Jan 14, 2020 Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee

WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS A TALLY ROAD, UH, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT.

UH,

[2. 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 realigning an existing segment of Talley Road from Old Talley Road to approximately 1,500 feet south of Cartwright Trail generally located in western Bexar County. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation & Capital Improvements Department)]

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO TONY FOR THE RECORD.

UH, MR. LEASEMAN HAS ENTERED THE ROOM AND MR. BROWN IS LEAVING THE ROOM FOR RE FOR RECUSAL PURPOSES.

UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

UH, MY NAME'S MARCO HINOJOSA.

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

UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE MAJOR THOROUGH OFFA PLAN BY REALIGNING AN EXISTING SEGMENT OF TALLY ROAD FROM OLD TALLEY ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY 5,000 FEET SOUTH OF A CARTWRIGHT TRAIL JOURNEY LOCATED IN WESTERN BEXAR COUNTY.

SO, JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE TALLY ROAD ALIGNMENT.

THIS IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A MINIMUM 86 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND DESTRUCTION.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT ATTACHMENT A, UH, FOLLOWING THE LEGEND.

UM, THE BLUE DASH LINE IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY ADOPTED FOR TALLY ROAD AND WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO IS TO GET THE GREEN DASH LINE.

SO INSTEAD OF GOING FROM A NINE DEGREE CURVE, THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WOULD GO FROM OLD TALLY ROAD DIAGONALLY DOWN TO 1500, UH, FEET SOUTH OR CAR, RIGHT, WHICH CONNECTS TO TALLY ROAD.

I KNOW THERE'S A BUNCH OF TALLY, SO IT DOES GET CONFUSING.

SO, UM, I HOPE THE LABELS OF THE STREETS MAKE SENSE.

SO SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT T C I BROUGHT UP DURING OUR ANALYSIS.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE CURRENT ADOPT, UH, THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT TALLY ROAD DOES ENCOMPASS 90 90 DEGREE CURVE, AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WOULD REMOVE THAT CURVE AND A REALIGNED TALLY ROAD SO THAT IT GOES TO THE PLATT THAT'S CURRENTLY KNOWN AS MORGAN MEADOWS, UNIT ONE B, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED TO BE SINGLE FLYING HOMES.

SO THE NEW PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WOULD SUPPORT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT.

ALSO, REMOVING THE NI 90 DEGREE CURVE, WE FOUND THAT T C I WILL CREATE AN ACTUAL, AN ACTUALLY SAFER TRAVELING CONNECTION FOR ALL ROADWAY USERS GOING NORTH AND SOUTH ON TALLEY.

AND THE REALIGNMENT WILL NOT REMOVE ANY NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTIVITY FROM ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UH, FRONT THE OLD ALIGNMENT.

WE DID HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING, UH, FOR RESIDENTS NEARBY AND PROPERTY OWNERS.

THIS WAS HELD IN DECEMBER 9TH AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEARBY.

UH, IN TOTAL WE SENT THAT 26 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS.

ONLY SEVEN WERE AT TENANTS AND NONE OF THEM WOULD GIVE WRITTEN RESPONSE IF THEY WERE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

IN THE TIMELINE OF THE PROCESS, WE DID GO TO N C P COMMITTEE ON AUGUST AND THERE WAS NO COMMENTS FOR THEM.

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIONS, UH, FROM THE COMMITTEE.

UH, LIKE I SAID, WE DID GO TO A PUBLIC MEETING IN DECEMBER AND WE'RE ATTACKED TODAY OF COURSE, AND WE DO PLAN ON TAKING THIS ITEM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT WEDNESDAY, AND CITY COUNCIL VOTE WILL GO FEBRUARY 20TH BECAUSE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE CONSIDER T C I AS ING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT'S REP HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UM, FOR THE RECORD 1 0 9 AND, UM, MR. LEONHARDT HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.

SEVERAL MONTHS BACK, UM, AND IT DID GET APPROVED, BUT IT CREATED THE 90 DEGREE.

SO WE'LL MOVE AROUND THE TABLE IN A, UH, CLOCKWISE FASHION WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM, AND WE'LL START OVER HERE WITH MR. HAMLEY.

YEAH, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT WHEN THIS PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT CAME UP

[00:05:01]

SO NOW TO COME BACK ON THIS ONE AND SAY WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE 90 DEGREE, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME, A PROCESS IS A LITTLE BIT ASK SKEW OR BROKEN TO SAY WHY WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THIS, DIDN'T THEY ASK FOR THIS AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT EIGHT, EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS APART.

UH, UM, IT'S DISAPPOINTING.

SO YEAH, PASSING THE MAP OF THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSAL AROUND, UH, WHEN T C I GETS AMENDMENTS, WE JUST, UH, TAKE 'EM IN AS THE APPLICANT GIVES IT TO US.

UH, IT'S NOT UNDER OUR PRIVILEGE TO GIVE ANY RECOMMENDATION, EVEN THOUGH WE DO, BUT IF WHAT THEY SUBMIT TO US IS SOMETHING WE APPROVE, WE'RE OF COURSE GONNA APPROVE IT.

MS. TACKETT FOUR? I THINK SO.

I'M SORRY, I SHOULD JUST MENTION SOME OF THE MICS ARE PUSHED TO TALK AND SOME OF THEM YOU WILL STAY ON AFTER YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH US ON THAT.

I'VE GOT THREE QUESTIONS.

UH, THIS TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE SUBDIVISION UNIT ONE B.

IS IT INCLUDED IN EVERY BIT OF THE AREA THAT'S COVERED BY THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT? IF WE CAN LOAD IT UP REAL QUICK, BUT, UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE, ABOUT 200 PLUS ACRES, UH, OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

UM, THAT ONE.

YEP.

AND, UH, OUR ENGINEER, CLAYTON LENNY FROM KWS HERE, YOU CAN PROBABLY ANSWER MORE DETAILS ON THE PLAT ITSELF, BUT, UM, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FLIP THROUGH IT HERE.

THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT THERE.

SO IS YOUR ANSWER THAT IT IT DOES.

EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THIS GOES THROUGH IS INCLUDED IN THIS SUBDIVISION? YES, SIR.

90 DEGREE ROAD? NO, THIS, THE EXISTING TALLY ROAD WILL REMAIN FOR ACCESS FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HERE AND THESE RESIDENTS.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, IF A 90 DEGREE CURVE IS AN ISSUE, WHY IS IT NOT AN ISSUE? THE WAY THIS SHOWS THE PROPOSAL ALIGNMENT COMING IN AT A VERY SHARP ANGLE TO A ROAD THAT ALREADY LEAVES THERE, IT DOES IT TWICE.

TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT'S COMING INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT HERE.

WELL, LET'S EXPLAIN IT BETTER FROM THE ENGINEERING SIDE, BUT IT'S COMING IN HERE.

I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT'S A SMOOTHER TRANSITION FROM THE EXISTING TO THE NORTH SOUTH AS OPPOSED TO YEAH, WHAT IS A, A VERY SHARP TURN RIGHT THERE.

AND AS THE EXISTING OLD TALLY ROAD IS LAID OUT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT TWO VERY SHARP ANGLES THAT THAT TIE INTO THE ROAD TO TO THE BACKSIDE OF TALLY ROAD ARE BETTER THAN A 90 DEGREE CURVE ON A STRAIGHT ROAD.

QUESTION IS AT THE TWO INTERSECTIONS WHERE THIS PROPOSED REALIGNMENT HITS THE EXISTING TALLY ROAD, THERE ARE TWO VERY SHARP ANGLES AS OPPOSED TO THE 90 DEGREE CURVE IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER.

WHAT MAKES THOSE TWO SHARP INTERSECTION INTERSECTIONS SAFER THAN THE 90 DEGREE CURVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE AND DOWN HERE? YEAH.

UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE ANGLES OF THOSE ROADS, BUT I DRASTIC.

SO IF THOSE, UH, SO THOSE TWO TIE-INS WERE, I'M GONNA CALL, WELL THE ORIGINAL TALLY ROAD WILL T IN, WE WILL HAVE A 90 AND T IN INTO THE NEW TALLY ROAD AT BOTH LOCATIONS AT THIS LOCATION HERE, TALLY, CURRENT TALLY ROAD WILL COME IN AND CURVE AND TEE INTO THE NEW TALLEY ROAD AT A INTERSECTION.

AND STOP THEN, BECAUSE THIS NEW TALLEY ROAD WILL JUST BE FURTHER THREE TRAFFIC, AND THEN THIS TALLY ROAD DOWN HERE WILL ALSO CURVE AND TEE IN AT A 90 WITH THE NEW TALLEY ROAD AS WELL.

SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING RID OF THE

[00:10:01]

SO WE'RE, WE'LL BE KEEPING THIS OLD TALLY ROAD, IT'S JUST FOR THE THROUGH TRAFFIC.

WE'LL BE USING THIS NEW TALLY ROAD ALIGNMENT INSTEAD OF ALL THE TRAFFIC GOING AROUND THIS 90 ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THE, UH, WHERE THAT LOWER INTERSECTION COMES INTO THE EXISTING TALLY ROAD.

HOW ARE YOU GONNA SHOW A 90 THERE? SO, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO M P ALIGNMENTS, THEY'RE NOT ENGINEERED.

SO THEY CAN BE SHIFTED BASED ON ENGINEERING STUDIES AND BEST PRACTICES.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT DOES SHOW A CURVE THERE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S GONNA BE THE FINAL LAYOUT OF THE NEW ARTERIAL.

WELL, WHY DOESN'T IT SHOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE INSTEAD OF WHAT THIS IS? IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE APPLICANT SENSE DOES, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT CAN BE SHIFTED NO MATTER WHAT WE FOUND SAFER, THE ENGINEERS WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, UH, POINT WHERE IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED, NO COMMENT.

NO COMMENT, NO COMMENT.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I THINK I ALREADY HEARD THE ANSWER.

THE EXISTING TALLY ROAD ON THE ORIGINAL ADOPTED, THAT ROAD IS IN EXISTENCE? YES.

SO WHEN IT GOES FROM OLD TALLY WHERE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT IS RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHERE IT CONSTRUCTED, THAT'S EXISTING.

AND THEN IT'S ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THE SAME THING, TALLY ROAD THERE, SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED NEW INTERSECTION IS ALSO IN EXISTENCE.

SO BASICALLY WHERE THE, THAT'S ALL I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD.

IT'S ONE 16 AND PATRICIA GIBBONS HAS ENTERED THE ROOM, FOUND PARKING.

UM, OKAY, YOU CAN HEAR ME FIRST.

SORRY, I WAS A LITTLE TARDY.

IT WAS KIND OF UNAVOIDABLE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, I DID LOOK OVER THIS BEFORE, UH, SEE WHAT'S GOING, SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AND KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON, YOU KNOW, MICHAEL'S QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, TALLY BECOMES THIS KIND OF STRAIGHTER ROAD.

UM, AND I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT DISAGREE THAT THE TWO HARD CURVES MAY NOT BE BETTER THE WAY THEY ARE NOW.

AND, AND YOU'VE, YOU'VE JUST SAID THAT THIS IS GONNA DEPEND ON THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE DESIGN.

I GET IT.

YOU KNOW, I'M AN ENGINEER, I DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS AS WELL, AND I GET THAT YOU, YOU NEED TO DO THESE THINGS EARLY ON, BUT IS THERE A REASON WE CAN'T GET FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN REVISIT THIS, REVISIT WHAT THE ALIGNMENT IS SINCE YOU JUST SAID THIS MAY NOT BE THE ALIGNMENT, OR DO WE NEED TO, OR SHOULD I MEAN TO MAKE A MOTION IF I NEED TO? SO JUST TO, OR I GUESS FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

OOPS.

THAT'LL WORK.

SO ARE IS YOUR CONCERN WITH, ALRIGHT, SO THIS INTERSECTION HERE, I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF TURNED NOW, NOR, UH, THIS INTERSECTION NOW IS THE, I GUESS THE NORTHERN ONE.

IT'S JUST THE MAP IS TURNED, BUT AT A 90, SO THIS, SO THIS IS THE QUESTION HERE WITH THIS NEW, WITH THE CURRENT TALLEY ROAD TYING INTO THE NEW ONE THAT THE CONCERN OR IS IT THIS, THE CURRENT, THE NEW ALIGNMENT? IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CONCERN OF THE, THE NEW ALIGNMENT, IT'S JUST THAT THE NEW ALIGNMENT, I THINK I JUST HEARD IS PERHAPS NOT THE NEW ALIGNMENT.

SO WE'RE COMING BACK AGAIN ANYWAY.

WHEN YOU SET UP YOUR, YOUR, YOUR SPINE ROAD, YOUR MAJOR ROADS, YOUR PODS, ET CETERA.

AND SHOULD WE COME BACK AND VISIT THIS AGAIN WHEN YOU DO THAT? THIS IS, NO, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE CURRENT DESIGN OR ALIGNMENT THAT WE'RE PRESENTING.

I THINK, I THINK I CAN HELP CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT.

SINCE THIS M D P IS UP FOR APPROVAL, THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

AND RIGHT NOW, SINCE IT HAS IT ON THAT HARD CORNER, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW, TO SHOW THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION THERE.

WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS SHOW THE ALIGNMENT A LITTLE BIT STRAIGHTENED OUT SO THEY CAN PROCEED FORWARD WITH THEIR M D P APPROVAL.

[00:15:01]

RIGHT.

WE HAVE OUR M DP DESIGN, EXCUSE ME, THAT WAS PART OF WHAT I SAID.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP YOUR PROCESS, SO IF IT NEEDS TO COME BACK FOR SOME REASON IT CAN, BUT I UNDERSTAND DOING MB MDPS AND THEN MOVING ON.

SO, UM, AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, ALTHOUGH I DID LOOK THIS, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK THAT UP.

I DO NOT THINK IT WAS IN THE STUFF.

I I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PLATT OR THE M D P WAS, WAS SENT, WAS SENT OUT EARLIER.

NO, IT WAS NOT.

WE DID NOT HAVE THAT FROM T C I WHEN WE SUBMITTED IT.

ALRIGHT.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT WHAT YOU SAID MIGHT CHANGE IS THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION OF THE TWO INTERSECTIONS AT THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

SO THE ALIGNMENT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT IT WAS JUST THE INTERSECTIONS.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS INTERSECTION, THIS ONE UP HERE WILL YEAH.

WILL BE TWEAKED FOR THE CURRENT TELE ROAD TO TIE IN TO THE NEW ALIGNMENT.

NO QUESTIONS.

JUST WONDERING IF I HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN.

UH, I GUESS I HAVE THE ONE THAT I HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN RIGHT .

SO, UH, I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THIS, UH, AMENDMENT.

THIS IS A DANGEROUS PART OF EXISTING TALLY ROAD.

I'M FRANKLY SURPRISED THAT THE DEVELOPER'S TAKING ON THE FULL COST OF THE REALIGNMENT THROUGH THIS PROJECT WITH THE M D P.

OF COURSE, I'M SURE HE'S PROBABLY GONNA DO A DISTRICT OR SOMETHING.

BUT, UH, AND, UH, JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT A THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A CARTOON AND, UH, IT SETS AN ALIGNMENT.

UH, BUT THEN WHEN THE M D P AND THE ENGINEERING TAKES PLACE, THE APPROPRIATE, UH, CURVES AND, UH, RIGHT AWAY WILL BE, UH, PUT IN NOT ONLY TO THE M D P, BUT THE EVENTUAL PLATTING.

THE WAY I SEE IT ON THE NORTH SIDE TALLY ROAD IS A, A STRAIGHT EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THEN I'M ASSUMING AS IT TIES IN ON THE SOUTH, IT'LL HAVE A 1200 FOOT OR 720 FOOT RADIUS AS IT TIES IN MEETING AN ARTERIAL STANDARD.

SO ALL OF THAT'LL BE WORKED OUT IN THE ACTUAL, UH, UH, DESIGN DOCUMENT.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND, UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTED.

KAYLA.

UM, SO JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

SO IN THE, UM, THE ISSUE SECTION, IT SAYS THAT, UM, WHEN THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT PORTION TALLY ROAD IS CONSTRUCTED, BEAR COUNTY WILL INITIATE THE LAST TALLY ROAD PROJECT.

UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT IS PLANNED WITH THAT PROJECT? UM, AND IS THIS SEC, WAS THIS SECTION ORIGINALLY GONNA BE PART OF A BEXAR COUNTY IMPROVEMENT? UM, THAT, WAS IT DIFFERENT? WAS IT NOT INCLUDED? YEAH, SO THE WHOLE COST OF THE ROAD IS NOT GONNA BE SOLELY ON THE DEVELOPER.

UH, BEXAR COUNTY DOES HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE AREA AS WELL.

SO THEY DO PLAN ON DOING IMPROVEMENTS, I BELIEVE ALL THE WAY NORTH FROM CBRA, UM, LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

BUT THEY WILL HELP OUT WITH DEVELOPER AND CONSTRUCTING NOT ONLY COST OF THE ROAD, BUT ALSO HANDLING ALL, UM, SAFETY AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS AS WELL.

SO BEXAR COUNTY IS GOING TO, SO IF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IS REALIGNED, THEN THEY'LL BASICALLY BE YEAH, SO BEXAR COUNTY WILL BE DOING ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OKAY.

OF EITHER THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OR THE REALIGNMENT.

RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MS. GIBBONS? THANK YOU.

UM, AND HAS BAYAR COUNTY WEIGHED IN ON WHICH, UM, WHICH ALIGNMENT THEY CONSIDER SAFER OR PREFERABLE? YES, WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COUNTY AND N P O COMMITTEE, UM, AND THEY DID PREFER THE PROPOSAL ALIGNMENT AS WELL.

OKAY, THANKS.

I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE PORTION SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT, IS THAT GONNA BE THE SAME TYPE OF RIGHT OF WAY? YES.

SO IT'S GONNA BE MAINTAIN THE, UM, ORIGINAL A SIX FOOT MINIMUM.

SO YES, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THE EXISTING TALLY ROAD IS GONNA BE RENAMED OLD TALLY ROAD.

THAT'S GONNA BE A NEW, NEW TALLY OR OLD, OLD TALLY.

HOPE WE HAVEN'T DECIDED YET.

, THANK YOU.

OH, SORRY, MS. GIBBONS, I'M JUST GONNA ASK IT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.

ARE THERE ZONING, UH, ANY CHANGES TO ANY OF ANYONE'S ZONING IN THIS? MM-HMM.

IT'S OUTSIDE STATE LIMITS, SO NO ZONING.

[00:20:02]

OKAY, THANKS.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, IS THERE ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE OR ANY FURTHER TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS? IF NOT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

TONY IS THE APPLICANT THAT CREATED THAT HARD 90 DEGREE, THE SAME APPLICANT OR THESE TWO DIFFERENT APPLICANTS ON THE PREVIOUS REALIGNMENT? I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE CITY WAS THE APPLICANT IN 2018 WHERE THEY REALIGNED IT FROM UP HERE.

AND I THINK, UH, OUR PROPERTY WAS GOING THROUGH, UH, OWNERSHIP CHANGE AND THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T OCCUR AT THAT TIME.

SO WE WERE COMING BACK IN AND KIND OF FIXING IT.

UH, AGAIN, WE WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THAT EARLIER ONE FROM TWO YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS WOULD BE KIND OF PHASE TWO OF THE ALIGNMENT TO, TO MAKE IT ALL, UH, MAKE SENSE LIKE, LIKE WE'RE PROPOSING NOW.

UM, MR. HANLEY, I I WOULD HAVE TO, TO DEFER TO T C I.

THEY HANDLE THE PROCESSING OF ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. LEONHARDT.

SECOND.

SECOND BY MR. BENSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WHO IS THE SECOND OH, MR. HANLEY AND MR. MOORE IN OPPOSITION CALL.

CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS, UH, MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A, UH, SEGMENT OF WALHAM ROAD.

WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.

VOTE.

MS. GIBBONS? YES, MR. BENSON.

MR. FERNANDEZ? YES.

MS. TACKETT? YES.

MR. LEESMAN? YES.

MR. LIONHEART? YES SIR.

MR. TAYLOR? YES.

MR. HANLEY? NO.

MS. BELL? YES.

MR. WHITTINGTON? YES.

AND, AND JUST A REMINDER, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE VOTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO USE THE MIC SO IT CAN BE CAPTURED ON AUDIO.

ALRIGHT,

[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 a proposed segment of Walzem Road and removing a proposed segment of Binz-Engleman Road, with Walzem to remain designated as a Secondary Arterial Type A (86’ of right-of-way), generally located in northeast Bexar County, between FM 78 and FM 1516. (Lauren Simcic, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-0217, lauren.simcic@sanantonio.gov, Transportation & Capital Improvements Department)]

AND I BELIEVE MR. MOORE IS LEAVING FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL.

THAT IS CORRECT.

WHENEVER THE COMMISSION IS READY, I'M READY.

SOMEONE CAN SOMEONE FETCH MR. BROWN SO HE DOESN'T MISS OUT ON THIS? I THINK HE HAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF ON THIS ONE TOO.

WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

UM, I'M LAUREN SIMSEK FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT.

I'LL WAIT JUST A MOMENT FOR THE RECORD.

IT'S 1 29 AND MS. KOSTIC IS HERE.

WELL, HELLO EVERYONE.

UM, I'M A RECENT ADDITION TO THE DEPARTMENT.

I'M ALSO A SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, SO I'M MARCO'S COUNTERPART.

I'M ALSO HERE TO TALK ABOUT AN M T P AMENDMENT.

THIS ONE IS ON WALHAM ROAD AND BINS ENGLEMAN ROAD.

THE THOROUGHFARE IN QUESTION IS WALHAM AND VINCE ENGLEMAN.

THEY'RE BOTH CLASSIFIED AS SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A AND THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRED FOR THAT IS 86 FEET.

[00:25:01]

NOW LOOKING AT THE MAP, I KNOW IT CAN NOW, YOU KNOW, IT HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF LINES IN THERE, SO I'LL BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

THE PORTION AT THE TOP ISN'T CHANGING.

UM, WALHAM CURRENTLY STOPS AT FERRY SAGE DRIVE, WHICH IS A LOCAL ROAD.

IT'S PART OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS IT STANDS TODAY, WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, UM, WALHAM ROAD BE EXTENDED ALL THE WAY DOWN SOUTH SO THAT IT CONNECTS WITH THE INTERSECTION OF FM 1516.

AND THEN YOU SEE TO THE SOUTHWEST IS BENZ ENGLEMAN AND THE THINNER LINE REPRESENTS MARTINEZ CONVERSE ROAD.

UM, SO THAT'S THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT, BUT THE REQUEST IS TO REALIGN IT AND SHIFT THAT ALIGNMENT NORTH.

SO YOU SEE THE LITTLE ARROW THAT SHOWS IT SHIFTING NORTH AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT, UM, IS THAT YELLOW AND PURPLE DASH LINE.

AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SEGMENT, UM, LABELED BEN ENGLEMAN ROAD.

AND THAT WOULD DISAPPEAR ENTIRELY, THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FOR REMOVAL.

SO HERE ARE SOME OF THE FACTORS AT PLAY.

THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT OF WILSON ROAD EXTENDS SOUTH AND IT MEETS WITH THAT EXISTING FOUR POINT INTERSECTION.

IF YOU THREW IN ANOTHER ARTERIAL, THAT WOULD BE A FIVE POINT INTERSECTION.

SO THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WOULD SHIFT THE ALIGNMENT OF WALDEN ROAD NORTH AND IT WOULD CREATE A NEW FOUR POINT INTERSECTION.

IT STILL, UH, MEETS WITH 1516, BUT IT AVOIDS THAT SORT OF TANGLED SITUATION WITH, UM, WITH BEN'S ENGLEMAN AND MARTINEZ CONVERSE.

SO REMOVING THE FIVE POINT INTERSECTION IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE DRIVER VISIBILITY AND DECREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SEVERE CRASHES AS PER TXDOT AND TXDOT SUPPORTS THIS M T P AMENDMENT.

AND FINALLY, UH, THE REALIGNMENT WOULD IMPROVE EASTWEST CONNECTIVITY.

IT WOULD TAKE THE ROAD FROM, UM, SORT OF BEING ORIENTED TO THIS AND IT WOULD BE, UM, TYING TO ANOTHER SEGMENT OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT CONTINUES EAST FOR A LONG WAY.

IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS, THE MEETING, UH, WE HAD A PUBLIC MEETING ON JANUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR.

IT WAS AT WOODLAKE BAPTIST CHURCH.

23 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED THROUGH THE MAIL.

UH, TWO CITIZENS ATTENDED AND THERE WERE NO WRITTEN RESPONSES.

SO GOING THROUGH THE STEPS, WE REACHED OUT TO THE M T P COMMITTEE.

THAT WAS ON JANUARY 10TH.

WE GOT SOME INFORMAL COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, THE, THE DISPLAY OF THE MAP, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT OR THE ACTUAL CONTENT.

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING WAS ON JANUARY 7TH AND SIMILARLY TO THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, IT IS INTENDED, UM, TO GO TO TAC TODAY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 22ND AND TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY.

IN LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS, T C I RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED AND I AM, UH, EAGER TO HEAR YOUR QUESTIONS.

WEREN'T AWARE OF ONE, BUT WE DID REACH OUT TO THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT TO JUDSON, I S D.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE BEGIN DISCUSSION? WE SEE NONE.

WE'LL MOVE ON WITH QUESTIONS.

WE'LL START AGAIN WITH MR. HANLEY.

NO COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.

PLEASE TACK IT.

NO COMMENTS.

SO THE QUESTION I HAVE TWO, WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FOR THE NEW ALIGNMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF NORTH OF THAT WHEN YOU DID, WHEN YOU ASK ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION, YOU MEAN THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION? YES.

THE ONE THAT'S SHOWN ON THE MAP.

SO I WENT AHEAD AND MEASURED THAT, UM, THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED FOUR POINT INTERSECTION TO, UM, THE, THE RED LINE UP THERE, THAT PRIMARY ARTERIAL, IT'S ABOUT A MILE AND A QUARTER.

SO TO THE SUBDIVISION, I'D SAY ABOUT A MILE.

AND WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFIED THAT THAT A LINE'S GONNA, THAT THE ALIGNMENT'S GONNA CHANGE? WE NOTIFIED EVERYONE NOT ONLY ON THE LINE AS IT'S DRAWN NOW, BUT THE LINE IS AS IT'S PROPOSED TO BE DRAWN.

SO WE WENT A LITTLE BIT ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THAT.

SO YOU DID CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND LET THEM KNOW? UM, AS FAR AS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, WE

[00:30:01]

THERE WERE ANY OF LIKE THE NEIGHBORS WHO THE BOTTOM ROW HERE, WOULD ANY OF THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING? THE ONES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BUFFER? YES.

THEY WOULD KNOW.

NO COMMENTS.

I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS THERE WHERE THE PROPOSED LINEMAN COMES INTO THE MICROPHONE.

PUT THE MICROPHONE.

THERE YOU GO.

THE LIGHT WAS ON.

ANYWAY, I'M JUST CURIOUS THE WAY Y'ALL DO THAT ON THERE, THAT DASH GREEN LINE COMES IN AT THAT REAL SKEWED ANGLE, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA DO THAT.

I'M WONDERING WHY WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THAT THING TURN MORE SQUARE INTO THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ALIGNMENT IN OTHER, IT'S THE SAME QUESTION KIND AS THAT LAST ONE THAT MAKES ONE PERSON THINK, WELL IS THAT THING GONNA COME IN AT THAT KIND OF A ANGLE? AND YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, PROBABLY NOT.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT, RIGHT.

OPPOSED ALIGNMENT VERSUS THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT.

I BELIEVE IN THE PREVIOUS DRAFT OF THE MAP, THE DARK GREEN LINE WAS THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THE ONE THAT SHOWS A MOSTLY WHITE WITH GREEN DOTS WAS THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT.

YOU'RE ASKING WHY IT'S NOT BEING ALTERED? NO, NO.

I'M ASKING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT THAT'S KIND OF GRAY WITH GREEN DOTS ON IT.

WHEN YOU GET TO THE OLD WAL WALTON ROAD ALIGNMENT THERE, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU DIDN'T COME IN KIND OF SQUARE TO IT.

WHY DID YOU DRAW THAT REAL SHARP ANGLE LIKE THAT? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I THINK I GET IT.

DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU DRAW IT, LIKE GENE SAYS IT'S GONNA COME IN THERE MEETING CODE AND SPECS AND STUFF.

I'M JUST WONDERING WHY SOMEONE DIDN'T DRAW IT IN THERE KIND OF SQUARE.

I DO THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER.

UM, I I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S JUST VERY PRELIMINARY RIGHT NOW.

MS. GIBBONS, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

JUST A COMMENT THAT A FIVE POINT INTERSECTION IS REALLY SCARY LOOKING, SO I THINK THAT OUGHT TO RELIEVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS OVER IN THAT AREA TO SEE THAT NOT HAPPENING.

AND BECAUSE THIS IS NOT EXISTING, THIS WAS PROPOSED THE, OKAY, SO THAT DOES NOT, I I HAVEN'T BEEN OVER THERE FOR AGES.

SO THERE'S NO WALLS AND ROAD THAT GOES UP TO THAT RIGHT NOW, IS THERE? NO.

GREAT IDEA.

I LIKE IT.

UH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YEAH, I JUST, I I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTING LATELY.

IS THIS ROAD RIGHT HERE EXIST THIS WHITE PORTION AND OR IS THAT PART OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN? SEE THIS WHITE PART RIGHT HERE? IS THAT AN EXISTING ROAD AND IS, OR IS IT PART OF THE EXISTING THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT NONE OF THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW? ACTUALLY THE POINT AT THE NORTH WHERE IT STOPS, THAT'S WHERE REAL WILSON BEGINS.

UH, YEAH.

WHY, WHY IS THIS NOT PART OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN? SO IT'S GONNA BE MOVING FORWARD THAT THAT IS OH, IT IS PART OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

WE SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY MARKED IT AS, AS AN ADOPTED ALIGNMENT THAT WOULD'VE HELP CLARIFY THINGS.

UHHUH AGREED.

YEAH, IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE, BUT WHEN WE DON'T SHOW THE FULL ALIGNMENT, IT'S HARD FOR US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING IN AND WHAT'S NOT GOING IN.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MR. WHITTINGTON, UH, I AGREE WITH JODY JUST ABOUT THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THERE.

AS SOMEBODY WHO DRIVES FOR A FIVE POINT INTERSECTION EVERY DAY, I APPLAUD YOU GUYS FOR AVOIDING THIS ONE.

HAS BEEN BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE PAST WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF THIS THOROUGHFARE OF GOING THROUGH.

NO COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS.

OH, I'M CURIOUS, WHEN WE SAY WE NOTIFY WITHIN 200 FEET, 200 FEET OF WHAT THE NEW PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OR THE ALIGNMENT THAT'S BEING ABANDONED? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

AND THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I'VE BECOME A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY.

THE REASON, LEMME TELL YOU, THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARCEL LINES BELOW THE THOROUGHFARES AND YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PARCEL LINES, IT'S CLEAR THAT LAND

[00:35:01]

AND AT THE FIVE POINT INTERSECTION, YOU CAN SEE THERE APPEARS TO BE PLATTED CORNERS, ANTICIP, COMMERCIAL CORNERS ANTICIPATING THIS ARTERIAL COMING IN AT THE FIVE POINTS.

SO I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN THOSE FOUR CORNERS NOW KNOW THEY NO LONGER HAVE AN ARTERIAL ARTERIAL INTERSECTION.

THEY JUST GOT, UH, SOME LAND ON A ROAD.

UH, SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU IN THE FUTURE, NOT ONLY TO NOTIFY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ON THE ABANDONED ALIGNMENT KNOWS THAT THEY JUST LOST THEIR COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION.

HELLO EVERYBODY.

JAMES MCKNIGHT.

ROBERT, UH, HERE WITH THE, UM, THE DEVELOPER.

I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THOSE ARE THE, THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE MEETING ON JANUARY 7TH THAT THOSE, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE.

SO THEY'RE VERY MUCH AWARE OF IT.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT TOO HAPPY ABOUT IT.

UM, BUT UH, YEAH, WE, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH, UH, THE CITY AND TXDOT AND, AND YOU KNOW, TXDOT WAS TELLING THEM, WE'RE NEVER GONNA ALLOW THAT FIVE POINT CONNECTION JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

BUT, UH, YEAH, THERE WAS SOME ANTICIPATION AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE FULLY AWARE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

I'LL ADD ONE MORE THING.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE, WE SENT OUT MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF NOTIFICATIONS.

SO WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, OPPORTUNITY CAME AROUND TO NOTIFY PEOPLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WE INCLUDED BOTH THE PROPOSED AND THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENTS.

WE KNEW THAT THE FOLKS WHO SHOWED UP AT THE MEETING WANTED TO BE THERE AND WERE WISHED THEY HAD GOTTEN A LETTER IN THE MAIL.

SO WE MADE SURE THIS TIME THEY DID.

UM, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE SECTION THAT'S JUST SHOWN IN, IN WHITE WITH NO DASHES, THAT THAT'S HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED OR IT, I MEAN IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, IS THAT NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

THE WHITE AND GREEN DASHED LINE IS WHAT THE CITY HAD IN MIND BEFORE THIS AMENDMENT CAME UP.

SO IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO TAKE PLACE, IT WOULD DISAPPEAR THE SAME WAY THE DASHED ORANGE LINE WOULD DISAPPEAR.

I'M ACTUALLY, I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE WHITE LINE.

UH, THE WHITE LINE WOULD NOT CHANGE, BUT IT'S PART OF THE M T P.

BUT IS THAT SECTION THAT SECTION'S ACTUALLY BEING CONSTRUCTED NOW, RIGHT? THAT, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.

AND IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

SO THIS, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT CONNECTION, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING SUBDIVISION, SO I WAS CONCERNED THAT CONNECTION WOULD NEVER BE MADE, BUT IF IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, IT'S, IT'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA BE MADE.

SO THAT'S GOOD.

THANKS.

NO QUESTIONS.

UH, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.

ONE IS, WHAT, WHAT DOES THE CODE REQUIRE? PIGGYBACKING ON GENE'S QUESTION, WHAT DOES THE CODE REQUIRE WHEN IT COMES TO NOTIFICATION ON A MAJOR, THE REPAIR? DOES IT REQUIRE BOTH THE OLD ALIGNMENT AND THE NEW ALIGNMENT BE NOTIFIED OR IS IT JUST THE NEW ALIGNMENT, OR WHAT DOES THE CODE REQUIRE THERE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO M T V AMENDMENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO ZONING CASES.

UH, THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO NOTIFY FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT AS T C I, WE DO IT AS A COURTESY.

UH, WE DO NEED TO SUBMIT A NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION BOTH FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL, BUT DON'T REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICES FROM, UH, WE STARTED A HABIT OF DOING 200 FEET OF PROPOSE AND THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT JUST FOR, UH, TO BE ON A SAFE SIDE, BASICALLY.

RIGHT.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND MY LAST QUESTION, WHAT IS THE ROAD RIGHT WHERE THE PROPOSED, UH, WALMAN IS GOING TO END ON 1516? WHAT IS THAT ROAD THAT GOES OFF TO THE EAST? COULD YOU CLARIFY? RIGHT WHERE THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF WALM HITS 1516 AT THE NEW FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION.

MM-HMM.

THE ROAD THAT GOES TO THE EAST.

JODY WITH HIS, HIS LITTLE THING OVER THERE.

THAT IS, YES, THAT IS ANOTHER PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE.

WHAT'S THE NAME OF, IS IT WALM OR IS IT BEN GELMAN? THERE ARE BEN ENGLEMAN'S ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS THING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NOT WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

SECOND MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. WHITTINGTON.

AND A SECOND.

BY SECOND.

MR. BENSON, I'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. KOSKI.

[00:40:01]

MR. WHITTINGTON? YES.

MOTION CARRIES? YES, SIR.

BOTH OF THE AMENDMENTS WE SAW TODAY HAVE A LONG HISTORY.

I'LL GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE, THE TALLY ROAD, TALLY ROAD, UH, BEFORE MR. HANLEY'S PIECE THAT WAS REMOVED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS THERE AND THEN IT WAS GONE.

WELL IN 2006, THAT PIECE WAS NOT THERE.

AND OLD TALLY ROAD TIED INTO COLLIBRA ROAD AND VERY SIMILAR TO WE SEE ON THIS CASE SOMEONE BOUGHT AND PLATTED FOUR HARD INTERSECTIONS.

THE NEXT THING THEY KNEW THE CITY CHANGED THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO THE ALIGNMENT, I'LL CALL IT TO THE WEST.

MR. HANLEY, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE REMOVED, UH, IN 2018, SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THIRD FAIRS, PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON 'EM AND THEN WE'RE TAKING THEM OFF.

THERE'S ENGINEERING REASONS TO DO 'EM.

I I REMEMBER THIS THIRD FAIR PLAN ALIGNMENT FROM WAY BACK, I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS IN 2000 SOMETIMES WHERE WE ARGUED THAT THIS WAS A POOR ALIGNMENT OF WALLS AND ROAD TO COME INTO THIS FIVE POINTS AND IT SHOULD CONTINUE WEST ON QUOTE THE 10 BEN ENGLEMAN'S THAT THAT OCCUR OUT THERE.

YEAH.

SO SOMEBODY, WE DECIDED ON THIS ALIGNMENT, SOME INDIVIDUALS WENT OUT, SAID, HEY, I'VE GOT A POTENTIAL HARD CORNER.

I'M GONNA GET OUT IN FRONT AND I'M GONNA PURCHASE PROPERTY.

AND UH, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS FROM NOW I'LL HAVE, I'LL HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

NOW WE'VE COME BACK 20 YEARS LATER AND SAID, OH, NEVERMIND, WE'RE GONNA REALIGN THE, UH, THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

SO WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL, UH, THAT ON NOTIFICATION THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

AND, UH, WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, T C I SHOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE GONNA BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED FINANCIALLY, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN THE GAME AND THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

UH, I THINK IN BOTH CASES, FROM AN ENGINEERING AND ALIGNMENT AND A SAFETY STANDPOINT, UH, THE THOROUGHFARE PLANS, THE CHANGES WE APPROVED TODAY WERE NECESSARY.

BUT I DO THINK, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS WERE IMPACTED.

ARE YOU, UH, SUGGESTING THAT THERE BE A CONSIDERATION OF SOME TYPE OF, SOME ADDITION TO THE CODE FOR THOSE NOTIFICATIONS OR IS IT JUST WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF IT? I THINK WE SHOULD GET RID OF THE CODE ENTIRELY.

SO DON'T EVER IMPLY THAT I WANNA ADD ANYTHING TO THE CODE.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID.

I'LL SECOND THAT .

YEAH, SO I WANNA RESPOND TO THAT.

UH, WE'RE CURRENTLY PURSUING THOSE CHANGES FOR THE E D C AMENDMENTS COMING UP.

WE WANT THEM TO BE MORE ALIGNED WITH WHAT ZONING HAS REQUIRING NOTICES FOR, UH, COMMISSION, BUT ALSO CITY COUNCIL.

SO MORE PEOPLE ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS.

MR. CHAIR? YES SIR.

MR. LEONHART? UM, UH, HE MAY HAVE JUST SAID IT AND SORRY, JEAN, UM, IS WOULD AMENDMENT, I THINK I HEARD MR. WALSH SAY THERE'S A THOUSAND.

I THINK HE SAID THAT IN A, IN A MEETING, JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, HE SAID 1001 TO DO MAYBE WHAT YOU SAID AND MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED AND A PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING, UH, OR NEED TO BE NOTIFYING ALL AROUND THOSE.

'CAUSE I BELIEVE I JUST HEARD THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE.

NOT IN THE CODE.

NOT IN THE CODE, NO.

WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA, HE JUST SAID LET'S NOT HAVE A CODE, BUT WE HAVE A CODE AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO DO AS PART OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.

MOVING ON TO DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

IS STAND THAT SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WE DON'T HAVE THESE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS.

[DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

SO JUST A FEW ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU GUYS.

AGAIN, AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'VE GOT THE NEW TABLES FOR YOU GUYS.

THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT WIDER THAN THE TABLES WE HAD BEFORE, SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS.

UM, I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS ARRANGEMENT.

UM, AFTER THE MEETING'S OVER ALSO, PLEASE FORGIVE US ON THE MICROPHONES.

AGAIN, WE ARE PURCHASING WIRELESS MICROPHONES.

UM, THOSE SHOULD BE IN, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

AND SO HOPEFULLY BY THE NEXT TIME TAC MEETS, I, WE WILL HAVE THOSE NEW MICROPHONES READY FOR YOU AND THEY'LL DEFINITELY BE READY FOR WHEN TAC STARTS CONVENING ON A WEEKLY BASIS LATER ON THIS YEAR.

UM, JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER, UM, HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. UH, SEVERAL OF THE TAC MEMBERS ARE SCHEDULED TO, UM, HAVE THEIR TERMS EXPIRED, UH, LATER THIS YEAR.

UM, IN THE INTEREST OF, UH, KEEPING THINGS CONSISTENT, UH, THROUGHOUT THE 2020 U D C AMENDMENTS PROCESS, THOSE TAC MEMBERS WHO WERE SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE IN 2020 WILL CONTINUE ON HOLDOVER STATUS UNTIL 2021 AND THEN WE'LL DO NEW TAC APPOINTMENTS.

UM,

[00:45:01]

ONE LAST AND TONY, SO THEN THE ONES THAT EXPIRE IN 2021 WILL BE 2022, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

PUSH OVER A YEAR? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO ESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY'S TERMS JUST GOT, WERE JUST EXTENDED A FOR A YEAR.

AND, UM, ONE LAST, UH, POINT OF HOUSEKEEPING.

UM, JENNIFER RAMOS, WHO WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WAS ALSO A PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT TO TACK, UM, DID RESIGN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UH, SO IN THAT CASE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REAPPOINT OR WILL APPOINT ANOTHER PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE TAC AT THEIR MEETING ON FEBRUARY THE 12TH.

ALSO, PLANNING COMMISSION WILL, UM, CONSIDER APPOINTING AN ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE TAC AS WELL.

UM, SO BE LOOKING FOR THAT SOMETIME AFTER THE FEBRUARY 12TH MEETING.

UM, AFTER THAT MEETING, I'LL BE SENDING OUT AN EMAIL JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHO THE NEW MEMBER IS AND IF PLANNING COMMISSION DOES MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ALTERNATE WHO THAT ALTERNATE IS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TONY.

UH, THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, TONY, ON THIS UPCOMING U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS? AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME INFORMATION DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE VARIOUS, UM, UM, NEWSLETTERS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE U D C, UM, AND IT NEEDS A SPONSORING ORGANIZATION.

AND MY QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU, UH, SEE AN ISSUE IN THE U D C THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN IDENTIFIED SPONSORING ORGANIZATION, WHAT OTHER WAY IS THAT TO UH, AT LEAST CONSIDER A, A CHANGE TO IT? IS THERE ANY INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS? AN INDIVIDUAL, UM, CAN SUBMIT AN, AN AMENDMENT INDEPENDENT OF AN AGENCY.

UM, IF IT IS AN EXTERNAL PERSON, INDIVIDUAL, OR EXTERNAL AGENCY, THERE IS THAT EXTRA STEP IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE BY CODE THEY'RE LIMITED TO EDITING OR CLARIFYING.

BUT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE OPTION OF SPONSORING ANY OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID IN 2015.

SO TAC REVIEWS THEM ALL THE EXTERNAL ONES TO DECIDE IF IT'S EDITING OR CLARIFYING OR BEYOND.

AND IF IT IS BEYOND EDITING OR CLARIFYING TAC WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, ON WHETHER OR NOT TO SPONSOR THAT AMENDMENT AND KEEP IT GOING THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

SO IF THERE'S OBVIOUSLY IT'S A CLARIFICATION ITEM, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY NEED A SPONSOR THEN CORRECT.

IT, IT DOESN'T NEED A, UM, SPONSOR FROM AN ORGANIZATION.

EITHER WAY AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON CAN SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

BUT, BUT IT WILL NEED SPONSORSHIP FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS.

IT'S JUST UP TO TAC AND PLANNING COMMISSION AS FAR AS IF THEY GET MOVED FORWARD IN THE PROCESS OR NOT.

YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT, WHAT IT IS.

IT'S THE, UH, BICYCLE COUNT CAR DEALERSHIPS.

I HAVE A PROJECT THAT NEEDS, UH, 28 BICYCLE RACKS OUT ON THE CAR DEALERSHIP.

AND I DON'T THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE PEDALED OUT THERE AND TRADING IN THE BIKE ON THE CAR, BUT IT'S JUST, IT, IT'S AN OVERSIGHT IN THE U D C, THE WAY IT WAS DRAFTED.

IT USUALLY WE BLANKET THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WITH THE UNIVERSAL SORT OF POLICY AND IT, IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND, UH, A SPONSORING ORGANIZATION FOR THAT THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED.

SEND IT TO ME, ROBERT.

I'M A SPONSORING ORGANIZATION , SO I'LL GET IT IN THERE FOR YOU.

THANK YOU GENE.

WELL, WELL THERE YOU GO.

I'LL, I'LL JUST POINT EVERYBODY TO YOU MR. DAWSON.

HOW ABOUT THAT? ? I HAVE PLENTY OF TIME.

CAN I ASK, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? CERTAINLY WONDER IF YOU COULD SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR, SO FOLKS HERE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE SPONSORED AND WHAT DOESN'T.

SO, SO ANYBODY COULD SAY, I THINK THIS OUGHTA HAPPEN AND HE, DOES HE GO TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER ON HIS OWN AND SAY, I WISH Y'ALL WOULD SPONSOR THIS? NO.

ANY, SO THEY, ANYBODY, ANY ORGANIZATION PRIVATE PERSON CAN SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT.

THEY SUBMIT IT TO D S D ON THAT VERY FIRST TAC MEETING AFTER THE DEADLINE.

D S D PRESENTS ALL OF THOSE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS TO THE TAC TAC REVIEWS ALL OF THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE EDITING, CLARIFYING, OR BEYOND EDITING OR CLARIFYING IF THEY'RE EDITING OR CLARIFYING.

THEY CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE PROCESS BASED ON THE TAX RECOMMENDATION.

IF THEY'RE BEYOND EDITING OR CLARIFYING, IT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON TAX RECOMMENDATION OF WHETHER TO SPONSOR IT OR NOT.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE, UH, HAS THE AUTHORITY OR THE DISCRETION TO SPONSOR THEM OR NOT SPONSOR THEM.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN 2015 OF THE ROUGHLY 600 OR SO THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY, UM, EXTERNAL AGENCIES.

ABOUT 150 OR SO MOVED FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION SPONSORSHIP.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEY GET SUBMITTED TO D S D D S D PRESENTS THEM THE TAC AND TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN

[00:50:01]

TONY, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, WHEN YOU SAY YOU PRESENT 'EM TO TAC WHAT, WHAT THAT MEANS? YOU KNOW, IN 2015 WE HAD A, A SPREADSHEET WITH THE ITEM AND WHETHER OR NOT STAFF RECOMMENDED IT AS AN EDIT OR AS A SUB SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

HOW, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING ABOUT THIS TIME AROUND? SO STAFF IS GOING TO ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER THAT SAME SPREADSHEET THAT WE DID IN 2015 FOR ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

AND, BUT STAFF IS NOT GONNA ADVOCATE EITHER WAY FOR IT.

WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THE, UM, FOLKS THAT SUBMIT THE AMENDMENTS TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY, UH, JUSTIFY THEIR AMENDMENTS TO THE T AND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

CHAIRMAN? YES.

UH, TONY, WE TALKED ABOUT AMENDMENT ON THE PROCESS WHERE, UH, ANYTHING PRESENTED HAD TO HAVE A FINANCIAL OR IMPACT ON IT, AND IT LOOKED LIKE CITY COUNCILS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE, WHERE THAT IS AT THE STATE? SURE.

RIGHT NOW THAT'S ON HOLD AND OF COURSE THE, UH, WINDOW TO SUBMIT AMENDMENTS STARTED ON JANUARY 1ST.

SO WHAT WE HAVE DETERMINED IS THAT ANY EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT THE, UM, UH, COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.

HOWEVER, THE CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTING AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO SET AN EXAMPLE AND CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS WILL DO THE, UM, THE COST IMPACT ANALYSIS.

BUT FOR EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS, WE ARE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE IT.

ALTHOUGH WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE IT, WE WILL NOT REQUIRE IT.