Sep 13, 2019 Planning Commission Tech Advisory Committee

I MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

[2. Nominations and election of a Vice Chair.]

FIRST ITEM IS, UH, NOMINATION AND THE ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR.

THAT MOTION WAS FOR BOTH.

NO PROBLEM.

OKAY, MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS.

FIRST ITEM IS NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR.

AT THIS POINT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR.

MR. COX WAS OUR OUTGOING VICE CHAIR.

HE EXPIRED, UH, AF UH, THAT POSITION LAST ONE YEAR.

SO AT THIS POINT, WELL, MATT, HE EXPIRED.

HE EXPIRED, HE EXPIRED.

SO, POOR GUY, HE EXPIRED.

WE'LL PLAY THE DIRGE.

SO WE'LL, AT THIS POINT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR.

I NOMINATE ROBERT HANLEY.

ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? MR. LEONHARD IS LEANING TOWARDS THE MICROPHONE.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, UH, MR. HANLEY IN A SECOND.

I WILL ALSO NOMINATE SUSAN WRIGHT, WHO'S NOT HERE YET, BUT SHE'S ON HER WAY.

TWO FOLKS RIGHT NOW.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY MORE NOMINATIONS? ONE ONCE.

GOING TWICE.

I GUESS AT THIS POINT WE WILL, UH, DO A SHOW OF HANDS.

IS THAT OKAY, STEPH? I CAN'T SEE THE STEPH.

THAT'LL WORK.

SO, UH, BY SHOW OF HANDS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, MR. HANLEY FOR VICE CHAIR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND FOR MS. WRIGHT.

JUST WAIT, WAIT.

THE OTHER NOMINEE HAS JUST WALKED IN.

[00:05:05]

OH, EIGHT, I HAVE, I HAVE SEVEN.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN? NINE.

I, I DON'T KNOW EITHER.

COULD WE COULD, COULD WE GIVE 'EM ONE MINUTE FOR EVERYBODY? RAISE YOUR HAND FOR INTRODUCTION.

WAIT, SHE'S ASKING CHAIRMAN.

MS. CHAIRMAN? OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW EITHER.

COULD WE DO A MINUTE INTRODUCTION? OH, SURE.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL START WITH MR. HANLEY.

MR. MR. HANLEY, COULD YOU USE THE MIC, PLEASE? MR. MR. MOORE WAS HOGGING IT.

UH, I'M ROBERT HANLEY, AND, UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AND I'VE A PREVIOUS MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BEEN A MEMBER OF THE, UH, TECH COMMITTEE FOR, I DON'T KNOW, 12, 14 YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

HOLD IT DOWN.

HOLD IT.

UH, I'M SUSAN WRIGHT, AND, UH, I HAVE SERVED ON THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINCE BEFORE.

IT WAS CALLED THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND, UM, HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMISSIONS AND, UH, AND HAVE LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT.

HAVE A LONG, LONG HISTORY HERE, AND HAVE SERVED WITH THIS MAN, SO IT'S OKAY WITH ME.

I GUESS WE WILL, UH, SHOW OF HANDS FOR MR. HANLEY AGAIN.

I HAVE 10.

SHOW OF HANDS FOR MS. WRIGHT.

I HAVE THREE FOR MS. WRIGHT.

UH, BY A VOTE OF THAT SHE CONGRATULATED MR. HANLEY.

ON TO OTHER NEW BUSINESS.

SO IT IS, UH, IT IS OFFICIAL.

MR. HANLEY IS THE, UH, VICE CHAIR OF THE TAC FOR THE NEXT ONE YEAR.

YOU HAVE BEEN SENTENCED.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, MOVING

[3. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by re-aligning and re-designating a proposed segment of the East & West Connector from an Enhanced Secondary Arterial (120' to 142' of right-of-way) to a Secondary Arterial Type A (86' of right-of-way) generally located in southern Bexar County, between Roosevelt Avenue and the San Antonio River. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation & Capital Improvements Department)]

WE HAVE, UH, ONE ITEM ON, ONE MORE ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY, WHICH IS THE, UH, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEM 19 DASH 6 5 5 8.

AND WE WILL TURN THE MEETING OVER TO STAFF FOR PRESENTATION.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING OUT SO LATE, ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAY.

UH, MY NAME'S MARCO HOSA.

I'M A SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER FOR THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT.

UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE IN THE AGENDA IS A CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THE ADOPT ALIGNMENT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING OVER TODAY IS THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR, WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF FOUR 10.

UH, THE CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS THOROUGHFARE IS ENHANCED SECONDARY ARTERIAL, UH, WHICH IT DOES REQUIRE AT LEAST 120 FEET, UH, RIGHT AWAY.

UH, ONE SECOND.

IT IS THREE 11.

AND, UH, MS. DEBBIE REED HAS JOINED THE MEETING.

SO THE REQUEST, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, YOU ALSO HAVE HANDOUTS IN YOUR BINDERS.

UH, THE PORTION THAT'S PURPLE AND ALSO HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE IS THE PORTION THAT'S ALREADY ADOPTED.

UH, THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT IS TO AMEND, UH, REALIGN THE ADOPT AIRFARE TO, INSTEAD OF GOING FROM, UH, ROOSEVELT TO THE SANTO RIVER, WHICH IT CURRENTLY DOES NOW TO GO FROM ROOSEVELT AVENUE NORTH TO FOUR 10, UH, THERE'S ALSO A RED DESTINATION REQUEST TOO TO, UM, AMEND IT TO BE A SUPER ARTERIAL TYPE A, WHICH DOES REQUIRE AT LEAST 200 FEET, OR SORRY, 885 FEET OR RIGHT AWAY.

SO, WITH T C I STAFF ANALYSIS, SEVERAL FACTORS DID, UH, COME UP IN OUR CONCLUSION.

UH, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE ALIGNMENT, AS ADOPTED AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, IS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE MISSION OF SPAA AND IS ALSO SOUTH OF THE CONSTRUCTED SAN ANTONIO RIVER, UH, MISSION REACH AREA.

AND THERE'S ALSO, UH, PLANS TO ACTUALLY EXTEND THE MISSION REACH, UH, CLOSER TO WHERE IT WOULD INTERSECT.

WHERE THE, UH, THOROUGHFARE CURRENTLY ALIGNS TO.

THE SECOND FACTOR THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS THAT THE REALIGNMENT IS NEEDED, UH, NOT ONLY TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MISSION AS SPOTA, BUT ALSO TO PRESERVE THE OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING IT.

AND FINALLY, THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED ALIGNMENT ALSO BY SEX, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.

WE DID HELD A PUBLIC MEETING, UH, AT STINSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ON SEPTEMBER 3RD.

UH, WE DID SEND 63 63, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS

[00:10:01]

A NOTICE ALONG WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATIONS AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

IN TOTAL, THERE WAS 14 CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE AFTER WE DID OUR PRESENTATION.

AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE DID THEIRS, UH, CITIZENS, UH, WERE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AFTER THIS WAS CONCLUDED.

NO CITIZEN DID PROVIDE ANY WRITTEN RESPONSES TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

SO BESIDES, UH, TAC AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WE HAD, WE DID GO TO N T P COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 23RD.

WE DO PLAN ON GOING ON PLANNING COMMISSION IN TWO WEEKS ON SEPTEMBER 25TH FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.

AND FINALLY, GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FINAL MOTION ON OCTOBER 3RD AS STATED IN THE FACTORS.

UH, T C I STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BOTH THE, UH, REALIGNMENT, BUT ALSO THE RE DESTINATION.

AND THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.

UH, WE'LL BE OPEN FOR QUESTIONS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE AS WELL AS LONG AS WITH THEIR ENGINEERS.

UH, DOES THE REPRESENTATIVE WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? NOPE.

UM, WE'LL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS BY THE TACK, AND WE WILL DO, UH, WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE.

WE'LL START OVER HERE ON MY LEFT, NO QUESTION.

MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

THAT MIC MORE KEEPS HOGGING THE MICROPHONE.

UM, , HE'S MY ASSISTANT.

HOW, HOW DID, HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THE REALIGNED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN HITS FOUR 10, THAT PARTICULAR POINT? YEAH.

SO BECAUSE IT'S NOT EAST WEST ANYMORE, IT'S NOW NORTH SOUTH, RIGHT? UH, SO THE NAME'S STILL GONNA BE EAST, WEST CONNECTOR.

THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WAS ADOPTED AS.

UH, BUT THE REASON WHY IT'S GONNA HIT NORTH IS BECAUSE THE, UH, APPLICANT IS, I BELIEVE, PROPOSING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT HOME ADJACENT TO IT.

SO THAT, UH, CONNECTION WILL PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE, UH, IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S OPINION, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR IT, WE'RE, WE CONSIDERED IT AND WE'RE GONNA GRANT IT, JUST 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT.

SO IF THE APPLICANT THAT'S WEST OF ROOSEVELT ON THE OTHER UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY WANTED TO MOVE IT, AND IT'D COME IN SOONER, WE WOULD'VE, UH, RELOCATED AT THAT LOCATION.

WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING, UM, AND THEY NEEDED SOME KIND OF CONNECTION, BUT THIS ALIGNMENT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IT WAS CREATED.

THE CURRENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MISSION OF SPOTA, UH, THIS WAS ADOPTED IN 2003 BEFORE WE HAD THE RURAL HERITAGE, UH, UM, DESTINATION.

UM, SO THE LINE BEFORE WAS NOT ENGINEERED, AND THIS IS BASICALLY PROVIDING THE SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO, UM, GRANTING THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE FOR THE MISSION SPATA AND THE MISSION REACH.

LET ME GO BACK AGAIN AND, AND, AND ASK THIS QUESTION.

IF WE MOVED IT WEST OF ROOSEVELT, IT WOULD BE EVEN FURTHER FROM MISSION ADAA.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANNA MOVE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ONTO MY PROPERTY, UH, WHAT OPTIONS DOES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE CITY HAVE AND WHAT OPTIONS DO YOU GET PRESENT? BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY HARD TURN.

I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA REDUCE THE CATEGORY OF THE ROAD, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY APPLICANT THAT COMES IN HERE SAYS, I WANNA CHANGE MARRIAGE.

MM-HMM.

, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

I WANT IT TO GO THIS WAY.

DO WE DO THAT OR DO YOU PRESENT THIS BODY WITH OTHER OPTIONS? YEAH, SO WITH EVERY REQUEST THAT COMES IN, WHETHER IT BE CITY INITIATED OR DEVELOPERS, WE DO LOOK AT ALL THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS.

UH, WHEN APPLICANT FOR THIS ONE CAME IN, THEY WANTED TO REMOVE IT COMPLETELY, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM AND DISCUSS, UH, THINGS INTERNALLY TO PROVIDE SOME, AT LEAST SOME SORT OF, UH, CONNECTIONS.

SO INSTEAD OF DELETING ALIGNMENT, WE'RE GIVING THE OPTION TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME KIND OF CONNECTION TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND IT'S A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO AS WELL.

SO, OKAY.

I, I AGREED THE PROPO ORIGINAL PLAN GOING THROUGH THE MOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN, UH, I UNDERSTAND THE MISSION IS SPOT A THAT'S A NIGHTMARE.

SO I DO AGREE THAT IT NEED TO BE MOVED.

I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, THAT PROCESS OF HOW WE EVALUATE WHERE WE MOVE IT TO.

AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, MR. NEFF JOINED THE MEETING AT THREE 15.

HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW.

MOVE ON WITH QUESTIONS.

I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THIS WILL IMPACT THE

[00:15:01]

SO THE WAY IT IS ADOPTED RIGHT NOW, UH, SARAH DID REACHED OUT TO US AND THEY DID LET US KNOW THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONFLICTIONS IF IT WAS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS NOW.

SO THEY WERE IN SUPPORTS, UH, NOT IN WRITING, BUT THEY JUST EXPRESSED SUPPORT THAT THE, THEIR FAIR IF AMENDED WOULD SUIT THEM BETTER BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CONFLICT WITH THE, ANY NEW ROADS AS WELL.

SO, SO THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS ALIGNMENT? THEY WERE, BUT THEY DIDN'T GIVE IN A WRITING, SO I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THEM.

BUT THEY DID EXPRESS IN CONVERSATION.

TELL US AGAIN, THE DISTANCE FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO MISSION IS SPOTA THE DIS, SO IT'S LESS THAN ONE MILE.

UH, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR MAP MISSION IS SPOTA, IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE MAP WITH A BLUE LITTLE CHURCH, UH, SYMBOL.

EXCELLENT.

AND THEN WITH, UM, THE LIGHTING, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DEATHS ON ROOSEVELT STREET THAT REALLY WON'T BE IMPACTED, BUT MAYBE TAKING SOME OF THE TRAFFIC OFF OF ROOSEVELT.

RIGHT.

SO NEW CONNECTION, THAT'S WHAT WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO RELEASE SOME KIND OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION, WHICH IS WHY WE, UH, PLEADED WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT TO AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME KIND OF CONNECTION.

AND WE, UH, SAW, UM, IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING THAT CLASSIFICATION.

UH, LIKE I SAID, THE CURRENT CLASSIFICATION THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW REQUIRES THEM TO DEDICATE 120 FEET OF RIGHTWAY DEDICATION, BUT GOING DOWN TO THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION, THEY WILL ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE 85 MINIMUM.

EXCELLENT.

MARCO, DO YOU HAVE A, UM, AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR AS IT'S CURRENTLY ALIGNED? I DO NOT.

UM, IS THAT SOMETHING ENGINEERS WOULD KNOW? I BELIEVE IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE MATERIAL THAT THEY USE, AND OF COURSE THE WIDTH IS PRETTY, YEAH.

AND THAT, AND SO I, I RECALL SOME CONVERSATIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT IT BEING JUST EXCEPTIONALLY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF FLOOD, HAVING TO CROSS THAT AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN HAVING A BRIDGE THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST IN OBSCENE LENGTH.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WERE ANY NUMBERS TO BACK THAT UP.

I KNOW I'VE HEARD THAT IN, IN THE PAST.

RIGHT.

AND YEAH, THE FLOOD PLAIN IS DEFINITELY THE REASON WHY SO MANY DEVELOPERS KIND OF DRIVE AWAY FROM THE SOUTH SIDE JUST BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD AWAY THAT 120 FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO, UM, I DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE WITH ME, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK INTO.

THANKS.

UM, I JUST, I UNDERSTAND, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT WAS JUST SAID, UM, ABOUT MOVING IT OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN AREA, AND I THINK IT'S, I WAS LOOKING AT THE, UH, HERITAGE BUFFER AND IT'S THE NEW ALIGNMENTS OUTSIDE OF THAT AS WELL, SO THAT'S GOOD.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHERE, WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CLIENT? I MEAN, IS IT YEAH.

THE, THE M D P OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY? IS IT WHERE THE NEW ALIGNMENT IS? I KNOW THAT'S PART OF IT.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAS A MAP TO SHOW THE LIMITS.

SO, HI, UH, CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN ORTIZ HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UH, THE OWNER IS MARMAX.

UH, YOU MAY BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH, UH, TJ MAXX.

UH, THEY BOUGHT ABOUT 1200 ACRES.

UM, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AROUND YOU COULD SEE THEIR DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND THEN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA.

THEY ARE SELLING THE NORTHERN 400, UH, ACRES TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPER.

WONDER IF YOU COULD, CAROLINE, IF YOU COULD USE THE MIC SO IT CAN BE RECORDED, PLEASE.

UH, WHAT IS OUTLINED IN RED, YOU COULD SEE THERE, UM, IS WHAT IS BEING SOLD TO A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPER.

[00:20:12]

SO THE INCLUDE IT'S INCLUSIVE OF THE NEW ALIGNMENT.

THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY ALL I WANTED TO KNOW.

THANKS.

THANK YOU MR. CHERYL.

UH, THANK YOU.

UH, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND PROBABLY A STATEMENT.

UH, FIRST QUESTION ON THE EAST PORTION OF THIS, RIGHT UNDER WHERE IT SAYS WEST CONNECTION, IS THAT CURRENTLY BUILT THE, IS IT BUS CONNECTION? YEAH.

WHERE IT'S, WHERE IT'S SHOWING IS PURPLE ON THE ORIGINAL LINE? OH, NO.

IS THAT, IS THAT IS NOT BUILT.

NO, NO, SIR.

UH, THE SECOND QUESTION IS, AND THIS IS PROBABLY GONNA COME IN A FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION, ARE WE DELETING THE REMAINDER OF THIS FROM THE EASTERN WHERE THE, WHERE IT TURNS NORTH? ARE WE GONNA DELETE THAT? NO, SIR.

UH, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE HASH BLUE AND HASH GREEN.

EVERYTHING THAT'S, UH, HIGHLIGHTED PURPLE IS REMAINING.

SO EVERYTHING IS BLUE IS BEING DELETED.

UH, RE REALIGNED, REALIGNED TECHNICAL TERMS. YES.

AND THAT REALIGNMENT IS TO THE GREEN? YES.

NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

UH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON ZONING.

ANY ZONING CHANGES DOWN ZONING CHANGES IN PARTICULAR AROUND THIS REALIGNMENT? OOH, ZONING ? UH, SO YEAH, THE MISSION REACH DID GO THROUGH THE DOWN ZONING AS YOU WERE PART OF, UM, LAST, LAST YEAR, UH, QUITE RECENTLY.

UH, BUT ACTUALLY SOME OF THIS PROPERTY'S OUTSIDE MARCO, I THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS, UM, IN QUESTION FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED, IS THERE GONNA BE ANY REZONING GONNA BE GOING ON OUTSIDE THE CITY? OUTSIDE THE CITY, OUTSIDE OF CITY? SO NO ZONING, SO THERE YOU GO.

YEAH, NO QUESTIONS.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND MAYBE MR. CHERYL ALREADY COVERED, BUT WHY WOULD WE LEAVE THE SECTION LIKE FROM WEST TO CONNECT? WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PURPLE PART.

WE'RE KEEPING, UH, THE APP PORTION, UH, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, UH, DIDN'T WANT TO EXPAND IT, BUT WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE NOT, UH, CHANGE OUR RECOMMEND.

WELL, WE PROBABLY HAVE CHANGED OUR RECOMMENDATION IF WE TOOK MORE OF THE, UH, PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE.

UH, THAT PORTION, UM, IS NOT IN A LINEAR VERTICAL PATH TOWARDS THE MISSION REACH AREA.

UH, SO THAT, UM, SO WE REFINED IS KEEPING THE WAY IT IS YES.

TO FOLLOW BUCK'S THOUGHT.

I MEAN, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE CHANGING THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE TO CHANGE IT AND REMOVE THAT PIECE, WHICH IS NEVER GONNA GET BUILT, DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE AND IS NOT NECESSARY.

RIGHT.

UM, IT'S SOMETHING WE, I'M NECESSARILY SUSAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADD TO THE PROCESS? WELL, THIS, RIGHT.

UH, WHEN WE DID THIS, WE LOOKED AT THE PORTION THAT WAS WITHIN THE DE UH, APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

UH, WE DIDN'T LOOK TOO MUCH INTO THE DETAIL.

IF WE WERE, WERE TO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE REQUEST AND INITIATE THAT AS LIKE THE NEXT PROCESS, IT COULD BE, UH, WE'RE STILL DOING A LOT OF LARGE AREA MT P AMENDMENTS AS PART OF ESSAY TOMORROW.

AND THE SOUTH SIDE HAS BEEN, UH, NEEDING ONE FOR QUITE A WHILE BECAUSE A LOT OF THE ALIGNMENTS, UM, ARE LIKE THIS ONE BISECTING LARGE PORTIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO THEY MIGHT BE, UH, LOOKED AT AT A FUTURE DATE.

AND CAN STAFF ADD THAT TO THE LIST TO LOOK AT? PLEASE? MOST DEFINITELY.

CHAIR.

CAN, CAN WE AS A COMMITTEE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T POSTED? WE HAVE THE ABILITY, I BELIEVE, TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THEY PURSUE ABANDONMENT OF THAT.

THAT THEY PURSUE THAT.

NOW, NOW OBVIOUSLY THAT WE CAN SAY THAT, BUT IT WON'T GET REMOVED TODAY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED.

EXACTLY.

BUT AT LEAST THE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT BEFORE IT EVEN THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

GOES ANYWHERE.

WE I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I THINK IT WOULD BE TOO.

SO YES.

BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE THAT REMOVED.

CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN AS AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS MRS. WRIGHTS, MS. WRIGHTS SAID, WE CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME TO ADVERTISE

[00:25:01]

CORRECT.

IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TAC TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REMOVE THAT LITTLE PART, THEN THAT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO GO AHEAD.

I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO GET THAT.

I, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR.

I DON'T WANNA SLOW DOWN THE APPLICANT AT ALL AND THEN ANY, ANY RE-NOTICE ON THE CASE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH, IF WE CAN JUST MAKE IT PART OF THE OVERALL, UM, CONSIDERATION ON THE 2020 REVISION, WHATEVER Y'ALL HAD MENTIONED EARLIER.

I THINK WE DID IT THAT WAY.

ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.

THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS TOO.

THAT WAS MY COMMENT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I DID PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE ON MY LAST COMMENT.

ALRIGHT.

SO CAN YOU PLEASE RE RESTATE YOUR MOTION THAT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGS RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REMOVE THE PURPLE SHOWN OVER THE FLOODPLAIN, THAT THAT IS BEING ABANDONED AND UNNECESSARY BASED ON THE REALIGNMENT CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PIECE THAT'S WEST OF SOUTH TIN ROAD AND I'LL, I'M TALKING ABOUT, WELL, I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN, AND I BELIEVE MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT AFTER IT GETS STUDIED, WE DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THAT SHOULD COME OFF.

'CAUSE IF THEY'RE GONNA DO SOME NEW STUDYING, BUT AT LEAST THE PART THAT DOESN'T CONNECT TO ANYTHING AND CROSSES THE FLOODPLAIN AS A MINIMUM IN THAT CASE, I'LL SECOND, UH, MS. WRIGHT'S MOTION.

SO YOUR MOTION WAS STRICTLY TO REMOVE THE PURPLE PART THAT'S EAST OF SOUTHTON ROAD ON THE MAP WEST.

SORRY, WEST OF, RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CAN I, CAN I, RIGHT? YES.

UH, TO THE GROUP MM-HMM.

? YES.

SO YOU'RE, IS THAT OKAY? DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE PORTION OF THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR THAT IS WEST OF SOUTHTON ROAD AND WHERE IT TERMINATES AT, WELL, KIND OF IN SPACE AFTER THIS, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WELL, WE HAVE ONE DISCUSSION.

JUST A CLARIFICATION OF, OF WHAT WE'RE ELIMINATING BECAUSE THE, UH, NEW ALIGNMENT COMES DOWN INTO PART OF THE AREA THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS THE OPPOSED AS THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT THERE AT ROOSEVELT AVENUE.

YOU HAVE TO COME EAST OFF OF ROOSEVELT AVENUE ON THAT CURRENT ALIGNMENT UNTIL YOU REACH WHERE THE NEW PROPOSED ALIGNMENT IS.

OH, YES, THERE IS.

SORRY, UH, THE WAY THE DATA WAS OVERLAID, BUT YES, THE, BASICALLY THE GREEN LINE DOES GO UNDER THE BLUE LINE AND DOES CONNECT WITH ROOSEVELT JUST AS THE BLUE LINE DOES.

GOOD CATCH.

SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL YET.

WE'RE JUST MOTIONING FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE PURPLE PART.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER MOTION FOR, TO HANDLE WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING.

SO, UH, ANY MORE COMMENT ON THAT? OKAY.

AT THIS POINT WE'LL TAKE A, UH, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE STILL HAVE TO, UH, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE REMOVAL OF THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR REALIGNMENT FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT POINT IN TIME? WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO REALIGN IT AS PRESENTED.

ASSUMING THE GREEN LINE IS ON TOP OF THE BLUE LINE AND WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. COX AND A SECOND BY MR. BENSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? NOTHING ELSE, SIR.