>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF PRINCETON PLANNING AND
[A. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
ZONING COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETING FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2024.PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES AND STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> START WITH OUR PUBLIC APPEARANCE.
[C. PUBLIC APPEARANCE]
SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO RESPOND OR TO DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS SECTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO ANY INQUIRY.I WOULD NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL THIS SPECIFIC ITEM THAT YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON COMES UP.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE? TURN ON THAT MICROPHONE.
MY NAME IS CHRISTINA TODD. DO I HAVE TO SAY MY ADDRESS?
I'M HERE FOR AN ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, NOT ON THE OPEN HEARING.
TONIGHT, THE CITY WILL BE PRESENTING TO THE PEOPLE A DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY FOLLOW.
IT'S TO PUT PEOPLE AT EASE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE AND YET I'VE MET WITH THE CITY.
I HAVE SHOWN THEM THAT WE DON'T FOLLOW THIS.
THIS HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING, AND IT'S NOT JUST IN MY COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THEIR HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE BUILDERS NOT FOLLOWING CODE.
OUR INSPECTORS ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB.
THEY ARE NOT TRULY GOING OUT AND LOOKING.
KIMLEY HORN, THEY ARE OUR ENGINEERS.
THEY SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT IN MY COMMUNITY THAT THE RETAINING WALLS WERE NOT BUILT.
ACCORDING TO THEIR RECORDS, THEY WALKED THROUGH AND DID THEIR INSPECTION TO RELEASE THE PUBLIC WORKS BEING DONE.
BUT DID THEY CATCH THAT A HOUSE IS ALREADY BUILT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ZONE IT YET? NO. DID THEY CATCH THAT THE SIDEWALKS WEREN'T COMPLETE? THE ROAD WASN'T DONE? NO. DID THEY CATCH THAT THE WALLS WEREN'T UP? NO. YOU WANT TO COME HERE AND SAY THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THESE PLANS, WE'RE NOT.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THIS, WE HAVE A QR CODE.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO SCAN IT, AND YOU CAN SEE THE RECORDS, I'LL BE ADDING MORE TO IT. THANK YOU.
IS A FULL PRESENTATION THAT SHE HAS P. ANYONE ELSE?
>> MY NAME IS KELLY GABBY, AND I LIVE AT 1317 CARLO DRIVE IN PRINCETON, TEXAS.
WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 2014 AND AT THE TIME, CARLO DRIVE WAS SURROUNDED BY 1,880 ACRES OF FLAT FARMLAND.
WE ACTUALLY MOVED HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST TWO HOMES DURING KATRINA AND FLOODING.
WE HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN OVER 10 YEARS.
BEGGING THE CITY, BEGGING THE ENGINEERS.
WE PAID $40,000 FOR ENGINEERING FEES TO PROVE THAT THE RETAINING WALL WAS BUILT IMPROPERLY, AND WE WERE EXCUSED FROM MEETINGS.
WE'VE BUILT A POOL AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO KEEP OUR HOMES FROM FLOODING.
I HAVE PERSONAL LETTERS WITH FOUR MAYORS AT EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BEGGING THEM TO FIX THIS DURING CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE RETAINING WALLS WERE BUILT WITH 23 DRAINS THAT DRAIN ACROSS OUR SEPTIC FIELD.
THE CITY GAVE THE WALL TO THE HOA.
THE HOA HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN IT.
THAT WAS WITH THE FIRST SUBDIVISION.
WITH THE SECOND SUBDIVISION, WHITE WINGS.
THEY'VE BUILT A THREE-ACRE RETAINING POND WITH THE COURSE OF OUR BACKYARD, SEPTIC FIELD HOUSE, POOL, AND FRONT YARD AS THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO THIS RETENTION POND.
OUR HOUSE IS COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
[00:05:02]
OUR HOUSE HAS FLOODED FOUR TIMES.DURING THIS LAST REIGN, I HAVE SENT PICTURES TO EVERY PERSON ON CITY COUNCIL.
I HAVE PICTURES FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT BEING DONE.
THE WALL WAS CONSIDERED A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE FROM THE BEGINNING.
SEAN FORT, DERRET PORT, BORG APPROVED THIS.
THEY'VE BEEN TO MY HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE CANNOT SUE THE CITY. THIS IS IMMUNE.
WE CANNOT INSURE OUR HOME AND NOBODY WANTS TO PAY ATTENTION.
Y'ALL HAD TEN FEET OF EASEMENT. YOU USE 50.
WE SPENT OVER $100,000 BUILDING MOATS AROUND OUR HOUSE BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIGHT THE CITY BECAUSE IT WAS A DAVID AND GOLIATH.
NOW, WITH THE SECOND SUBDIVISION, AND I BEGGED THE MAYOR SENT PICTURES.
WHEN IT RAINED, IT WAS FLOODING.
TEXAS WATER CODE 11.3 NOT FOLLOWED.
TEXAS WATER CODE 11.83 NOT FOLLOWED.
FIX THIS. DON'T DO THIS TO US AGAIN.
WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW AT THE END OF OUR STREET, MY NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO EXPERIENCE THE SAME THING.
WE PAID FOR THE ENGINEERING FEES, AND YOU WOULDN'T LOOK.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[D. CONSENT AGENDA]
ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMISSIONER SO REQUEST IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 16, ITEM FP 20231753, FINAL PLATT SIX BLOCK C PRINCETON CROSS ROADS, U HALL, AND ITEM FP 20232393 FINAL PLAT, SOUTH RIDGE PHASE TWO B.
IF THERE'S NOT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS IS.
>> I REQUEST THAT ITEM NUMBER FP 20232393, SOUTH RIDGE PHASE 2 B BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
>> OKAY. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT? ARE YOU SEEING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA?
>> WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM FP 20232393, WHICH WILL BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
>> I WANT TO OPEN THE VOTE COOL.
>> ARE THE VOTING SYSTEMS DOWN? WE'LL DO JUST ALL IN FAVOR, SAY.
>> ANY OPPOSED, NO? MOTION CARRIES.
SO THAT ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[E. PUBLIC HEARINGS]
WE HAVE SIX TONIGHT.THE FIRST ONE IS SUP 20243045, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, DAYCARE ON INDIGO, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION, AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM VAMALA BY KASSAR CAPA, SHANOJ RAO FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE CHILDCARE HOME AT 703 INDIGO ROAD BEING LOT 15 BLOCK G, SITUATED IN WHITE WING TRAILS, PHASE 1 IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> UGO UNION COMMISSION COLD DAVENPORT PLANNER.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN AT HOME DAYCARE LOCATED OFF A INDIGO ROAD IN WHITE WING TRAILS.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF FOUR CHILDREN.
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THEIR APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDS
[00:10:02]
APPROVAL BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAVE A PASSING HEALTH INSPECTION, AS WELL AS A PASSING FIRE INSPECTION.THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANTS HERE.
>> OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 641.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY?
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE], AND MY HUSBAND, [INAUDIBLE] AND MY SON ARE HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.
WE LIVED AT 703 INDIGO ROAD IN WHITE WING TRAILS, PHASE 1.
I HAVE MY BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING DEGREE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, AND I'M A CERTIFIED MONTECI TEACHER WITH THREE-PLUS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD.
WE PROVIDE CARE FOR CHILDREN AGED THREE AND OLDER IN CAREFULLY CRAFTED ENVIRONMENTS THAT ADDRESS EACH CHILD'S UNIQUE DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS, PROVIDING THEM WITH THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEIR JOURNEY OF SELF-DISCOVERY.
I HAVE RECEIVED STATE PERMIT FROM THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR 12 KIDS, REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IN HOME CHILDCARE FACILITY.
THIS PERMIT WILL ENABLE US TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE SERVICES IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THE STATE HAS GIVEN PERMITS FOR 12 KIDS, BUT THE CITY IS ONLY ALLOWING FOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN MY HOME.
I AM UNABLE TO CHOOSE THIS OPTION BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS MY BUDGET.
IF THE CITY ALLOWS ME TO CARE FOR AT LEAST SEVEN CHILDREN, INSTEAD OF FOUR, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, AND MY HARD WORK WILL PAY OFF.
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. THANK YOU.
>> SO THE PERMIT IS TO BASICALLY EXCEED 4-7 CHILDREN.
I WAS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT.
IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT 15 CHILDREN.
>> TWELVE. THE STATE ALLOWED ME 12 CHILDREN.
>> OKAY. SO THE PERMIT DOES NOT GIVE YOU OR THE ZONING CHANGE DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO KEEP 12 CHILDREN THERE, OR WILL IT PERMIT YOU TO KEEP 12 CHILDREN, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO CAP IT AT SEVEN BY YOUR OWN POLICY? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP SEVEN CHILDREN BY YOUR OWN CHOICE, OR IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING FOR THE CHANGE TO BE MADE TO ONLY ALLOW FOR SEVEN CHILDREN?
THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS FOR A DAYCARE OF ANY AMOUNT OF CHILDREN.
SHE IS REQUESTING TO HAVE SEVEN AS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY.
IF SHE WOULD LIKE MORE THAN FOUR CHILDREN, STAFF WOULD CHANGE HER RECOMMENDATION TO DENIAL.
>> OKAY. THE SORRY, THE SUP WILL ALLOW UP TO 12 CHILDREN, BUT THE FIRE CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN FOUR THAT YOU HAVE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IN THE HOME.
GOT YOU. THE ZONING WILL ALLOW UP TO 12, BUT ANY MORE THAN FOUR REQUIRES A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM PER THE CITY'S FIRE CODE.
>> SO IF THIS WERE APPROVED, HAVING ANY MORE THAN SEVEN IS STILL NOT GOING TO BE ON THE TABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12?
>> CORRECT. SHE COULD HAVE SEVEN WITH A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IN HER HOME.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS EXPENSIVE?
THAT AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
CITY IS, TELLING US TO PUT THAT, BUT IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.
SO ACTUALLY, WE HAVE BEEN LIKE RESEARCHED WITH OTHER CITIES ALSO.
SO WHAT THEY SAY IS THEY DON'T REGULATE ANYTHING.
IF YOU HAVE A STATE PERMIT, YOU ARE WELL AND GOOD TO GO WITH WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF KITS THEY ALLOW US TO GO WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, A SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT HOME.
SO WE'RE REQUESTING THE CITY TO JUST DO SOME MORE RESEARCH AND GIVE US A PERMISSION TO ABIDE BY THE STATE LAW TO HAVE AT LEAST SIX OR MORE CHILDREN SO THAT WHATEVER THE EFFORT SHE IS PUTTING IN THAT WILL PAID OFF.
THAT'S THE ONLY REQUEST TO CITY TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH.
[00:15:02]
WHY OTHER CITIES ARE ALLOWING AND JUST ABIDING THE STATE LAWS, GOING GOING WITH THE STATE LAWS.THEY DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF RESTRICTION IN OTHER CITIES, LIKE A MCKINNEY, FRISCO, RICHARDSON, AND THE MELISA, WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH WE ARE JUST REQUESTING TO JUST CONSIDER THE REQUEST, JUST TO WORK WITH MAYBE OTHER CITIES AND GET WHAT IS THEIR CONCERN WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN IN OTHER CITIES, WE ONLY HAVE A CONCERN IN THE PRINCETON CITY FOR THE DAYCARE OWNERS.
AS IT WILL HELP DAYCARE OWNERS TO COME FRONT AND THEY CAN HAVE A PERMIT TO RUN THE SCHOOL.
>> THANK YOU. MR. SUTTON? YES. IF I MAY JUST WANT POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRE CODE.
A VARIANCE TO THE FIRE CODE WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> THAT'S THE FIRE CODE FOR THE CITY? IS THAT A CITY CODE?
>> WITH IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS?
YOU MENTIONED THAT THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND A FEW OTHERS NEED TO DO INSPECTIONS.
HAVE THOSE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THOSE INSPECTIONS, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THOSE INSPECTIONS? PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
THE CITY CODE FOR THE FIRE SUPPRESSANT SYSTEM IS THERE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN THAT ARE THERE, AND,\ OF COURSE, THE FAMILY THEMSELVES.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S A LIFE SAFETY THING.
>> THE OTHER CERTIFICATES THAT ARE NEEDED? THE INSPECTIONS, DO WE HAVE THEM SCHEDULED OR?
>> A QUESTION AND THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN ANSWER BETTER THAN THE APPLICANTS.
IS THERE PRECEDENCE FOR THIS? IS THERE ANY PRECEDENCE OF HAVING THESE TYPES OF EXCEPTIONS WAIVED FOR HOME DAYCARE?
>> NOT WAIVED. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT OTHER CITIES WOULD LIKE, BUT A PREVIOUS SEP HAS COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.
>> GIVEN GIVEN MR. FISHER'S EXPLANATION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THE CITY FIRE CODE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THE CODE WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED.
GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THAT INFO?
>> I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT.
>> I MEAN, THE UP TO FOUR CHILDREN FIRE SUPPRESSION.
THAT'S ALL CITY CODE, LIKE CRAIG SAID.
THAT'S BEYOND OUR ABILITIES BUT, AS IT'S PRESENTED I WILL VOTE TO APPROVE.
>> CAN I ADD TO THAT OBVIOUSLY WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS GRANTS THE APPROVAL FOR THAT.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? MOTION CARRIES 6 0. THANK YOU GUYS.
>> I'M GOING TO CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW, 649.
ITEM NUMBER 2, ZA 20243046, ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, SERENITY, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM GEN HOLD CODE 24 LLC FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 179.303 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE THOMAS A ROAD SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 741 AND JOHN RUSSELL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 743, CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> THIS REQUESTS FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT TO CHANGE 179 ACRE TRACT LOCATED OFF OF FM 75 TO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 45.
THIS DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 50 FOOT LOTS, AS WELL AS A SCHOOL SITE FOR PRINCETON ISD.
THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AS WELL AS THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM JULY.
THIS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM,
[00:20:03]
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE AND THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL. THANKS.
>> OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:51.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OR DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO PRESENT? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION?
>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEN.
>> JUST FOR ADDED CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ALREADY APPROVED AS LONG AS THIS MATCHES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY WIGGLE ROOM, CORRECT?
>> WITH THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM E2ZA 2024 I'M SORRY, 3046 FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR SERENITY.
>> OKAY. IF YOU HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM E3 ZA20220392 ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, PEN MATZOH OXEN FREE.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM CORE PBSR PRINCETON 982 LLC FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 50.355 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, SITUATED IN THE HARD AND RIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 957, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> MR. SUTTON, YOU COULD PLEASE CLOSE THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM.
>> OKAY. THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING WAS WELL, I'LL CLOSE THAT AT 6:53.
>> THEN THIS REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE A 50 ACRE TRACT OFF OF FM 982 FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT 31 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 31 AMENDED.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FENCING REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED UNDER THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
THIS APPLICATION WAS ALSO RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE RESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM BEING ENACTED.
SEEING HOW THIS REQUEST IS INTERNAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AND ALL THE STREETS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE PRIVATE.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. I'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:54.
IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
>> YEAH. CAN I GET SOME DETAIL AS FAR AS THE CHANGE? I CAN CLEARLY SEE A SEROUS HEIGHT INCREASE.
>> NOW THE PD HAS VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCING AND IT PROHIBITS AN OPEN FENCE LIKE THIS.
THIS IS IT'S A VERY MINOR CHANGE TO THE ZONING TO ALLOW FOR AN OPEN FENCE AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
>> WHAT'S THE REASON WHY IT NEEDS TO BE AN OPEN FENCE?
>> I'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THAT.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MATT PERGOLA, I'M WITH CORE SPACES.
THE OPENING OF KIND OF THE SLATTED PART OF THAT FENCE IS GOING TO BE IN THE REAR YARDS OF OUR PREMIUM LOTS.
IN THE CENTER OF OUR DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE A BIG OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR AND OUR AMENITY CENTER.
ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE BACKING ON IT.
IT WAS JUST A WAY TO KIND OF TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPEN SPACE.
I WAS ADDED VIEWS FOR THE RESIDENTS.
>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WHY A REDUCTION FROM SIX FOOT TO FOUR FOOT?
>> THE MAJORITY OF THE FENCING IS SIX FOOT.
THE ONLY CHANGE ON THE FOUR FOOT WAS JUST TO PROVIDE US A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY ON SOME INTERNAL FENCING.
IMAGINE THE SIDE YARD, THE FRONT, WHERE THE KIND OF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS COME TOGETHER, THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE A FOUR FOOT FENCE, AS WELL AS SOME TRASH ENCLOSURES.
WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SPELLED OUT THE FOUR FOOT FENCE.
[00:25:06]
>> THE OPEN YOU'RE SAYING THE OPEN SLOTS ARE GOING TO BE ON THE PREMIUM LOTS FACING YOUR AMENITY CENTER. CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I THINK THERE'S A THERE'S A PLAN THAT MIGHT BE THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
>> WITH THAT, WOULDN'T THAT BE TAKEN AWAY BY HAVING OPEN SLOTS THERE? WOULDN'T THAT BE TAKEN AWAY PRIVACY FROM THE HOMEOWNER?
>> [NOISE] WELL, YOU CAN SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE, THAT'S A HUGE GREEN SPACE CORRIDOR THAT RUNS THROUGH IT.
WHAT WE ARE SPEAKING OF IS THE LOTS THAT BACK TO THAT ON THE NORTH SECTION OF THE SITE.
THOSE REAR YARDS ARE BACKING TO OPEN SPACE.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL AREA, BUT YEAH, WE HAVE A SIX FOOT FULLY OPAQUE FENCE.
AND BY ADDING THOSE SLOTS IN IT JUST PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF VIEW FROM THE REAR OF THOSE YARDS INTO THAT OPEN SPACE AREA.
AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU SEE THE PICTURE OF THE FENCING, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TAKING AWAY ANYTHING FROM SECURITY OR SCREENING OF THOSE HOMES.
>> WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE HOMES THAT ARE ACROSS THAT OPEN SPACE? I I DON'T SEE A SCALE ON HERE.
>> I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK IT'S HUNDREDS OF FEET. THERE'S NO.
I MEAN YOU SEE THE GREEN SPACE, THE HOMES BACKING ON IT OR THE ONES IN QUESTION, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SLATTED FENCE.
YOU SEE THE AMENITY CENTER IN THE MIDDLE.
THEN ALL OF THE HOMES TO THE SOUTH OF THAT EVEN FURTHER.
I MEAN, THAT COULD BE 1,000 FEET AWAY.
>> LESS OF A QUESTION, MORE OF A CONCERN.
CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRES NO LESS THAN A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, CORRECT?
>> THIS IS NOT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS ALL ONE LARGE LOT WITH SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT.
THIS IS INTERNAL FENCING THAT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL APPEAR TO LOOK LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S INDIVIDUAL UNITS, BUT IT'S ALL ONE LARGE LOT THAT WILL BE UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP AND THE UNITS WILL BE FOR RENT.
>> JUST TO NOTE, ALL OF THE PERIMETER FENCING ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE ROADWAYS.
WE HAVE THE SCREEN WALL PER CITY CODE, AS WELL AS THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES.
THERE IS A SIX FOOT BOARD ON BOARD FENCE.
STAFF IS CORRECTED. IT IS A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
THE MAJORITY OF THE INTERNAL FENCING IS ALL SIX FEET.
THE FOUR IS REALLY JUST FOR A FEW SECTIONS IN THAT NORTHERN AREA.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THESE ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED THE RENTAL PROPERTY.
>> WE OWN AND MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE ENTIRE SITE.
>> ON PAGE TWO, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THIS IS TO CHANGE THE DESCRIBED AREA FROM BUILD TO RENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE OPPOSITE.
>> NO, THAT'S THE WIND MORE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S COMING UP.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I'M LOCKED OUT OF MY COMPUTER.
>> SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
IF WE COULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF [OVERLAPPING] 659, THANK YOU, MR. FISHER.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ZA 20220392, THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT THERE'S NOT ANY CHANGES HERE THAT EITHER HAVE BEEN HAVEN'T BEEN EXPLAINED OR UNCLEAR FROM WHAT'S BEEN LAID OUT HERE?
>> ALL OPPOSED SAY NO, SAY NAY.
NEXT ITEM, ZA 20220618, ZONE MAP AMENDMENT WEN MORE, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM GRB K EDGEWOOD, LLC FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 27.725 ACRE TRACT OF LAND,
[00:30:03]
SITUATED IN THE WILLIAM THOMPSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 892, CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.>>THIS REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THAT 27 ACRE TRACT LOCATED OFF A SOUTH BEACH AND BOULEVARD FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT 33 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 33 AMENDED.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CHANGE FROM A MULTI FAMILY PART BUILD TO RENT, TO JUST A CLASSIC SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
THIS APPLICATION WAS ALSO RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU.
I'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:01.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR COMMISSION BRAD WILLIAMS WITH GREEN BRICK PARTNERS.
ALSO, GRB K EDGEWOOD, SAME COMPANY.
WE ARE THE OWNER DEVELOPER, AND HOMEBUILDER IN THIS PROJECT.
STAFF HAS EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. PRETTY SIMPLE.
WE'RE DOWN ZONING THIS PORTION OF OUR PROJECT FROM BTR TO TRUE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WE THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE DIRECTION FOR THIS PROJECT.
HOPEFULLY, YOU AGREE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HERE TO ANSWER.
>> WHAT WILL THE LOT SIZES BE?
>> WE COULD GO AS LOW AS 40 FOOT WIDE.
>> WHAT WERE THEY WHEN IT WAS RENTAL?
>> WELL, THERE WAS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE WHEN IT WAS RENTAL.
JUST LIKE THE PRIOR APPLICATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE LARGE PLATTED LOT WITH ENTITLEMENTS UP TO 225 UNITS.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE IF THERE WAS ALL 40 FOOT LOTS WOULD BE AROUND 130, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A REDUCTION OF ABOUT, I'LL SAY 95 UNITS.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONE AMENDMENT, ZA20220618 FOR PD AMENDMENT.
>> IF WE COULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FIRST, PLEASE?
>> SORRY, CRAIG. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:03.
>> THE MOTION IS FINES, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SECOND, WE CAN SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> ALL OPPOSE SAY, NAY. MOTION CARRIES 6.0.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN PARTICULAR, THE ZONING USE CHART AND DESCRIPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF USES.
CRAIG FISHER, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS TO CLEAN UP ONE DISCREPANCY AND PROVIDE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE.
THE ZONING USE CHART THAT YOU SEE HERE SHOWS WHAT'S CURRENT AND WHAT'S PROPOSED.
THIS CHART LISTS ALL OF THE LAND USES IN THE CITY THAT ARE ALL DEFINED.
THEN WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE PERMITTED, EITHER BY RIGHT, OR THEY REQUIRE AN SUP OR THEY'RE PROHIBITED USE IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT AREAS THAT I'M PROPOSING CHANGES.
THE FIRST IS TO A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS.
FOR THIS ONE, THIS IS TO CLEAN UP A DISCREPANCY.
THE LAND USE TABLE CURRENTLY REQUIRES AN SUP IN OUR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE C1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS OUR LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
IF YOU THEN GO TO THE C1 DISTRICT STANDARDS, IT LISTS SPECIFICALLY THAT A GAS STATION IS A PERMITTED USE.
I HAVE A DISCREPANCY THERE THAT I'M PROPOSING TO CLEAN UP.
I THINK IT'S LOGICAL THAT IF A GAS STATION IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN OUR LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IT SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN OUR GENERAL COMMERCIAL C2, WHICH IS A MORE INTENSE ZONING DISTRICT.
FOR THAT REASON, I'M PROPOSING THAT A GAS STATION WITH FUEL PUMPS BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN C1 AND C2.
[00:35:02]
I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO DISCUSS EACH ITEM AS WE GO.>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT.
THE SECOND IS REGARDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
CURRENTLY, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN SUP FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL TO BE BUILT.
WE THINK THIS IS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT A CONTROVERSIAL USE.
IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SO I'M PROPOSING THAT THAT BE THE CASE THAT SCHOOLS ARE PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL USES, MAINTAINING THE SUP REQUIREMENT IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
IT COULD BE APPROPRIATE IN SOME AREAS, BUT THAT SUP WOULD GIVE US THAT FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THOSE PROPOSALS INDIVIDUALLY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
>> IT'S HARD TO BE AGAINST HAVING MORE SCHOOLS AND SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT.
THE ONE THING I THINK ABOUT AS A PRINCETON DRIVER IS WHEN YOU HAVE SCHOOLS, A LOT OF TIMES, HEAVY TRAFFIC COMPANIES THAT, ESPECIALLY DURING DROP OFF, PICKUP TIMES.
MY FIRST GUT INSTINCT IS TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT STOP AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERY PRINCETON RESIDENT HAS PROBLEMS WITH AND DEALS WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.
WHILE I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST IT, IN GENERAL, I GUESS, IS THERE MAYBE SOME EXCEPTION HERE THAT COULD BE MADE THAT GOES MORE HAND IN HAND WITH THE PRINCETON'S CURRENT GOALS OF ALLEVIATING TRAFFIC AND MAYBE MAKING EXCEPTIONS FOR THAT PURPOSE, AS WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD, DECIDE MORE SCHOOLS WOULD GO.
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT SCHOOLS BE ALLOWED, BUT THAT TRAFFIC ISSUES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED OR, I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW.
>> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A FAIR ENOUGH ASSESSMENT OF WHAT I WAS SAYING.
BASICALLY, THAT CONSIDERING IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOES CREATE MORE TRAFFIC, DO WE REALLY WANT TO LUMP IT IN AND SAY THAT IT'S AS OPEN AS IT IS FOR SAY, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING? IS THERE MAYBE A DIFFERENT CONTINGENCY THAT COULD BE MADE, MAYBE SEPARATED OUT INSTEAD OF LUMPING IT IN WITH SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS, THAT DOESN'T CAUSE AS MUCH TRAFFIC.
I THINK I MIGHT ALSO ARGUE THAT HAVING SCHOOLS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA COULD HELP WITH TRAFFIC.
IF THE SCHOOL IS WALKABLE, IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, KIDS CAN GET TO IT.
IT COULD ALSO HELP ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC.
>> I THINK BOTH ARE PROBABLY POSSIBLE.
>> YEAH. BUT WE DO CURRENTLY REQUIRE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FROM SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEN THEY'RE BUILT, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S A LOT OF DEMAND IN THOSE DROP OFF AND PICK UP TIMES.
BUT WE COULD DEFINITELY TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THAT AS SCHOOLS ARE PROPOSED TO MAKE SURE THAT TRAFFIC IS BEING CONSIDERED.
>> THIS IS MORE OF AN AMENDMENT TO JUST TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PER MEETING.
>> IT'S STRICTLY FOR ZONING FOR LAND USE.
IS THIS USE ALLOWED? THEN AS EACH APPLICATION COMES FORWARD, YOU COULD LOOK AT TRAFFIC SPECIFICALLY WITH EACH SCHOOL AND AT THAT POINT IS WHEN WE COULD SPECIFICALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THE TRAFFIC OF A GIVEN SCHOOL.
THIS IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN ALLOWED USE.
IF IT REQUIRES AN SUP, THAT'S ONE MORE STEP FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO GO THROUGH, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THAT STEP.
BUT YOU'D STILL HAVE OVERSIGHT AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE.
>> YOU SAY THE ISSUE IS THAT IT'S ONE MORE STEP TO GO THROUGH, HOW MUCH OF A BURDEN IS THAT TO THE CITY TO HAVE THAT? OBVIOUSLY, IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US FOR A VOTE, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, IS THIS A HUGE BURDEN TO HAVE THAT DONE.
>> NOT NECESSARILY, IT REQUIRES NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC.
WE HAVE TO PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER.
NOTICES ARE SENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, 200 FEET SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE PLANNING ZONE COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL.
I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S OVERLY BURDENSOME, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE GENERALLY SCHOOLS ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
I THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE SUP PROCESS IS THAT IN SOME CASES, THIS USE MAY BE OKAY, SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BUT THAT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, WE CAN CHANGE THIS.
WE COULD RECOMMEND IT WITH CHANGES IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH IT.
>> I THINK THE CONCEPT IN CLARIFYING THIS, I'M ALL FOR IT,
[00:40:02]
BUT I THINK THE ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND WITH YOUR RESPONSE WAS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS CITIZENS IN THE CITIES, AND THAT'S ITSELF IS TRANSPARENCY, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS JUST ALLOWING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TRANSPARENCY, A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FROM CITIZENS BECAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT, AND I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS PANEL HERE HAS THEIR OWN EXPERTISE, AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ISSUES MAY BE ACCOMPANIED BY ANY PARTICULAR PROPOSED SCHOOL.WHILE I GET THE CONCEPT, I THINK THE ARGUMENT FOR MAKING IT EASIER TO NOT JUMP THROUGH THESE STEPS THAT ALLOW FOR TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC INPUT, THAT, IN PARTICULAR, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF.
>> I JUST THOUGHT MAYBE I COULD ADD SOME CLARIFICATION.
THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REZONING AND COMING BEFORE THE BOARD AND ALL OF THAT.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS REALLY, IT'S LESS OF AN EXCEPTION AND MORE OF A PERMITTED USE, SO THERE'S JUST A LITTLE LESS HOOP FOR THEM TO JUMP THROUGH.
BUT THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE REVIEWING AND THE TRAFFIC, ALL OF THAT IS STILL INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS.
I'M TRYING TO FIND A BETTER EXAMPLE OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, BUT IT'S BASICALLY LIKE CRAIG SAID ONE MINUTE AGO, WHERE THIS AREA MAY NOT BE DESIGNED FOR A SCHOOL, BUT WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT ONE HERE.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS 99% OF WHERE YOUR SCHOOLS ARE, SO IT'S JUST ELIMINATING THAT UNNECESSARY ADDED STEP.
THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEBODY TO COME SPEAK BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL BE A ZONING CHANGE, BECAUSE IN MOST CASES, AT LEAST IN OUR CITY, IT'S STILL PROBABLY AN ARGUING LAND AT THAT POINT.
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE REVIEWS.
THERE'S JUST NOT THAT ADDED TINGE OF, WELL, WE MAY NOT WANT TO PUT A SCHOOL IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. FISHER? ANY OTHER.
>> I STILL HAVE TWO OTHER ITEMS. SORRY.
>> THE THIRD IS THE HOTEL AND MOTEL USE.
CURRENTLY, IT'S AN ALLOWED USE BY RIGHT IN C2, WHICH IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
AN SUP IS REQUIRED IN OUR C1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN C1 AND C2.
ALL OF OUR FRONTAGE ALONG 380 IS EITHER C1 OR C2.
I'M JUST PROPOSING THAT, A HOTEL IS A DESIRABLE USE IN THE CITY THAT WE OPEN THAT UP AS AN ALLOWED USE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOTELS IN THE CITY, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO HAVE.
MAKING THAT LESS BURDENSOME COULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HOTELS BEING PERMITTED IN THOSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
THE ISSUE IN GENERAL TYPICALLY IS JUST WHAT WHAT'S ADJACENT TO, WHICH I THINK IT'S ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT YOU'LL STILL HAVE THAT, I GUESS, REVIEW.
THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE'RE ALLOWING IT TO NOT HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND NOT REDUCE THE HURDLES, IF IT ADJACENTS TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE ONLY PART I'M NOT SURE AS FAR AS WHEN IT GOES FROM JUST A REGULAR PERMANENT LOT ZONED THAT WAY FOR BEING A SPECIAL USE.
I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY BE THE MOST I GUESS KICKBACK WE GET FROM OUR RESIDENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HEY, DOES IT DOES IT OBSTRUCT OR IS IT NEXT TO MY HOUSE. THAT'S MY ONLY OBJECTION.
>> SURE. THE CITY DOES HAVE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
SO ANYWHERE A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ABUTS RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SCREENING WALL FOR BUILDING HEIGHT.
AS THE BUILDINGS GET TALLER, THEY HAVE TO BE PUSHED FURTHER BACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME MEASURES IN PLACE THAT CAN MITIGATE ANY CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT THE SUP PROCESS DOES GIVE YOU A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IF YOU DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH A PARTICULAR HOTEL.
KEEPING THE SUP FOR C1, MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR THAT REASON.
>> I THINK I WOULD AGREE THAT IT SHOULD REMAIN SUP FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
BUT LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK WE HAVE TOO MANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, TOO CLOSE TO 380, WHERE SETBACKS WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE, AND IF I'M HONEST, A SIX FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL AGAINST A 2, 03, 4 STORY HOTEL IS HILARIOUS TO ME.
BUT THE DEFINITION OF OUR CITY ORDINANCE, A C1 DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DAILY AND FREQUENT NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE A HOTEL WOULD FIT THAT.
I THINK, AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES OF A MOTEL HOTEL,
[00:45:03]
IT SHOULD STAY SUP.I'M NOT OPPOSED TO MAKING IT AN SUP FOR M1 AS WELL, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT FITS MORE IN THE C2 THAN THE C1.
THEN LASTLY IS, LICENSED CHILDCARE IN HOME CHILDCARE, WE JUST HEARD AN SUP REQUEST FOR THAT.
WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF SUP REQUESTS.
WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR PROCESS.
WE TOLD THAT IT'S OVERLY BURDENSOME FOR AN IN HOME DAYCARE.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT FROM A SUP TO CONDITIONAL USE.
THE SAME STIPULATIONS THAT WE PROPOSED WITH TONIGHT'S IN HOME DAYCARE THAT THEY MEET THE HEALTH CODE, THAT THEY MEET THE FIRE CODE WOULD BE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MET, BUT THE USE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
SO THE SAFEGUARDS WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE, BUT THE TIME CONSUMING PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THAT PROCESS.
SO I THINK THAT DAYCARES IS IN HIGH DEMAND IN THE CITY, SO WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT MAKING THAT MORE SIMPLE.
THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING THIS CHANGE FROM SUP TO A CONDITIONAL USE.
>> SHOULDN'T DAYCARES THOUGH, ESPECIALLY IN HOME BE LOOKED AT MORE CAREFULLY? IT'S AN IN HOME AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL AS YOU DO IF YOU'RE DOING A DAYCARE A COMMERCIAL, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY DAYCARE.
I THINK GOING THROUGH WHAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO.
I THINK TO YOUR POINT, THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO DO ALL THE HEALTH INSPECTIONS, FIRE CODE, ALL OF THAT.
THIS WOULD JUST NEGATE THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE TO COME TO US IN ORDER TO GET A PERMIT TO RUN IT.
I'VE SEEN SEVERAL COME ACROSS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE DENIED.
IT SEEMS, ESPECIALLY IN SEVERAL CASES WHERE THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND ALL THE LEGAL PROCESS, THAT IT'S MAYBE A STEP THAT'S JUST UNNECESSARY.
IN MY CAREER, I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE BEEN DENIED OR EVEN BEEN CONTROVERSIAL.
IN MY TIME HERE IN PRINCETON, WE'VE HAD A HANDFUL COME THROUGH AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OPPOSITION TO THEM.
THAT WAS PART OF MY REASONING FOR THIS, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL HOW YOU'D TO RECOMMEND THIS TO COUNSEL.
THAT'S JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION AS TO CITY.
DO WE DO ANY FOLLOW UP? LIKE, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS PERSON THAT WAS HERE TONIGHT.
THREE MONTHS FROM NOW ONLY HAS FOUR PEOPLE.
WE DO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO RENEW THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE AND HAVE AN INSPECTION EVERY YEAR.
NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THOSE ARE YEARLY.
IN 4 MONTHS, IS SOMEBODY GOING TO KNOCK ON HER DOOR TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY HAVE IN THEIR DAYCARE? IF I CAN JUMP IN HERE, FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE DOES THESE INSPECTIONS FOR FIRE CODE.
WE HAVE AN ACTIVE LIST OF THE AT HOME DAYCARES FROM THE STATE.
OUR FIRE MARSHAL WILL GO OUT THERE AND OUR FIRE INSPECTOR AS WELL.
THESE ARE SUBJECT TO RANDOM SPOT CHECKS AS WELL.
WHAT ABOUT HEALTH INSPECTIONS? TWO YEAR.
BUT THAT APPLIES TO THE IN HOME DAYCARES AS WELL? IT DOES, YES. BUT AT ANY TIME CODE COMPLIANCE, OUR OFFICERS CAN WILL MAKE AN INSPECTION IF NEEDED, AS COMPLAINTS ARISE.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I THINK THE STATE ALSO CONDUCTS INSPECTIONS ROUTINELY.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.
YOU CAN CHANGE THAT AS YOU ALL SEE FIT, BUT WE DO NEED TO OPEN AND CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A MOTION IS MADE.
THANK YOU, MR. FISHER. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THESE AMENDMENTS? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE ITEMS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR AS THE GAS STATION, THE SCHOOL, THE HOTEL, AND THE DAYCARE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING WHAT YOU HAD SPOKE TO EARLIER ON EACH OF THOSE FOUR? DO YOU WANT A MOTION FOR EVERY ITEM OR THE THING AS A WHOLE? I WOULD JUST NEED ONE MOTION, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE IT AS IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REMOVAL FOR THE SUP ON SEE ONE FOR HOTELS.
[00:50:04]
I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN PLACE.I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE PROCESS IS HERE, BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S ENOUGH LUMPED IN HERE THAT IT WOULD ALLOW MAYBE SOME MORE PUBLIC COMMENT OR SOME THOUGHT TO EITHER SEPARATE THINGS OUT, AS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, OR AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S A FLUID PROCESS, AND IT WOULD JUST ALLOW THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS NOT EXPLAINED THAT WOULD MAKE THIS A SOMETHING THAT'S TIME PERTINENT.
I DON'T THINK I HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD FIT THAT.
BEFORE WE GET ANOTHER MOTION, WE NEED TO EITHER GET A SECOND ON MISS CRUMSON MOTION OR THAT MOTION NEEDS TO DIE FIRST.
CAN I JUST POINT OUT REAL QUICK THAT THERE IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING THIS DOES HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF COUNSEL.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK.
CORRECT. NEXT MONDAY, OCTOBER 28. HERE AT CITY COUNCIL.
I'D LIKE TO SECOND. MISS CRUMSON MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FIRST MOTION MADE.
NEXT ITEM IS A DRONE ORDINANCE.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 82 ZONING, ARTICLE 6, USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBS AND INCLUDE REGULATIONS REGARDING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT IN THE CITY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION, GRANT LOWRY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
I APOLOGIZE I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR YOU, BUT WHAT I LIKE TO DO IS JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE'S BEEN A EMERGENCE OF DRONE DELIVERIES AND ACROSS NORTH TEXAS.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER CLOSE MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE.
SEE THIS COME BEFORE THEM, AND ALSO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REGULATING AND PUTTING THE REGULATIONS IN PLACE.
USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS A LOT OF LARGE RETAILERS SUCH AS WALMART, AMAZON, ETC.
THEY CONTRACT WITH DRONE DELIVERY COMPANIES SUCH AS WING, ZIPLINE, ETC, TO HELP PROVIDE A LAST MILE DELIVERY OF CONSUMER GOODS.
FROM THE STORE TO YOUR FRONT PORCH.
THE TWO CONCERNS THAT THE RESIDENTS WILL PROBABLY RAISE IS ONE NOISE AND TWO PRIVACY WITH DRONES.
THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ADDRESSES THOSE CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT WHERE YOU'RE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.
MUNICIPALITIES, THEY CAN REGULATE LAND USE AS FAR AS DRONES.
I THINK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AND ADJACENCY STANDARDS, BUT STATE LAW IS VERY SPECIFIC THAT MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT REGULATE THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF DRONES.
THAT IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.
WE CAN'T REGULATE THE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS, FLIGHT PATHS, FLIGHT ALTITUDE, FLIGHT SPEEDS, ETC.
THEN ALSO THERE, IN TERMS OF PRIVACY, THAT IS COVERED UNDER UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AS WELL.
YOU CAN'T DO ANY INVASIVE VIDEO RECORDINGS OR ANY LEGAL ILLEGAL USE TO CAPTURE IMAGES OVER SOMEONE'S BACK YARD.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT REGULATE? AWESOME. THE CITY HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES WHO ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THIS USE IN PLACE.
IN ORDER TO BE PROACTIVE AND NOT REACTIVE, THE THOUGHT WAS TO TRY TO PUT SOME REGULATIONS IN PLACE IN ORDER TO, LIKE I SAID, ADDRESS THE NOISE CONCERNS AND THE PRIVACY CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT WE CAN, REQUIRE CERTAIN SETBACKS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
THAT IS ALL ADDRESSED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS ORDINANCE, WHAT IT PROPOSES IS TO HAVE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBS, AND THAT'S DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE IN NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS VIA SUP.
THAT WAY, ALLOWS AS THIS IS A NEWER EMERGING TECHNOLOGY, IT ALLOWS PNZ AND CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THESE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS DICTATE EXACTLY WHERE THE HUBS ARE LOCATED, HAVE CERTAIN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ETC, BECAUSE ONE THING YOU'LL SEE IS EVERY COMPANY THAT DOES THE DRONE DELIVERIES,
[00:55:02]
ZIP LINE, WING, ETC THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALL DIFFERENT.SOME ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SOME GO TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, SOME ARE IN A PARKING LOT.
THE THOUGHT IS UNTIL IF THIS EVER BECOMES MORE COMMON PLACE IS TO LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS VIA SUP.
THAT'S WHY AND THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
JUST ROLLING THROUGH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
THERE'S THREE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE FIRST BEING AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S ZONING USE CHART.
WE WOULD BE ADDING A NEW USE OF COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBS, AND THAT'S IN NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ONLY.
THE SECOND PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO THE DEFINITION SECTION.
CURRENTLY, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CALLS FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, AND LANDING FIELDS, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT IT'S ONLY FOR PASSENGERS BECAUSE A DRONE OR AN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT IS AN AIRCRAFT.
WE JUST WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THAT AN AIRPORT, HELIPORT LANDING FIELD, AND THEN ALSO A HELISTOP IS FOR NOT FOR DRONES IS FOR EVEN THINK MORE HELICOPTERS OR AIRCRAFT THAT CARRIES PASSENGERS.
THE ORDINANCE ALSO DEFINES A DRONE DELIVERY HUB, COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUB, DRONE STAGING AREA, AND THEN ALSO DEFINES A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT, WHICH IS ALSO THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OR A DRONE.
THE THIRD AMENDMENT, WHICH IS SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET FOR THE SEP TO GO THROUGH THE SEP PROCESS.
THE FIRST BEING THAT THE EXACT SITE OF THE DRONE DELIVERY HUB HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET TO ENSURE NOISE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED, ETC.
THEN THERE'S ALSO A LIMITATION ON HOW LARGE THE DRONE DELIVERY HUB CAN BE, WHICH WE PROPOSE IS 10% OF THE TOTAL LAW AREA OR 100 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
NOT TO GO DOWN EVERY SINGLE ONE.
I'LL SKIP DOWN TO SUBSECTION 5, WHICH IS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 300 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, RETIREMENT AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FACILITY OR PUBLIC PARK, WHICH 300 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT COULD BE REDUCED TO 150 FEET IF SO DETERMINED FOR THE PNZ AND COUNCIL APPROVAL.
SOME OF THESE DRONE DELIVERY ORDINANCES THAT I'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES DO, THEY LOOK AT IT FROM A DECCAL LEVEL, BUT THAT'S REALLY HARD TO TRACK.
I THINK HAVING MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO STICK WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FEET, AND THAT NOT HAVE A DECIBEL MEASURE.
I JUST HARD TO TRACK AND ENFORCE.
THEN THE LAST REQUIREMENT, GIVING COUNSEL THE AUTHORITY TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF 10% OR UP TO TWO PARKING SPACES.
THERE IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.
I'M CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THE DECIBEL MEASUREMENT IS DIFFICULT TO TRACK.
I'VE GOT A FREE DECIBEL METER ON MY PHONE AND I CAN JUST SHARE THAT UP.
MY THOUGHTS ARE, SO I LIVE RIGHT NEAR A PARK WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE FLYING DRONES, AND I GET IT'S NOT EXTREMELY LOUD.
THESE ARE LITTLE TINY DRONES, YOU CAN HEAR THEM FROM FAR OFF.
IT'S A BUZZING NOISE AND SNORING.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE I'VE SEEN DRONES THAT CAN CARRY AGRICULTURAL FLUIDS FOR DUSTING AGRICULTURAL FIELDS, THEY'RE BIG AND THEY'RE NOISY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO UPGRADE, IF A COMPANY, A DELIVERY COMPANY, WE GOING TO UPGRADE TO DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT THAT HAPPENS TO BE TWICE AS LOUD, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE THAT A SETBACK IS NOT GOING TO FIX.
WHAT IS THERE A CONTINGENCY FOR DOING LIKE THAT? IF THEY'RE USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF NEW TYPE OF EQUIPMENT THAT HAPPENS TO BE TWICE AS LOUD.
DO THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM, SAY, CITY COUNCIL OR SOMETHING? LIKE WHAT'S THE SECTION THERE? I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THE OPERATIONAL SIDE.
WE CAN'T REALLY REGULATE AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE DRONE THE NOISE EMISSION.
WHAT WE CAN DO IS PUT THE SET BACK IN TALKING WITH STAFF AND ALSO DISCUSSING THIS WITH SOME OF THE DRONE COMPANIES, IT'S JUST IT'S HARDER TO TRACK THE DECIBEL LEVELS.
IT'S MORE BURDENSOME FOR STAFF TO DO SO.
THAT'S JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT OBVIOUSLY, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE.
[01:00:04]
CAN YOU NOT DO BOTH? YOU CAN WE JUST HAVE WE'D HAVE TO DEFINE IT.WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DECIBEL LEVELS ARE AND DEFINE.
SEEMS LIKE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS, YOU HAVE THAT SETBACK, BUT THEN IN ORDER FOR THE NOISE PROTECTION, YOU CREATE A DECIBEL LEVEL THAT'S ACCEPTABLE AT THAT PROPERTY LINE TO ENSURE THAT WAY IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT, THEN AT THAT POINT THAT WOULD GENERATE A DECIBEL LEVEL MEASUREMENT.
THEN AT THAT POINT, CORRECTIVE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN.
I ONLY BRING THIS UP BECAUSE I KNOW OUTSIDE EDNA CITY LIMITS, THERE'S AN EVENT CENTER THAT'S CAUSED SOME ISSUES IN THE PAST, AND I KNOW FORESIGHT LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED.
IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S GOING TO CAUSE NOISE.
ANY ADDED PROTECTION THAT WE CAN PUT IN THERE, I THINK WOULD BE.
YEAH. I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT, TOO.
TYPICALLY, THEY DIFFER A LITTLE BIT, AS FAR AS THE DECIBEL LEVELS FROM DRONES.
USUALLY, IT'S OBVIOUSLY LOUDEST AT GROUND LEVEL WHEN THEY TAKE OFF AND LAND, WHEN THEY'RE UP IN THE AIR, IT'S NOT AS LOUD.
THE DECIBEL LEVELS AREN'T AS HIGH.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE DECIBEL LEVEL FROM TAKE OFF BASED ON STUDIES DONE BY THE FAA.
IT WOULD BE WITHIN THAT 60 IS DECIBEL LEVEL, WHICH IS DON'T QUOTE ME, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A REFRIGERATOR RUNNING.
THAT WAS THE THOUGHT THAT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE WOULD ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE DECIBEL LEVELS.
IT'S ONE OF THE SAME, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? YEAH. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S GOING TO BE NOISE AND IN FLYING AROUND, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL AT ALL, ESPECIALLY IN THE AIR.
MY CONCERN WOULD BE OF A LARGE BANK OF DRONES, ESSENTIALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM SOMEONE'S HOUSE.
THAT'S WHERE WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE.
WHEN MUNICIPALITIES START GIVING REASONS FOR THESE COMPANIES TO DEVELOP THEIR DRONES FURTHER, THE DRONES IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS ARE GOING TO BE WAY DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT INTO IT.
CAN WE REALLY SAY BASED ON STUDIES OF CURRENT DRONES OUT THERE THAT SETTING A PARTICULAR DISTANCE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF DECIBELS MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE AND IS GOING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE LATER IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.
I'VE BEEN AROUND THESE BIG DRONES THEY'RE NOT QUIET.
THEY'RE VERY NOISY AND HOW FAR GOING TO HERE IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WEATHER, WHICH WAY THE WINDS BLOWING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IN ANY CASE, I CAN SEE BEING ANNOYED IF IT WAS BY MY HOUSE.
I PERSONALLY HAVE TO SAY, I THINK DECIBEL IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO.
I WORK FROM HOME AND HAVING BACKGROUND NOISE WILL GET ME FIRED.
I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE TIMES WHEN MY NEIGHBOR IS FLYING HIS DRONE, I CANNOT OPEN MY WINDOW BECAUSE IT GRANTED, IT'S A SMALLER DRONE.
BUT I CAN HEAR IT. I'M NOT ABOUT TO RISK MY JOB BECAUSE OF A DRONE.
I KNOW NOW THAT WE'RE IN 2024, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAT WORK FROM HOME AND MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON THEY'RE WORKING FROM HOME.
I DO FEEL THAT DECIBEL IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK INTO BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRECT.
THEY ARE JUST GOING TO GET BIGGER AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET LOUDER.
>> GRANT. IF I CAN MAKE ONE COMMENT, ONE COMPANY THAT WE'VE BEEN VISITING WITH IT'S CALLED ZIPLINE.
AND THEIR DELIVERIES, THEY FLY AT 300 FEET ABOVE THE HOUSES.
THE DRONE REMAINS AT THAT HEIGHT AND THEN A DROID ON A PULLEY SYSTEM DROPS DOWN, AND TO THE PROPERTY, RELEASES THE PACKAGE AND THEN IS PULLED UP.
ALL OF THE MOTOR IS STILL UP 300 FEET FROM THE HOUSE.
THIS IS, OF COURSE, JUST ONE COMPANY.
>> BUT JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, IS THE NOISE IS VERY MINIMAL IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, JUST BE AT TAKING OFF AND LANDING, BUT I'M NOT SAYING YEAH, JUST A COMMENT.
>> NO. THANKS FOR THAT, CRAIG. AND THEN ALSO ONE THING TO POINT OUT.
SO THIS IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERIES.
THE DRONES, THEY FLY IN THEIR BACK.
I MEAN, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THAT.
IT'S ONLY FOR THINK FROM WALMART OR FROM SUBWAY OR WHEREVER TO SOMEONE'S FRONT DOOR.
WE'RE REGULATING THE SITE WHERE THEY LAND AND TAKE OFF.
ONCE IT'S UP IN THE AIR, THAT'S ALL FAA, REGULATED THE SIZE, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> THE 300 FEET, I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT 300 PETS OF FOOTBALL FIELD.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD DISTANCE FROM THE TAKEOFF LANDING SPOT TO THE CLOSEST HOUSE.
[01:05:01]
BUT MOST OF THESE PLACES THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE DRONES AT THE SAME TIME.LIKE, HOW IS THERE A NUMBER ON THAT.
>> I MEAN, I CAN SPEAK OFF THE ONE COMPANY AND THEY DON'T HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE.
IF THIS IS RECOMMENDED, THEY'LL BE AT COUNCIL ON THE 28TH.
>> I BELIEVE THE COMPANY THAT'S LOOKING TO BUILD IN PRINCETON TODAY HAS SIX OR EIGHT.
>> SITES LANDING PADS, IF YOU WILL.
I THINK THEY HAVE STACK TWO OR THREE HIGH. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> YEAH, THEY'RE FLY OVER MY HOUSE.
THEY'RE STILL PRETTY LOUD, EVEN LITTLE CONSUMER DRONES.
WELL, THEY IMAGINE THAT'LL ALL.
I CHALLENGE EVERYBODY TO GO OUT THERE AND SEE SOME OF THESE BIG DRONES AND HEAR AND THEY'RE NOT QUITE, THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN.
AND I KNOW THIS IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS IS, YOU MENTIONED THAT, LIKE REGULATING PRIVACY AND DATA COLLECTION, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY CAN DO, BUT MORE CITIES ARE BECOMING FRIENDLY TO THIS TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS COMING.
I THINK IT'S COMING, REGARDLESS.
THE MORE IT'S GOING TO DEVELOP.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS ALMOST LIKE THE MORATORIUM, SLOW DOWN AND SEE WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING TO HELP TO MITIGATE THIS BECAUSE DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF A COMPANY IS GIVEN THE ABILITY TO COLLECT YOUR DATA, TO SELL YOUR DATA, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.
HOW MANY HACKERS DO WE HAVE UP HERE? THEY CAN HACK INTO THEIR SYSTEMS TO SEE WHAT DATA THEY'RE COLLECTING.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY CAN HANDLE.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS JUST LIKE THE MORATORIUM.
WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING? OR DO WE REALLY WANT TO BE THE FIRST OUT THERE TO MAKE IT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR OUR CITIZENS, OR DO WE WANT TO PUSH THE BRAKES OF IT? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S COMING.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP THIS TECHNOLOGY.
THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SAVE MONEY ON DELIVERY. IT'S COMING.
BUT MAYBE SLOW DOWN AND CAN SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AND TO HELP MITIGATE ALL OF THESE ISSUES.
>> WE'RE NOT THE FIRST CITY, BUT WE'RE ONE OF THE FIRST TO DO IT.
THERE ARE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED SIMILAR ORDINANCES.
WE'RE NOT THE FIRST, BUT WE KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY IS COMING.
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR REGULATIONS ARE SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ADDRESS THE DRONE DELIVERY ORDINANCES, BECAUSE ARGUABLY YOU COULD DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AS IT IS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE REGULATIONS IN PLACE THAT ARE SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ADDRESS THE DRONE DELIVERY.
IF A COMPANY, ONE OF THESE DRONE COMPANIES WANTS TO COME IN, LET'S SAY WALMART WANTS TO PUT ONE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR BUILDING, AND THEY DECIDE TO USE WHOEVER.
COULD THEY DO THAT RIGHT NOW WITH OUT THIS ORDINANCE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE 300 FOOT SETBACK.
>> WE HAVE SOME COMPANIES THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH US.
JUST LIKE OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ADDRESS DRONES. IT'S A NEW TECHNOLOGY.
THOUGHT IS TO TRY TO BE ON THE FOREFRONT AND REGULATE IT TO THE EXTENT WE CAN TO ADDRESS SOME NOISE AND PRIVACY CONCERNS.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T CONTROL WHERE THEY FLY.
I DON'T WANT TO KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE, BUT.
>> WELL I'M NOT. UP TO DATE TOTALLY ON ALL THESE LAWS, BUT THE ANSWER IS IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, FOR INSTANCE, THE PILOT NEEDS TO HAVE THE DRONE IN THEIR SIGHT.
THEY CAN'T FLY THE DRONE DIRECTLY OVER PEOPLE.
THEY CAN'T FLY THE DRONE WHERE IT ACTUALLY LEAVES THEIR LINE OF SIGHT.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, AND AGAIN, IT'S COMING.
THE LAWS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. IT'S COMING.
IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WISH THEY HAD THOUGHT THROUGH IF WE JUST OPEN IT UP AND LET IT COME THROUGH AND DON'T APPLY SOME THOUGHT TO IT.
BUT AS THINGS STAND, YES, THEY COULD, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF REGULATION ALREADY.
THOSE ARE FAA REGULATIONS, NOT CITY.
BUT THE CLUB WHEN YOU PUT THESE HUBS FOR THEM TO TAKE OFF AND LAND BECAUSE YOUR BIG EXCEPTION, THE THING THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM IS HOW FAR ARE THEY FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY'RE DELIVERING TO.
IF WE MAKE IT HAVE REGULATIONS THAT HELP TO CONTROL THAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HELP TO CONTROL THE NOISE.
ONCE WE OPEN IT UP, IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BRING ABOUT OLD PROBLEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
ANYWAY, I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO MORE WHATEVER THEORY HERE.
[01:10:03]
BUT BASICALLY, MY BELIEF IS THERE'S A LOT WRAPPED UP TO THIS, AND ONCE WE OPEN IT UP, I THINK THAT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS SLOW DOWN, LET'S SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AND WHAT WORKS.BUT THE OPINION THAT, HEY, PEOPLE CAN DO IT NOW IS, I DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE WHILE THEY PHYSICALLY CAN, BUT THEY STILL NEED TO GET ORGANS TO GO SOMEWHERE THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ACTUAL DELIVERY LOCATION, AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT CAN ACTUALLY WATCH THE DRONE, TAKE OFF AND LAND.
THERE'S REGULATIONS ABOUT THAT.
>> MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A 300 FOOT BUFFER.
HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN JUST TURN AROUND AND MAKE IT 150.
SO WHY I GUESS, IT NEEDS TO BE 300 FEET.
IF YOU'RE SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CHANGE IT TO 150, THEN PROPOSE TO US 150 AND DON'T PROPOSE 300.
>> I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF HAVING THE SUP PROCESS.
IS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT ON CASE BY CASE BASIS BASIS AND ADJUST.
BUT THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION, WE CAN EASILY MAKE THAT CHANGE.
>> I STILL THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT DECIBELS.
>> I AGREE ON THE DECIBELS, AND THE 300-150.
I THINK A BETTER OPTION WOULD BE A ZONING VARIANCE IF IT BECOMES SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE HAVING THAT AUTOMATIC 150, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE SITTING HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, EVERYONE'S BIGGEST CONCERN IS NOISE, OBVIOUSLY, FLIGHT PATTERNS, ALL THAT.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ALL DAY LONG.
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, IT'S WHERE THEY BUILD.
WHERE ALL THOSE DRONES ARE HUBBED IN A SINGLE LOCATION, AND HOW WE CAN PROTECT THE RESIDENTS AND AND AROUND THOSE STORES TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T BECOME A NUISANCE.
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S ONLY NON RESIDENTIAL DRONE DELIVERY, IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL?
>> THE HUB WOULD BE A NON RESIDENTIAL, BUT A LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL BACKS RIGHT UP TO RESIDENTIAL, AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S WHERE THE CONCERN WOULD BE.
WALMART'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT.
>> YEAH. I THINK MY CONCERN IS JUST HAVING A MULTITUDE OF THESE DRONE DELIVERY SERVICES.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW FAA REGULATES THIS FLIGHT TRAVEL.
AGAIN, IT'S NEW AND I AGREE, I THINK IT'S COMING.
IT'S JUST IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I DON'T WANT TO SAY, YES, LET'S DO IT ALL, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT CAN IMPACT WHEN IT BECOMES A FREE FALL OF EVERYONE DOING DRONE DELIVERIES.
YEAH, WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO REGULATE IT.
>> SPOKEN TO OTHER CITIES THAT ARE DOING THIS?
>> YEAH. SO SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE THE FOREFRONT IN THIS WAS NORTH NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, PLANO.
BUT THAT'S JUST IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA.
THIS TECHNOLOGY IS ALL ALL OVER THE WORLD ALL OVER THE US.
THEY'RE COMING INTO NORTH TEXAS AREA.
THEY'RE WORKING WITH WALMART SPECIFICALLY TO GO ALL ACROSS NORTH TEXAS.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE HAD THAT THEY CAN ALREADY DO WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO AS IS.
SO THE THOUGHT IS TO TRY TO REGULATE IT TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.
>> I AGREE, YOU DON'T WANT TO JUMP IN WITH BOTH FLEET WITH YOUR BLINDERS ON.
BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO SMART THAT WE'RE KIND OF GETTING HEAD OF A CURVE.
THIS IS A TECHNOLOGY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO STOP AND IN COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY, AND I THINK IT'S SMART.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME TWEAKS AND SOME CHANGES THAT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE SOME THINGS WE SHOULD LOOK INTO.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT DENYING IT ALTOGETHER IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE FUTURE.
LET'S GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING BEFORE IT BECOMES SOMETHING.
I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY HAD OBVIOUSLY ONE BUSINESS THAT HAS APPROACHED THE CITY, SO IT'S ALREADY A TOPIC.
SO YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'VE GOT 3,4,5 PEOPLE APPLYING, AND WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO CATCH OUR TAILS, FIGURING OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
>> MISS CRUMB, I APPRECIATE THAT.
THIS IS THE THOUGHT IS TO TRY TO REGULATE WHAT WE CAN NOW, AND THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT.
WE CAN AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AGAIN.
IT'S A NEW TECHNOLOGY. NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO GO.
ONE DAY, IT MAY BECOME MORE COMMONPLACE, AND WE DON'T WANT AN SUP, WE WANT IT TO BE CONDITIONAL USE OR A PERMANENT.
YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND CHANGE THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THIS IS JUST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BASED ON SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD AND WHAT OUR FEEL IS ON HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY AND THIS BUSINESS IDEA IS GOING TO CROSS MORE TEXAS.
>> GO AHEAD. SO IT'S ALMOST RECOMMENDED IF IT IS APPROVED THAT WE APPROVE IT ON A CONDITIONAL, I GUESS,
[01:15:02]
A 12 MONTH OR SOME TIME TIME PERIOD, THAT IF IT'S APPROVED, AND WE CAN RE-EVALUATE IT TO SAY, HEY IF WE NEED TO ADJUST, I GUESS, APPROVAL ON THIS APPROVAL PROCESS.>> ORDINANCES CAN BE REVISED WITHOUT ANY TIME LIMIT, TIME CONSTRAINT, OR WHATEVER.
IT CAN ALWAYS BE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE.
PERSONALLY, IF I WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD ALMOST SAY, YOU SAY, LET'S APPROVE IT.
LET'S REMOVE THE 150 REDUCTION FOR THE SETBACK AND THEN ADD IN A DECIBEL REQUIREMENTS THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY PUT THIS INTO PLACE.
>> ONE THING I'D ARGUE, THE ARGUMENT OF GETTING AHEAD OF THE CURVE, THAT'S A BUSINESS ARGUMENT, NOT A CITY ARGUMENT.
WE DON'T NEED TO GET AHEAD OF ANY CURVE.
BUSINESSES WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE.
THEY WANT TO GET IN DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY.
WE CAN SIT BACK AND WATCH WHAT OTHER CITIES DO, HOW CITIZENS REPLY TO IT, HOW THEY RESPOND TO IT? WHAT THE ISSUES ARE THAT ARE BROUGHT BY THE BUSINESSES.
NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE COMPANIES CAN ALREADY DO THIS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T REGULATE WHAT FAA ALLOWS OR DISALLOWS, BUT WE DO REGULATE WHAT BUSINESSES CAN CONDUCT BUSINESS IN OUR CITY, CORRECT? ARE THEY GOING TO NEED TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL, FOR INSTANCE, TO GET SOME SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DO THIS, AND IF THAT STARTS BEING THE CASE, CAN WE THEN START THINKING ABOUT, OKAY, WELL, LET'S HAVE SOME CONTINGENCIES BASED AROUND THAT.
BUT THE ARGUMENT TO ME OF GETTING AHEAD OF THE CURVE, HONESTLY, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
WE DON'T NEED TO GET AHEAD UNLESS WE'RE ALREADY DECIDING FOR SURE, WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM CONDUCT BUSINESS IN OUR CITY.
IF WE DECIDE WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM CONDUCT BUSINESS IN OUR CITY, THEN YEAH, GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE AND THEN THESE ARGUMENTS MAKE SENSE TO ME.
BUT SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN THE CITY WITHOUT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR SOME SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS IS?
>> WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS TOO MUCH THERE'S AN ARGUMENT, AND SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS ELIMINATE THAT ARGUMENT.
>> THERE'S A GRAY AREA IN A LOOPHOLE.
>> REGARDING YOU SAID NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AND PLANO, THEIR ORDINANCES LOOK LIKE THIS ORDINANCE AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS, THE SETBACK AMOUNT?
>> I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY AND SPEAKING I THINK CRAIG WAS IN THE MEETING TOO, SPEAKING WITH THE DRONE COMPANIES.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE ONE STEP FURTHER.
ACTUALLY I THINK PLANO IT WAS 150 FEET SETBACK.
SO THIS IS A FURTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
I THINK THE DRONE COMPANIES, THEY WANTED LESS THAN THAT, OBVIOUSLY.
SOME CITIES REQUIRE IT BY SUP AND SOME ALLOW IT AS A PERMITTED USE RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
OBVIOUSLY, FROM THE DRONE COMPANIES DON'T WANT THE SUP PROCESS, BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE, AND WE CAN LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS BECAUSE EVERY COMPANY IS DIFFERENT, EVERY SITE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT UNTIL WE KNOW IT'S EMERGING TECHNOLOGY, SO UNTIL WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT'S GOING TO.
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT THE 380 COMMERCIAL IN PRINCETON, AND I'M TRYING TO CONCEIVE OF A SPOT WHERE A BUSINESS MIGHT BE USING DRONES FOR DELIVERY THAT WOULD NOT BE CLOSER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY FROM AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, I'M SURE IT COULD HAPPEN.
>> CAM ARCADIA FARMS. WE ARE LESS THAN A FOOTBALL.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WOULD PUT THE DRONE HUB FOR WALMART THAT WASN'T FURTHER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY FROM ARCADIA FARMS, THOSE HOUSES RIGHT THERE.
>> I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT WITH THIS ADDED TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANCE, HOWEVER, MIGHT KNEW THAT IT COULD REDUCE TRAFFIC IF PEOPLE ARE UTILIZING A SERVICE LIKE THIS.
NEW TECHNOLOGY IS ALWAYS SCARY.
THERE'S ALWAYS KINKS TO WORK OUT.
THERE'S ALWAYS THINGS TO ADD AND CHANGE, BUT PERSONALLY, I LIKE THE IDEA OF PUTTING IN REGULATIONS BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL, LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WITH OTHER SITUATIONS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GRANT.
>> I THINK I'LL TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE IT. YES, SIR.
>> YES, SIR. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 07:50 IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
I BACK WHAT THIS GUY IS SAYING, I DON'T KNOW HIS NAME.
[01:20:02]
I THINK THAT YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT LOOK AT THE NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS.THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO EVERYTHING AND IF IT'S ALREADY ACTIVE IN OTHER CITIES, THEN THE OTHER CITIES HAVE COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE.
WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO MITIGATE, I THINK, IS WHAT YOU HAD SAID.
IT'S NOT LIKE I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHEN THIS COMPANY WANTS TO OPEN UP SHOP, BUT ALL ABOUT SLOW YOUR ROLE.
LET'S SEE, LET'S GET A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW BEFORE ANY DECISIONS ARE MADE.
IT'S GOING TO COME. LET'S NOT SHOOT FROM THE HIP. THAT'S IT. THANKS.
>> WHEN THEY PRESENTED TO COUNSEL, THEY DID PRESENT TO DECIMALS, BY THE WAY.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THEM REVIEW THOSE MINUTES, WHERE THEY PRESENTED DECIMALS TO THE COUNCIL.
ALSO, THE FAA LIFTED DRONE RESTRICTIONS FOR TWO COMPANIES, AND ZIPLINE IS ONE OF THEM.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52.
I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH NIKKI ON THIS ONE.
I THINK WE NEED AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE.
IF THERE IS NO ORDINANCE ADDRESSING THIS, WE AT LEAST NEED SOMETHING IN PLACE, AND THEN, AT SOME POINT, WE CAN GO BACK.
IF WE NEED TO ADJUST DESIBLE LEVELS OR SETBACK DISTANCE OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO LATER, MAYBE AFTER A TRIAL AND ERROR PERIOD, BUT I THINK WE AT LEAST NEED AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS WHAT'S ALREADY COMING.
THAT WOULD BE MY POSITION ON IT.
HOWEVER, I THINK WITH THIS ORDINANCE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN THE COMMENT REGARDING THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, AND I AGREE WITH NIKKI'S REVISIONS OR EXCEPTIONS.
>> I WONDER WHY I MEAN, TO ME, IT SEEMS THE OBVIOUS THE OBVIOUS THING TO DO WOULD BE SOMETHING WE CAN'T DO, WHICH IS CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE.
WHY NOT JUST I MEAN, WHY IS CITY COUNCIL CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE, MAKE SURE THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT THAT CAN BE MADE, WHICH IS FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY CREATE ORDINANCES, WHERE, IF YOU'RE A DRONE COMPANY, COME TO US AND EXPLAIN TO US WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND WE CAN SET PROVISIONS AROUND WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
FOR THAT REASON, I THINK I WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH US CREATING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I THINK WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG THING.
CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO CLOSE THAT LOOPHOLE.
THAT'S THE SENSIBLE THING HERE.
>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO DO.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND BECAUSE IT IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY, AND IT'S NOT A USE THAT'S REGULATED.
THIS PUTS RULES INTO PLACE, AND RULES CAN CHANGE.
IT'S EASIER TO TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN'T DO OR CAN DO THAN VERSUS AND CAN'T DO VERSUS SORRY, I'M GETTING TONGUE-TIED.
IT'S EASIER TO TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO, THAN TO JUST LET THEM GO AND DO IT AND THEN TRY TO BACKTRACK.
WITH NO RULES IN PLACE, THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE FAIR GAME A PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING.
THEN ONCE SOMETHING APPLIES, IT DOESN'T GO BACKWARDS.
WE CAN ALWAYS PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF SAFEGUARD.
THEN AS EVERY OTHER LAW, IT WILL EVEN AND FLOW AS THE TECHNOLOGY GROWS AND THE KINKS GET WORKED OUT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REGULATED TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT THEY CAN'T PUT A BANK OF DRONES.
>> IT IS REGULATED, AND I'M ONLY GOING BASED ON WHAT MISS TODD BROUGHT UP.
I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT IT MYSELF.
LET'S WORK ON THE ASSUMPTION WE'RE RIGHT.
THERE ARE REGULATIONS, AND APPARENTLY, AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN RETRACTED FOR THIS COMPANY.
AGAIN, I AGREE WITH REGULATING AS MUCH AS WE CAN, AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THIS ON A WHY I SAID I WOULD VOTE TO ABSTAIN, BUT I'M SAYING, FOCUS ON THE WRONG THING.
WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT BUSINESSES CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS IN OUR CITY WITH OBVIOUSLY CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT.
I THINK THE OBVIOUS ANSWER HERE IS TO SAY, NOBODY CAN BUILD ONE OF THESE IN OUR CITY WITHOUT COMING TO CITY COUNCIL, I GET SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN'T DO.
WHEN THEY GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THEY CAN OBVIOUSLY SAY,
[01:25:03]
HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE PLAN ON DOING, THIS IS WHAT WE PLAN ON NOT DOING, AND WE CAN MAKE A CHOICE ONE BY ONE RATHER THAN JUST MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT A TECHNOLOGY THAT WE DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT, AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES OUT THERE TO SEE HOW IT'S EVOLVING IN OTHER CITIES ARE DEALING WITH IT.>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION LIES BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF, AIRSPACE, FLIGHT PATTERNS, ABOVE GROUND, SO TO SPEAK, IS REGULATED FEDERALLY.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ON THE GROUND, WHERE THE SITE IS, WHERE THE DRONES ARE HOMED AT, WHERE THEY LAND, PICK UP PRODUCT, AND THEN LEAVE.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN REGULATE ANY OF THE DRONES THEMSELVES, THE AIRSPACE, WHERE THEY FLY, HOW THEY FLY.
TO SPEAK, THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN CHANGE AND THE WAY OUR CITY IS LAID OUT, THEY COULD BE JUST OUTSIDE THE CITY, AND THEN FLY INTO THE CITY.
THEN WITH NOTHING IN PLACE, WHO'S TO SAY THAT WALMART CAN'T BUILD A BANK OF HUBS ON THE BACK THEIR STORE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO REGULATE IT.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT'S ON THE GROUND AT THE STORE.
>> WELL, I THINK AT THE BARE MINIMUM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE THAT ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT MISS TODD BROUGHT UP, BUT APPARENTLY, SOME OF THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN RETRACTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY, ONE OF TWO.
I'M GOING OFF OF NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THAT COMMENT, BUT I THINK JUMPING AHEAD WITHOUT AT LEAST CONFIRMING IT IS JUMPING AHEAD, ALSO.
AGAIN, I THINK YOU'RE MISUNDERSTANDING MY POINT, WHICH IS CITY COUNCIL, CAN DECIDE TO REGULATE WHERE THESE THINGS LAND, WHETHER THE BUSINESSES CAN CONDUCT THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
THEY CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THEY CAN ON. I DON'T THINK I.
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS FOR IS TO REGULATE WHAT BUSINESSES AND WHERE IT CAN GO.
>> BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS FOR.
>> BUT DOES IT SAY YOU CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T SAY OVER, DOES IT SAY YOU CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT GETTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS.
>> THIS IS ONLY ALLOWING IT FOR TO HAPPEN AT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AT A RESIDENTIAL.
ANYTHING ZONED RESIDENTIAL, ONLY ON PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL.
>> I'M MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT I CANNOT HAVE NO POWER OVER THIS WOULD BE A CITY COUNCIL THING, BUT I STAND BY MY ARGUMENT, WHICH IS, IF THERE IS A LOOPHOLE, CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO CLOSE THAT LOOPHOLE.
IT'S IT'S REALLY AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
NOW, I'M NOT AGAINST THE IDEA HERE OF REGULATING IT, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S TARGETING THE WRONG THING.
>> COUNSEL WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO ACT ON ANYTHING WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT MANDATES HOW IT CAN ACT AND HOW IT CAN ACT.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES IS JUST IT PUTS AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE ON FOR A FIELD THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT MISS CRUM.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRONE ORDINANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE REDUCTION TO 150 FEET FOR CITY COUNCIL AND TO ADD IN A DECIBEL LEVEL.
I'M LOOKING FOR A CERTAIN WORD [LAUGHTER].
IN LIKE HOW OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN OF WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. I CAN'T THINK OF THE WORD.
>> HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MOTION CARRIES 5, 1 WITH ONE COMMISSIONER ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE.
THAT WILL BRING US TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
[F. REGULAR AGENDA]
I WILL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 IF I DID NOT DO THAT BEFORE.>> WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER F1, DRAINAGE STUDY PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION FROM CITY ENGINEERS REGARDING DRAINAGE STUDIES.
>> EVENING COMMISSION, CRAIG FISHER, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
PURPOSE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TO HELP BRING IN SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS.
WE HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER, THE CITY'S TRAFFIC OR CITY'S DRAINAGE ENGINEERS ALSO HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT,
[01:30:01]
JUST TO HELP THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY'S DRAINAGE CRITERIA IS AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR WHENEVER WE REVIEW A SUBDIVISION PLAT OR A COMMERCIAL PLAT.THESE ARE THE EXPERTS. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN RECENT MEETINGS ABOUT DRAINAGE, SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEM WHAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AND TO ANSWER YOUR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
I'VE BEEN IN THIS POSITION FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND I TAKE THIS PART OF OUR JOB, MY JOB SERIOUS THAT WE ENFORCE THE CITY'S DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND ORDINANCES.
WE HAD TWO PUBLIC SPEAKERS TONIGHT BRINGING UP PAST ISSUES.
CITY STAFF IS WORKING WITH BOTH OF THOSE TO RECTIFY THOSE ISSUES.
MY JOB HERE IS TO ENFORCE EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD, WHAT IS BUILT NOW IS UP TO CITY CODE, AND OUR ENGINEERS HELP ENSURE THAT.
I WANTED TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO PRESENT WHAT THEY DO AND GIVE YOU ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE BRITNEY RAUS TO THE CITY'S ENGINEER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CRAIG. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS BRITNEY RAUS WITH KIMEY HORN.
I AM YOUR GENERAL CIVIL ON CALL ENGINEER FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS AND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO TONIGHT, CRAIG GAVE A GREAT OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT ON.
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS.
MR. DANNY TORRES IS GOING TO BE UP FIRST GIVING A PRESENTATION ON DRAINAGE REVIEWS AND DRAINAGE IN THE CITY.
WE WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANKS, BRITNEY. I AM DANNY TORRES.
I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH KIMEY HORN AND AS BRITNEY SAID, I AM THE DRAINAGE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.
I AM SENT DRAINAGE-RELATED STUDIES AND JUST I REVIEWED THE DRAINAGE PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT I'M GOING TO COVER IN THIS PRESENTATION IS, FIRST, JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE CITY'S LOCAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS DESIGNED TO CREATE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR ITS NEIGHBORS.
I'M ALSO GOING TO DO A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT.
THE CITY OF PRINCETON IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE FMAS NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
I'LL GIVE A LITTLE OVERVIEW OF WHAT FLOODPLAINS ARE AND HOW THEY ARE MANAGED BOTH LOCALLY AND AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
THEN A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE CITY OF PRINCETON PRODUCED IN 2018.
THE LOCAL CRITERIA IS REALLY THE HEART OF MY REVIEWS.
THESE ARE IN PRINCETON AND IN MOST OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.
THE LOCAL STANDARDS ARE THE STRICTEST.
THEY'RE STRICTER THAN GENERAL STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR DRAINAGE AND FLOODPLAIN.
THE CITY OF PRINCETON'S DRAINAGE CRITERIA OUTLINES HOW TO DO A DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS THE CATCH-ALL TERM FOR HOW ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS LOOKED AT TO QUALITATIVELY FIND HOW THERE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON A DEVELOPMENT ITSELF OR ITS NEIGHBORS.
WITHIN THE CRITERIA, THERE ARE GUIDELINES FOR ALL SORTS OF MEANS OF CONVEYING DRAINAGE THROUGH A PROPERTY, THINGS LIKE STREETS, ALLEYS, GREAT INLETS, CURB INLETS, PIPES, CULVERTS, BRIDGES, CHANNELS, AND DETENTION RETENTION POND FACILITIES.
THE CRITERIA ALSO COVERS CITY-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THE CITY, LIKE MOST OTHERS IN NORTH TEXAS HAS LOCAL GUIDELINES THAT ARE STRICTER THAN THE GENERAL FMA GUIDELINES, AND I'LL GO OVER THAT.
IT ALSO INCLUDES DRAINAGE-RELATED REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE IN DEVELOPMENT, THINGS LIKE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, EROSION CONTROL, SEDIMENT CONTROL.
THE OVERARCHING POLICY FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON IS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO CAUSE NO ADVERSE IMPACT WHEN IT RELATES TO DRAINAGE.
THIS JUST RESPECTS THE REALITY THAT WATER FLOWS DOWNHILL,
[01:35:03]
AND IT CAN'T JUST BE NEATLY CONTAINED WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.AS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE CARDINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MY JOB.
ANYTIME I'M REVIEWING DRAINAGE RELATED MATTERS FOR THE CITY, THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY PRIMARY CONCERN FOR ANYTHING.
WHEN I'M LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT, I'M CONSIDERING WHAT IS GOING ON UPSTREAM, DOWNSTREAM, AND THEN THROUGH THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
WHEN I'M LOOKING UPSTREAM, I'M MAKING SURE THAT CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND DRAINAGE STUDIES ARE ACCURATELY ACCOUNTING FOR ALL OF THE DRAINAGE THAT ACTUALLY GOES ONTO A PROPERTY.
THAT IS A SOMEWHAT COMMON MISTAKE IS THAT A DESIGNER COULD FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT X NUMBER OF ACRES ACTUALLY DRAIN ONTO THEM.
BY ACCURATELY ACCOUNTING FOR EVERYTHING, THEY'RE GOING TO ADEQUATELY SIZE THEIR INLETS, PIPES, CHANNELS, ETC.
PER CITY POLICY, WHICH IS A FAIRLY COMMON ONE THROUGH THE METROPLEX, OFFSITE DRAINAGE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITIONS.
WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPING COMMUNITY LIKE PRINCETON, AND YOU HAVE AG LAND UPSTREAM OF YOU, BUT IT'S ZONED, COMMERCIAL, OR INDUSTRIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, WE WANT DEVELOPMENTS TO CONSIDER THAT LAND PER ZONING.
I SOMETIMES GET QUESTIONS SAYING, WHY? BECAUSE DON'T THEY HAVE TO DETAIN THEIR FLOW DOWN TO ESSENTIALLY THE ADD CONDITION WHICH THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, BUT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, IF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DETENTION POND FAILS, WHICH YOU CAN'T CONTROL, WE WANT EACH INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE DESIGNED TO A LEVEL OF SAFETY, NOT RELIANT UPON YOUR NEIGHBORS MAINTENANCE.
>> WHEN I'M LOOKING AT DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS, ESSENTIALLY, I'M LOOKING AT, DOES THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCREASE DRAINAGE RUNOFF WHICH ALMOST ANYTIME YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING FROM UNLESS IT'S 100% INFILL, IT IS GOING TO INCREASE RUNOFF BECAUSE IT HAS MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER? WHEN WE HAVE CHANGES IN DRAINAGE PATTERNS OR INCREASES IN RUNOFF, I'M LOOKING AT, HOW IS THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE GOING TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE? I'M LOOKING AT, ARE THERE EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS? IF SO, ARE THEY CONTAINED WITHIN THE EASEMENT? ARE WE TRYING TO SEND THE TRINITY RIVER INTO A 12-INCH PIPE? THAT WOULD BE BAD.
WHERE I HAVE THE STRICTEST SCRUTINY IS WHEN THERE IS NO DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN INDIVIDUAL LOT WANTED TO DEVELOP AND ITS DRAINAGE RUNS ONTO THEIR NEIGHBOR, AND THERE'S NO EASEMENT, THEN I'M LOOKING AT IT WITH THE STRICTEST SCRUTINY I CAN, AND THIS IS REALLY BASED IN STATE LAW.
ARE THEY EXACTLY MATCHING EXISTING CONDITIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE VOLUME OF FLOW AND THE VELOCITY OF THE FLOW? THEN THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WHERE THE CITY HAS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, LOTS OF STANDARDS IN PLACE FOR HOW TO DESIGN THINGS LIKE PIPES, INLETS, CHANNELS, ETC.
I'M GOING THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS WITH A FINE-TOOTH COMB TO SEE ARE THEY CALCULATING ALL THE FLOW FOR THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY MANUAL, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON MISTAKE I SEE IN PLANS IS, EACH CITY HAS ITS OWN METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING THINGS.
THE GENERAL METHODS ARE THE SAME CITY TO CITY BECAUSE IT'S ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
EACH MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS CRITERIA AND ORDINANCES CAN SET TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR THINGS.
[01:40:01]
I'M ESSENTIALLY CHECKING ARE THEY USING THE CITY OF PRINCETON'S CODIFIED STANDARDS FOR DRAINAGE? FOR FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT, I WANTED TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT FLOODPLAIN IS.THROUGH FEDERAL LAW, FEMA HAS A MANDATE TO CREATE FLOODPLAIN MAPS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
ESSENTIALLY, ANYTIME THERE IS CHANNELIZED FLOODING THAT'S MORE THAN A FOOT DEEP AND THIS DATES BACK TO THE LATE 60S WHEN BEFORE, THERE WAS A FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
ANYTIME THERE WAS A CATASTROPHIC FLOOD, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL GUIDELINE FOR FLOODPLAIN RELIEF OR FLOOD RELIEF.
ANYTIME YOU'D HAVE A MAJOR FLOOD, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MAJOR FLOODS IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS AND FORT WORTH, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY NO MEANS OF DISASTER RECOVERY, AND IT WAS JUST DONE BY CHARITIES.
IN THE LATE 60S, THEY SET UP THIS SYSTEM WHERE ESSENTIALLY, THEY SAID WE WILL FIGURE OUT WHERE THE WORST FLOODING IS, PROVIDE THIS FEDERALLY BACKED FLOOD INSURANCE RELIEF SO THAT THERE IS A MEANS BEYOND JUST CHARITY.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL STRICTLY RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE FLOODPLAINS.
THIS IS WHAT A TYPICAL FLOODPLAIN LOOKS LIKE.
THERE'S USUALLY, ESPECIALLY IN NORTH TEXAS, THESE ARE RIVERINE.
THEY'RE COMING FROM CREEKS AND STREAMS AND RIVERS AND NOT THE GULF STORM SURGE THING.
THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT A CROSS-SECTION OF A FLOODPLAIN, THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT'S MAPPED IS THE 100-YEAR FLOOD, WHICH IT'S UPDATED PERIODICALLY.
FEMA HAS A GENERALLY SEVEN-YEAR UPDATE MANDATE WHICH THEY DO NOT STRICTLY FOLLOW DUE TO FRANKLY BUDGETING REASONS, BUT A 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS STATISTICALLY A FLOOD THAT WOULD OCCUR WITH A 1% CHANCE IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.
THEN WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, THAT RED HATCHED AREA YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE IS THE FLOODWAY, WHICH IS A CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCT WHERE IF YOU WERE TO DEVELOP UP TO THE EDGE OF THE FLOODWAY ON BOTH SIDES, IT WOULD BE AS IF THE FLOODPLAIN WAS GOING TO RISE NO MORE THAN A FOOT.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS THAT FEMAS PLACES STRICTER GUIDELINES ON POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD RAISE FLOODING UP TO A FOOT OR OVER A FOOT.
REGULATED FLOODWAYS ARE A QUICK WAY FOR THEM TO SAY, IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING WITHIN THAT RED AREA, IT'S A RED FLAG THAT YOU COULD BE RAISING THE FLOOD TOO MUCH, AND THEY HAVE THAT EXTRA LEVEL OF FEMA REVIEW.
THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR IS IZZY RIVERA.
AS THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR, IT'S THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS ROLE TO SIGN THINGS LIKE MT2 FORMS, WHICH ARE WHEN APPLICANTS APPLY FOR FEMA CORRESPONDENCE TO REVISE THESE FLOODPLAIN MAPS, IT IS THIS SIGNATURE THAT CONFIRMS WHETHER THE CITY AGREES OR NOT.
FEMA WILL NOT REVIEW FLOODPLAIN MAP CHANGE REQUESTS WITHOUT THE CITY'S CONCURRENCE.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE CITY HAS STRICTER FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES THAN FEMA DOES.
THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THOSE ARE NO INCREASE IN 100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION UNLESS CONTAINED IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS, THE BASELINE RULE FOR THE COUNTRY SET BY FEMA IS THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP IN A FLOODPLAIN AND RAISE THE FLOODING ON YOUR NEIGHBORS BY UP TO A FOOT.
PRINCETON LIKE MOST CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS, DOES NOT WANT YOU TO RAISE FLOODING A FOOT ON YOUR NEIGHBOR.
[01:45:04]
THEY'VE SET THE GUIDELINE AT, YOU CANNOT INCREASE IT AT ALL.UNLESS IT'S CONTAINED IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THEN RAISING IT IS OKAY.
NO DECREASE IN 100-YEAR VALLEY STORAGE.
THAT'S A FAIRLY STANDARD GUIDELINE THROUGH THE METROPLEX THAT'S A FORWARD THINKING THING THAT SAYS THAT AN APPLICANT NEEDS TO SHOW THAT THE TOTAL VOLUME OF FLOODPLAIN WATER WITHIN A PROPERTY IS NOT REDUCED DUE TO DEVELOPMENT.
THE THIRD BULLET HERE REGARDING EROSIVE CHANNEL VELOCITIES.
THIS IS FAIRLY STANDARD GUIDELINE THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX.
PRINCETON IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE I'VE SEEN SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IN NON EROSIVE VELOCITIES, ONLY A 5% INCREASE IS ALLOWABLE.
TYPICALLY, WHAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT IF A FLOODPLAIN IS MOVING AT SIX FEET PER SECOND IS EROSIVE, BUT ANYTHING BELOW THAT IS GENERALLY ASSUMED TO NOT BE EROSIVE.
THUS, SOMEBODY COULD RAISE THE VELOCITIES GREATLY AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HIT THE SIXTH THRESHOLD.
BUT IN PRINCETON, WE DON'T ALLOW A 5% INCREASE REGARDLESS EVEN IF THE FLOODPLAIN IS BARELY MOVING.
THEN THE LAST BULLET THERE IS THAT AT THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRETION, A FLOOD STUDY MAY BE REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN.
THIS IS JUST ACKNOWLEDGING A REALITY THAT NOT EVERY STREAM WITH FLOODING MORE THAN A FOOT IS ACTUALLY MAPPED BY FEMA.
THERE ARE SOME RELATIVELY BIG ONES THAT ARE JUST NOT SHOWING UP ON A FLOODPLAIN MAP ANYWHERE, SO THIS JUST GIVES THE CITY THE DISCRETION TO LOOK AT A PARTICULAR SITE AND SAY, WE WANT YOU TO DO A FULL FLOOD STUDY FOR THIS EVEN THOUGH FEMA HASN'T RECOGNIZED IT YET.
THE TYPICAL TIMELINE FOR HOW FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT WORKS IS THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION OF FLOOD STUDY TO THE CITY.
ESSENTIALLY, I WILL REVIEW IT, AND I'M REVIEWING IT AGAINST BOTH THE CITY'S OWN CRITERIA AND FEMA'S GENERAL CRITERIA.
I'LL GIVE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY.
IF I RECOMMEND TO APPROVE AND THE CITY AGREES, THEN IZZY WILL SIGN OFF ON AN APPLICATION.
THEN THE APPLICANT SUBMITS IT TO FEMA, AND IT GOES THROUGH A SEPARATE REVIEW BY AN ENGINEER WHO IS EITHER A FEMA EMPLOYEE OR SIMILARLY A CONSULTANT HIRED BY FEMA.
IT GOES THROUGH AN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT REVIEW UNDER FEMA'S GUYS.
THEN DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED, THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY GET SOME ACCEPTANCE OR DENIAL BY FEMA.
THE BULLET POINTS UP THERE POINT OUT CLOMR VERSUS LOMR. A CONDITIONAL LETTER FROM MAP REVISION.
A CLOMR IS THAT EXTRA LAYER OF FEMA PROTECTION.
I MENTIONED, THAT IS ON THE STRICTER SCRUTINY SIDE.
THE CITY REQUIRES IT ANYTIME YOU'RE PLACING FILL IN A REGULATORY FLOODWAY, OR WHEN YOU'RE DEVELOPING SOMETHING AND RAISING THE WATER SURFACE MORE THAN A FOOT.
FOR THAT BULLET, IF YOU'RE CURIOUS, WHY COULD YOU RAISE WATER MORE THAN A FOOT IF WE HAVE THAT NO-RISE POLICY? THIS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY IF SOMEBODY HAD A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT COULD CONTAIN THAT.
EVEN IF IT WERE IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THE CITY WOULD STILL REQUIRE A CLOMR. THEN PLACING FILL IN A REGULATORY FLOODWAY.
THIS IS FAIRLY SIMILAR TO THE FEMA BASELINE REQUIREMENT EXCEPT THAT FEMA WOULD ALLOW THAT IF SOMEBODY WERE DEVELOPING IN THAT FLOODWAY, THAT RED HATCHED AREA THERE, AND THEY PRODUCED AN ENGINEERING STUDY SHOWING THEY WEREN'T RAISING THE FLOODING ON A NEIGHBOR WHATSOEVER.
FEMA DOESN'T REQUIRE A CLOMR IN THAT CASE.
THE CITY DOES REQUIRE A CLOMR REGARDLESS.
LOMR IS THE POST CONSTRUCTION FEMA COORDINATION
[01:50:05]
THAT FORMALLY AMENDS THOSE FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS.A LOMR IS REQUIRED ANYTIME DEVELOPMENT, IS USE THE TERM THEY'RE RECLAIMING THE FLOODPLAIN.
LOOKING AT THIS EXHIBIT HERE, ANYTIME SOMEBODY IS PLACING FILL IN THAT BLUE AREA OR THE RED AREA, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE A LOMR TO BE DONE.
I WON'T GET EXTREMELY INTO THE WEEDS, BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER FEMA COORDINATION THAT CAN HAPPEN TO CLEAN UP FLOODPLAIN MAPPING WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF FEMA'S MAPS WERE JUST WRONG TO BEGIN WITH.
THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING CALLED LOMR-F, WHERE IN VERY FEW CASES, IT CAN BE EXPLAINED THROUGH ENGINEERING MEANS THAT FILL PLACED IN A FLOODPLAIN DOES NOT CAUSE FLOODING ON NEIGHBORS WITHOUT A FULL ENGINEERING STUDY.
CODE GIVES THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR SOME DISCRETION TO ALLOW THOSE ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF FEMA COORDINATION.
A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN NOW.
PRIOR TO 2018, THE FLOODPLAIN IN THE CITY WAS ALL ZONE A.
MEANING, FEMA HAD DONE A BASELINE ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN GENERALLY LOOKS LIKE, BUT NO ENGINEER HAD ACTUALLY DONE A FULL FLOOD STUDY.
YOU COULD OPEN A FLOOD INSURANCE MAP AND SEE A GENERAL BLUE BLOB, WHERE THE FLOODING PROBABLY IS BUT PROBABLY MOST CRITICALLY, THERE WAS NO FLOOD ELEVATION ASSOCIATED WITH ANYTHING.
IF YOU WANTED TO DEVELOP NEXT TO THAT FLOODPLAIN, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO SET YOUR BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO BE SAFE.
IN 2018, THE CITY COMMISSIONED A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN THAT STUDIED THE FLOODPLAIN OF TICKY CREEK IN FOUR OF ITS MAJOR TRIBUTARIES, THE BIGGEST SOURCES OF FLOODING IN THE CITY.
AS A RESULT OF THIS MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, THE CITY DID LOMR THEMSELVES.
THEY REVISED THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE MAP.
NOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE MAPS, THERE'S ACTUAL STUDIED FLOODPLAIN THROUGH THE CITY THAT JUST ALLOWS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO MORE SAFELY UNDERSTAND WHERE TO PLACE THEIR BUILDINGS.
THE STUDY ALSO LOOKED AT I BELIEVE ITS SEVEN POTENTIAL MAJOR SOURCES OF FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE CITY, ESSENTIALLY, VARIOUS CROSSINGS OF THESE FLOOD PLAINS.
ROADWAYS, BRIDGES, CULVERTS, THAT APPEAR TO BE QUITE UNDERSIZED.
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, THEY LOOKED AT CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONS.
I THINK BRITTANY CAN EXPLAIN MORE THAN ME, BUT A NUMBER OF THESE POTENTIAL FLOODING SITUATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE CITY OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS.
THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, IF ANYONE HAD QUESTIONS.
>> ANYONE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT INFORMATION.
>> I ACTUALLY DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
WERE YOU GIVEN A SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION? [NOISE] WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT, DO YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOIL TYPES? I KNOW THAT FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES, THE SOIL SAMPLES HAVE TO BE COLLECTED AND TESTED, BUT A LOT OF THAT IS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.
DO YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THE ABSORPTION OF THE SOIL AFFECTS THE MODELS GREATLY.
I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FIMA DOES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, BUT THEY CAN ONLY DO IT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT BECAUSE THAT'S FINE OF DATA.
[01:55:01]
>> YEAH. ESSENTIALLY, IT DEPENDS ON THE METHODOLOGY THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE BY THE CODE, WHICH IS APPLIES IN BOTH PRINCETON, BUT ALSO IN EVERY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, WHICH GENERALLY, FOR A DRAINAGE STUDY THAT'S LOOKING AT AN AREA, AND I BELIEVE IN THE PRINCETON CODE, IT'S 100 ACRES IS THE THRESHOLD.
IF I'M LOOKING AT A SMALL ENOUGH STUDY, THEN THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE IS TO ALLOW SOMETHING CALLED THE RATIONAL METHOD, WHICH IS A SIMPLIFIED METHODOLOGY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE SPECIFIC SOIL ANALYSIS TO THE SITE, BUT INSTEAD HAS HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS THAT ARE MORE GENERALIZED.
BUT ANYTIME I'M LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT OR NOT JUST THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, BUT A DRAINAGE STUDY THAT IS LOOKING AT MORE THAN 100 ACRES, THEN IT CROSSES THAT THRESHOLD INTO REQUIRING SOMETHING CALLED UNIT HYDROGRAPH, A MORE COMPLEX DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, AND THAT ANALYSIS DOES REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF SOIL.
AS FAR AS ACTUAL SOIL TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT STUFF FROM A DRAINAGE PERSPECTIVE, THE NCRS ACTUALLY HAS A DATABASE OF SOIL TYPES EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
WHEN I'M LOOKING AT A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO THIS GOVERNMENT WEBSITE AND PULLING A MAP OF COULD BE 100 ACRES.
OR COULD BE 50 SQUARE MILES, AND IT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING THEM VARIOUS SOIL TYPES AND THE SOIL TYPES DO AFFECT THE INFILTRATION RATE OF THE GROUND.
THEY AFFECT HOW MUCH DRAINAGE I'M CONSIDERING COMING INTO OR LEAVING THE SITE.
I THINK WHAT YOU MAY BE GETTING AT ASKING ABOUT SPECIFIC SOIL TESTING IS NOT QUITE DRAINAGE, BUT IT IS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW.
SOIL TESTING IS NECESSARY TO REQUEST I'LL SAY GENERALLY A VARIANCE.
THIS ISN'T DRAINAGE, BUT CITY CODE WILL REQUIRE SOMETHING LIKE IF YOU'RE BUILDING A DETENTION POND, THE SIDE SLOPES HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN STEEPNESS TO THEM AND IF AN APPLICANT WANTS TO PUT SOMETHING THAT'S STEEPER.
THE GENERAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IF IT'S TOO STEEP, IT'LL SLOUGH OFF AND FAIL.
>> YEAH, THAT'S AN ENGINEERING VIEWPOINT.
WELL, BASICALLY WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS, WHAT'S RESOLUTION OF YOUR MODELS? BECAUSE THE BIG THING IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STORM DRAINAGE IS, HOW MUCH SATURATION IS THERE OF THE SOIL? FOR INSTANCE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S COMMON SENSE TO YOU, BUT NOT EVERYBODY MAY THINK OF IT.
THE MORE YOU BUILD THE MORE CONCRETE THERE IS, MORE CONCRETE, THERE IS MORE SOIL YOU'RE COVERING, MORE SOIL COVERING, THE LESS WATER IS ABSORBED INTO THAT SOIL.
WHEN WATER IS NOT ABSORBED INTO THE SOIL, THAT'S MORE FLOWING AT THE SURFACE, AND THAT'S WHAT ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, LIKE POTENTIAL PONDS, DETENTION PONDS, THINGS LIKE THAT TO HELP MITIGATE THAT RUNOFF.
THAT'S WHERE THE VALUE OF THOSE REALLY COME IN.
BUT THE MORE YOU DEVELOP, THE MORE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE SURFACE WATER.
REALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS, LIKE, WHAT KIND OF MODELS ARE YOU USING? WHAT'S THE RESOLUTION OF YOUR MODELS? ARE YOU TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SOIL THAT WILL NEVER ABSORB THE WATER THE WAY IT ONCE DID ONCE WE COVER IT UP WITH CONCRETE? THAT'S HAPPENING A LOT WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, BECAUSE, IT'S REALLY A SIMPLE CONCEPT FOR AN ENGINEER LIKE YOURSELF, THE MORE CONCRETE YOU HAVE, MORE SURFACE WATER YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALARMED ME AS I LOOK WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON, OF COURSE, WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PUT ON THE BUILDERS FOR THEIR SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, BUT, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE THAT'S GOING ON, I ASKED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS TO DO ANY DRAINAGE OFF-SITE AS IN, LIKE, SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
THERE WAS NO PLANS TO PUT ANY TYPE OF INVESTMENT INTO, WE'RE WORRIES ABOUT DRINKING WATER COMING TO PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES, BUT WHAT ABOUT WATER THAT MAY EVENTUALLY FLOOD PROPERTIES? OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S WHAT YOUR MODELS ARE INTENDED TO DO TO KEEP THAT FROM OCCURRING, BUT ULTIMATELY,
[02:00:03]
WHEN WE'RE WITHIN THESE DEVELOPMENT SAYING, HEY, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CONTROLLING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT COMES OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY, THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN A BUBBLE.YOU DID ACKNOWLEDGE THIS BY THE FACT THAT YOU SAID, HEY, YOU WANT TO GO BUY WHATEVER IS DOWNSTREAM THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AT THE MAXIMUM WHATEVER YOU SAID THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPED AMOUNT.
I GUESS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IS NUMBER 1, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WAIT, WHAT'S THE RESOLUTION OF YOUR MODELS, NUMBER 2, WHAT ARE YOU CALCULATING THAT AT? TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT, LIKE, DOWNSTREAM, HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT IS THAT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE, LIKE WHATEVER IT IS, LET'S SAY THE AVERAGE IS 60% OF LOTS ARE COVERED BY CONCRETE, AND THERE'S THIS AMOUNT OF ZONING.
FOR THOSE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS THE WAY THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE HAD CHANGES WITH THE ZONING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND I'M SURE WE WILL OVER THE COMING YEARS.
HOW HAS THAT EVOLVED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT NEED ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT? BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY DON'T EXIST IN A BUBBLE, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, AS FAR AS THE ANSWER WAS GIVEN TO ME WHEN I ASKED IT AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS TO PUT MONEY TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS DRAINAGE BETWEEN WHERE THE FLOODPLAINS ARE AND WHERE THE WATER IS TRAVELING BETWEEN THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND WHERE ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO GO.
I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT, BUT THAT WAS KIND OF, IS THERE ANYTHING?
>> YEAH, I I'LL TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS TAKING NOTE OF THERE.
THE GENERAL QUESTION OF ARE WE PROPERLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT OF, PAVING PARADISE AND PUTTING UP A PARKING LOT ESSENTIALLY.
I EXPLAINED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DRAINAGE METHODOLOGY THAT'S REQUIRED VARIES DEPENDING ON ESSENTIALLY HOW BIG OF A DEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT WHICHEVER METHODOLOGY WE'RE USING, I GUESS, TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER, ALL OF THAT ENGINEERING TALK ABOUT QUALITIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOIL.
WE ACTUALLY ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT NO, WHEN YOU HAVE PAVEMENT, IT CAN'T ABSORB WATER WHATSOEVER.
THAT WOULD APPLY FOR EITHER THE SIMPLER METHODOLOGY OR THE MORE COMPLEX ONE.
>> BUT IT ALSO APPLIES DOWNSTREAM, RIGHT?
>> RIGHT. THE GENERAL POLICY THAT'S LAID OUT BY THE CITY IS THAT IF YOU DEVELOP SOMETHING, WE NEED YOU TO ESSENTIALLY OVERESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT COULD COME ONTO YOU.
I WAS EXPLAINING IF THERE'S AG LAND THAT IS ZONED FOR SOMETHING DENSER THAN AG, WE'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE YOU ASSUME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ON THAT FULLY DEVELOPED FLOW, ASSUMING THEIR DETENTION DOESN'T EXIST OR FAILS.
FOR THE PIPES AND CHANNELS AND THINGS GOING THROUGH YOUR DEVELOPMENT, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO OVERSIZE THEM BECAUSE OF THAT.
THEN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HOW MUCH FLOW ARE YOU THEN DRAINING ONTO ANYBODY IN 360 DEGREES? THAT IS WHERE IT'S LIKE I GUESS STRICT SCRUTINY IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WHERE I LOOK, ARE THERE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT YOU'RE OUT FALLING INTO? IF SO, I'LL LOOK AT WHAT IS THE CAPACITY OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THERE.
YOU CAN EITHER SEND UP TO THE CAPACITY OR YOU COULD MATCH WHAT YOU ARE SENDING IN EXISTING CONDITIONS.
IF YOU'RE AG AND THEN YOU GO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY OR SOMETHING, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO MATCH THE DRAINAGE RUNOFF OF AG LAND INTO THAT EASEMENT.
THEN IF THERE IS NO EASEMENT, THAT IS WHEN I TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND SAY, I NEED AND IT'S A FAIRLY UNCOMMON THING TO DO THAT.
BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DISCHARGE AND THEIR NEIGHBOR JUST REFUSES TO GRANT AN EASEMENT FOR SOME REASON, EVEN IF THEY'RE DOWN THE HILL AND THE WATER HAS TO GO TO THEM, THEN I REQUIRE THAT WE LOOK ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
IT'S REALLY, FRANKLY, NOT LAID OUT EXPLICITLY IN PRINCETON CODE,
[02:05:03]
BUT IT'S A STATE LAW WATER RIGHTS THING THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE RATE OF FLOW ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.I'M CONCERNED FOR GENERALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT TENDS TO CONCENTRATE ITS DRAINAGE RUNOFF.
YOU'LL HAVE ROADS, BUILDINGS, THINGS, AND IT WILL FUNNEL THEIR DRAINAGE INTO A TIGHTER AREA, SO IT'S LIKE TAKING GARDEN HOSE, PUTTING YOUR THUMB ON IT, AND POINTING IT AT THE NEIGHBOR.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, I DON'T WANT YOU TO FLOOD YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO ERODE AWAY THEIR PROPERTY.
I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND SAY, WHAT IS THE RATE OF FLOODING THAT HAPPENS IN EXISTING CONDITIONS? I REQUIRE IF THERE'S NO EASEMENT THAT THEY MEET THAT ACROSS THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
THEY CAN'T SAY, WELL, THERE'S A 400-FOOT PROPERTY LINE.
I'M JUST GOING TO ADD UP ALL THAT FLOW, PUT IT IN A 48 INCH PIPE AND STICK IT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THAT WILL PROBABLY ERODE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I AM MISSING ANY OTHER.
>> I THINK REALLY, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS IT'S ELABORATING ON A POINT THAT I ALREADY KNOW THAT I WISH EVERYBODY WOULD REALIZE IS THAT IT'S COMPLEX.
IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS, HEY, WE'VE FIGURED OUT THAT WE'VE DONE THESE PARTICULAR CALCULATIONS.
YEAH, THE MODEL CAN CHANGE BASED ON WHAT EACH CITY WANTS, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO ASK, WHAT IS OUR MODEL? WHEN WAS THAT UPDATED? HAS IT CHANGED? I'LL GET AT SOMETHING. THE REASON I'M ACTUALLY HERE ON THE COMMISSION IS BECAUSE BACK IN 2023, I HAD AN ISSUE THAT IT SEEMED LIKE I WAS LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE OCCURRING.
I HAPPENED TO LIVE AT ONE OF THOSE PIPES THAT'S A VERY RESTRICTED SIZE OR A SIZE IT'S NOT GOING TO GET LARGER.
THERE'S NO OTHER PLACES FOR THE WATER TO GO ONCE IT REACHES THERE, AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS FOR, I DON'T HAVE THE DATA THAT YOU DO AND THE ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO TOSS INTO A MODEL LIKE YOU DO, BUT IT'S SQUARE MILES OF DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH IS A LOT OF CONCRETE THAT IS FLOWING DOWNHILL, AS YOU SAID, WATER FLOWS DOWNHILL, AND I'M AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT HILL.
I CAME TO THE COMMISSION BACK IN 2023.
THE COMMISSION'S REQUESTED OF THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS DEVELOPING THE ONE IN QUESTION, THE DEVELOPMENT IN QUESTION.
THEY SAID, COME BACK AND YOU SHOW US LIKE A PRESENTATION SAYING THAT YOU'VE MET THESE MINIMUM STANDARDS.
THEY CAME BACK AND BASICALLY THEY TALKED A BUNCH OF TRASH ABOUT, HE SAID A BUNCH OF LIES, AND THEN THEY ASKED, YOU GUYS WANT ME TO DO A PRESENTATION? THEY SAID, NO, AND THEY VOTED TO GO AHEAD AND PASS IT.
THIS IS WHY I WANT TO, LIKE, LET'S NOT PASS THE BUCK ON TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO IF WE'RE A PART OF THE BUREAUCRACY THAT CAN KIND OF HELP MITIGATE THINGS FOR CITIZENS, IT MIGHT SOMETIMES BE HELPFUL FOR CITIZENS.
BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT CAN BE COMPLEX, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AND UNDERLINE THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY SOME LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AS FAR AS WHAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS KIMY HORN OR THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.
MY GUESS IS YOU GUYS SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU WERE HIRED TO TAKE CARE OF.
BUT LIKE HOW OFTEN IS THIS DATA CHECKED ON TO BE ABLE TO SEE IF IT'S STILL ACCURATE? FOR INSTANCE, I LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE WE JUST HAD THE BIG, WHATEVER IS 138,000 KILOWATT OR KILOWATT POWER LINE COME THROUGH.
THEY WENT THROUGH AND THEY DID A BUNCH OF DIRT WORK AND STUFF BACK THERE, AND THEY MADE IT SO THAT THAT FLOODPLAIN IS BASICALLY LESSENED BECAUSE WHAT WAS ONCE KIND OF JUST A VERY SMALL TRENCH GOING THROUGH THERE IS NOW KIND OF FILLED UP.
INSTEAD OF HAVING ANY TYPE OF PERMANENT PLACE FOR THE WATER TO FLOW, THEY PUT SOME SANDBAGS UP THERE, AND IT'S JUST ONE LINE, ONE SANDBAG DEEP, ONE SPECIFIC LINE THERE.
IF YOU GUYS ARE STILL LOOKING, FOR INSTANCE, AT MY PROPERTY OR BEHIND MY PROPERTY, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ON IT.
BEHIND MY PROPERTY OF WHEREVER THING'S FLOWING, AND YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THINGS ARE NOW, THE WAY THEY WERE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
[02:10:03]
THAT FLOODPLAIN IS NOT GOING TO BE NOW WHAT IT WAS THEN.OBVIOUSLY, I AM THE ONE THAT'S AT RISK HERE.
BASICALLY, I THINK YOU UNDERLINED THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLEX AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERLINE AND ASK, HOW GOOD ARE YOUR MODELS, HOW MUCH OF THESE IS THIS DATA UPDATED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ACCURACY, IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE, IT'D BE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA, MAYBE A LIGHT HOAR SURVEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I'M SORRY, DID YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU KEEP GOING. I'M JUST GOING TO HELP DAN IN THAT RESPONSE.
>> WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> I GUESS REAL QUICK. AS FAR AS DRAINAGE-SPECIFIC STUFF GOES, SO THE CITY UPDATED ITS DRAINAGE CRITERIA ORDINANCE IN I BELIEVE APRIL OF 2018.
AS FAR AS THE METROPLEX GOES, IT HAS A RELATIVELY NEW DRAINAGE ORDINANCE AS OPPOSED TO SOME CITIES THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE UPDATED THEM IN 40 YEARS.
>> DRAINAGE WISE, NOT TO BRING IT INTO A POLITICAL REALM, BUT THE NOA, THAT FEDERAL AGENCY THAT MONITORS WEATHER AMONG OTHER THINGS.
FOR THE PAST, I FORGET THEIR PRIOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SET THE STANDARD FOR WHAT IS 100 YEAR RAINFALL FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 YEARS.
WHAT PRINCETON CURRENTLY HAS AS A RAINFALL STANDARD IS A MODERN ONE, AS OPPOSED TO, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE CITIES IN THE METROPLEX THAT HAVE NOT UPDATED RAINFALL IN THEIR CRITERIA FOR DECADES AND DECADES AND MAYBE UNDERESTIMATING IT.
THERE ARE SOME GENERAL THINGS LIKE THAT, LIKE WHAT CONSTITUTES A 100 YEAR STORM WHERE I'M SAYING THAT PRINCETON IS GENERALLY UP TO DATE.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK BRITTANY WAS GOING TO ELABORATE ON IT.
ANY CASE BY CASE BASIS OF A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF THE BASELINE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE LOOK AT IS, ARE THEY ACCURATELY ACCOUNTING FOR WHAT IS OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD TODAY IN OCTOBER 2024? WE READILY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FEMA'S FLOODPLAIN MAPPING MAY NOT ONLY BE WRONG, BUT NONEXISTENT IN SOME CASES.
FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT I'M LOOKING AT, ARE THEY ACTUALLY ACCOUNTING FOR WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE FIELD TODAY? IF THERE WAS A BUNCH OF ILLEGAL FILL PLACED SOMEWHERE, THEY CAN'T JUST IGNORE ITS EXISTENCE BECAUSE LIKE I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THE CARDINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IS PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> HOW CAN YOU VERIFY THE DATA THAT YOU'RE GETTING? DO YOU HAVE TO OPERATE THINGS FOR SURE?
>> YOU HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ASSUMPTIONS BASICALLY JUST EXPLAINED, BUT, YOU TAKE PRIDE IN YOUR WORK, BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE MADE.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHEN ARE THOSE UPDATED? DOES IT TAKE SOMEBODY LIKE ME TO COME SAY TO YOU GUYS OR TO THE CITY AND SAY, HEY, DID YOU GUYS UPDATE THIS DATA AND SHOW THAT THIS HAS CHANGED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHERE COULD THOSE MODELS BE BROKEN?
>> YEAH, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS, DANNY ALLUDED TO WHEN A DEVELOPER OR DEVELOPMENT COMES IN ADJACENT TO THE FLOODPLAIN.
A LOT OF THE FEMA MAPPING WAS DONE WITHOUT ON THE GROUND TOPO SURVEY.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE NATION AND ALL OF THE CREEKS AND CHANNELS, THEY COULDN'T GO OUT AND GET ON THE GROUND TOPO FOR ALL OF THOSE.
WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES IN AND THEY ARE IMPACTING THAT 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE THAT FEMA HAS SHOWN, WE REQUIRE THAT THEY SUBMIT A FLOODPLAIN STUDY, WHICH DOES HAVE THAT ON THE GROUND SURVEY.
IN YOUR CASE, THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO OUT DO A TOPO SURVEY AND FIGURE OUT, HEY, THERE'S THAT CHANNEL THAT USED TO BE THERE IS NOW FILLED IN.
SECOND THING, THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN WAS DONE IN 2018, AND CITY STAFF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE ON SINCE 2018, AND THEY HAVE ASKED US TO COME UP WITH AN UPDATE FOR THAT.
WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON A SCOPE FOR THAT PROJECT, AND THAT WILL UPDATE IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT THE CITY SHOULD TAKE ON TO
[02:15:01]
CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE FLOODPLAIN AND ITS OPERATION.OUT OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE SCREEN, LET ME SEE.
ALL BUT THREE SINCE 2018, HAVE BEEN DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED.
DID THAT ANSWER A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR QUESTION?
>> TO BE TOTALLY HONEST WITH YOU, I'M A GEOSCIENTIST BY EDUCATION, AND I THINK IF I ASKED YOU ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WOULD PUT ME AT EASE.
I THINK I MIGHT GET JUMPED ON THE WAY TO MY CAR BECAUSE I CAN FEEL EVERYBODY UP HERE ALMOST THREE HOURS LATER IS READY TO GET OUT OF HERE.
BUT I WOULD BE TOTALLY HAPPY IF YOU ALL WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO MAYBE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND AT A TIME WHERE PEOPLE AREN'T READY TO HEAD HOME BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT.
>> YEAH, MR. HIST, LET'S SPEAK AFTER THE MEETING OR TOMORROW AND LET'S ARRANGE A TIME TO HAVE A MEETING.
THAT SOUNDS FINE. YEAH. THANK YOU GUYS, GO AHEAD.
>> SORRY, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION.
YOU SAY THAT YOU REVIEW CONSTRUCTION PLANTS AND PREPS PRIOR.
IS IT YOU? IS IT THE CITY THAT HANDLES DRAINAGE AND EASEMENT CHALLENGES THAT APPEAR AFTER?
>> THAT'S THE CITY STAFF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS.
WHEN DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT AND THEN DEEDED TO THE CITY, THE CITY THEN MAINTAINS IT.
>> CORRECT. THERE'S PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THE STREETS, THE GUTTERS, THE STORM DRAINS, OR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
DRAINAGE CULVERTS BECOME PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CITY THEN MAINTAINS THOSE.
>> NO. THAT PART I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT HAVE DRAINAGE CHALLENGES THAT WHEN THE BUILDER WENT AND YOU ALL APPROVED THAT THE BUILDER HAD THE CORRECT DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NOW THOUSANDS OF HOMES HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
IS THAT A CITY CHALLENGE, OR IS THAT COMING BACK TO YOU ALL AS THE ENGINEERS WHO APPROVED THE INFRASTRUCTURE?
>> WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AT A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, YOU PUT TOGETHER THESE MODELS.
ARE THOSE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REQUEST? I ASSUME THEY'RE ALREADY IN A FASHION THAT'S PRESENTABLE IN SOME FORM THAT YOU'D HAVE TO PUT AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN ORDER TO HAND IT OVER FOR SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT IT AND TRY TO GET SOME KIND OF GRASP OF YOUR MODELS AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING FOR ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT?
>> AS I MENTIONED, THE LEVEL COMPLEXITY VARIES.
IF I'M LOOKING AT FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE A ONE ACRE LOT, THE DRAINAGE THAT I'M REVIEWING AND THAT THEY'RE DESIGNING AND PRESENTING IS USUALLY JUST LIMITED TO WHAT IS SHOWN IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
YEAH. YOU CAN EXPLAIN BRITTANY, BUT I THINK ANYTIME THAT SOMETHING BECOMES COMPLEX ENOUGH, BESIDES WHAT'S ON THE PLANS, THEY'RE SUBMITTING A SEPARATE REPORT, THOSE ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S WORK THAT GOES INTO THAT THAT YOU CAN'T SHOW YOUR WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S BASED ON CALCULATIONS YOU'VE MADE THAT ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN THERE.
THERE'S PARTS OF THE MODEL THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER THAT ARE NOT IN ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT I COULD JUST PUT IN A PUBLIC INFORMATION OR WASN'T WORKING.
>>THERE'S COMPLEX MODELING THAT HAPPENS AND I KNOW THAT OUR FILES ARE AVAILABLE TO SHARE FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THOSE SOFTWARE.
SIMILARLY WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THEY USUALLY SUBMIT HEC FILES OR SOME MODELING FILES.
ULTIMATELY, A PDF REPORT IS PREPARED WITH THE OUTPUTS OF THAT MODEL, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE SHAREABLE, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A PDF READER.
>> THANK YOU GUYS. ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S MOVE ON TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY, DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION FROM CITY ENGINEERS REGARDING
[02:20:02]
TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.>> THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM, JUST GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO MEET THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THE CRITERIA THEY'RE LOOKING AT IN DOING TRAFFIC STUDIES.
I'LL TURN THE TIME OVER TO KIMMY HORN.
>> GOOD EVENING. BRITTANY RUSH, KIMMY HORN.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE NATHAN NEW.
HE'S THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, AND HE HAS A PRESENTATION ON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. LIKE I SAID, MY NAME IS NATHAN NEW WITH KIMMY HORN ASSOCIATES.
I'M A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, AND I HANDLE ALL THE TRAFFIC IMPACT REVIEWS THAT COME THROUGH THE CITY.
MY PURPOSE OF THE DAY IS REALLY TO RUN THROUGH JUST A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW, WHAT IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OR ANALYSIS? WHAT IS IT USED FOR, AND THEN GO THROUGH A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE TIA AND SOME THINGS THAT I LOOK FOR.
WHAT IS IT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? TIA IS A SHORT VERSION THAT YOU MIGHT HEAR ME REFER TO IT IN THIS PRESENTATION.
IT'S BASICALLY A DOCUMENT THAT SUMMARIZES THE IMPACTS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR TRAFFIC.
IT'S PERFORMED BY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIKE MYSELF.
IT'S SIMPLY PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT Y'ALL REVIEW.
THE GOALS THAT TIA ARE REALLY TO EMPHASIZE PROACTIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FOR THE CITY, IDENTIFY ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE EXISTING ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM, AND THEY'RE REALLY TO PARTNER WITH A DEVELOPER TO MITIGATE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
WHEN IS THE TIA REQUIRED? IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, IT'S REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR AND BASED OFF SAFETY OR EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT BE OCCURRING.
TYPICALLY, IT'S ANTICIPATED FOR HIGH TRAFFIC SCENARIOS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALSO JUST HIGH CIRCULATION ISSUES WITH DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS AND OTHER LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS.
THE IMPACTS, AS I MENTIONED, ALSO, WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL OR A MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET COULD BE ANOTHER THRESHOLD THAT THE CITY DECIDES TO EVALUATE IF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED.
IF A DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTING ACCESS ON A TEXTILE FACILITY, THEN THE CITY AND I WILL PARTNER WITH TXDOT IN REVIEWING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUEST ACCESS AND IMPACTING THEIR FACILITY, AS WELL AS CITY STREET, FOR EXAMPLE.
SOME ELEMENTS IN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INCLUDE GENERALLY A SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT'S INCLUDED THE SIZE, THE SCOPE, THE PHASING, DATA COLLECTION.
WE DO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE KIND OF LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
TRIP GENERATION, WHICH IS PREDICTING HOW MUCH NEW TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE ON THE PARTICULAR ROADWAY.
THEN RECOMMENDATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES TO IMPROVE OR IMPROVE MOBILITY OR SAFETY BACK TO BASICALLY THE CURRENT CONDITION THAT IS THERE.
THE FIRST STEP IN A TIA IS REALLY GETTING A BASELINE AND GETTING SOME TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTED.
WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS GET TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS, TRAFFIC COUNTS, TUBE COUNTS OF THE INTERSECTIONS, AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS.
TYPICALLY, WE FOCUS ON THE MORNING AND EVENING PEAK HOUR COMMUTE TIMES.
OTHER TIMES WITH SCHOOL, WE LOOK AT PICK UP DRAW OFF OPERATIONS LIKE 3:00 P.M.
WHEN YOU WOULD EXPECT TO PICK UP OPERATION FOR SCHOOL.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S THE COMMUTE TIMES THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON.
THEN WE GO THROUGH A TRIP GENERATION EXERCISE, WHICH IS REALLY THE STATE OF PRACTICE.
WE USE WHAT'S CALLED THE ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, WHICH IS A STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
SEVERAL STUDIES DONE AROUND THE NATION, DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TYPES PREDICTS TRAFFIC, AND PEOPLE JUST ACTUALLY DO A SINGLE STUDY OF LIKE A WALMART PER SE AND SEE HOW MUCH TRAFFIC A WALMART GENERATES.
THAT'S HOW WE PREDICT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE PROJECTED FOR A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
THEN AFTER THAT, WE GO THROUGH TRIP DISTRIBUTION, WHICH IS THE ENGINEER DETERMINES WHERE THESE TRIPS ARE GOING TO GO TO AND FROM.
IT CAN BE JUST AS MUCH AS AN ART AS A SCIENCE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHERE CARS ARE GOING TO AND FROM BECAUSE WE'RE PREDICTING WHERE WE THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME FROM.
THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE LOOK AT REVIEWING TIAS IS FAMILIARITY WITH THE CITY TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND IS THE ENGINEER CONFORMING TO THOSE.
THE NEXT STEP AFTER WE HAVE THE TRIP GENERATION, THE DATA COLLECTION IS THE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.
WE HAVE A MODEL OF OUR OWN THAT'S CALLED SYNCHRO, AND IT IS A MODEL THAT IS USED TO LOOK AT CAPACITY AND DELAY, AND THAT'S HOW WE EVALUATE INTERSECTIONS AS FAR AS TIAS ARE CONCERNED.
[02:25:04]
WE USE A TERM CALLED LEVEL-OF-SERVICE, WHICH I'M SURE SEVERAL HAVE HEARD OF IN THIS ROOM, BUT I THINK OF IT AS THE GRADES OF SCHOOL.THE COLOR SCHEME THERE GENERALLY REPRESENTS THE GREEN SHADED AREAS, ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICES.
ONCE WE GET TO LEVEL SERVICE D, THAT'S TYPICALLY THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD THAT'S ACCEPTABLE IN THE CITY.
WHEN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT GOES BEYOND THAT, WE LOOK AT WAYS TO MITIGATE BACK TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE D. THAT'S GENERALLY THE ANALYSIS PORTION AND THE ANALYSIS THAT WE LOOK AT AS FAR AS MITIGATION IS CONCERNED.
TALKING A LITTLE FURTHER ABOUT MITIGATION,AS I MENTIONED, LEVEL SERVICE D IS PRETTY MUCH THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL SERVICE.
ONCE YOU GO TO E OR F, YOU'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE AT D BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT CAME IN.
THAT'S JUST A SNIPPET OF OUR SYNCHRO MODELING SOFTWARE THAT WE USE.
SOME OF THE POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE TYPICAL IN TIAS ARE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZONING OR REZONING THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT GENERALLY WE WILL FOCUS ON.
THERE'S OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, TURN LANES, MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS, MEDIAN ENCLOSURES, AND THEN ALSO ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHEN WE LOOK AT SCHOOLS AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, YOU LOOK AT INTERNAL CIRCULATION.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAXIMIZING THROAT LENGTHS OF DRIVEWAYS, WAYS TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC INTERNALLY TO SITES.
THOSE WOULD BE SOME ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE COULD RECOMMEND AS PART OF A TIA.
>> HOW DO WE USE THE RESULTS AFTER WE'VE DONE THE EXERCISE, WE'VE GOT THE MITIGATION THAT THE ENGINEER HAS RECOMMENDED.
THE RESULTS REALLY ARE USED TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S GOALS.
WE USE THE RESULTS TO LOOK AT THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND REALLY TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT.
TAILOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT.
IT COULD BE A NEGOTIATION TOOL FOR THE CITY, OBVIOUSLY IN NEGOTIATING WHAT IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE PART OF THE DEVELOPER, ALSO AS PART OF THE CITY.
THEN FOR DECISION MAKING, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A GREAT TOOL TO LOOK AT AS YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
ON THE APPROVAL AND MODIFICATION PLANS, SOME STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SUBJECT TO PHASING CHANGE.
SAY THE TIA, LOOKED AT SOME PHASING, AND THEN THE TRAFFIC WAS TOO INTENSE, LOOKING AT REPHASING THE DEVELOPMENT TO SCALE DOWN OR PROLONG THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT OR SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COULD COME THROUGH.
THEN ALSO RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CIP PROGRAM, A LOT OF TIMES THROUGH A TIA, WE WOULD RECOGNIZE MORE OF A REGIONAL TYPE IMPROVEMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE.
MAYBE THAT IMPROVEMENT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPER.
IT'S MORE JUST A REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE MADE.
AS PART OF THE TIA, WE FLAG THAT AND THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THEN LAST, YOU COULD OBVIOUSLY DENY THE APPLICATION.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE WAYS WE USE THE RESULTS.
THAT'S JUST A QUICK HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.
I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT ALL HAVE REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES.
>> DO YOU ONLY LOOK AT WHAT'S EXISTING OR DO YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S COMING?
>> GREAT QUESTION. ONE THING WE DO WHEN WE REVIEW A TIA, AND ALSO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SCOPE WITH WHATEVER ENGINEERS PERFORMING THE TIA IS, WE WORK WITH THE CITY TO IDENTIFY WHAT ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALSO CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BECAUSE IF WE GO OUT THERE AND COUNT CARS, RIGHT, YOU'RE COUNTING JUST CARS THAT ARE ON THE ROAD.
WHAT IF THERE'S A NEARBY DEVELOPMENT THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET OR IT'S IN THE PLATTING STAGE OR IT'S ABOUT TO DEVELOP.
WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL ADD THOSE, WE'LL BUILD LAYERS, ESSENTIALLY, YOU GET THE TRAFFIC DATA, WHICH IS THE BASELINE CONDITION.
THEN YOU LAYER ON THE TRIP GENERATION FROM THESE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, THEN YOU START LOOKING HOLISTICALLY AT THE IMPACT.
YOU'RE BUILDING UPON EACH OTHER, AND THAT'S HOW WE LOOK AT THE EXISTING TRAFFIC VERSUS SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE THERE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? ANYONE ELSE?
>> ONE OTHER QUESTION. I GOT TO ASK.
IN RELATIONS TO TEXSTAT, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A LOT OF BOTH.
ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS MORE STRICT, LESS STRICT? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN AN INTERSECTION OF A CITY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND A TEXSTAT ROAD WHERE THE TEXSTAT WOULD REQUIRE A TURN IN, BUT THE CITY ROAD WOULD NOT WHEN THEY PRETTY MUCH HAVE SIMILAR TRAFFIC COUNTS, AT LEAST TO THE NAKED EYE.
[02:30:02]
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE INDIVIDUALS SITUATION, BUT I CAN JUST SAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TEXSTAT HAS THEIR PUBLISHED CRITERIA.
A LOT OF IT IS SPECIFIC TO HOW MANY TURNS WARRANT THE THRESHOLD OF, LET'S SLAY A TURN LANE.
TEXSTAT HAS A SPECIFIC NUMBER THAT WARRANTS THAT REQUIREMENT, AND SO SOMETIMES TEXSTAT GETS INTO THE WEEDS MORE ON SOME OF THE SPECIFIC TRAFFIC VOLUMES THAT WOULD WARRANT A CERTAIN MITIGATION, AND SO THAT'S LOOKED AT A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT TEXSTAT HAS VERY PUBLISHED CRITERIA AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE.
THAT'S WHEN YOU LOOK AT ON A TEXSTAT ROAD, IF THEY'RE DOING THE REVIEW, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THEIR LIST AND SAY, "OKAY, YOU'VE GOT 50 RIGHT TURNS AT THIS PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY, SO THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A TURN LANE." THAT'S GOING TO BE THE PROCESS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T THINK MY QUESTION WAS CLEAR.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY TALKING ABOUT A TURN RAN ON AND OFF THE ROAD.
I'M TALKING MORE LIKE INGRESS AND INGRESS FROM, LIKE, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
NOT ACROSS THE ROADWAY, BUT LIKE SAY YOU'RE ON A NORTHBOUND SIDE, AND YOU'RE MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN.
IF TEXSTAT IS REQUIRING A TURN LANE, A DECELERATION LANE FROM THE TEXSTAT ROADWAY INTO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHY WOULD THE CITY ROAD NOT REQUIRE THE SAME THING WHEN THEY'RE AT THE SAME INTERSECTION?
>> WELL, THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS FOR THE TURN.
I WAS REFERRING TO, IF YOU'RE TRAVELING ON A ROAD AND YOU'RE TURNING RIGHT INTO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD CALL A DECELERATION LANE INTO A DRIVEWAY, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
THERE'S DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS FOR THOSE TYPES OF VOLUMES.
TEXSTAT COULD HAVE A NUMBER, AND THEN THE CITY HAS A NUMBER AND THOSE TWO MATCH, THAT'S WHERE THERE COULD BE SOME DISCREPANCY IN THOSE TWO THINGS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE INFO.
>> I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT YOU DO IS MODELING.
WELL, THE OTHER COMMISSIONER MENTIONED A SPECIFIC PROPERTY, AND SO AS A THEORETICAL QUESTION, THE MODELS THAT YOU USE, WHAT'S OUR INDICATION THAT THERE'S NOTHING BEING LEFT OUT.
FOR INSTANCE, ALL MODELS ARE WRONG, SOME ARE USEFUL, HAS THE MODELING THAT YOU GUYS DONE ACTUALLY HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, OBVIOUSLY, FROM PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH TRAFFIC ON THE WAY HOME AND ON THE WAY OUT OF THE HOUSE TO THEIR HOUSE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT.
BUT HAVE YOU ALL'S MODELS ACTUALLY HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND CITY? ALSO, DOES IT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS HAPPENING? FOR INSTANCE, THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, IT'S A ONE LANE STREET.
IF ANYTHING, IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS SHUT DOWN.
IT'S A STREET THAT 10 YEARS AGO, YOU PROBABLY COULD HAVE TAKEN A SLEEP IN.
I HAPPEN TO LIVE ON THAT STREET SO I KNOW VERY WELL, YOU COULD SLEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET 10 YEARS AGO.
NOW, PEOPLE DRIVE BY 80 MILES AN HOUR AT 2 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, AND IT'S JUST CONSTANT TRAFFIC.
WE HAVE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS BEING BUILT RIGHT THERE.
ONE OR TWO OF THEM ARE OVER, LIKE, SOME ABOUT 500 MULTI FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
THAT SLOWS DOWN TRAFFIC BY ITSELF BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LANE.
DO YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC FROM THINGS LIKE THAT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON? DEVELOPMENT'S GOING TO GO ON FURTHER DOWN THE STREET FURTHER UP NORTH THAT AGAIN WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE OTHER COMMISSIONER THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD THIS.
BASICALLY, WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY DO WE HAVE THAT EVERYTHING IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN WE'RE TOLD BECAUSE I IMAGINE THAT YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED LAST TIME ABOUT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, THE TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT ENSUE BECAUSE OF IT.
THE ANSWER WHEN WE ASK THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS IS USUALLY, YES, IT'S PASS THE STUDY.
AS WAS MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY FOR FLOOD ZONES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THERE'S DIFFERENT LEVELS OF WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE? MAYBE LIKE FEMA HAS SOMETHING THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, CITY HAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
BASICALLY, SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME IS ACCOUNTABILITY. HOW CAN WE SEE THAT? HOW CAN WE LOOK AT THAT AND SEE, HEY, IS THERE MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LEFT OUT HERE OR ARE YOUR MODELS, IS THERE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT? I KNOW IT'S A VERY, GENERAL QUESTION, SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF ACCESS TO SOME DATA THAT SHOWS THAT TYPE OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS THERE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE AND THE POSITIVE IMPACT THAT'S HAD FROM THE STUFF THAT WE SHOULD JUST TRUST.
HEY, TRUST US, WE PASSED IT, IT'S GOOD TO GO.
IS THERE MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S BEING LEFT OUT, SAY, PUBLIC INFORMATION? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WRAPPED UP AND HANDED TO US IF WE REQUESTED?
[02:35:01]
I'LL TRY TO ANSWER THAT AS BEST I CAN.
ON THE MODELING ITSELF, I'LL SAY THE MODELING IS JUST A TOOL FOR US.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE MAKE DECISIONS AS TRAFFIC ENGINEERS.
THE MODEL IS JUST A TOOL FOR US AS A STARTING POINT.
A LOT OF ENGINEERING JUDGMENT IS ALSO GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
I'LL ALSO SAY, ON THE MODELING SIDE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC MODELS, ESPECIALLY TIAS, A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.
WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON WHAT'S THE EXISTING CONDITION? WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE BUILD OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND IT'S A SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT MY SNAPSHOT IS EXISTING CONDITION, MY NEXT SNAPSHOT IS, THE STORE IS OPENING AND IT'S GOT TRAFFIC.
ANOTHER SNAPSHOT IS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
THE VARIABILITY OF TRAFFIC TO BUILD IT OR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASING, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GENERALLY PART OF THE STANDARD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. I'LL SAY THAT.
I'LL SAY ANOTHER THING ABOUT TRAFFIC AND MODELING IS IT CAN BE VERY UNPREDICTABLE AND VARIABLE.
AS YOU KNOW, YOU TAKE SEVERAL DIFFERENT ROUTES PROBABLY TO WORK OR WHEREVER YOU'RE GOING.
I GET ON MY GOOGLE PHONE, I TAKE THE PATH OF LEASE RESISTANCE.
WE CAN COUNT CARS A PARTICULAR DAY OF THE WEEK.
THAT DATA IS ONLY 10%, MAYBE 15%, MAYBE IT'S 20% OFF, IT JUST DEPENDS ON SOMETIMES THE DAY OF THE WEEK.
I THINK WE DO OUR BEST THAT WE CAN OF CAPTURING THAT VARIABILITY OF TRAFFIC, PUTTING THAT IN THE MODEL, MAKING SOME JUDGMENT, AND THEN TRYING TO DO OUR BEST REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE TIA.
POST CONSTRUCTION, ISSUES YOU'VE SEEN WITH CONSTRUCTION AND WRAPPING UP HOW THOSE ARE AFFECTED, THOSE ARE CHALLENGES THAT WE TRY TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY ON POST CONSTRUCTION AND GOING OUT.
WE'RE WORKING ON A PROJECT RIGHT NOW WITH THE CITY WHERE WE'RE LOOKING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT OPERATE BETTER, AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT REAL TIME STUFF THAT WE DO THAT I WOULD CONSIDER IS NOT A STUDY, IT'S REAL TIME DATA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.
>> IF WE COULD HAVE THAT FINAL PLAT THAT WAS PULLED CONSIDERED NEXT IN THE REGULAR AGENDA, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AS SCHEDULED, PLEASE?
>> ITEM FP20232393, FINAL PLATT SOUTH RIDGE PHASE 2 B, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM GRB K EDGEWOOD, LLC FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 44.726 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE THOMAS A ROADS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 741, CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXSTAT.
>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, SINGLE FAMILY, CITY STAFF, AS WELL AS ENGINEERS HAVE INSPECTED THE SITE AND ARE READY TO ACCEPT A PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
OUR ENGINEERS ARE HERE AS WELL, AND SO IS THEIRS. THANKS.
>> I WAS THE ONE TO MOVE IT TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, SO I'LL JUST KNOW WHAT I SAW, I DIDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT IT FOR VERY LONG, BUT WHAT I DID SEE WHENEVER I OVERLAID IT ON THE CITY OF PRINCETON MAP IS THAT THE ROOT SOMEWHERE HERE.
THERE ARE 13 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND TWO STREETS THAT WHENEVER I OVERLAY IT OVER ON THE WESTERN SIDE THAT ARE ENTIRELY WHAT ONCE BUILT GOING TO BE ENVELOPED BY THE CURRENT FLOOD ZONE.
THEN THERE ARE ANOTHER, I GUESS I FORGOT TO WRITE IT, THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE ANOTHER 17 OR 18 THAT ARE PARTIALLY ANYWHERE BETWEEN 10% AND 90% ENVELOPED BY FLOOD ZONE.
BASICALLY, MY QUESTION IS, OBVIOUSLY, THE FLOOD ZONE, THE CREEK IS RIGHT THERE TO THE WEST, SO IT'S NOT THE CONCERN OF HOW MUCH WE ARE DUMPING OFF INTO THE CREEK, THE QUESTION HERE IS, ARE WE REALLY JUST OPENING IT UP AND SAYING, "HEY, YOU CAN BUILD PROPERTIES THAT, WE'RE TALKING, I FORGOT TO WRITE THE SECOND NUMBER, BUT 13 PROPERTIES, 100% DEVELOPED TWO STREETS, 100% DEVELOPED BY FLOOD ZONE, AND SOMETHING LIKE 18 PROPERTIES THAT ARE PARTIALLY ENVELOPED IN FLOOD ZONE.
[02:40:01]
AT THE BEGINNING, OBVIOUSLY, THE FLOOD ZONES RISE, THEY DON'T TYPICALLY GO DOWN.IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST OPEN TO DOING? THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER? OR THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THAT UP ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD ZONE?
>> THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PORTION HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
AS FAR AS SPECIFICS GO, I WOULD DEFER TO OUR ENGINEERS.
THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES MEET CITY STANDARDS, HOWEVER.
>> IT DOES MEET CITY STANDARDS.
>> IT MEETS CITY STANDARDS, CORRECT?
>> THE CITY STANDARDS ALLOW BUILDING NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FLOOD ZONE?
>> I'LL LET BRITNEY GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE.
>> YEAH, MR. HISS, I'VE PULLED UP THE FINAL PLOT IN QUESTION, AND THE PROPERTIES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
BUT I'LL LET BRITNEY SPEAK TO THIS.
IT'S MORE OF HER AREA OF EXPERTISE.
>> I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO JEREMY PITTS.
HE'S THE DESIGN ENGINEER ON THIS, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK TO SEE THE SAME THING IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE FINAL PLAT AND SEE THE FLOODPLAIN.
I'M NOT SEEING LOTS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN BASED ON THIS PLAT.
>> THE ONLY THING I LOOKED AT IS THE CITY MAP.
IT'S PUBLISHED SO THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT THE GIS IS NOT LINED UP CORRECTLY, AND THAT MAY BE THE CASE, BUT BASED ON SPECIFICALLY THE GIS DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE JUST ON THE CITY WEBSITE, THAT'S WHAT I SAW.
>> THOSE LAYERS THAT WE SHOW ON OUR MAP ARE ESTIMATES.
THE FINAL PLOT HERE, YOU COULD SEE THE LIMITS OF THE FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT ARE SHOWN AT THE DASHED LINE, AND ALL OF THE LOTS ARE OUTSIDE.
WE WON'T PERMIT LOTS WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN.
>> CAN YOU SCROLL TO THE TO THE SATELLITE MAP THE SATELLITE IMAGERY, WHICH IS PAGE TWO.
EVEN THERE, YOU CAN JUST, UNLESS THE TREES HAVE BEEN CUT DOWN.
THIS IS NOT WHAT I MADE MY JUDGMENT ON.
IT IS BASED ON THE OTHER THING, BUT TYPICALLY RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE IS GOING TO BE THE LOWEST PART WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LINE OF TREES LIKE THAT.
EVEN YOUR SATELLITE IMAGERY AND THE PLATE OVERLAYING ON IT, IS THAT INCORRECT? BECAUSE BASED ON THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAW, WHICH IS THE PLATE BEING OVERLAYING DIRECTLY ONTO WHERE THE FLOOD ZONE WOULD BE, WHICH YOU CAN, AGAIN, THE DEEPEST PART IS GOING TO BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT LINE OF TREES.
>> MOST OF THAT TREE AREA WILL BE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AND IS IT AN HOA LOT AND NOT WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
IT'S A COMMON AREA LOT ON THE FAR WESTERN SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WON'T BE ANY HOMES BUILT IN THAT FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT WHERE ALL OF THOSE TREES ARE SHOWN.
>> I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU GOT UP. YEAH.
THERE'S A LARGE BLOCK U, LOT ONE X HOA.
IT'S THAT ENTIRE WESTERN SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS UNDEVELOPABLE.
IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND IT WILL REMAIN AN HOA OPEN SPACE.
>> IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT I WAS SEEING THEN WITHOUT EVERYTHING OVERLAYING ON ONE ANOTHER.
BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHICH, AGAIN, IT'S JUST DIFFICULT TO TELL BY LOOKING AT THIS PHOTO, THEN AND YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, THEN THAT WOULD DEFINITELY ALLEVIATE SOME OF MY CONCERNS.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS BASICALLY THIS THE FLOOD PLAIN, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, MAKES A U AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I GUESS THE OTHER CONCERN WOULD BE WHETHER LIKE EASEMENTS AND EVERYTHING WERE IN PLACE AND THAT THE DRAINAGE IN QUESTION, THERE'S SOMEWHERE FOR IT TO GO, ESSENTIALLY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS REQUIRED A RETAINING WALLS OR WHATEVER ON THE WESTERN PORTION HERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE EASIEST MOST SIMPLE SOLUTION, IF THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT UP AND IT WASN'T EXCAVATED TOO LOW, MAKING THAT FLOODPLAIN COME FURTHER OUT OR WHATEVER.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT,
[02:45:03]
BECAUSE THE THING THAT I LOOKED AT APPARENTLY WAS OVERLAYING PROPERLY.BUT BASED ON WHAT I SEE HERE, I GUESS, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS MITIGATION?
>> THIS DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED A DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THEIR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
AS THESE PHASES COME IN, THEY UPDATE THAT DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT FOR THE PHASES AND THE PORTIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE OUTFALLING DIRECTLY TO THE CREEK AND NOT BEING ROUTED THROUGH A DETENTION POND.
IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE SEVERAL OUTFALLS AT THE WESTERN SIDE OF THOSE STREETS, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE LOTS, AND WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND WHETHER IT'S BY CHANNEL OR BY ENCLOSED PIPE.
WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THE WATER THAT'S BEING CONVEYED FROM THE DEVELOPED LOTS THROUGH A CHANNEL OR A PIPE AND ULTIMATELY INTO THE FLOODPLAIN ARE NOT EXTENDING OUTSIDE OF THAT EASEMENT IN THAT HOA LOT, WHERE ALL OF THE TREES AND THE FLOODPLAIN IS.
THAT IS AN HOA AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT, SO THAT COVERS FOR ANY TYPE OF MAINTENANCE IF THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY CLEANUP IN THAT FLOODPLAIN.
THAT'S FOR THE HOA TO MAINTAIN, AND SHOULD THEY FAIL TO DO, SO IT DOES GIVE THE CITY THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY AND MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THEN JUST TO NOTE, MR. FISHER NOTED IT, BUT YOU MENTIONED THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GIS FLOODPLAIN AND THEN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THIS PLAT.
THAT TYPICALLY THE GIS MAP USES THE FMA MAPS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR PRESENTATION THAT AS THESE DEVELOPMENTS COME ONLINE, AND THEY SUBMIT THEIR DETAILED STUDIES.
THEIR TOPOGRAPHIC AND MODELED FLOODPLAIN IS TYPICALLY MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT FMA HAS.
SO THIS IS THE LATEST AND GREATEST FLOODPLAIN LINE.
AND THAT'S WHEN LOMERS AND SOME OF THESE OTHER DRAINAGE STUDIES ARE SUBMITTED TO FMA.
AND THEN AFTER THEY'VE REVIEWED, FMA DOES THEIR OWN UPDATES EVERY SO OFTEN TO UPDATE THOSE MAPS, AND THEN AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE REFLECTED IN THE FMA MAPS, AND AS PART OF THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UP DATE, AS PART OF THE TIKI CREEK STUDY, WE WOULD GENERATE A NEW HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE AND WOULD SHARE THAT WITH THE CITY SO THAT THEY COULD MAKE THAT ANOTHER LAYER.
THEN IT WOULD BE UPDATED AS OFTEN AS WE MAKE UPDATES TO THE OVERALL MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN.
>> I ACTUALLY HAVE WHAT I WAS SEEING UP HERE, AND YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
>> COULD YOU TURN ON YOUR MIND.
>> YOU HEARD ME, BUT FOR THE RECORD, BRAD WILLIAMS HERB AGO, AGAIN, IT'S ON THE PLAT.
YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS.
THEY WERE PREPARED BY OUR ENGINEERS, REVIEWED BY YOUR THIRD PARTY ENGINEER AND INSPECTED. I THINK THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART.
CITY STAFF HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ONTO THE PROPERTY AND INSPECTED IT TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT WAS DESIGNED IS WHAT WAS BUILT, SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY ULTIMATELY THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU'VE BEEN ON THE PROPERTY AND YOU'RE JUST NOW LOOKING AT THE PLATE NOW.
>> YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY AGREED THAT IT WAS BUILT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO DO.
>> I'M JUST ON BY THE DATA THAT THE CITY PUBLISHED, WHICH IS EITHER INDICATING THAT IT'S IN FLOOD ZONE OR IT'S WRONG, SO I CAN ONLY GO BY WHAT WAS PUBLISHED.
THE REASON THAT THIS ZONING COMMISSION EXISTS IS TO HAVE A FORM OF BUREAUCRACY THAT HELPS AND TO NOT JUST PUT TOTAL ABSOLUTE UNFETTERED TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT, SO TO ME, ASKING THE QUESTION AND NOT JUST TOTALLY ACCEPTING THAT, HEY, WE LOOK AT IT, IT'S OKAY.
>> SURE, BUT THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT MATTERS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOUR STAFF IS TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT THE PLATE IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT THE GIS DATA THAT'S BEEN?
I JUST DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO GO BY.
>> THERE'S THE PLATE, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING TONIGHT.
LET ME KNOW ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF P20232393.
>> A MOTION A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[02:50:03]
NOW, LET'S GET BACK TO ITEM F3.PL 20243043 PRELIMINARY PLAT LOT 1 AND 2 BLOCK 1, 75 MONTE CARLO EDITION.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM COPE EQUITIES, LLC FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY BEING A 16.008 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DAVID CHERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 166, CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 16 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONTE CARLO AND FM 75.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION BEFORE AT THE LAST MEETING AND WAS TABLED.
THE PROPOSED USE IS FOR A GAS STATION, AS WELL AS RETAIL.
THIS DEVELOPMENT MEETS CITY STANDARDS, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL, AND I BELIEVE THEY PREPARED A PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, SO ARE THEY?
>> REMIND ME, WHAT WAS THE REASON WE TABLED THIS? WAS IT ABOUT THE TURN LANE?
>> SOME BELIEVE WHAT WAS THE TRAFFIC.
>> HAS THAT CHANGED OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT THE SAME THING WE LOOKED AT LAST TIME OR?
>> LOOKING AT THE SAME THING, BUT WE HAVE BROUGHT THE ENGINEER HERE TO EXPLAIN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT THEY PERFORMED IN DEVELOPING THEIR PLANS? THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION TO SHOW YOU THEIR ANALYSIS AND OUR ENGINEERS HERE TO SPEAK TO OUR REVIEW OF THAT ANALYSIS, SO WITH THAT WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS Q C KAM.
I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND REPRESENTING THE SELLER AND MY CLIENT, WHO IS A DEVELOPER FOR A GAS STATION AND THE RETAIL.
LAST TIME, WHEN WE WERE HERE, WE DID NOT DID THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND THE TRAFFIC CONCERN AND QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC MAEING IN AND OUT OF THE SITE, SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE WENT BACK AND WE DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND SHOWING HOW MUCH TRAFFIC CURRENTLY THE INTERSECTION HAS RIGHT NOW AND WHAT WE PROJECT AND HOW MANY CARS WILL BE MANEUVERING IN AND OUT OF THE SITE, JUST TO SHOW YOU THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE.
LET ME BEGIN BY, THIS IS THE SITE THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING AND WE ARE AT THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF MONTE CARLO BOULEVARD AND FM 75.
MONTE CARLO BOULEVARD IS A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY.
AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, AND FM 75 IS A TEXTO FM ROAD, AND IT'S A TWO LANE FM ROAD AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING ONE DRIVEWAY ON MONTE CARLO AND ANOTHER DRIVEWAY ON THE FM 75.
BOTH DRIVEWAYS ARE MORE THAN 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.
LET ME GO ON AND THIS IS JUST THE SHEET SHOWING THE PRE DRAINAGE FLOW.
THEN THE SHEET IS SHOWING THE THE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE, SHOWING THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA AS A ABOVE GROUND DETENTION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
BASICALLY WHAT WE DID IS, WE MINIMIZE THE IMPACT LIKE WHAT THE CITY ENGINEER WAS SHOWING EARLIER THAT WE MINIMIZE THE IMPACT, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS, WE ARE NOT DISCHARGING MORE THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY FLOWING INTO THAT EXISTING DOWNSTREAM.
THAT'S WHAT THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE ABOVE GROUND DETENTION POND.
THESE SHEETS RIGHT HERE SHOWS THE TRAFFIC PATTERN.
THE TRAFFIC FLOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, MONTE CARLO IS A FOUR LANE DIVIDED.
IT SHOWS THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY ON MONTE CARLO AND IN DRIVEWAY ON 75.
[02:55:03]
AT THE LOWER LEFT CORNER THE TABLE SHOWS THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO ANTICIPATE AT THE INTERSECTION RIGHT NOW.EASTBOUND, MONTE CARLO, BOULEVARD, RIGHT NOW, WE ARE SHOWING 330 VEHICLES DURING THE PEAK HOUR.
MEANING THAT EASTBOUND TRAFFIC COMING TOWARDS EAST ON MONTE CARLO.
WESTBOUND, MONTE CARLO, BOULEVARD, 197 VEHICLES AND NORTHBOUND 70 5207 AND SOUTHBOUND 75,112 VEHICLES.
THE TRAFFIC, THAT'D BE SPATING, MAKING A RIGHT TURN ON 75 INTO OUR SIDE RIGHT NOW IS 109 BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE ONLY TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE MAKING A RIGHT TURN ON MONTE CARLO INTO OUR SIDE IS THE WESTBOUND TRAFFIC.
BECAUSE THIS IS A FOUR LANE DIVIDED, SO THAT'S THE ONLY TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE MAKING A RIGHT TURN.
THE PEAK HOUR RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT'S ENTERING THE SITE FROM MONTE CARLO IS 29 AND I BELIEVE THE TRASHL FOR THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC THAT WARRANTS A RIGHT TURN IS 60 VEHICLE PER HOUR, SO WE ARE WAY BELOW THAT TRASHLA AND THE REASON THAT THE TAX IS REQUIRING THE RIGHT TURN, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TRAFFIC THAT MAKING A RIGHT ON 75 IS 109, WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR TIMES THE TRAFFIC ENTERING MAKING A RIGHT TURN ON MONTE CARLO DRIVEWAY.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE.
AT FIRST, WE WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A TRAFFIC STUDY, SO WE DID NOT THINK OF WE HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY AT THE TIME, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE HIRE THE PARTY TRAFFIC STUDY TO PERFORM THIS ANALYSIS.
THIS IS WHAT WE COME UP WITH AND THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED.
I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL AS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I WAS NOTED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE IT'S A ONE LANE ROAD, AND THERE'S SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT THERE, INCLUDING YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
BEING A ONE LANE ROAD, EVENTUALLY, TEXT DOTS GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME WORK ON THAT AND WIDEN THE ROAD AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING TURN LANE THERE, WHICH IS LIKE PERMANENT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MIGHT HELP.
IT'S LIKE THE SAME THING WE'RE DEALING WITH ON 380, WHICH IS LIKE WE CAN'T WIDEN IT.
WE'VE GOT ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT THERE.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THAT FOR THE POTENTIAL THAT TEXT DOT IS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, GOING TO NEED TO WIDEN THAT ROAD, ARE WE WE'RE PUTTING POTENTIALLY PERT PERMANENT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WAY? SECOND THING THAT I WANTED TO NOTE IS I THINK YOU HAD A AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WE DON'T HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION HERE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT.
BUT YOU HAD A MAP SHOWING WHERE THE WATER FLOW WAS GOING AND TO ME, AS FAR AS I COULD TELL, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE THAT VERY WELL, T LOOKED LIKE IT WAS HEADING DOWN, LIKE, INTO A COVERT.
I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE BECAUSE I KNOW DOWNHILL IS SOUTH DOWN LONG NECK.
YEAH, SO YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. IT SHOWS THAT.
THERE'S A COVERT UNDER 75 RIGHT NOW.
>> IT GOES ACROSS 70, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT.
>> THERE'S A CULVERT THERE NOW WHEN IT GOES DOWN.
>> THERE'S A CULVERT UNDER 75 RIGHT NOW, EXIST IN COVERT.
>> IN THE DRAINAGE ON THE EAST WEST ROAD ON MONTE CARLO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A CITY THING OR IF THAT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT? ARE YOU ALL PUTTING IN DRAINAGE THERE? YOU JUST DIGGING OUT A CULVERT FOR IT TO TRAVEL DOWN BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TRAVELING WEST THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HARD TO TELL HERE IF
[03:00:02]
THAT'S THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY IF IT'S GOING TO GO WEST REGARDLESS, OR IF YOU GUYS ARE DIGGING OUT CULVERT, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ACTUAL STORM DRAINAGE PUT IN BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT ON THE PLATTE.>> EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW IS DRAIN EXISTING AS IT IS RIGHT NOW? ALL THE PRE DEVELOPED FLOW IS DRAINING TO THE CULVERT.
WE HAVE A DRAINAGE SWELL TO CONVEY THE FLOW TO THE SWELL THAT'S NORTH OF US, AND THAT'S ROUTE AROUND THE SITE AND DRAIN TO THE CULVERT, AS WELL.
SO EVENTUALLY, EVERYTHING'S DRAINED TO THE CULVERT.
>> IS THERE'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THERE?
>> YES. WE HAVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
>> Y'ALL ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY AS CONSTRUCTION ENSUES, IT'S NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY STAY EXACTLY HOW IT IS NOW, OR YOU GUYS IS THAT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY THAT THEY MAKE SURE THAT THAT CULVERT IS AS IT'S PORTRAYED HERE RIGHT NOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS BEING BROUGHT DOWN TO THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND TO TAKE IT ACROSS WEST BELOW 75?
>> YES, IT'S BEEN DESIGNED AND THEN BEEN BEING REVIEWED TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE FLOWS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED.
AFTER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE APPLICANT WILL BE SUBMITTING FULL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, AND OUR ENGINEERS WILL LOOK IN DETAIL AT THAT CULVERT, MAKE SURE IT'S SIZED APPROPRIATELY, MAKE SURE THE DRAINAGE POND IS SIZED APPROPRIATELY SO THAT THE POST DEVELOPMENT FLOWS DON'T EXCEED PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS.
>> THE EXISTING CULVERT FALLS UNDER THE TEXTILE RIGHT AWAY.
IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. I'M NOT QUITE.
>> OH, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S A TEXT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S A TEXT. BECAUSE THAT EXISTING IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE CROSS CULVERT UNDER 75, THAT'S TEXT.
>> BUT IT'S AS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THAT CONTINUES TO FLOW THERE AS IT DOES. NOW, I ASSUME.
>> YEAH. EVERYTHING IS STEP DRAINING TO CULVERT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW?
>> CORRECT. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE DETENTION POND TO COLLECT WATER FROM THE SITE, HOLD IT AND ALLOW IT TO DRAIN SLOWLY AT THE SAME RATE THAT IT DOES TODAY.
>> I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS DETENTION POND ON THE PLATE.
IS THAT NOT REQUIRED TO BE ON THERE?
>> IT'S A PRIVATE DETENTION POND.
THE DETENTION POND IS NOT ON THE PLATE, BUT THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS.
>> YOU GOT TO BE SHOW THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE PLANT.
>> WE HAVE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE PLANT.
>> WAS THE DETENTION POND A REQUIREMENT.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE ON THE PLAT?
>> NO. PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT SHOWN ON PLATS.
PLATS SHOW PROPERTY LINES AND EASEMENTS.
>> THAT WOULD SO JUST BE ON THE ONE THAT'S SUBMITTED FOR FINAL APPROVAL?
>> CORRECT. THEIR PERMIT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WILL SHOW THAT PLATE.
WHEN THE PROJECT IS BUILT, CITY INSPECTORS WILL ENSURE THAT THE DETENTION POND IS BUILT PER PLAN, AND IT'LL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED.
IF THERE ARE ISSUES MOVING FORWARD, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCE CITY REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE GAS STATION OWNER TO FIX THE DETENTION POND.
THERE'S MEASURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T RELEASE MORE WATER THAN IT DOES TODAY IN A PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION.
>> CAN WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC, PLEASE? I GUESS I'M JUST REALLY CONCERNED THAT AT LEAST FROM THIS SNAPSHOT, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT TODAY'S TRAFFIC FLOW.
WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE HOMES, EAST RIDGE, NORTH RIDGE, SOUTH RIDGE, THE 700 HOMES WE JUST APPROVED EARLIER IN THE MEETING, THE BYPASS THAT'S SUPPOSED TO COME, JUST SHY OF THAT IN THE FUTURE.
I CANNOT WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHY TEXTO WOULD REQUIRE A TURN LANE OFF OF FM 75, BUT WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE ONE OFF OF MONTE CARLO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WESTBOUND TRAFFIC IS LIGHTER THAN EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AT THIS GENERAL POINT.
ON MONTE CARLO, BUT THAT'S AS OF TODAY.
THAT'S NOT CONSIDERING THE MAJOR HIGHWAY COMING JUST NORTH OF THERE AND ALL OF THOSE HOMES.
IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN ADD THAT AND IS A REQUIREMENT AT LEAST FOR THIS PROPERTY?
>> CAN I YOU SPEAK TO THAT? BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC COMPARISON, THE NORTHBOUND 75 AND THE WESTBOUND MONTE CARLO THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE ON THE TRAFFIC.
>> AS OF TODAY AND EVEN THE DATA THAT WE PROVIDED, WE ARE PROJECTING 2024, AND WE ADD, LIKE A SAFETY FACTOR TO IT AS WELL.
>> YEAH, I'M THINKING 2030, 2040, AND ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE COMING UP NORTH OF THERE, THE HOMES THAT WE JUST APPROVED, CAUSE I KNOW INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE PAST.
THESE ARE KIND OF THINGS THEY THINK THAT WE
[03:05:02]
CAN PLAN FOR IN THE FUTURE BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE. GO AHEAD, TOMMY.>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER TOMI AND MATT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
WE HAVE ALREADY COMMISSIONED OUR ENGINEERS OR THIRD PARTY ENGINEERS TO LOOK AT THIS INTERSECTION STUDY IT SUGGESTS CURRENT MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED AND THEN A FIVE YEAR PLAN AS WELL, AND THEY ARE INCORPORATING ALL OF THE GROWTH INTO THAT AND THE FUTURE ROADWAY IMPACTS.
IF THERE'S ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THIS INTERSECTION, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THOSE.
WE'RE EXPECTING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED TODAY BACK VERY SOON.
I'M HOPING WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THEN WE'LL IMPLEMENT THE FIRST STAGE OF ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THIS INTERSECTION.
THAT'S ALSO, LIKE I SAID, IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE FUTURE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED HERE.
NOW, GRANTED, IT'LL HAVE TO BE STUDIED AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, BUT WE'RE LOOKING OUT AS FAR AS THE MODELING WILL LET US.
THERE IS A PLAN FOR THAT INTERSECTION.
IT'S JUST FORTHCOMING. I UNDERSTAND THE TURN LENGTH THING, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNTS IN THE FUTURE.
IF THERE'S ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THIS AREA THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED INTO THE FUTURE, THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO FALL BACK ON THE CD TO DO.
THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO ANTICIPATE FUTURE TRAFFIC LOADING, ESPECIALLY OVER THE BYPASS GOING IN THAT MAY ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THIS AREA.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN INITIAL PLAN AND THEN A SUBSEQUENT FUTURE PLAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSTRUCT, WE'RE AWARE OF THIS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT PUBLIC WORKS IS CONSIDER.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS FUTURE PLANNING RIGHTS.
IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT TURN IN TODAY, IT WOULD NOT MITIGATE ADDITIONAL COSTS, ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, INTERRUPTIONS TO THE BUSINESS LATER ON.
>> BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA THAT IS ADOPTED BY CITY ORDINANCE FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC, THE CRITERIA ISN'T MET.
WE CAN'T REQUIRE A TURN LINE AT THIS TIME.
>> SO CITY ORDINANCE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO LOOK PAST FIVE YEARS OUT, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC STUDIES.
>> WE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
IF CARS ARE SLOWING DOWN TO TURN RIGHT, THERE'S ANOTHER LANE FOR VEHICLES TO GET INTO.
WE'RE GOING TO ALWAYS HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC.
IT'S GO HAS TO BE ANALYZED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE DATA THAT WE HAVE NOW. WHAT'S EXISTING? WHAT FLOWS THIS DEVELOPMENTS GOING TO BRING AND COMPARE THAT TO OUR CRITERIA.
THE CRITERIA DOES NOT REQUIRE A TURN LANE.
>> CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRAFFIC THAT THE SITE'S GOING TO GENERATE IS THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE BY THE BUSINESS OPERATING ITSELF AND ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE REQUIREMENT OF ETERNAL LINK.
>> BUT IT'S NOT JUST THIS BUSINESS, ISN'T THAT SHARED BY A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, THE ENTRANCE FROM MONTE CARLO?
>> I'M SURE WILL BE SHARED BY ANY FUTURE BUSINESSES THAT COME IN THERE, BUT THEY'LL THEY'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN TIA.
>> CORRECT. THE APPLICANT MENTIONED LAST TIME WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY QUESTIONED THAT THE ENTRANCE FROM MONTE CARLO IS SHARED WITH SOME OTHER DEVELOP.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY MENTIONED THAT WAS SHARED WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A FUTURE COMMERCIAL SITE, BUT THERE'S NO CURRENT PLANS FOR THAT SITE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC LOADING IS GOING TO BE CURRENTLY.
AS THAT DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD, THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR OWN TIA FOR WHATEVER'S GOING TO GO IN THERE, AND THEN MODIFICATIONS COULD BE SUGGESTED THEN BASED ON WHAT THE EX EXPECTED TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE.
THE NEXT PEOPLE WHO COME IN THERE, THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO PUT IT IN.
>> THE ONLY THING I CAN'T GET AROUND IS, AGAIN, THAT IS MY STREET WHERE I LIVE ON, AND I SEE THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES DOWN THERE LITERALLY EVERY DAY.
I FIGHT IT, TRYING TO GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY.
THE THING THAT I CAN'T GET AROUND IS, YOU GUYS CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT IT IS YOUR JOB TO TRY AND IT DOES I DON'T THINK IT TAKES AN ORACLE TO SEE THAT OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE ALL THESE STRING OF DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST BUILT, AND THEN GOING NORTH, IT IS ALL BOUGHT UP AND ALL GOING TO BE BUILT BY DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE APPROVED IT.
>> JUST TO MAKE THE COMMISSION AWARE, PUBLIC WORKS HAS COMMISSIONED OUR ENGINEERS AS WELL TO DO A FULL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR CITYWIDE AS FAR AS TO STUDY HOW TRAFFIC'S COMING INTO THE CITY, HOW IT'S MOVING THROUGH THE CITY, WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING, HOW THEY'RE GETTING THROUGH THE CITY.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ALL OF THAT'S GOING TO FACTOR INTO OUR FUTURE CIP PROJECTS.
WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE THAT REPORT BACK IN THE SPRINGTIME.
THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS IN PLANNING FOR TRAFFIC ALLEVIATION CITYWIDE.
[03:10:03]
THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING FROM BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TRAIL GAP ANALYSIS.PEOPLE ARE MORE INCLINED TO WALK OR BIKE AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN GET TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF TOWN TO THE SHOPPING CENTER ACROSS THE STREET, EVERYTHING MORE SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY.
WE'VE ALREADY KICKED THAT OFF.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PLAN NOW.
>> AGAIN, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOMETHING'S GOT TO BE DONE WITH 75.
IS THAT ONE OF THE PLANNED PROJECT? I KNOW THAT THIS IS OUT OF CITY.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S TEXT OUGHT.
IS THAT PLANNED? DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT, HAVE THEY PROPOSED.
>> I THINK I DO NOT HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT.
I KNOW THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY PLANNING TO DO WHAT THEY DID ON SIX STREET, ADD THREE FEET.
THERE'S A SHOULDER, IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE ALONG THE ROADWAY, THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THAT, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR CURRENT PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BYPASS GOING IN AND BEACHAM EXTENDING OUT AND TYING INTO FM 75 FURTHER NORTH.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TEXTOTS FUTURE PLANS ARE HERE.
IF I HAD TO GUESS, I WOULD SAY THEY'RE GOING TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, AS THE BYPASS AND EVERYTHING GOES IN, AND BEACHAM CONTINUES TO MOVE NORTH BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO ALLEVIATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC AT THIS INTERSECTION AS WELL.
IT'S REALLY UP IN THE AIR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH ADDING SHOULDERS AND IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TOMMY OR THE APPLICANT? THANKS, TOMMY. THANK YOU.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PL 20243043.
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
ALL AGAINST SAY NEY, AND THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0.
ITEM 4, PRELIMINARY PLAT BENCHMACH, MIDDLE SCHOOL ADDITION, LOT ONE BLOCK A, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM PRINCETON ISD FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 28.383 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, SITUATED IN THE HARD AND SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 957, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY APPLIED APPROVAL OF A 28 ACRE TRACT LOCATED OFF OF SOUTH BEACHAM BOULEVARD AND CYPRESS BEN PARKWAY.
THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERS, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER HIM. THANK YOU.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE PL 20243047.
>> HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES 6-0. LAST ITEM.
PRELIMINARY PLATE PRINCETON HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEX.
PRELIMINARY PLATE PRINCETON HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEX, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM PRINCETON ISD FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 71.44 64 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE HARD RIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 957, CITY OF PRINCETON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY APPLIED APPROVAL, THE 71 ACRE TRACT LOCATED OFF OF MAPLE AVENUE, AS WELL AS BORMAN.
THE INTENDED US E TO CREATE ADMIN AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO BE USED BY THE ISD.
THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF, AS WELL AS ENGINEERS, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE THING.
ITEM F 4 AND F5 HAVE THE SAME PLAT NUMBER THAT I JUST REPEATED 4 AND F5 ENDING IN THREE OH 47.
I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE PL 20243050, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. JUST I WANTED TO GET THAT IN FOR THE RECORD.
[03:15:01]
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PL 20243050.
>> ALL MOTION TO SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
INFORMATION NEXT MEETING, MONDAY,
[G. INFORMATION]
NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024, AND I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I'II SECOND. MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES, WE'RE ADJOURN. HAVE GOOD EVENING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.