did not

01:45:14.680 --> 01:45:21.040
 understand until today and that may have just been our misunderstanding or maybe

01:45:21.040 --> 01:45:26.800
 just even mine but it was it was my understanding that one of your options

01:45:26.800 --> 01:45:30.280
 for the one of the options of the planning zoning commission would be to

01:45:30.280 --> 01:45:37.520
 approve with condition you know work out those conditions and meet those

01:45:37.520 --> 01:45:42.520
 satisfy all of those conditions and working with staff and as soon as those

01:45:42.520 --> 01:45:49.200
 conditions were met with staff then it is then ready for filing that it would

01:45:49.200 --> 01:45:55.480
 not need to go back to PNC and Amy did call me earlier this afternoon and told

01:45:55.480 --> 01:46:03.240
 me that's not the case so I guess that does change things in some ways you know

01:46:03.240 --> 01:46:08.640
 but that's that's what I've been telling our our client all this time is that

01:46:08.640 --> 01:46:15.920
 that that would be the approach and so not sure how I got got off war on that

01:46:15.920 --> 01:46:22.120
 is that not an option at this point it took to work with those work with staff

01:46:22.120 --> 01:46:28.800
 to meet those conditions and not come back to PNC unfortunately we contemplated

01:46:28.800 --> 01:46:33.000
 that in our work session this evening and concluded that's not an option the

01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:39.520
 PNC is the authority the authority to approve that staff would not even if we

01:46:39.520 --> 01:46:45.720
 tried to delegate that authority to them be able to to make that decision okay so

01:46:45.720 --> 01:46:51.440
 again our misunderstanding on that we we have worked with other cities where that

01:46:51.440 --> 01:46:54.760
 has been an option maybe it's a different interpretation of the law that

01:46:54.760 --> 01:46:59.640
 so that was that was the route that we we were going down or the understanding

01:46:59.640 --> 01:47:06.160
 that we had in kind of telling our clients that that approach so I know it

01:47:06.160 --> 01:47:13.040
 seems well I understand the commissioners will do what you feel is in

01:47:13.040 --> 01:47:19.160
 the best interest of the city and protect the the integrity of the process

01:47:19.160 --> 01:47:26.800
 we do humbly and respectfully however still request that you work with us in

01:47:26.800 --> 01:47:34.160
 this way and we'll be back the we've we've submitted and and received

01:47:34.160 --> 01:47:39.960
 approval for numerous projects and plats in the city then we were here we were

01:47:39.960 --> 01:47:45.160
 local we we certainly intended to do everything that we say we're gonna do

01:47:45.160 --> 01:47:50.920
 and on top of this now that you get you get a chance to confirm it we come back

01:47:50.920 --> 01:47:58.920
 anyway as strange as the request may sound it would be helpful in what we're

01:47:58.920 --> 01:48:03.880
 trying to accomplish with this particular client if we can go this way

01:48:03.880 --> 01:48:10.280
 so we do do respectfully request that you give that serious consideration thank

01:48:10.280 --> 01:48:13.240
 you well Amy and Brad thank you for being available

01:48:13.240 --> 01:48:19.960
 Commissioner Smith thank you so Amy I don't think I got a straight answer from

01:48:19.960 --> 01:48:24.260
 what Margie had asked beginning which is are you saying that you will lose your

01:48:24.260 --> 01:48:29.160
 end-user if it is a denial versus a conditional approval after after Brad

01:48:29.160 --> 01:48:33.640
 had spoke it sounds like it it guys kind of came in tonight and but probably then

01:48:33.640 --> 01:48:38.000
 your end-user probably assumes that tonight you could have moved forward but

01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:42.040
 now knowing that no matter what you have to come back are you still saying that

01:48:42.040 --> 01:48:44.920
 without a conditional probably you're gonna lose your you're gonna lose your

01:48:44.920 --> 01:48:52.080
 client basically you're gonna lose your your tenant if I may speak to that that's

01:48:52.080 --> 01:48:57.640
 unknown what what the the commitment that we made to them is that we would

01:48:57.640 --> 01:49:01.620
 submit and and be on on the agenda tonight for the plaque to maintain the

01:49:01.620 --> 01:49:07.600
 timeline that that that everybody had anticipated this project to be under and

01:49:07.600 --> 01:49:12.440
 so their their commitment to us is that we'll go ahead and execute this lease

01:49:12.440 --> 01:49:18.480
 they they executed the lease today based on our our being on the agenda tonight

01:49:18.480 --> 01:49:23.280
 and so I can't I don't know I mean I don't want to tell you I'm certainly not

01:49:23.280 --> 01:49:27.360
 trying to threaten you with hey we're gonna lose our client and that's your

01:49:27.360 --> 01:49:31.800
 problem it's not your problem I understand that but that those are the

01:49:31.800 --> 01:49:36.840
 promises that we met made to them tonight and I don't know honestly how it

01:49:36.840 --> 01:49:42.280
 will play out from here obviously I've got some explaining to do based on the

01:49:42.280 --> 01:49:47.320
 my misunderstanding of how this could play out I've got some explaining to do

01:49:47.320 --> 01:49:56.200
 to them anyway so okay thank you very much I think if I can interject some

01:49:56.200 --> 01:50:03.520
 some thoughts on this our Commission me personally have set through literal work

01:50:03.520 --> 01:50:08.200
 sessions on trying to understand this new governmental code of platting and

01:50:08.200 --> 01:50:17.400
 shot clocks and we can't deny a plat or all these different rules that we still

01:50:17.400 --> 01:50:25.960
 are as clear as mud on how to interpret and use these and so I have a an issue

01:50:25.960 --> 01:50:31.920
 that even the volunteer Commission who has been trained on this doesn't

01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:36.640
 understand this to delegate the responsibility out to local developers

01:50:36.640 --> 01:50:43.360
 to then try for them to defend or describe how to navigate this new local

01:50:43.360 --> 01:50:49.800
 government code and so if it is the exact same burden and onus back on the

01:50:49.800 --> 01:50:53.920
 city and the applicant to apply I know just in my personal and professional

01:50:53.920 --> 01:50:58.320
 experience the idea of having a status of approved with conditions is

01:50:58.320 --> 01:51:04.040
 monumentally different and extremely more interpretable than denial and then

01:51:04.040 --> 01:51:08.840
 having someone defend what that denial means despite them saying it's the exact

01:51:08.840 --> 01:51:15.120
 same it's it's it's a tough conversation to have with anybody to say it's a

01:51:15.120 --> 01:51:19.600
 denial but really it is an approval with conditions if I don't I don't like the

01:51:19.600 --> 01:51:23.320
 idea of me putting that on any person trying to develop and didn't when we as

01:51:23.320 --> 01:51:27.200
 a Commissioner still going through work sessions on how to actually process the

01:51:27.200 --> 01:51:33.240
 approval of these things and so it would be my desire and I obviously and fully

01:51:33.240 --> 01:51:37.880
 respect staff's recommendation for denial but to facilitate the

01:51:37.880 --> 01:51:41.800
 conversations left with the individuals trying to do business in our town I

01:51:41.800 --> 01:51:49.080
 would prefer and I guess I just go ahead and make the motion to approve this with

01:51:49.080 --> 01:51:56.520
 conditions and so that's my motion on the table Commissioner Smith a second we

01:51:56.520 --> 01:52:02.240
 have a first and a second for approval with conditions Commissioner Beck yeah

01:52:02.240 --> 01:52:07.360
 so I appreciate the thank you chair I appreciate that the chairs desire to

01:52:07.360 --> 01:52:12.420
 make this easier on on our fellow citizens who are just trying to do their

01:52:12.420 --> 01:52:17.200
 best to develop property under their control and and I appreciate that I I

01:52:17.200 --> 01:52:22.480
 don't want to overburden my neighbors who are trying to develop these properties

01:52:22.480 --> 01:52:28.240
 but I think it sets a it is the more conservative and sets the the more

01:52:28.240 --> 01:52:35.960
 limited impact to say that we are going to follow the rules and and it's it may

01:52:35.960 --> 01:52:42.400
 be unfortunate that in this particular case they're getting caught so I

01:52:42.400 --> 01:52:47.880
 appreciate the chairs concern about that that this is cumbersome and and dropped

01:52:47.880 --> 01:52:51.920
 in from the sky as it were this at the state level and and it's really

01:52:51.920 --> 01:52:57.360
 impacting our neighborhood but at the same token we the staff hasn't had a

01:52:57.360 --> 01:53:02.160
 chance to review these materials and I think that sets a precedent where you're

01:53:02.160 --> 01:53:06.620
 saying well we're going to we're going to make a judgment call on something

01:53:06.620 --> 01:53:10.400
 where the staff is not fully reviewed the materials and I think that sets a

01:53:10.400 --> 01:53:14.960
 terrible precedent so I I I'm sympathetic and I'm very sorry for the

01:53:14.960 --> 01:53:19.440
 applicant but I don't think I can support this in these kinds of conditions

01:53:19.440 --> 01:53:24.200
 if the staff would review it then I probably if they supported it and it

01:53:24.200 --> 01:53:28.200
 matched everything then then I might feel much more comfortable thank you

01:53:28.200 --> 01:53:33.520
 chair sure Christian actually Christian put out real fast and I let Cynthia hop

01:53:33.520 --> 01:53:40.360
 in to see if she has some context for us mr. chair I just wanted to point out or

01:53:40.360 --> 01:53:45.300
 ask if if the conditions that you mentioned in your motion are the

01:53:45.300 --> 01:53:50.200
 conditions in the staff report I I appreciate that clarification they are

01:53:50.200 --> 01:53:53.480
 the conditions listed in the staff report Commissioner Smith are you okay

01:53:53.480 --> 01:53:57.560
 with that clarification yes I am thank you Commissioner for being patient you

01:53:57.560 --> 01:54:04.320
 know the floor that was gonna be my question so the conditions that we're

01:54:04.320 --> 01:54:09.400
 voting on are going to be basically staff's conditions so so when this comes

01:54:09.400 --> 01:54:15.120
 around because it's gonna have to come back right would that vote be contingent

01:54:15.120 --> 01:54:19.720
 on them meeting the conditions in this report or whether or not they just meet

01:54:19.720 --> 01:54:28.040
 the requirements period well I guess that my question is what are we setting

01:54:28.040 --> 01:54:34.040
 ourselves up to have to approve when it comes back the expectation of my motion

01:54:34.040 --> 01:54:38.620
 was that they meet the baseline of all approval necessary for to meet the

01:54:38.620 --> 01:54:46.960
 technical requirements to approve okay okay I think that's all the question

01:54:46.960 --> 01:54:50.320
 because ultimately like this comes down to like weird stuff that we have to do

01:54:50.320 --> 01:54:54.920
 because of the shot clock and bizarre things that this imperfect law that we

01:54:54.920 --> 01:55:02.680
 hate is wreaking on our town right okay all right

01:55:02.680 --> 01:55:08.400
 is there any other Christian Alice yeah thank you chair just to further the

01:55:08.400 --> 01:55:12.280
 discussion because I'm I'm super uncomfortable with it I mean I feel like

01:55:12.280 --> 01:55:16.060
 we're circumventing our own process and we're going against our own staff with

01:55:16.060 --> 01:55:20.960
 their recommendation I mean the way the law states is that we as a commission

01:55:20.960 --> 01:55:25.400
 can set forth an approval with conditions and cite the conditions in

01:55:25.400 --> 01:55:29.520
 this case we've literally had an applicant come to us requesting a

01:55:29.520 --> 01:55:34.560
 conditional approval which to me seems backwards for the way the law is written

01:55:34.560 --> 01:55:40.680
 and while I appreciate the difficulty in in having to explain to their client

01:55:40.680 --> 01:55:45.760
 what was misunderstood I mean that's just part of doing business we all have

01:55:45.760 --> 01:55:49.880
 clients we have to talk to and explain things to and sometimes that you know

01:55:49.880 --> 01:55:53.560
 we're back to do a corner because we misunderstood something and it's it's on

01:55:53.560 --> 01:56:00.560
 us to go back to our client and explain to them and I don't I don't feel like we

01:56:00.560 --> 01:56:06.040
 should circumvent what our process is and circumvent our staff's

01:56:06.040 --> 01:56:11.560
 recommendation because they need to go back and clarify something with their

01:56:11.560 --> 01:56:18.280
 clients so and again it's not to try to to put a bigger burden that the issue is

01:56:18.280 --> 01:56:24.840
 the same difference for them this is coming before us regardless I don't know

01:56:24.840 --> 01:56:29.880
 why we want to circumvent our own process which staff work diligently to

01:56:29.880 --> 01:56:35.040
 put in place when this shot clock became law and I think they've done a great job

01:56:35.040 --> 01:56:42.200
 with with how they are managing plats being submitted and resubmittals and so

01:56:42.200 --> 01:56:50.480
 I am I'm not comfortable with with emotion as stated good Richard just for

01:56:50.480 --> 01:56:54.240
 point of clarification the conditions were not in the staff report I think the

01:56:54.240 --> 01:56:58.840
 conditions were put in in the letter that was submitted by the by the

01:56:58.840 --> 01:57:07.320
 applicants representative so for clarification on that point then the the

01:57:07.320 --> 01:57:14.200
 implications of a denial and an approval with conditions ultimately though the

01:57:14.200 --> 01:57:21.920
 threshold for approval is the same I would have to look at all of their

01:57:21.920 --> 01:57:26.440
 conditions and how they align with the various items that that Julie has in her

01:57:26.440 --> 01:57:31.740
 staff analysis that was found to be deficient if it is if for some reason

01:57:31.740 --> 01:57:37.880
 one of those conditions missed a deficiency that that was determined by

01:57:37.880 --> 01:57:42.760
 by Julian her staff analysis if that was not addressed in those conditions we

01:57:42.760 --> 01:57:48.600
 could then not force them to comply they would only be limited to those

01:57:48.600 --> 01:57:55.320
 conditions that were put in place by by PNC I don't I don't like that at all

01:57:55.320 --> 01:58:01.060
 that's unsettling to me thank you for that clarification I was under the

01:58:01.060 --> 01:58:07.600
 impression that yeah I was under a different impression yeah I think that

01:58:07.600 --> 01:58:12.400
 was Cynthia's earlier comment she could correct me but that they would need to

01:58:12.400 --> 01:58:17.760
 be very specific not this broad sort of broad approval or broad conditional

01:58:17.760 --> 01:58:22.920
 approval understood things like clarification Christian Pernetta so just

01:58:22.920 --> 01:58:26.720
 a couple of things so thanks Richard for bringing in that up so just to verify

01:58:26.720 --> 01:58:34.200
 the the conditions are not staff conditions these are conditions requested

01:58:34.200 --> 01:58:38.880
 by the applicant in their letter to us right

01:58:38.880 --> 01:58:49.760
 that are part of the motion I guess is what I'm asking yeah it Julie did you

01:58:49.760 --> 01:58:57.280
 have something yes Christian Pernetta that was my understanding prior to us

01:58:57.280 --> 01:59:01.320
 going to a vote there might be a rescinding of a motion bear with me on

01:59:01.320 --> 01:59:08.840
 that one Julie did you have something to add to that um no they were yeah it was

01:59:08.840 --> 01:59:14.120
 requested by the applicant I don't I'm looking back through their email I don't

01:59:14.120 --> 01:59:19.720
 see where they specifically laid out conditions it appears that they're

01:59:19.720 --> 01:59:29.440
 essentially kind of requesting that condition that all staff comments will

01:59:29.440 --> 01:59:41.240
 be addressed which is broad okay so and before we go to the part where we may or

01:59:41.240 --> 01:59:45.000
 may not rescind the motion everything I just do want to take one second to

01:59:45.000 --> 01:59:49.120
 grandstand for a second knowing that all the problems that we've had with you

01:59:49.120 --> 01:59:51.840
 know things like the shot clock and everything this is a law that went back

01:59:51.840 --> 01:59:57.280
 and went to place in the last session and knowing that these are all you know

01:59:57.280 --> 02:00:02.440
 things that are lobbied upon to to the state to pass you know I would hope that

02:00:02.440 --> 02:00:06.960
 things like this kind of go forward and there is lobbying at the next session to

02:00:06.960 --> 02:00:11.600
 maybe revoke this refined it in some way so that way that these don't quite hobble

02:00:11.600 --> 02:00:16.560
 us in our job going forward it seems like it was a very rush thing that was

02:00:16.560 --> 02:00:19.800
 you know that while it was put forward to make sure that in the event of

02:00:19.800 --> 02:00:24.800
 disasters like Hurricane Harvey people aren't left you know in the lurch it

02:00:24.800 --> 02:00:29.640
 seems like for everyday things this is this winds up hurting our partners in

02:00:29.640 --> 02:00:33.520
 town who are trying to build a better town so if you're out there listening

02:00:33.520 --> 02:00:37.200
 here for developer please get with everybody else and see what we can do to

02:00:37.200 --> 02:00:43.560
 make sure that this thing gets corrected in the next session thank you so I

02:00:43.560 --> 02:00:47.720
 completely agree with the Commissioner pernetta I saw this as an opportunity

02:00:47.720 --> 02:00:57.040
 for local authorities to to find a way to help local developers but it seems as

02:00:57.040 --> 02:01:02.400
 though that the kind of the state wins again in this situation in terms of what

02:01:02.400 --> 02:01:07.640
 we can do I I am going to withdraw my motion as much as I I would want to

02:01:07.640 --> 02:01:11.720
 facilitate an easy conversation between the applicant and the tenants the

02:01:11.720 --> 02:01:16.600
 ambiguity and and the applicant presenting conditions to us as

02:01:16.600 --> 02:01:20.440
 Commissioner Ellis pointed out does change the process we have in place and

02:01:20.440 --> 02:01:24.200
 and without those being reviewed I wouldn't be in good conscience knowing

02:01:24.200 --> 02:01:30.000
 exactly what conditions that I would be in favor of and so back to Commissioner

02:01:30.000 --> 02:01:35.000
 pernetta's eloquent grandstanding this is ridiculous and it continues to be

02:01:35.000 --> 02:01:39.760
 ridiculous from the state mandate and needs to change but but knowing all the

02:01:39.760 --> 02:01:44.120
 context Cynthia and Richard for helping out there with Julie's help I'm going to

02:01:44.120 --> 02:01:49.240
 withdraw my motion Julie well I did want to add I apologize I look back through

02:01:49.240 --> 02:01:56.400
 Amy's through Amy's request she did have some specific conditions I they're not

02:01:56.400 --> 02:01:59.960
 something that staff is fully fully vetted once again because it's it's

02:01:59.960 --> 02:02:05.840
 based upon deficiencies in the plot that we haven't reviewed but do you want me

02:02:05.840 --> 02:02:11.200
 to read out what her requested conditions are or I I do not need them

02:02:11.200 --> 02:02:17.920
 right out okay so with that the chair will entertain another motion

02:02:17.920 --> 02:02:22.960
 Commissioner Beck I make a motion to accept staff's recommendation for

02:02:22.960 --> 02:02:30.720
 denial as recommended by staff customer pernetta good I'm sorry doing I just

02:02:30.720 --> 02:02:37.440
 wanted to interject mr. chair yeah I'm sorry if our commissioner back are you

02:02:37.440 --> 02:02:41.980
 saying that you want to deny with the conditions or the reasons in the staff

02:02:41.980 --> 02:02:49.060
 report I am saying I I make a motion to accept staff's recommendation as it has

02:02:49.060 --> 02:02:57.160
 as it was conveyed to us okay so is that a how that the state law is written is

02:02:57.160 --> 02:03:02.440
 that the Planning Commission has to deny for reasons specific reasons for those

02:03:02.440 --> 02:03:06.560
 need to be in those reasons as identified in the staff report okay thank

02:03:06.560 --> 02:03:12.520
 you Christian pernetta as much as it pains me to do this to the applicant I

02:03:12.520 --> 02:03:23.500
 would second yeah we have a first and a second for denial any discussion yeah I

02:03:23.500 --> 02:03:29.280
 don't need to talk anymore but this is not a fun vote I certainly for Brad and

02:03:29.280 --> 02:03:32.240
 Amy who I hope so on the line hopefully that conversation goes well and the

02:03:32.240 --> 02:03:36.520
 tenant holds that lease they you got executed today so wish you the best in

02:03:36.520 --> 02:03:41.840
 that conversation we'll take this to a vote via roll call again this is a vote

02:03:41.840 --> 02:03:51.640
 to deny so in I vote is vote to deny commissioner Cole Commissioner Ellis I

02:03:51.640 --> 02:04:00.480
 customer back I customer pernetta I customer Anderson I commissioner Smith

02:04:00.480 --> 02:04:09.120
 all right the chair is also an I the motion carries of denial seven zero next

02:04:09.120 --> 02:04:15.660
 round of business is item for BFP 20 - 0 0 1 0 and this item is going to be

02:04:15.660 --> 02:04:24.480
 presented by mark layered and mark as you come on the line if you can hear me

02:04:24.480 --> 02:04:28.440
 I've just been asked that any time you speak since you're on the phone if you

02:04:28.440 --> 02:04:33.480
 could just say this is mark speaking or just identify yourself on the onset of

02:04:33.480 --> 02:04:37.440
 you speaking this be helpful for anyone watching along we know what that voice

02:04:37.440 --> 02:04:47.680
 is good evening this is mark layered can you hear me we can great thank you this

02:04:47.680 --> 02:04:51.800
 evening I have for your consideration the final plot of lot one block a

02:04:51.800 --> 02:04:56.400
 Quincy court in addition this property is generally low is located at the

02:04:56.400 --> 02:05:00.720
 southeast corner of Stewart Road and Luke 288 located here within the city of

02:05:00.720 --> 02:05:06.200
 Denton staff recommends the approval of the plot and I stand for any questions

02:05:06.200 --> 02:05:14.360
 you may have thank you very much Mark there any questions for this item okay

02:05:14.360 --> 02:05:18.400
 seeing none the chair will entertain a motion the commissioner Anderson I make

02:05:18.400 --> 02:05:24.840
 the motion to approve commissioner Smith second we have a first and a second for

02:05:24.840 --> 02:05:30.800
 approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a vote be a

02:05:30.800 --> 02:05:39.840
 roll call commissioner Cole Mr. Smith I push your Ellis I push your back I

02:05:39.840 --> 02:05:46.960
 push your pernetta I push your Anderson I chairs also an I motion carries seven

02:05:46.960 --> 02:05:57.120
 zero next item of business is item 4c PD 20 - 0 0 0 1e this item was postponed at

02:05:57.120 --> 02:06:02.020
 our June 3rd meeting is being brought back before us and I will turn the floor

02:06:02.020 --> 02:06:09.240
 over to Haley's Agurski for presentation good evening Commission Haley's

02:06:09.240 --> 02:06:17.360
 Agurski senior planner can you all hear me we can all right great so I won't go

02:06:17.360 --> 02:06:21.600
 through everything in full detail again I'll just skim through those slides we

02:06:21.600 --> 02:06:27.100
 went through at work session to highlight the changes so again the major change to

02:06:27.100 --> 02:06:31.400
 this request is the the change in acreage that would be within the PD three

02:06:31.400 --> 02:06:35.440
 acres on the western edge of the property have been removed from the PD

02:06:35.440 --> 02:06:41.400
 request so we're at a total of 143 acres as opposed to the 146 that we previously

02:06:41.400 --> 02:06:48.780
 looked at the the request would be broken down as 128 acres being initially

02:06:48.780 --> 02:06:54.280
 zoned to PD to PD from the placeholder of our that was received after annexation

02:06:54.280 --> 02:07:00.240
 and then 14.19 acres would be rezoned from the existing r6 designation to PD

02:07:00.240 --> 02:07:07.360
 we can go to the next slide this this is the original layout that you all saw

02:07:07.360 --> 02:07:11.280
 when this first came before you as a public hearing item this featured 491

02:07:11.280 --> 02:07:18.880
 lots 14 a 14.19 acres rather of HOA open space that the two main areas are

02:07:18.880 --> 02:07:22.800
 shown in yellow on the map a larger amenity center with trails on the south

02:07:22.800 --> 02:07:27.200
 side and then a smaller pond feature with trails around that on the north

02:07:27.200 --> 02:07:33.360
 northeast side of the property the the area called that in blue is a central

02:07:33.360 --> 02:07:37.800
 pedestrian corridor that would be a divided roadway with a sidewalk through

02:07:37.800 --> 02:07:42.160
 the middle of it to facilitate pedestrian traffic going through this

02:07:42.160 --> 02:07:46.720
 neighborhood to the future regional City Park that is north of all Red Road and

02:07:46.720 --> 02:07:51.160
 then south of the extension of Rush Creek Road this plan featured about 18

02:07:51.160 --> 02:07:54.520
 acres of land that would be dedicated to the Parks Department for a trail

02:07:54.520 --> 02:07:58.400
 extension that would connect to this neighborhood and be part of a larger

02:07:58.400 --> 02:08:02.120
 network of trails throughout the city the area shown in red is the approximate

02:08:02.120 --> 02:08:06.760
 location of a plug gas well and we can look at that location in a little more

02:08:06.760 --> 02:08:12.440
 detail on the other plans as well so if we go to the next slide this was the the

02:08:12.440 --> 02:08:16.780
 plan that was presented to you on June 3rd the major change here again is the

02:08:16.780 --> 02:08:20.800
 alignment of Rush Creek Road the previous plan had that road terminating

02:08:20.800 --> 02:08:25.960
 section that aligned with a barn on the adjacent property after negotiations

02:08:25.960 --> 02:08:31.720
 with the the property owner and reanalyzing this the developer was able

02:08:31.720 --> 02:08:36.580
 to tighten the curve on this roadway up from a thousand feet to the minimum of

02:08:36.580 --> 02:08:42.180
 750 feet so that moved the roadway about 93 feet from that barn so it would

02:08:42.180 --> 02:08:47.580
 avoid that future intersection a few lots were lost on the west side of the

02:08:47.580 --> 02:08:52.000
 property those were relocated near the amenity center on the south side but

02:08:52.000 --> 02:08:55.120
 this does still feature those two main amenity areas as well as the central

02:08:55.120 --> 02:09:01.520
 trail this plan has slightly less acreage within HOA control 14.09 acres

02:09:01.520 --> 02:09:07.120
 and then the approximately 18.3 acres so slightly more acreage that would have

02:09:07.120 --> 02:09:12.020
 been dedicated to the city and then if we go to the next slide this this is the

02:09:12.020 --> 02:09:16.440
 final version of the plan that's been agreed upon by the neighbors it is much

02:09:16.440 --> 02:09:21.720
 the same as the previous version again the road does miss the barn by about 93

02:09:21.720 --> 02:09:26.680
 feet the intersection of Allred Road and Rush Creek Road has been relocated on

02:09:26.680 --> 02:09:31.040
 this plan so you can see a few less lots there on the northwest corner to

02:09:31.040 --> 02:09:34.840
 clarify Commissioner Beck's question at work session the developer did provide

02:09:34.840 --> 02:09:38.720
 me with some exact measurements the plugged well that's approximately in the

02:09:38.720 --> 02:09:44.120
 red area is about 37 feet south of Allred Road and about 35 feet north of

02:09:44.120 --> 02:09:48.340
 that knuckle within the residential street there so it is over 30 feet

02:09:48.340 --> 02:09:53.760
 outside of both right of ways and within an HOA lot just to clarify that the

02:09:53.760 --> 02:09:57.880
 other major change here is the area outlined in purple that's the the three

02:09:57.880 --> 02:10:00.800
 acres that would be conveyed to the adjacent property owner and therefore

02:10:00.800 --> 02:10:06.120
 are excluded from this PD request now and then the the totals just to compare

02:10:06.120 --> 02:10:10.480
 open space again this plan does have less HOA open space at just under 13

02:10:10.480 --> 02:10:16.320
 acres and it it has three less acres 15.3 total that would be conveyed to the

02:10:16.320 --> 02:10:21.520
 city approve it for the future trails if we can go to the next slide this is

02:10:21.520 --> 02:10:25.920
 simply here to clarify that there are no changes proposed with this revised plan

02:10:25.920 --> 02:10:28.920
 to the uses that would be permitted within the PD it would still be

02:10:28.920 --> 02:10:32.960
 strictly a single-family residential as well as the typical accessory and

02:10:32.960 --> 02:10:38.240
 temporary uses that we permit within our single-family districts and on the next

02:10:38.240 --> 02:10:43.400
 slide this is just a breakdown again to show that there are no differences

02:10:43.400 --> 02:10:47.680
 proposed within the dimensional standards the major changes here again

02:10:47.680 --> 02:10:52.080
 that are shown on the plan is a slight reduction in open space from 10% to 9%

02:10:52.080 --> 02:10:57.200
 that three acre reduction in open space to be conveyed to the city and then an

02:10:57.200 --> 02:11:06.400
 overall loss of one lot so from 491 to 490 the next slide this again is just a

02:11:06.400 --> 02:11:10.000
 breakdown of those three plans and how they compare the major changes are in

02:11:10.000 --> 02:11:15.800
 bold so the the curve radius on on brush Creek has been shrank from a thousand

02:11:15.800 --> 02:11:20.840
 feet to about 750 feet which is the city minimum this is slightly less

02:11:20.840 --> 02:11:24.360
 desirable but it is still within the parameters for safety for a roadway of

02:11:24.360 --> 02:11:30.280
 this size all three of the alignments avoid going over the gas well in terms

02:11:30.280 --> 02:11:34.480
 of maximizing open space for the neighborhood the the revised plan does

02:11:34.480 --> 02:11:38.960
 have slightly less acreage it goes from fourteen point one nine to twelve point

02:11:38.960 --> 02:11:44.920
 nine six acres total that would be with an HOA control and then the the open

02:11:44.920 --> 02:11:47.880
 space that would be conveyed to the city is reduced from eighteen point three to

02:11:47.880 --> 02:11:52.000
 fifteen point three acres with the exclusion of that Western area from the

02:11:52.000 --> 02:11:55.800
 PD that we looked at earlier some of the other considerations with the roadway

02:11:55.800 --> 02:11:59.480
 that they were striving to meet with these plans was to keep the neighborhood

02:11:59.480 --> 02:12:03.120
 intact and avoid bisecting it with that arterial roadway all three designs

02:12:03.120 --> 02:12:07.560
 achieved that goal and then finally with regard to impact to the neighbors the

02:12:07.560 --> 02:12:11.000
 original plan would have affected about six acres of the neighbor neighboring

02:12:11.000 --> 02:12:15.200
 property with the road alignment both of the revisions take that number down to

02:12:15.200 --> 02:12:20.120
 1.5 acres this final plan also offers the neighbor the benefit of removing the

02:12:20.120 --> 02:12:23.840
 all-red road intersection from their property and putting it on to the sage

02:12:23.840 --> 02:12:29.040
 work property and finally with the the next slide just wanted to clarify that

02:12:29.040 --> 02:12:33.160
 staff is still recommending approval of this plan the neighbor is no longer in

02:12:33.160 --> 02:12:37.360
 opposition so so they achieve that goal of the postponements that we've been

02:12:37.360 --> 02:12:41.920
 going through and staff is in favor of the the July 8th plan as it's been

02:12:41.920 --> 02:12:46.840
 presented tonight and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you very much

02:12:46.840 --> 02:12:52.840
 Haley commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so as I recall the the order of

02:12:52.840 --> 02:12:56.480
 events that happened here and you sort of mentioned on the previous slide I'm

02:12:56.480 --> 02:13:02.160
 not asking you to bring it up is the original all red road or sorry brush

02:13:02.160 --> 02:13:11.480
 Creek Road expansion was put in place to come to avoid the floodplain crossing

02:13:11.480 --> 02:13:20.360
 through the middle of this property and that put it to take over the the the

02:13:20.360 --> 02:13:24.440
 neighboring property and when we had questions about that we were like well

02:13:24.440 --> 02:13:28.360
 we don't want to cross the floodplain and we don't we can't remove it north

02:13:28.360 --> 02:13:35.120
 because we'll we'll hit a gas well and then as we begin to massage this to take

02:13:35.120 --> 02:13:39.600
 into the concerns of the neighboring property which I admit are very and very

02:13:39.600 --> 02:13:43.760
 important we don't want to have impacts necessarily on the neighboring property

02:13:43.760 --> 02:13:48.760
 but we move to a condition where suddenly now we're crossing into the

02:13:48.760 --> 02:13:55.080
 floodplain and suddenly we're building I heard the numbers 37 and I can't remember

02:13:55.080 --> 02:13:58.560
 the other but it doesn't really approximately the same we know we're

02:13:58.560 --> 02:14:04.520
 basically building on top of a gas well which we said we couldn't do and you

02:14:04.520 --> 02:14:09.280
 know I was when I my original question on three three meetings back or so was

02:14:09.280 --> 02:14:14.280
 you know can't we just punch it through there and oh no we can't do that or the

02:14:14.280 --> 02:14:19.280
 engineer doesn't want to do that so it feels like we're we're playing a little

02:14:19.280 --> 02:14:24.080
 fast and loose with both our needs of our floodplain and our needs of our gas

02:14:24.080 --> 02:14:29.720
 well the needs of our property adjacent property owners and then you know the

02:14:29.720 --> 02:14:35.040
 you know the collecting all the the issues of you know what does it mean to

02:14:35.040 --> 02:14:39.640
 have additional drainage potential damage by moving into the floodplain what

02:14:39.640 --> 02:14:44.560
 does it mean to to you know why was the engineer concerned to build next to a

02:14:44.560 --> 02:14:49.080
 gas well that wasn't ever really super clear we all agreed it was maybe not

02:14:49.080 --> 02:14:57.280
 optimal but now we can do that we're not taking into a cost the the the costs or

02:14:57.280 --> 02:15:06.640
 the development and the future costs for for Denton I'm not at all blind to this

02:15:06.640 --> 02:15:12.560
 this property you know already road was you know used psychic circly to justify

02:15:12.560 --> 02:15:17.920
 this property and and and a hundred coal and hundred coal was I mean so these

02:15:17.920 --> 02:15:23.480
 things are being circularly used to justify each other and and I I think we

02:15:23.480 --> 02:15:30.800
 need to follow our own guidelines or have really good clear rationale for you

02:15:30.800 --> 02:15:36.240
 know why we can suddenly change those things and I I'm just not at all I don't

02:15:36.240 --> 02:15:40.960
 think this matches our cost benefits I don't think it matches our drainage

02:15:40.960 --> 02:15:45.820
 rules I don't think it matches you know good engineering plans you know we

02:15:45.820 --> 02:15:50.080
 curved this a lot to go into the floodplain and get around the gas well

02:15:50.080 --> 02:15:53.840
 and so curves are bad or and straights are good earn weight now curves are

02:15:53.840 --> 02:15:58.640
 acceptable so I think there's a lot of fudging around the edges in order to

02:15:58.640 --> 02:16:02.520
 make this development happen when we should have just had a clean plan to

02:16:02.520 --> 02:16:08.080
 begin with and not just try to run a sidewalk up into the North Park so I can

02:16:08.080 --> 02:16:12.760
 I feel very comfortable saying that I can't support the this this development

02:16:12.760 --> 02:16:19.200
 for those reasons this is Haley speaking Commissioner Beck can I respond to a

02:16:19.200 --> 02:16:26.320
 couple of those thoughts there yes I get again this is Haley speaking the road

02:16:26.320 --> 02:16:31.600
 has not been shifted into the floodplain the if Julie if you could go to slide

02:16:31.600 --> 02:16:39.200
 25 please the July 8th layout it may be hard to see I'm not sure how well this

02:16:39.200 --> 02:16:42.720
 comes through for you all but there is a dashed line a double dashed line

02:16:42.720 --> 02:16:48.520
 actually that runs south of brush Creek through the the purple area on the plan

02:16:48.520 --> 02:16:53.080
 that is the limits of the floodplain so the road the road has not shifted towards

02:16:53.080 --> 02:16:56.340
 the floodplain it's actually shifted further away from the floodplain on the

02:16:56.340 --> 02:17:01.560
 north the northeast or northwest side of the property so I just wanted to

02:17:01.560 --> 02:17:04.480
 alleviate your concern there that the road is still not within the floodplain

02:17:04.480 --> 02:17:09.080
 the reduction in floodplain acres that you saw being conveyed to the city is

02:17:09.080 --> 02:17:12.920
 because of that area in purple that is instead being conveyed to the neighbor

02:17:12.920 --> 02:17:18.120
 they are receiving some of the acres within the floodplain and and again with

02:17:18.120 --> 02:17:21.480
 regards to the gas well I just want to reiterate there there is no standard for

02:17:21.480 --> 02:17:25.720
 this anywhere within the country the concerns of our city engineer was that

02:17:25.720 --> 02:17:30.400
 the the well not be underneath pavement in the it so that in the event the well

02:17:30.400 --> 02:17:34.360
 has to be you know something goes wrong and it starts leaking or we have to

02:17:34.360 --> 02:17:39.120
 access it for some reason to reseal the casing that that not be within the

02:17:39.120 --> 02:17:43.000
 pavement of a city roadway so that the road wouldn't have to be shut down to do

02:17:43.000 --> 02:17:47.600
 that and we would avoid any any potential risk of there being some sort

02:17:47.600 --> 02:17:51.760
 of failure within the casing that could have affected the the paving itself and

02:17:51.760 --> 02:17:56.120
 the safety of the road so the well is still well outside of the right of way

02:17:56.120 --> 02:18:00.680
 of any city street to be at a residential street a collector or an

02:18:00.680 --> 02:18:06.920
 arterial so it satisfies all of those concerns again the change here was was

02:18:06.920 --> 02:18:11.440
 taking away the the preference that these curves be as broad and as gentle

02:18:11.440 --> 02:18:14.880
 as possible because this will someday be a six lane roadway with high-speed

02:18:14.880 --> 02:18:19.360
 traffic on it and and reducing that to the the bare minimum that we deem

02:18:19.360 --> 02:18:23.760
 acceptable for safety standards which is that 750 foot curve radius shown on the

02:18:23.760 --> 02:18:29.240
 plan so I certainly appreciate your concerns with how this was all massaged

02:18:29.240 --> 02:18:33.280
 but there there was a great amount of thought and effort put into making sure

02:18:33.280 --> 02:18:37.360
 that all of those safety concerns were still addressed and that the the flood

02:18:37.360 --> 02:18:43.720
 plain is not affected by the roadway so just just one one little quibble with

02:18:43.720 --> 02:18:46.880
 that and I think you guys do an excellent job so I'm not I'm not knocking

02:18:46.880 --> 02:18:51.760
 the development office at all I think that you you did your best to make a

02:18:51.760 --> 02:18:59.800
 plan that matched certain stakeholders but as I recall the original all-red

02:18:59.800 --> 02:19:04.520
 road a plan was to go from approximately where the south end of the sidewalk was

02:19:04.520 --> 02:19:12.080
 in the circle in blue to approximately where the barn is and so you may they

02:19:12.080 --> 02:19:16.400
 would the road may not have shifted into the flood plain but it is shifted

02:19:16.400 --> 02:19:28.560
 towards the flipped is that correct this is Haley again the then I would not say

02:19:28.560 --> 02:19:33.080
 it's fair to say either road has shifted towards the flood plain Brush Creek Road

02:19:33.080 --> 02:19:37.360
 shifted away from the flood plain since it shifted north of the barn which is

02:19:37.360 --> 02:19:42.920
 right at the limits of the flood plain and the intersection of all red yes did

02:19:42.920 --> 02:19:49.400
 move further to the east but it's it's nowhere near the flood plain itself it

02:19:49.400 --> 02:19:57.280
 it's even further north from it than Brush Creek Road would be I'm not sure

02:19:57.280 --> 02:20:00.920
 if that helps or not but again if you can see it on the plan that the very

02:20:00.920 --> 02:20:05.520
 faint dashed line that is just to the the southwest of the barn is the flood

02:20:05.520 --> 02:20:09.760
 plain limit I see those those dotted lines thank you for the clarification

02:20:09.760 --> 02:20:16.280
 Julie can you go I think two slides back shows the original plan so that's the

02:20:16.280 --> 02:20:22.720
 original one and so all red it looks like instead of going into the adjacent

02:20:22.720 --> 02:20:30.560
 property now cuts through their own property and Brush Creek turns north a

02:20:30.560 --> 02:20:35.600
 little bit quicker that's that's the significant changes in the roads it

02:20:35.600 --> 02:20:44.120
 looks like okay thanks Julie is there any other questions for Haley Kushner

02:20:44.120 --> 02:20:52.080
 Cole thank you chair Haley just do you happen to know what type of plugging

02:20:52.080 --> 02:20:57.120
 they use was a mechanical or was it cement mud that not you know what they

02:20:57.120 --> 02:21:05.480
 did this is Haley again yes I did pull the Railroad Commission report

02:21:05.480 --> 02:21:10.480
 and they I believe it is a cement plug at least from my understanding of the

02:21:10.480 --> 02:21:15.280
 plugging report the well is plugged at three different depths the the shallowest

02:21:15.280 --> 02:21:18.920
 steps I believe is 20 feet below the surface but it has three separate cement

02:21:18.920 --> 02:21:23.480
 plugs starting at that 20 feet and then progressing down through the the the

02:21:23.480 --> 02:21:27.440
 various strata of gas and water to to ensure that there's separation between

02:21:27.440 --> 02:21:34.040
 the groundwater and and the the shale layer featuring the the natural gas but

02:21:34.040 --> 02:21:46.320
 I believe it was purely cement plugs thank you any other items so with that I

02:21:46.320 --> 02:21:49.960
 just wanted to acknowledge that for this item we had zero people make comments

02:21:49.960 --> 02:21:54.240
 using our online form there was zero in support of this item and zero against

02:21:54.240 --> 02:21:59.280
 all these comment forms were emailed to all the commissioners and city

02:21:59.280 --> 02:22:02.680
 secretaries to be recorded additionally there were zero people that called into

02:22:02.680 --> 02:22:08.200
 our phone number to register their position there is neither any support or

02:22:08.200 --> 02:22:12.360
 against but finally there is one person who has called in this evening to speak

02:22:12.360 --> 02:22:18.120
 on this item so staff will be connecting to them now

02:22:32.680 --> 02:22:41.040
 good evening caller you're live with the plan and zoning Commission can you

02:22:41.040 --> 02:22:44.040
 please state your name and address for the record and you'll have four minutes

02:22:44.040 --> 02:22:50.960
 to speak sure this is Eric Perrett 2111 Westwood Drive thank you for the

02:22:50.960 --> 02:22:56.000
 opportunity I'll be brief just to summarize my thoughts that I've shared

02:22:56.000 --> 02:23:00.640
 previously I don't really have an objection to the railway line that

02:23:00.640 --> 02:23:06.320
 proposed for this application that my objection really comes from the fact

02:23:06.320 --> 02:23:11.000
 that I don't think the fiscal analysis provided actually satisfies our long

02:23:11.000 --> 02:23:17.600
 range plans call for long-term fiscal analysis which as I read it is intended

02:23:17.600 --> 02:23:20.920
 to ensure that we don't have to raise taxes on our current residents in the

02:23:20.920 --> 02:23:27.600
 future you know I as I look through what has happened it sort of seems like the

02:23:27.600 --> 02:23:33.840
 de facto process is that a certain amount of land use is assumed that goes

02:23:33.840 --> 02:23:39.520
 into the modeling for traffic studies that guides mobility plan assumptions

02:23:39.520 --> 02:23:43.600
 then that drives infrastructure investments in order to make sure that

02:23:43.600 --> 02:23:48.720
 we're not caught behind like we have in the past in certain areas but then that

02:23:48.720 --> 02:23:54.440
 brings annexation and zoning change requests into those corridors when I

02:23:54.440 --> 02:23:58.600
 look back at the broader area that this is in I see thousands of acres and is

02:23:58.600 --> 02:24:05.560
 currently rural with no city services no nothing and I just kind of wonder what

02:24:05.560 --> 02:24:10.600
 what's the future hold do we have a process in place to ensure that that

02:24:10.600 --> 02:24:17.280
 development will actually pay enough taxes to serve it as I look through the

02:24:17.280 --> 02:24:24.800
 the paragraph and a half of fiscal analysis included in the the backup report

02:24:24.800 --> 02:24:31.560
 I can't imagine that staff would be proud to provide that if if they were

02:24:31.560 --> 02:24:37.760
 called to do a rigorous long-term fiscal analysis of a development plan so I just

02:24:37.760 --> 02:24:43.680
 really call for the Commission and staff to consider fulfilling the long-range

02:24:43.680 --> 02:24:50.800
 plans call for getting a serious serious process in place in order to fulfill

02:24:50.800 --> 02:24:58.520
 those desires of the long-range plan thank you thank you mr. Prude for

02:24:58.520 --> 02:25:02.800
 calling in and I appreciate your letter to us earlier this week I read through

02:25:02.800 --> 02:25:07.440
 the bulk of it and I thought it was really helpful especially your analysis

02:25:07.440 --> 02:25:12.880
 of mobility and thoroughfare through what's currently flume rural which

02:25:12.880 --> 02:25:18.160
 doesn't seem to be the future land use in actuality and we talked about that in

02:25:18.160 --> 02:25:19.760
 a work session so I appreciate your insight

02:25:19.760 --> 02:25:24.360
 Commissioner Smith thank you chair Erica we've heard you speak here on the

02:25:24.360 --> 02:25:26.960
 Commission a couple of times and I think I've interacted with you a couple of

02:25:26.960 --> 02:25:33.080
 times but if I kind of get your concern straight it sounds like the development

02:25:33.080 --> 02:25:37.680
 of rural and adding roadways and city services to have to go into these rural

02:25:37.680 --> 02:25:42.440
 areas that the tax rate that we have currently for residential property that

02:25:42.440 --> 02:25:45.800
 amount of tax the amount of tax collected by the city in your mind for a

02:25:45.800 --> 02:25:50.840
 long-term for a long-term fiscal analysis isn't sufficient enough to keep

02:25:50.840 --> 02:25:56.280
 up with those services that's what you're essentially saying yeah I mean

02:25:56.280 --> 02:25:59.800
 obviously I haven't done a rigorous study on this particular development so I

02:25:59.800 --> 02:26:03.760
 can't state that it absolutely won't but it concerns me that we don't have a

02:26:03.760 --> 02:26:08.920
 process to do that the fiscal analysis that I've seen the city do for for other

02:26:08.920 --> 02:26:14.520
 large developments has been limited to save one lifecycle of the infrastructure

02:26:14.520 --> 02:26:20.120
 and and then I just wonder okay what happens are we agreeing to let that

02:26:20.120 --> 02:26:24.040
 infrastructure crumble and fail once it's gone or are we going to levy taxes

02:26:24.040 --> 02:26:29.760
 to replace it gotcha thank you for your input I appreciate

02:26:35.880 --> 02:26:42.440
 I was muting any other any other questions for Eric Prout Eric I

02:26:42.440 --> 02:26:47.680
 appreciate you calling in this evening with that the chair will entertain any

02:26:47.680 --> 02:26:52.960
 motions or further discussion the item commissioner Smith make a motion to

02:26:52.960 --> 02:26:58.600
 approve we have a motion to approve Commissioner Anderson second the motion

02:26:58.600 --> 02:27:03.720
 we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on this item

02:27:03.720 --> 02:27:09.600
 Commissioner Ellis thank you just real quick comment to thank the developer for

02:27:09.600 --> 02:27:16.840
 their patience and flexibility in this I think you know they came to the best

02:27:16.840 --> 02:27:20.600
 possible scenario in the concerns that that were raised through the multiple

02:27:20.600 --> 02:27:27.400
 times that this item was before us so kudos to them thank you I agree and I

02:27:27.400 --> 02:27:31.120
 echo what Commissioner Anderson said earlier it's it's good to see in-depth

02:27:31.120 --> 02:27:35.760
 conversation trying to find compromise for the sake of all parties so well done

02:27:35.760 --> 02:27:41.120
 to staff applicant and citizens for being involved in the discussion with

02:27:41.120 --> 02:27:44.480
 that we will take this vote by roll call

02:27:44.480 --> 02:27:53.880
 Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Beck nay Commissioner

02:27:53.880 --> 02:28:01.640
 Anderson aye Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Pernetta

02:28:01.640 --> 02:28:09.280
 chairs an aye motion carries 6-1 the next item of our agenda is item 5a it's a

02:28:09.280 --> 02:28:13.800
 planning Zoni Commission project matrix I'll turn the floor over to Richard

02:28:13.800 --> 02:28:19.960
 Kenoni for any updates and then the Commission for questions or additions

02:28:19.960 --> 02:28:24.520
 just just briefly the only update I would I would have is we'll be bringing

02:28:24.520 --> 02:28:29.520
 back the obviously the planning discussion for at the next PNC meetings

02:28:29.520 --> 02:28:34.360
 we'll make sure that that is the only work session item on that agenda so we

02:28:34.360 --> 02:28:39.480
 can have plenty plenty of time devoted devoted to that without be happy answer

02:28:39.480 --> 02:28:44.400
 any questions great zoom and have any questions for the matrix or anything to

02:28:44.400 --> 02:28:53.280
 add to the matrix going forward okay seeing none I will call this meeting to

02:28:53.280 --> 02:29:00.540
 a close at 738 Oh Christian Anderson yes are you saying it can be said after you

02:29:00.540 --> 02:29:06.480
 just messed up okay great so the meeting is now closed at 738 thank you