K.1. Micromobility Ordinance - Consider approval of the Micromobility Ordinance, amending Chapter 58 by adding Article IV Micromobility Devices, and authorization for the Mayor to execute on behalf of the Town.

[K.1. Micromobility Ordinance - Consider approval of the Micromobility Ordinance, amending Chapter 58 by adding Article IV Micromobility Devices, and authorization for the Mayor to execute on behalf of the Town.]

ITEM ON MICROMOBILITY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.

WE HAVE A FEW TIMES IN THE PAST, BUT THANK YOU MAYOR TOWN COUNCIL, AND YOU ARE CORRECT.

[00:45:02]

I AM HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT A POTENTIAL--EXCUSE ME--MICROMOBILITY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

SO ON THAT TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THIS ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED DURING THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS PORTION OF THE AUGUST 19TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING. SO TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, YOU ARE CORRECT.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES.

WE THEN DISCUSSED THIS ITEM AT THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2024 TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION.

SO IT WAS AT THIS WORK SESSION THAT TOWN COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO DO A MICRO MOBILITY SURVEY WHERE WE COULD SURVEY THE COMMUNITY.

A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON IT.

THAT SURVEY WAS OPEN FROM DECEMBER 1ST OF 2024.

BASICALLY ALL OF DECEMBER, AND WE CLOSED IT ON JANUARY 3RD OF 2025.

WE PRESENTED THOSE RESULTS. WE HAD 832 RESPONSES, AND WE PRESENTED THOSE RESULTS AT THE FEBRUARY 20TH TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION, AND THEN WE RECEIVED SOME DIRECTION FROM Y'ALL.

TO COME BACK TONIGHT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HERE TODAY.

SO I'M GOING TO HOP INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU.

KEEP IN MIND THAT WE DID ADD IN DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE FEBRUARY WORK SESSION, AND THEN AT THE END, WE CAN TALK ABOUT A FEW OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO DISCUSS FURTHER.

SO AS WE GET STARTED, I WANTED TO PULL OUT A FEW OF THE DEFINITIONS.

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS, BUT DEFINITELY IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT.

SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, CHILD IN THIS ORDINANCE MEANS ANY PERSON LESS THAN 14 YEARS OF AGE.

MICROMOBILITY DEVICES. SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MICROMOBILITY DEVICES? I'M GOING TO READ THIS WHOLE THING HERE BECAUSE IT REFERS TO THE RANGE OF SMALL, LIGHTWEIGHT VEHICLES THAT CANNOT GO FASTER THAN TOP ASSISTED SPEED, FASTER THAN 28MPH AND DRIVEN BY ONE PERSON. SO WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES IN HERE, AND THESE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THESE, BUT THIS COULD BE AN ELECTRIC MOTOR. ASSISTED SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC SKATEBOARDS, SEGWAYS, HOVERBOARDS, SKATEBOARDS WITH ONE OR MORE WHEELS OR SIMILAR DEVICES AND THAT GAS POWERED DEVICES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHERE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC WAY OR PUBLIC PROPERTY REFERS TO ANY INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY OWNED OR AS AN EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY, LEASED OR CONTROLLED BY A GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

SO THIS IS REALLY REFERRING TO PATHS, TRAILS, SIDEWALKS, ALLEYS, STREETS OR HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC PARKS.

SO AS IT PERTAINS TO MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS IT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE THESE DEVICES FOR EVERYONE ON ANY PUBLIC WAY OR PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPEED LIMIT IS OVER 35MPH.

I HAVE SUMMARIZED SOME OF THESE, SO IT'S NOT THE EXACT WORDING, BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE EXACT WORDING IF YOU'D LIKE.

IT C AN'T BE A GAS COMBUSTIBLE MOTOR ASSISTED SCOOTER.

THE MICROMOBILITY DEVICE CANNOT GO HIGHER THAN 28MPH.

IT CANNOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 551, THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, AND ON THAT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE AT NIGHTTIME.

IT CANNOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SPECIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT IN THIS CODE, AND FOR REFERENCE, THE TWO STIPULATIONS IN THIS ARE TO HAVE BASICALLY A LIGHT IN THE FRONT THAT CAN SHINE A CERTAIN DISTANCE, AND THEN A RED REFLECTOR FOR THE BACK. YOU ARE WE ALSO MADE IT UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE WHILE USING A HANDHELD DEVICE, AND WITH DEVICES THAT WOULD INHIBIT YOUR HEARING.

SO THIS IS REALLY REFERRING TO HEADPHONES OR EARPHONES, AND THAT'S FOR SAFETY REASONS.

WITH A PASSENGER ON BOARD, ANOTHER ITEM IS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER WHERE THE CONDITIONS WOULD IMPAIR THE DEVICE'S OPERATION, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE REFERENCED SOME OTHER CODES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, AND WHAT THAT REFERS TO IS REALLY THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR VEHICLES WITHIN PARKS.

SO IT REFERENCES SOME OF THOSE BECAUSE THAT DEFINITION WOULD PULL IN SEVERAL OF OUR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS MORE SPECIFICALLY EXCUSE ME FOR CHILDREN WHO OPERATE A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE, AND REMEMBER THAT WE DEFINE CHILD AS BASICALLY 13 AND UNDER OR UNDER THE AGE OF 14.

SO IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A CHILD TO OPERATE A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE UNLESS THAT CHILD IS WEARING A PROPERLY FITTED HELMET AND IT'S FASTENED SECURELY.

[00:50:07]

SO I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL TRY TO RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE.

WE DID HAVE SOME DIRECTION TO BRING IN BICYCLES ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE ON MICRO MOBILITY.

SO I WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE PULLED THOSE OUT AND WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE AS WELL.

SO IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A BICYCLE. OPERATE A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC WAY OR PROPERTY AT NIGHT TIME, IN VIOLATION OF THIS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS IN PLACE. WE'RE REFERENCING THAT.

IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE THE BICYCLE USING A DEVICE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO HEADPHONES OR EARPHONES.

SO THIS IS THE SAME STIPULATION WE PUT ON MICROMOBILITY, BUT WE ALSO INCLUDED BICYCLE IN THE DEFINITION, AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER, UNDER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD IMPAIR THE OPERATION OF THE MICROMOBILITY DEVICE AND IN THIS INSTANCE, BICYCLES IN ANY WAY, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE DID PUT IN THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A CHILD AGAIN UNDER THE AGE OF 14, TO OPERATE A BICYCLE WITHOUT UNLESS THAT CHILD IS WEARING THAT PROPERLY FITTED HELMET OR FASTENED SECURELY.

SO AGAIN, ON THE SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT ALSO INCLUDED BICYCLES, IT'S GOING TO BE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONS 14 EXCUSE ME UNDER THE AGE OF 14 TO HAVE A HELMET.

IT'S ALSO WE ARE CALLING OUT THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT STIPULATIONS THAT ARE IN THE TRANSPORTATION CODE, AND WE'VE ALSO LIMITED THE USE OF HEADPHONES OR EARPHONES DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER.

SO THESE ARE ALL THE INSTANCES THAT WE'VE PULLED BICYCLES IN.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT THE ORDINANCE GOES THROUGH.

SO SPECIFICALLY FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES FOR PEDESTRIANS.

WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS IN THERE THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE OPERATING THIS MICROMOBILITY DEVICE, YOU NEED TO YIELD THAT RIGHT OF WAY TO PEDESTRIANS.

ALSO, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SLOW AND PROVIDE KIND OF AN AUDIBLE, AUDIBLE WARNING TO PEDESTRIANS BEFORE PASSING THEM, AND SO THESE ARE DEFINITELY SAFETY MEASURES THAT I'M SURE THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN HELP REINFORCE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.

AGAIN THESE ARE STIPULATIONS FOR THESE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.

A A BRAKING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF STOPPING THE DEVICE UNDER TYPICAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.

A DECK OR SEAT DESIGNED TO ALLOW THE OPERATOR TO STAND OR SIT WHILE OPERATING THE DEVICE, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, A MEANS OF DISENGAGING THE ENGINE SO THAT A DEVICE MAY BE OPERATED BY THE OPERATOR'S OWN POWER, AND THEN, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UNDER PENALTIES.

WHAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ANY PERSON FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING ANY OF THE TERMS OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE FINED AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50.

SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION SHALL BE FINED AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100.

SO I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH.

NOBODY WANTS TO BE HANDING THESE TICKETS, YOU KNOW, OUT TO CHILDREN.

HAVING SAID THAT, I WANTED TO BRING UP THIS OTHER STIPULATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT TO ALLOW A CHILD TO OPERATE A BICYCLE OR MICROMOBILITY DEVICE ON A PUBLIC WAY, OR ON A PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN, IN VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE.

SO THIS WOULD MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE THE PARENTS WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

GOT ONE MORE SLIDE AND THEN I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

SO I JUST WANTED TO HIT ON A FEW THINGS, KIND OF IN SUMMARY.

SO SOME OF THE DIRECTION FROM THE FEBRUARY 20TH TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

I WENT BACK OBVIOUSLY TODAY BEFORE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU TONIGHT TO RELISTEN TO IT.

I KNOW THAT WHEN WE LEFT THIS ITEM STAFF WAS ASKING IF WE SHOULD BRING IT FORWARD AS A WORK SESSION, AND TOWN COUNCIL WILL PREFER TO COME BACK TO A REGULAR SESSION.

TONIGHT, AND SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT WORK SESSION THAT WE INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE WERE THAT THE HELMET REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FOR UNDER THE AGE OF 14.

THAT CHILD WOULD BE DEFINED AS UNDER THE AGE OF 14.

SO THAT IS HOW IT'S WRITTEN, AND WE HAVE THAT HELMET REQUIREMENT IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH MICROMOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES NOW ON HANDHELD DEVICES OR CELL PHONES. WE HAVE THIS STIPULATION FOR JUST MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, AND THEN FOR THESE I CHOSE THIS WORDING HEARING AND PAIRING DEVICES. SO THOSE HEADPHONES AND EARPHONES WE GOT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO INCLUDE THAT FOR BOTH MICROMOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS I JUST WE WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT, THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITION IN THERE FOR A MICROMOBILITY SAFETY

[00:55:07]

COURSE. SO WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS SAFETY COURSE.

WE DO HAVE A DECISION, THOUGH, OF WHETHER YOU WANTED TO EXPLICITLY DISCUSS IT IN THIS ORDINANCE OR NOT.

THAT OPTION COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN ALSO ADD UNDER PENALTIES THAT THIS SAFETY COURSE CAN BE DONE IN LIEU OF THAT FINE.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OFFERED TO THE JUDGE THAT THE JUDGE CAN DO TODAY, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPELL IT OUT IN THE ORDINANCE, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL, AND AT THAT POINT I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE QUESTIONS.

WE DO HAVE BRYN AND CHIEF COULON HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT.

THE HANDHELD DEVICES, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE CELL PHONE HOLDER.

THE CASES THAT YOU CAN PUT ON THE MOBILITY DEVICE.

RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S ONLY FOR THE EARBUDS. RIGHT.

SO THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. AS IT PERTAINS TO HANDHELD DEVICES, IF YOU HAVE A MOUNT ON YOUR MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES DEVICE WHERE YOU CAN PUT THAT CELL PHONE. THEN IT WOULD BE GOOD BECAUSE IT WON'T BE HANDHELD.

YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE EARBUDS IN. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THAT'S GOOD. OKAY, AND THEN THE OTHER THING A QUESTION I HAD WAS ABOUT OPERATING AT NIGHT.

THERE ARE SOME CYCLISTS THAT COME, I THINK NIGHTTIME YOU'RE DEFINING AS AFTER SUNDOWN WHERE IT'S, IT CAN STILL BE KIND OF LIGHT OUTSIDE, BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY NIGHTTIME.

SO IN THIS TO YOUR POINT NIGHTTIME MEANS THE PERIOD BEGINNING ONE HALF HOUR AFTER SUNSET AND ENDING ONE HALF HOUR BEFORE SUNRISE, AND AGAIN, OUT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'VE PUT IN, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO PUT EVERYTHING UP HERE.

IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, WE CAN.

YEAH, MY CONCERN WITH THAT WAS JUST THERE ARE SOME MICROMOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES THAT THEY ARE WELL LIT.

I MEAN, I KNOW I'VE BEEN STUCK OUT ON THE ROADS AT NIGHT ON MY CYCLE.

MY BICYCLE AND OTHER CYCLISTS HAVE TWO, BUT THEY'RE WELL LIT.

SO CAN WE. WOULD YOU ALL BE OKAY WITH A COUPLE THINGS TO.

IF I CAN ADD SOME MORE CLARIFICATION FOR THE DISCUSSION, IS THE LIGHTING IN THERE? OH IT IS. IT'S UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE 551.

OKAY. EQUIPMENT, AND THAT'S THE SECTION WHERE I THINK YOU DID SAY.

ALSO, IF THEY HAVE A HEADLIGHT, IT'S OKAY, BUT YOU CAN'T OPERATE AFTER NIGHTTIME WITHOUT A HEADLIGHT.

WAS THERE SOME OTHER SPECIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT THAT IS OUTLINED IN THOSE TWO? I'M TRYING TO FIND IT. I BELIEVE I PRINTED IT OUT ACTUALLY, JUST IN CASE I GOT THAT QUESTION, BUT I KNOW THAT IT IS. YOU MUST HAVE A HEADLIGHT, AND THERE'S CERTAIN STIPULATIONS FOR HOW FAR THAT HEADLIGHT MUST SHINE, AND THEN YOU MUST HAVE A REFLECTOR ON THE BACK, AND YOU CAN OPERATE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THAT SAFETY EQUIPMENT.

OKAY, JP, IF IT'S ALREADY IN THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, DO WE NEED IT IN OUR CODE AS WELL IN ORDER TO ENFORCE IT? CAN'T WE JUST ENFORCE IT BASED ON WHAT'S ON THE STATE CODE? I WILL TURN IT OVER TO BRYN, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WILL SAY I KNOW A LOT OF INSTANCES THAT YES, IT IS COVERED, BUT A LOT OF SOMETIMES WE WANT TO BRING IT INTO ORDINANCES LIKE THIS, JUST TO BE UPFRONT THAT THIS IS HOW WE WILL OPERATE AT NIGHTTIME, BUT I WILL HAND IT OVER TO BRYN IF YOU HAVE ANY.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S CORRECT. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHIESTEL.

IT'S ALREADY PRESENT. THE DEFINITION OF NIGHTTIME IS A STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM THAT WE COPIED THE RULES REGARDING THE, THE ILLUMINATION OF A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 500FT IN FRONT OF THE BICYCLE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, BUT TO JP'S POINT, SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN A SINGLE RESOURCE ORDINANCE SO THAT IT'S ALL DIGESTED TOGETHER, AND SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD, JUST BECAUSE I DO SEE SOME CYCLISTS OUT THERE THAT DON'T HAVE THE LIGHTING, AND IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT. I THINK TO REITERATE IT, I THINK IT'S UNLAWFUL IN THE ENTIRE STATE TO OPERATE AT NIGHTTIME WITHOUT THAT EQUIPMENT, SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO CALL IT OUT. I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH SECTION 58-75, WHICH IS THE PART.

SO JP, WHEN WE HAD OUR WORK SESSION, I WASN'T UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE CRAFTING AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD APPLY TO CHILDREN, AND THE HELMET PORTION IS DEFINITELY CAPTURED, THAT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER TWO ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS SLIDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, BUT A LOT OF THIS SECTION 58- 75, WHICH APPLIES TO ADULTS, SEEMS LIKE AN OVERREACH AND FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAYS IT'S UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE ON A PUBLIC WAY OR PUBLIC PROPERTY AT NIGHTTIME.

SO I THINK SIDEWALKS WAS IN YOUR DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY OR PUBLIC WAY.

SO IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR AN ADULT TO RIDE A SCOOTER ON THE SIDEWALK AFTER DARK, EVEN WITH THE NECESSARY SAFETY EQUIPMENT.

[01:00:05]

THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS TO ME.

IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR AN ADULT TO OPERATE A BICYCLE DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER THAT MAY IMPAIR THE OPERATION OF THE DEVICE.

SO, I MEAN, WHO'S TO SAY WHAT IMPAIRS THE DEVICE? SO IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL FOR AN ADULT TO RIDE THEIR BIKE IN THE RAIN.

THAT'S RIDICULOUS. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, AND SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD DO TO MAKE THIS WORK BETTER FOR ME IS JUST EITHER THROW OUT THE ENTIRE 58- 75, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED ON THIS SLIDE, OR JUST TAKE THE WHOLE THING AND MAKE IT APPLY TO CHILDREN AND CHILDREN ONLY, AND AT THAT POINT, I THINK I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT'S CLOSER TO WHAT WE HAD IN MIND FROM THE WORK SESSION.

I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT TOO. I WAS JUST KIND OF THINKING WE WOULD MAKE THIS A VERY SIMPLE ORDINANCE.

EVEN THE INCLEMENT WEATHER, I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE GETTING TO WEATHER AND WHAT IS INCLEMENT WEATHER AND, I MEAN, I COULD EVEN SEE KIDS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RIDE A BIKE OR RIDE A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE FROM SCHOOL, AND IT'S RAINING IN THE AFTERNOON, NOT IN THE MORNING.

I JUST FEEL LIKE IT GETS TOO OVER COMPLEX. THE OTHER PART, WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DEVICES LIKE, OH, IT HAS TO YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PULL IT OUT OF DRIVE MODE.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT REGULATING IF IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE MOBILE DEVICE.

SO I THINK WE CAN REMOVE THAT WHOLE SECTION AND JUST FOCUS ON THE HELMET AND SAFETY WHERE THEY SHOULD OPERATE, BUT , YEAH, JUST MAKE IT SIMPLE. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK THE TWO SLIDES, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING ANYTHING.

YEAH. THERE WE GO. WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE SPECIAL DEVICES? WHAT? I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THAT POINT. THERE WAS A, I THINK IT'S THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE DISCONNECTED SO THAT YOU CAN WALK THE SCOOTER. GO ONE MORE SLIDE UP, JP. DISCONNECTING THE ENGINE.

YEAH. 58-77 CLAUSE C SAYS A MEANS OF DISENGAGING THE ENGINE.

SO THE DEVICE MAY BE OPERATED BY THE OWNER'S OWN POWER, A BRAKING SYSTEM.

I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF GOING INTO TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT'S A OKAY DEVICE TO USE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT FOR THIS.

I THINK WE WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW AND THAT THEY WERE SAFE OPERATING THE EQUIPMENT.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THEM, NOT US.

SO, JP, WHERE DID THESE SUGGESTIONS COME FROM? SO WHAT WE DID AND WE HAD THIS QUESTION AS WELL WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT FORWARD IN AUGUST, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS REFERENCED AND IT WAS THE HIGHLAND VILLAGE.

SO OUR NEIGHBORS UP NORTH. SO WHAT WE DID IS AT THAT OCTOBER WORK SESSION, WE ESSENTIALLY SENT THAT ORDINANCE OUT AND WE STARTED WORKING ON THAT AS A FOUNDATION, AND SO A LOT OF THESE WERE FROM THAT, AND WE'VE SLOWLY BEEN TAKING THEM OUT, AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM SOME OF THE DIRECTION WE'RE RECEIVING TONIGHT THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW POTENTIALLY TAKING MORE OUT AND KIND OF REFINING THIS DOWN TO EXACTLY WHAT TOWN COUNCIL REALLY WANTS TO PUT IN IT.

SO THE INTENT BEHIND THE MEANS OF DISENGAGING THE ENGINE IS THAT JUST SO IT CAN'T GET GOING TOO FAST.

I THINK WALKING ACROSS THE ROAD. RIGHT. WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T WALK ACROSS THE ROAD.

IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO WALK ACROSS THE ROAD, DOES IT? I REMEMBER US HAVING A DISCUSSION OF WHERE THE CROSSWALK, WHERE WE. YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T SEE IT IN THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH, I KIND OF SAID WE SHOULD JUST REMOVE THAT.

I THINK IT IS REMOVED ABOUT WALKING ACROSS, BUT NOW WE'RE SAYING WHAT IS IT MEANS OF DISENGAGING THE ENGINE WAS.

WELL, THAT KIND OF TIED TO THAT DISCUSSION OF HAVING THEM WALK IT ACROSS THE I DON'T SEE IT HERE, THOUGH. I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT THESE ARE KIND OF AGREED UPON STANDARDS FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICE EQUIPMENT.

HAVING SAID THAT YEAH, I THINK THESE ARE THESE ARE PRETTY STANDARD.

I THINK THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH SAFETY, AND I BELIEVE THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY GIVE POLICE THE ABILITY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST VERY UNSAFE, THEN THEY COULD USE THIS TO TRY TO TALK TO THAT INDIVIDUAL.

SO THEY WOULD PRESUMABLY SAY, HEY, WERE YOU NOT USING YOUR BRAKES? DO YOU HAVE BRAKES? IS THAT THE KIND OF CONVERSATION? BECAUSE MY WHOLE THING WITH THIS ORDINANCE, IT WAS REALLY DRIVEN ABOUT THE HELMETS AND PREVENTING SEVERE TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES.

I DO LIKE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS THAT ARE ALSO GEARED MORE TOWARD PREVENTION BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO PREVENT IT AND NOT HAVE A NEED FOR THE HELMET EVEN THOUGH IT'S THERE,

[01:05:05]

JUST IN CASE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY SAID YOU MUST WALK ACROSS THE CROSSWALK.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS TAKEN OUT EFFECTIVELY BASED ON THE LAST DISCUSSION.

I WAS JUST READING THROUGH THIS, BUT THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME WAS ABOUT DISENGAGING THE ENGINE TO WALK IT ACROSS THE CROSSWALK.

SO I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LEFT IN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS.

I MEAN, WE COULD DEFINITELY TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO LOOK THROUGH THAT AGAIN.

WE DID NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CROSSWALKS.

WE DID HAVE LOTS OF DISCUSSION ON WHICH WAY WAS BETTER, BUT WE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THAT IN HERE.

WE ALSO DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE ANY PRIVATE PARKING LOTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS WELL.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN THE BEHAVIOR CAN BE EASILY OBSERVED.

SO FOR ME, PRIMARILY THAT WAS THE HELMET, AND THEN IT WOULD GIVE OUR POLICE OFFICERS CLEAR GROUNDS TO SAY, I SEE YOU RIDING THIS ON THE STREET. YOU'RE STREET.

YOU'RE NOT WEARING YOUR HELMET. LET'S HAVE A TALK ABOUT IT. SO THAT WAS MY PRIMARY IMPETUS, BUT MOSTLY I LIKE IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED.

I KNOW ORDINANCES CAN BE. SOMETIMES. I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF THE HEADLIGHT AND THE REFLECTOR, BUT SINCE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE STATE LAW, PRESUMABLY AN OFFICER, IF THEY OBSERVE SOMEONE RIDING WITHOUT THOSE SAFETY FEATURES THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR VISIBILITY, THEY COULD STOP THEM. CORRECT. CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? AND I MIGHT. SO BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STATE, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE FOR SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR OPERATING AT NIGHTTIME, HEADLIGHT AND REFLECTOR. IF AN OFFICER SEES SOMEONE RIDING A BICYCLE OR USING A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE WITHOUT THOSE THINGS AT NIGHTTIME, THEY COULD STOP THEM. THAT IS CORRECT.

YES, I LIKE THAT IDEA BECAUSE VISIBILITY IS SO ESSENTIAL.

YEAH. TO PUT THAT TO REITERATE THAT IN THERE.

WELL, I COULD GO BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN SCHIESTEL IDEA THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SAY PASS A LAW TO PASS TO SAY FOLLOW THE LAW, BUT I DO THINK WE CAN MAYBE TIE IT INTO SOME OF OUR EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS HOW ESSENTIAL THAT IS TO THEIR OWN SAFETY. WHAT WE CAN DO TO JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY THIS.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE ON SECTION 58-75, WHAT WE CAN DO IS TAKE OUT C WHICH WOULD THEREFORE ALLOW YOU TO USE THAT MICROMOBILITY DEVICE AT NIGHTTIME, AND THEN WE'LL ADD THE WORDS MICROMOBILITY AND BICYCLE TO D AND THEN TIE THAT TO THE BASICALLY THESE, THESE SAFETY EQUIPMENT STIPULATION.

BECAUSE WHAT THAT WOULD BASICALLY DO AND THAT WHAT THAT CHANGE WOULD DO IS ALLOW MICROMOBILITY DEVICE USE AT NIGHT.

THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT. SO I THINK THAT 'S A CHANGE THAT WE CAN MAKE.

I THINK THAT'S MORE REASONABLE. SOUNDS GOOD. I LIKE THAT, AND I OOPS, SORRY.

YOU THINK I'D LEARN HOW TO TURN A MICROPHONE ON BEFORE I START TALKING BY NOW? I LIKE THAT CHANGE.

THE OTHER THING IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE AMBIGUITY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK AS WE'RE DEFINING THESE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES AS SOMETHING THAT GO UP TO 35 MILES AN HOUR, WE'RE SLAPPING A SPEED LIMIT OF 28 MILES AN HOUR ON IT.

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAYING THESE THINGS HAVE SPEEDOMETERS ON THEM. SO ARE THEY GOING 29? ARE THEY GOING 30 MILES AN HOUR? YEAH, TO ME, THAT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE, BUT WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND IS IT REALLY GOING TO BE A VALUE ADD? THE SECOND THING IS AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE INCLEMENT WEATHER THAT'S PRETTY SUBJECTIVE, AND YOU'RE RIDING IN THE RAIN THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, INCREASE YOUR BRAKING DISTANCE, RIGHT.

SO EVEN A LIGHT MIST IS GOING TO AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DEVICE.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT THAT WE'RE AFTER.

SO SOME OF THAT AMBIGUITY IF WE COULD REMOVE THAT, I THINK I'D BE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT AS WELL.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SAFETY TRAINING CLASS, WHICH I THINK IS A NICE IDEA AS AN OPTION.

IF A PARENT'S LIKE, HEY, I TOLD YOU, WEAR YOUR HELMET AND YOU'RE NOT, YOU CAN PAY THE 50 OR YOU CAN TAKE THE COURSE.

SO I LIKE THAT. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP, CHIEF, BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DID YOU ENVISION? WOULD OUR STAFF BE TEACHING THAT OR IS THERE AN ACCEPTABLE COURSE, AN ONLINE VERSION OR? YEAH, OUR POLICE OFFICERS WILL DESIGN IT. THEY HAVE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR ALREADY, LIKE A BICYCLE SAFETY CLASS.

THEY GIVE AND THEY'LL JUST IN LESS THAN A WEEK, THEY CAN DESIGN THIS COURSE AND GET IT OUT AND THEN WE WOULD TRY TO GET IT INTO THE SCHOOLS. WE WOULD TRY TO DO IT LIKE AT A COMMUNITY SAFETY EVENT, LIKE A FAIR OR SOMETHING.

WE WOULD DO IT, YOU KNOW, A FEW TIMES DURING THE SUMMER JUST TO TRY TO GET KIDS TO SIGN UP.

I LIKE IT, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT. I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE LIKE A TEN MINUTE THING.

[01:10:01]

I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE LIKE MAYBE A 30 MINUTE WITH A QUIZ YOU HAVE TO PASS JUST TO MAKE IT SUBSTANTIAL.

YOU KNOW, EQUIVALENT TO $50, WHAT THEY WANT. I ACTUALLY KIND OF ENVISIONED IT TO BE LIKE A COUPLE HOURS, SO, OH, EVEN BETTER. FANTASTIC. THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU. FOR THE PENALTIES IS WHAT'S IN HERE RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT ENOUGH TO GIVE A WARNING FIRST? BECAUSE I MEAN IT ALMOST THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS WE'RE FINDING THE KIDS IMMEDIATELY.

YES WE CAN. WE CAN ALWAYS GIVE A WARNING. THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION.

SO SHOULD WE SPECIFY THAT IN HERE AS TO GIVE A WARNING FOR US TO USE AS EDUCATION RATHER THAN--WELL, THE WARNING IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO US NOW. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BY PUTTING IT IN THERE, RIGHT? IT WOULD JUST ESSENTIALLY RECITE EXISTING POLICY, WHICH IS THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAVE DISCRETION TO GIVE A WARNING, AND I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE MESSAGE THAT, OH, YOU GET ONE FREEBIE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.

I LIKE GIVING DISCRETION TO THE OFFICERS. YEAH, BUT I MEAN, I ALSO FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT EDUCATION, TRYING TO EDUCATE THE KIDS TO USE THEIR DEVICES PROPERLY.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT 99% OF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A WARNING.

YEAH, EVERY. SINGLE TIME. GREAT. I MEAN, JUST IF YOU'RE A KID AND A POLICE OFFICER STOPS YOU, I MEAN, YOU ARE. I MEAN, YOU'RE ALREADY GETTING IT, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S ALREADY ENOUGH PUNISHMENT.

THAT'S THE LAST THING YOU KNOW YOU WANT. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S IN FRONT OF YOUR FRIENDS OR SOMETHING. SO WE'RE VERY COGNIZANT OF OF THAT AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO SOMEBODY, AND SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO AROUND JUST SCARING KIDS AND WRITING TICKETS, AND YEAH.

I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD. RIGHT. OKAY. SO IF WE WANT TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD. ARE WE. WERE YOU READY? I'M ABSOLUTELY READY.

OKAY, SO WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY STRIKING SECTION 58-75 ITEM C, THAT WAS ONE OF THEM, RIGHT? THE NINTH. THAT WAS THE OPERATE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE ON A PUBLIC WAY OR PUBLIC PROPERTY AT NIGHTTIME.

SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE I WAS GOING TO JUST THROW THIS OUT THERE AND BRYN MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO WITH THE AMOUNT OF CHANGES THAT I'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL TONIGHT. I THINK THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER TABLING THIS, LETTING US PUTTING IT A FINAL VERSION TOGETHER AND THEN BRINGING THIS BACK AGAIN AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IF THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD WISH.

BRYN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF IT'S JUST 1 OR 2 CHANGES.

I THINK WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WE COULD IMPROVE.

AGAIN, IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION, BUT I THINK WE'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GO ANY MORE THAN THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE SUMMER'S COMING.

SO HOW DOES EVERYBODY ELSE FEEL THE SAME WAY. IT CAN BE TABLED, YOU KNOW.

I AGREE, AND JP, WOULD IT HELP IF WE SENT YOU COMMENTS LIKE EMAIL LIKE THESE ARE THE CLAUSES I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AND THEN THAT WOULD HELP.

YOU CAN AND IF WE CAN, TOO, BEFORE WE HEAD OUT HERE TONIGHT, I DO WANT TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE OR GO OVER A FEW OF THOSE THINGS.

UNLESS YOU WERE ABOUT TO DO THAT. NO, NO, YOU GO AHEAD, AND THE ONLY REASON WHY WE SAY THAT IS WELL, JUST FOR TO EXPLAIN THAT IS 1 OR 2 CHANGES YOU CAN MAKE, BUT A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ALL WORKS TOGETHER, AND THERE'S NOTHING, NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT.

SO ON THOSE CHANGES, WHAT I HEARD, AND I'M GOING TO MOVE IT TO THIS SLIDE BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY SUMMARIZES IT.

WHAT I HEARD WAS YES FOR HELMETS, HANDHELD DEVICES AND THESE THE HEADPHONES AND EARPHONES FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, BICYCLES FOR ON THE HELMETS AND THE HEARING AND PAIRING DEVICES, BUT NOT ON THE CELL PHONES, AND IS THIS PART CORRECT? YES. SO ESSENTIALLY IN OUR ORDINANCE, IF YOU GO ON 58-75, I'M OKAY WITH PUTTING THE SAME FOR ALL OF THEM, YOU KNOW, HANDHELD DEVICES AS WELL.

OKAY, BUT WAS THERE A CONCERN ABOUT HANDHELD DEVICES ON BIKES.

WE JUST SPECIFICALLY THAT WOULD BE YEAH, I WOULD PUT IT ACROSS THE BOARD JUST TO BE CONSISTENT.

SO IT'S NOT SIMPLE. I AGREE WITH YOU. IT DEFINITELY GIVES CONSISTENCY, AND THE ONLY REASON WHY IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN IT IS BECAUSE WE HADN'T SPECIFICALLY GOTTEN THAT DIRECTION FROM YOU PRIOR TO THIS. SO WE CAN ADD THAT ON ON ALL OF THEM NOW.

CURRENTLY WE HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 14 BEING APPLIED TO HELMETS ONLY.

NOW WHAT I'VE HEARD A COUPLE A COUPLE FOLKS HERE TONIGHT TALK ABOUT THE WANT TO PUT THIS ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS FOR JUST CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 14. I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER THAT, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ANYTHING IN 58-75 TO

[01:15:04]

APPLY TO ADULTS, THE ONLY ONES THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ARE D, E AND F.

THAT'S FIRST ONE IS THE NIGHTTIME SAFETY EQUIPMENT ADDING MICROMOBILITY, E BEING THE ELECTRONIC DEVICES, AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT IF YOU HAVE A MOUNT, THEN THAT'S OKAY AND THEN F IS THE HEADPHONES.

WELL THAT'S IT. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP D AND F, WE'LL ADD MICROMOBILITY TO D.

WE ARE GOING TO ADD BICYCLES TO E, AND THEN F INCLUDES BOTH OF THEM.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON I? LET'S SEE, I IS THE ONE ON PUBLIC.

IF A KID WANTS TO RIDE THEIR MICROMOBILITY DEVICE AROUND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, I REALLY THINK IT WOULD BE KIND OF SILLY TO PREVENT THAT.

OR AN ADULT FOR THAT MATTER. SO I AM A LITTLE TORN ON THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN BE VERY HAZARDOUS TO PEDESTRIANS IF THEY'RE NOT OPERATED SAFELY.

SO I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCREPANCY FOR AN OFFICER WHO CAN STOP SOMEONE FOR RECKLESS RIDING, AND I THINK THAT'S ACCOUNTED FOR IN SECTION 58-76A, AN OPERATOR OF A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE SHALL YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO PEDESTRIANS.

I BELIEVE THAT WILL COVER THAT, AND THE POLICE WILL DETERMINE IF THEY WERE RECKLESS.

RIGHT? THEY WEREN'T ABLE. REMEMBER, A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE IS A SKATEBOARD.

YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T RIDE YOUR SKATEBOARD ON A TRAIL? IT'S ALSO A SCOOTER. YEAH, BUT IT'S A SKATEBOARD, TOO. RIGHT, BUT I THINK THOSE CAN ALSO BE OPERATED VERY RECKLESSLY, BUT THOSE ARE USUALLY UNDER SELF-POWER. THE SKATEBOARD ITSELF.

UNLESS IT'S A HOVERBOARD. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RIDE A SKATEBOARD IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.

UNDER SECTION I. SO THAT'S PLACES DO PROHIBIT SKATEBOARD RIDING, DON'T THEY? OR IS THAT JUST PRIVATE PROPERTY? DO WE HAVE OTHER PLACES IN TOWN WHERE SKATEBOARD RIDING IS PROHIBITED? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THEY CAN'T RIDE A SKATEBOARD ON THE, I KNOW I'VE SEEN SIGNS ON PUBLIC.

I MEAN, SORRY, PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO I YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY HAVE LIKE DIFFERENCES IN ELEVATION AND KIDS DO DOWN THE STAIRS AND THAT'S KIND OF RECKLESS FOR SHOPPERS AND YOU KNOW, RETAIL PATRONS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN TOWN.

I AM NOT SURE ON SKATEBOARDS TO PROVIDE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY.

CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE TWO, YOU KNOW, SECTION 54-72 DESCRIBES MOTOR VEHICLES OR VEHICLES.

SO I WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT DEFINITION TALKS ABOUT WHETHER REALLY AN ELECTRIC OR GAS MOTOR.

SO THEN IT'S ALREADY PROHIBITED. WELL, WE TAKE OUT GAS MOTORS HERE, SO THAT WOULD PULL IN, IN OUR MICROMOBILITY DEFINITION, ALL THE DEVICES THAT HAVE A MOTOR, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WE DO HAVE SKATEBOARDS OR OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES THAT DO NOT HAVE A MOTOR IN THEM.

SO ALL OF THIS TO BE SAID IS IF IT IS NOT INCLUDED, IF THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE, WE ARE STILL NOT GOING TO ALLOW MOTOR VEHICLES IN OUR PARKS.

WE JUST WON'T BE PULLING IN. TO YOUR POINT, SKATEBOARDS IN THE MICROMOBILITY DEVICE DEFINITION.

SO TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILMEMBER SCHIESTEL AND COUNCILMEMBER MARTIN AS WELL IS TODAY WE CAN USE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THOSE MOTOR VEHICLES. THE ONLY THING THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IS THE SKATEBOARD.

SO IF WE INCLUDED IT, WE WOULD PULL IN SKATEBOARDS OR OTHER MICROMOBILITY DEVICES THAT DO NOT HAVE A MOTOR ASSISTANCE TO THEM.

WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE THEN, IN REGARDS TO THE PARK? WE DON'T NEED WE DON'T NEED CLAUSE I BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE TWO, DIVISION TWO, SECTION 54-72, AND BY INCLUDING IT, REALLY WHAT YOU WOULD BE BRINGING IN WOULD BE SKATEBOARDS.

OKAY. IN THE PARKS. RIGHT. IN THE PARKS? YEAH.

I GUESS I'M OKAY WITH TAKING IT OUT. YEAH. ME TOO.

OKAY. JUST TO MOVE ALONG, WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE HERE.

I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT TAKING OUT THE PEDESTRIAN.

SO SECTION 58-76 AND SECTION 58-77, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP THE PEDESTRIAN ONE IN? I WANT TO KEEP THE PEDESTRIAN ONE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT YOU REFERENCED TO COVER THE SITUATION.

SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THAT, AND ALSO I DO LIKE THE AUDIBLE WARNING, AND I'VE HAD WHEN I'M WALKING ON TRAILS, I'VE HAD BICYCLISTS SAY ON YOUR LEFT THAT TO ME COUNTS AS AN AUDIBLE WARNING.

SO AS LONG AS THAT COUNTS. PERFECT. WE ARE REMOVING SECTION 58-77, AND THEN NOW WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SECTION 58-78. CURRENTLY AS WRITTEN, WE HAVE IT FINED AT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 50.

SUBSEQUENT NOT TO EXCEED 100, AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT ADDING LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT DOING THE MICROMOBILITY SAFETY COURSE IN LIEU OF

[01:20:04]

THIS FINE. SO WE'LL I THINK ON THE FIRST VIOLATION, NOT ON EVERY VIOLATION OR WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, LIKE YOU CAN WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD, A ONE YEAR PERIOD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN RESTART THE CLOCK, BUT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP GETTING OUT OF IT BY DOING MORE AND MORE AND MORE. WOULDN'T THE JUDGE BE ABLE TO FIGURE THAT OUT, YOU KNOW. IS THIS A MULTIPLE OFFENDER, KIND OF LIKE DEFENSIVE DRIVING.

YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT. THEY HAVE TO CARRY OUT THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH ANN'S SUGGESTION. FIRST OFFENSE OPTION TO TAKE THE TRAINING.

THEN SHAME ON YOU IN THE SECOND OFFENSE. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY THE HIGHLAND VILLAGE MODEL.

IT ALLOWS YOU TO BE REFUNDED THE $50 IF YOU ARE CONVICTED AND PAID IT.

IF YOU TAKE THE COURSE WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT FIRST OFFENSE ONLY.

SO IF YOU WANT TO RESTORE THAT TO THIS DRAFT, WE CAN DO THAT.

I LIKE THAT IDEA, BUT I ALSO LIKE MAYBE SAYING ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS OR ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT OLDER THAN THEY FORGET, AND , YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT THAT? I LIKE IT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT COURSE WILL BE AVAILABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A REGULARLY SCHEDULED OR REGULARLY OFFERED COURSE.

OH, AND THEN WOULD IT BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY IF IT PASSES, OR DO WE GIVE THEM A GRACE PERIOD? YOU KNOW HOW SOMETIMES EVEN THE STATE GIVES GRACE PERIOD ON WHEN THE LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE SO PEOPLE CAN PROCURE THE HELMET AND HAVE TIME TO UNDERSTAND.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MAYBE A 45 DAY FROM THE TIME IT'S PAST TILL WHEN IT'S EFFECTIVE? AND IN THAT TIME, LIKE WARNINGS CAN BE GIVEN ONLY I MEAN, YOU KNOW, GIVE THEM A LITTLE TIME TO COMPLY.

WE CAN AS WRITTEN, IT IS FULL FORCE AFTER THE DATE OF ITS PASSAGE.

SO WE CAN LENGTHEN THAT, AND SO, CHIEF COULON, HOW OFTEN WOULD THE TRAINING COURSES BE OFFERED? HONESTLY, WE WOULD PROBABLY. ONCE A MONTH WAS PROBABLY ASKING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH.

WE WOULD PROBABLY DO LIKE ONCE A QUARTER WOULD BE THE GOAL, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY HIGHLAND VILLAGE DOES IT THEIR WAY.

YOU PAY YOUR $50 AND THEN WHEN A CLASS GETS SCHEDULED, YOU GO AND YOU PROVE THAT YOU WENT WITH YOUR CERTIFICATE AND THEY GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY BACK, THAT'S REASONABLE. I LIKE THAT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I THINK THAT I KNOW I HAVE GOOD DIRECTION ON THE SUMMARY OF THOSE.

IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO BRING BACK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING I CAN PAPER OR WRITE EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD, WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT AND WE CAN WORK WITH BRYN AS WELL AS CHIEF COULON AND BRING FORWARD ANOTHER ORDINANCE AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF YOU'D LIKE. YEAH. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. COOL. WELL, JP, ONE THING.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO SECTION SIXES IN THE ORDINANCE.

YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER FIX THAT WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE AS WELL.

THANK YOU SIR. SO I'LL MOVE TO TABLE. WE NEED TO DO THAT RIGHT.

YES. OKAY. I MOVE TO TABLE REGULAR ITEM K ONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

SECOND. SECOND. OKAY, THERESA, IF YOU'LL TAKE THE ROLL.

BE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. WE'LL GO ON TO K TWO.

[K.2. SUP25-0002 – Alloy Personal Training - Public Hearing to consider an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit No. 497 (SUP25-0002 – Alloy Personal Training) for a health club or athletic club use. The property is generally located south of Cross Timbers Road and west of Churchill Drive. (PZ recommended approval at its April 14, 2025, meeting by a vote of 6 to 0.)]

THE SUP25-0002, THE ALLOY PERSONAL TRAINING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT F OR A HEALTH CLUB OR ATHLETIC CLUB USE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ALLOY PERSONAL TRAINING.

HERE'S THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS SOUTH OF CROSS TIMBERS, NORTH OF PETERS COLONY AREA THERE. HERE'S A MORE CLOSE UP VIEW.

THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE PLANS IN THE FUTURE TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE YET.

SO IT'S JUST THE ONE BUILDING AT THIS POINT, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SUITE WITHIN THIS BUILDING.

THE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS OFFICE AND THE ZONING IS OFFICE AS WELL.

HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. SO AGAIN THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUITE LOCATION WITHIN THAT BUILDING WHERE THE GYM OR PERSONAL

[01:25:03]

TRAINING FACILITY WOULD BE LOCATED. SO WITHIN OFFICE ZONING THIS USE DOES REQUIRE AN SUP, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL TONIGHT.

HERE IS A VIEW OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, AND SO IT'S THIS SPACE RIGHT HERE WHERE THEY ARE REQUESTING THE GYM OR PERSONAL TRAINING USE.

SO HERE AGAIN IS THAT SITE PLAN. THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE USE BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR MEDICAL OFFICE, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS A HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT OF ONE SPACE PER 200FT².

THIS WOULD BE ONE FOR 250. SO SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR PARKING.

THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS IS JUST THE EXISTING APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE SITE. SO NO CHANGES PROPOSED.

WITH THE ADDITION OF THIS USE, AND SAME THING FOR THE ELEVATIONS.

PUT A RED BOX AROUND HERE TO SHOW YOU AGAIN, WHICH SUITE THIS USE WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN IF APPROVED, BUT NO CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING ARE PROPOSED.

SO THE ONE CONDITION THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED WITH THIS SUP IS TO LIMIT THE USE TO THE 1698 SQUARE FOOT SUITE WITHIN THIS EXISTING ONE STORY BUILDING, SO IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND INTO THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING AND THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE WITH THE PRESENTATION. DO YOU KNOW WHY WE PUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON A PERSONAL FITNESS? IS IT USUALLY NOISY OR? IT COULD BE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW DURING P AND Z THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF WITH SOME CROSSFIT TYPE STUFF OR SOME THINGS WHERE IT'S MORE LIKE BOOT CAMP WHERE YOU COULD BE, YOU KNOW, IN PARKING LOTS, KIND OF THROWING TIRES AROUND OR THAT SORT OF THING.

SO I WOULD THINK THAT THE REASON FOR THE SUP IS JUST BECAUSE SOME OFFICES, OFFICE BUILDINGS, THERE MIGHT BE A CERTAIN KIND OF ESTHETIC THAT THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN, AND IT MIGHT NOT FIT WITH PEOPLE KIND OF BEING COMING IN AND OUT AND BEING MORE CASUALLY DRESSED OR THAT SORT OF THING. OR AGAIN, JUST DEPENDING ON THE FITNESS TYPE USE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD STUFF GOING ON IN THE PARKING LOT OR IN THE.

THAT WAS AGAIN, I THINK IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE COHESIVE WITH AN OFFICE ENVIRONMENT.

WITH THIS BEING A MEDICAL OFFICE MIGHT NOT BE SO MUCH OF A CONCERN.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO PRESENT THAT SUIT AND TIE DRESSED UP KIND OF APPEARANCE.

OKAY, CHRIS, WE DENIED ONE, ONE TIME WHEN THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NEXT DOOR SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MEET WITH CLIENTS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SET THEIR PERSONAL RECORD, AND IT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, REALLY A GOOD COMPATIBILITY, BUT I ASSUME THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE SPINE CLINIC NEXT DOOR WITH ANY CONCERNS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO YOU ALL NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT ALL? I'D LIKE TO IF THEY'RE HERE. YES. OKAY. YEAH.

WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. YEAH, AND , YEAH, YOU CAN JUST COME AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME.

HI, I'M JOEL COLLINSWORTH. I'M WITH ALLOY PERSONAL TRAINING. YEAH.

SO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS WITH, LIKE, THE NOISE OR WHATEVER.

THINGS LIKE THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY, BUT I CAN KIND OF GIVE YOU THE GIST OF WHAT WE DO.

THIS IS JUST BASIC HOURS. IT'S GOING TO BE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE 6 A.M.

TILL 7 OR 8. I'M THINKING MORE SEVEN AND IN TWO SESSIONS.

SO LIKE MORNING TILL NOON. TAKE A FEW HOUR BREAK AND THEN AN EVENING SESSION AND THEN THAT'S THROUGH THURSDAY.

FRIDAY, ABOUT A HALF A DAY AND A HALF DAY ON SATURDAY AS WELL.

IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL GYM OR, YOU KNOW, FITNESS CLASS.

WE DON'T DO CLASSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST STRICTLY STRENGTH TRAINING, HEALTHY LIVING.

MAX OF SIX PEOPLE AT ONE TIME IN THE FACILITY AND A MAX OF 150 PEOPLE IN, YOU KNOW, AS A MEMBER AT ONE TIME, WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN THAT AND STILL HAVE THAT PERSONAL TRAINING TOUCH.

THE AVERAGE CLIENT AGE IS 40 TO 65, AND I THINK KIND OF TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT LIKE I SAID, BASIC STRENGTH TRAINING, LIVING HEALTHY. WE'RE NOT THROWING TIRES AROUND.

WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, CLANGING WEIGHTS, GOT RUBBER FLOORS, RUBBER WEIGHTS, YOU KNOW, INSULATION, SOUNDPROOFING STUFF IN THE IN THE CEILING. I TOLD THEM AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE.

THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT NOISE, AND I SAID, MY GOAL IS THAT THEY NEVER HEAR ANYTHING. I MEAN, I THINK THE CONSTRUCTION NOISE OF BUILD OUT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE NOISIEST THING IF ANYTHING, BUT , YEAH, WHAT WE DON'T DO, WE DON'T DO LOUD MUSIC. WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE WITH A A MIC, YOU KNOW, ON A SPIN BIKE TELLING YOU TO PEDAL FASTER AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S JUST ANY MUSIC WOULD KIND OF BE LIKE BACKGROUND MUSIC TO KEEP THE DEAD AIR OUT, I GUESS, SO TO SPEAK. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

THE HOURS WOULD WOULD IT BE, I MEAN, BECAUSE THE HOURS ARE IN THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT?

[01:30:05]

NO. OKAY. SO THAT'S JUST THEIR SELF-IMPOSING THEM OR THAT WE'RE NOT LIMITING THEM? YEAH. THERE ARE NO HOURS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE SUP CONDITION, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL CAN ADD.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE USUALLY THE OFFICES ARE CLOSED AFTER 6 P.M.

OR SO. SO IF YOU GUYS DID WANT TO GO TO TEN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT ANYBODY AROUND YOU, RIGHT? SO AND I DON'T REALLY WANT PEOPLE-- I MEAN, PART OF THAT MAY BE I MEAN ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I MEAN DIFFERENT PLACES HAVE IT DIFFERENTLY, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LIKE, AND IF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE GOING AND GETTING A WORKOUT IN AT 7:00 AT NIGHT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE EARLIER.

IT'S KIND OF THE WAY. YEAH. OKAY. NO CONCERNS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO GIVEN THAT WE WILL OPEN THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

THERESA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS? DO NOT. OKAY. DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING? NO, THERE ARE NO THERE'S NO ONE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCIL, DO YOU NEED TO DELIBERATE ON ANYTHING? I'M READY IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K TWO AS PROPOSED.

SECOND. OKAY. THERESA. IF YOU'LL TAKE THE ROLL.

THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM K THREE, THE TRINITY PARK.

[K.3. TRP25-0002 - Trinity Park - Public Hearing to consider an application for a tree removal permit (TRP25-0002) for three (3) specimen trees on the property known as Trinity Park for the proposed development. The property is generally located south of Lakeside Parkway, east of Gerault Road, and north of Enterprise Road. (The Environmental Conservation Commission recommended approval of the three (3) trees by a vote of 4 to 1 at its March 4, 2025, meeting.)]

THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. SO WE'LL BE GOING OVER TRP25-002. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR TRINITY PARK.

TRINITY PARK IS. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.9 ACRES.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL USES.

AS A PART OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83, THE SITE CONTAINS FOUR SPECIMEN TREES AND THEN, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE SPACE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MOVE THREE OF THESE SPECIMEN TREES.

TWO ARE IN GOOD CONDITION. ONE IS IN FAIR CONDITION.

ON MARCH 4TH OF 2025, ECC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR ALL THREE OF THE PROPOSED SPECIMEN TREES.

GENERAL LOCATION. WE HAVE LAKESIDE PARKWAY AND THEN TO THE NORTH, AND THEN WE HAVE ENTERPRISE DRIVE TO THE SOUTH.

THEN GOING INTO THE TREE SURVEY, THESE THREE TREES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ARE MARKED TO BE REMOVED, AND THEN WE HAVE ONE SPECIMEN TREE OVER HERE TO REMAIN.

SO HERE'S THE THREE TREES, 3827, 22.5IN POST OAK, TREE 3935, A 25IN MULTI-TRUNK CEDAR ELM.

THAT ONE'S IN FAIR CONDITION, AND THEN TREE 3953 IS A 39.5IN POST OAK, BUT IT IS A MULTI-TRUNK.

THE MEASUREMENTS JUST HAD TO BE TAKEN AT 4.5FT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF WHERE IT SPLIT, AND THEN I CAN PULL UP A TREE SURVEY IN DETAIL IF YOU ALL WANT TO RUN THROUGH MITIGATION.

OKAY, SO FOR MITIGATION TOTALS, LET ME ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW $159,600 IS OWED IN MITIGATION JUST FOR, AND THAT'S INCLUDING ALL THE PROTECTED TREES AND THE THREE SPECIMEN TREES IF THEY WERE APPROVED TO BE REMOVED. THE ONLY TREES REALLY BEING SAVED IS THESE PROTECTED ONES.

THE SPECIMEN HERE, AND THEN THIS PROTECTED TREE UP HERE, ALL THESE ARE GOING TO BE PRESERVED, BUT THEY'RE OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IN THE LEGEND, IT SAYS 224 EXISTING PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED AND 18 TO BE RETAINED. SO 242 TREES AND 224 ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED.

IS THAT AM I READING THAT RIGHT? SO 93% REMOVAL? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, AND THEN OF THE FOUR SPECIMEN TREES THREE WILL BE REMOVED.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU, AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'M OPEN TO THEM.

OTHERWISE I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE HERE.

[01:35:03]

YEAH. OKAY. Y'ALL READY TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? WE'LL GO AHEAD. YEAH, YOU CAN COME ON UP, AND IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AS WELL.

THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. WELL GOOD EVENING Y'ALL.

MY NAME IS CAMERON EHN. I AM WITH CLAYMORE ENGINEERING.

I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE JOB. OUR OFFICE IS 1903 CENTRAL DRIVE IN BEDFORD, TEXAS.

ALTHOUGH, AS I SAID AT THE ECC, I AM FORMERLY OF 2741 SKINNER DRIVE HERE IN FLOWER MOUND.

SO I ACTUALLY GRADUATED FROM FLOWER MOUND HIGH SCHOOL. OH, ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU? WE ARE TO TRY AND HELP YOU GUYS OUT HERE.

THIS IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN FOR WHAT IS THE LAKESIDE RANCH BUSINESS PARK.

SO THIS IS A LARGE MASTER PLAN BUSINESS PARK THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR ABOUT THE LAST 20 OR SO YEARS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN ARE ALL BUILT.

I WENT AND LOOKED JUST A LITTLE BEFOREHAND. I BELIEVE IT'S JUST THESE TWO LAST LITTLE BUILDINGS HERE AND THEN OUR PROPERTY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT AS PART OF THIS PLAN ALREADY, BUT DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO OUR PLAN HERE.

CORE CONCEPT. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS A SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SITE WAS DESIGNED FOR A WAREHOUSE OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, GENERALLY IN THIS LITTLE CYAN SQUARE HERE, AND THEN CIRCULATION FOR FIRE LANES AND GENERAL ACCESS AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY THERE. NOW, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS OUR LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING PLAN.

SO A COUPLE THINGS TO NOTE ON THIS. FIRST, YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE STUCK TO RATHER CLOSELY THE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED SITE PLAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. WE HAVE OUR BUILDING HERE RECTANGULAR.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE HAVE OUR DRIVE AISLE THAT GOES AROUND THE OUTSIDE, CONNECTS BACK TO THE ROAD.

ALSO AS PART OF THIS PLAN SET, THIS TRIANGULAR AREA OVER HERE IS PART OF THE PD IS A PRESERVATION ZONE, AND SO WE ARE NOT OTHER THAN THE REQUIRED ACCESS POINT THROUGH THIS PORTION OF IT HERE.

THE PRESERVATION ZONE IS REMAINING PRESERVED, AND BY THAT WE MEAN IT'S NOT THAT IT'S BEING PUT BACK INTO PLACE.

IT MEANS WE'RE GENERALLY NOT TOUCHING IT AT ALL.

IT IS STAYING IN ITS NATURAL CONDITION. ALONG THE FRONT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HERE IS WHERE ALL OF OUR PROPOSED THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING IS GOING TO BE.

THERE IS A LARGE 45 FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT THAT A GOOD CHUNK OF THIS ALL FALLS UNDER, AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND EXTENDING THE SIDEWALK THROUGH HERE IN A MORE MEANDERING PATH TO KIND OF HELP CONNECT THAT LAST LITTLE BIT.

AS I SAID, THIS WAS ONE OF THE LAST LOTS THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED DOWN THERE. SO THIS IS HELPING COMPLETE THAT CONNECTION OF THE TRAILS AND THE WALKS OVER THERE.

TO KIND OF CONTINUE ON. IF YOU WANTED TO SEE, WE ALREADY SAW THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN.

AS WAS MENTIONED, YES, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TREES ON SITE.

IT'S JUST LARGELY OVERGROWN TYPE OF AREA. THIS WAS NOTED IN THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN THAT WAS ALSO DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS THAT SCHEMATIC CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND EVERYTHING.

SO ALL OF THAT WAS ORIGINALLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS SET FORTH IN IT.

WE ARE CERTAINLY KIND OF HAPPY TO GO MORE INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS OR ANY SPECIFICS WITH SOME OF THE PARTICULAR DESIGN OR KIND OF HOW WE ENDED UP WHERE WE WERE BUT TO KIND OF QUICKLY GO THROUGH IT. LIKE I SAID, THE HIGH LEVEL WAS WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO STICK TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS AND FOLLOW DIRECTIONS AND DO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND LAID OUT, AND SO NOW WE ARE HERE FOLLOWING ALL THOSE STEPS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO IT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE LARGER SITE PLAN? IT WAS YOUR FIRST ONE, MAYBE. OH, YES. SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT DOES IT SAY SEDIMENTATION POND? IS THAT EQUIVALENT OF A DETENTION POND JUST FOR RUNOFF? I GUESS YOU COULD SAY YES AND NO. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT HERE.

I'LL COME BACK HERE. SO AS PART OF THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS ONE THERE IS ALSO AN OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THIS, AND AS PART OF THAT, THERE WERE CERTAIN AREAS THAT WERE DESIGNATED FOR DETENTION OR IN THIS CASE,

[01:40:01]

SEDIMENTATION. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS, TOO MUCH.

TYPICALLY, DETENTION IS MEANT SPECIFICALLY TO RETAIN WATER, RELEASE IT OVER TIME TO MANAGE THE OUTFLOW RATE AND VOLUME OF WATER THAT'S COMING OUT AT A CERTAIN TIME. SEDIMENTATION PONDS. WHILE A DETENTION POND, IN THEORY, COULD FUNCTION AS ONE.

A SEDIMENTATION POND IS TYPICALLY JUST TO HANDLE THOSE PARTICULATES AND HELP THEM SETTLE OUT BEFORE ALL OF THAT WATER CONTINUES DOWN ON. SO YOU COULD KIND OF DO IT.

IT'S I'M BEING TECHNICAL TO SAY THE DIFFERENCE THERE, BUT SO THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE, BUT YES, YOU COULD LARGELY SAY IT'S AN AREA THAT'S INTENDED FOR WATER TO POND AND BE CONTAINED FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEN CONTINUE TO DRAIN. SO WITH THE REMOVAL OF ALL OF THOSE TREES, ALMOST MANY, MANY 90% OF THOSE TREES.

WE'VE BEEN LEARNING A LOT ABOUT TREES AS A MITIGATION TO FLOODING AND STORMWATER RUNOFF.

YES. WHAT CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE IN CREATING THAT EXTRA RUNOFF? SO PART OF THIS IS, AS I MENTIONED, THE DRAINAGE STUDY.

SO WE ARE PROVIDING ON SITE DETENTION TO DETAIN THE FLOW FROM OUR SITE.

THAT IS BEING DONE IN TWO PARTS, ONE WITH AN UNDERGROUND SYSTEM THAT WILL GO UNDERNEATH THE MAJORITY OF THE.

I DON'T MAKE ANYBODY DIZZY TO GO UNDERNEATH THE MAJORITY OF OUR TRUCK COURT AND KIND OF DRIVE LANES TO BE BETTER STEWARDS OF OUR CLIENT'S FUNDS. OUR BEST WAY TO DO IT WAS TO ESSENTIALLY OVERSIZE THE MAJORITY, ACTUALLY, REALLY, ALL OF THE ENTIRE STORM DRAIN LINE TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.

SO WE'RE PUTTING IN MUCH LARGER PIPE THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED JUST TO HANDLE THAT FLOW, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAINTAIN OR RETAIN THAT WATER ON OUR SITE.

OKAY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WILL BE PONDING WITHIN THE TRUCK COURT, IN PARTICULAR HERE ON THE BACK.

THAT WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL DRAINAGE DESIGN PLAN, WHERE A CERTAIN PORTION WAS INTENDED TO BE DETAINED AND POND WITHIN THE TRUCK COURTS. SO THAT IS STICKING IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND PLAN WAS.

SO VERY LONG WINDED WAY OF SAYING YES. WE HAVE TAKEN THE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE INTO CONSIDERATION.

IT HAS, AS YOU SAY, ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND SO WE ARE FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN.

THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE STICKING TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, LIKE YOU SAID? IN THE PD 83, THERE'S A DEFINED SUBDISTRICT C1 THAT IS PART OF THIS PROPERTY, AND IT'S DEFINED IN THE DOCUMENT AS THIS SUBDISTRICT. THIS SUBDISTRICT DEFINES AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION ZONE THAT CONTAINS KEY PORTIONS OF THE CREEK CORRIDOR AND CERTAIN DISTINCTIVE STANDS OF TREES.

STABILIZATION MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO THIS SUBDISTRICT SHALL BE DESCRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. EXHIBIT H AND EXHIBIT H HAD SOME PRETTY IMPRESSIVE ARTIST RENDERINGS OF HOW THE AREA SHOULD LOOK, AND SO THIS AREA, THIS PART OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN THAT SUBDISTRICT C1 RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO, YES. YES, AND SO DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS PLAN CAPTURES THAT INTENT? IN MY OPINION, YES, I BELIEVE IT DOES. A LOT OF THE LIKE I SAID, AS KIND OF IS JAKE MENTIONED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE HERE IN THE SOUTH, THIS IS THE PRIMARY AREA WHERE FLOW IS BEING CONTAINED, IS PRETTY MUCH PUSHED ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BACK SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY HERE, WHICH THEN ALSO PLAYS INTO THIS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THEN ULTIMATELY GOES OUT.

SO ALL OF THOSE AREAS WE ARE LOOKING TO MAINTAIN, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON FOR SOME OF THE SETBACKS AND THINGS THAT WE DID DOWN THERE, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY MAINTAINING THE PRESERVATION ZONE, REPLANTING A GOOD CHUNK OF TREES IN THIS LANDSCAPED AREA ALONG THE PARKWAY, WHICH ALSO PLAYS INTO SOME OF THOSE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND THE INTENT OF WHAT THAT CORRIDOR IS INTENDED TO LOOK LIKE, AT LEAST FROM THE ROADWAY. SO, I MEAN, IF WE'RE REMOVING 93% OF THE PROTECTED TREES, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THAT INTENT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE TAKEN THE PRESERVATION ZONE AND BISECTED IT WITH THIS ACCESS ROAD.

SO WE KIND OF MISS THE MARK THERE, AND I THINK THAT WE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST DOING THE BARE MINIMUM HERE, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT 'S ENOUGH. I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU WORK ON A DESIGN THAT BETTER ACCOMPLISHES THIS VISION, AND THE IN PARTICULAR, THERE'S A TREE ON THAT CORNER THERE THAT PROBABLY COULD EASILY BE SAVED, AND IT'S QUITE LARGE. SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT FEEDBACK IN CASE I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS VOTE'S GOING TO GO HERE, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU DEFINE IN AND THIS HAPPENS A LOT, IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.

SURE. WHEN WE A PD IS PRESENTED TO US AND THEY MAKE THESE PROMISES AND THEY SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT,

[01:45:02]

WE'RE GOING TO CARVE OUT THESE AREAS. AND WE'VE CARVED OUT THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, AND THEN THE APPLICATION COMES IN AND IT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANY OF THAT PRESERVATION.

THEN IT FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T WE'RE NOT GETTING WHAT WE WERE PROMISED, AND THE VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PD WAS BASED PARTIALLY ON THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION SPECIFICALLY IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK ON THIS.

MAY I EXPAND UPON. PLEASE DO. OKAY. SO TALKING ABOUT THIS DRIVEWAY CONNECTION HERE.

THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE PROPOSING.

THIS WAS BEING REQUIRED OF US TO PUT THIS IN TO PROVIDE FIRE ACCESS LOOP AROUND THE SITE.

SO THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT AT LEAST THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DEVELOPER DRIVEN.

THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE BEING REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO WHICH IS WHY THAT PARTICULAR PORTION IS THERE.

AS FAR AS TRYING TO GO INTO SAVING, I BELIEVE THE ONE ONCE AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU DIZZY.

LARGER ONE THAT UP HERE IN THE CORNER, IF I MAY.

SO ONE AND DRAKE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AND IT IS LARGER IN THE SENSE OF, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, HAVING TO MEASURE IT UP FROM DBH SO REALLY, A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT IS TWO TREES AS OPPOSED TO ONE LARGE ONE.

ALSO, IT'S PARTICULAR LOCATION RELATIVE TO WHERE OUR APPROVED DRIVE ENTRANCE IS COMING OFF OF LAKESIDE PARKWAY HERE, AS WELL AS OUR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OR WHERE WE'RE REQUIRED TO TIE INTO THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE.

THOSE TWO PINCH POINTS ARE LARGELY WHAT ARE CONSTRAINING THE GRADES AND WHAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME DOWN AND DO.

SO I ACTUALLY HAVE THE GRADING PLAN HERE. WHICH AND I REALIZE, Y'ALL, THIS MAY JUST BE LIKE THE MATRIX AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT LINES THAT DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO Y'ALL, BUT TO GIVE YOU JUST A KIND OF FEEL FOR THE AMOUNT OF TOPOGRAPHY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE.

WE'RE AT ROUGHLY 506 ON THE ROADWAY CONNECTION UP HERE, AND THEN THE FLOW LINE OF THE STORM DRAIN DOWN HERE IS ALL THE WAY DOWN AT 490, AND SO THERE'S ABOUT 16FT OF FALL JUST FROM THE ROADWAY TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY HERE.

ON TOP OF WE ARE ALSO CONSTRAINED BY THE EXISTING ELEVATION OF THIS DRIVEWAY CONNECTION OVER HERE, WHICH IS ABOUT ROUGHLY 500 BETWEEN 500 AND 501.

SO STILL A GOOD 10 TO 11FT ABOVE THE LOWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

HERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND THEN, AS WE MENTIONED, TWO WANTING TO STICK TO THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN AND SITE LAYOUT, WAS PLACING THE BUILDING WHERE WE HAVE AND PROVIDING THE ACCESS AROUND IT, AND SO THIS, THIS ACCESS NOT ONLY PROVIDES ACCESS FOR TRUCKS OR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO USE THE SITE, BUT ALSO IS OUR FIRE LANE.

AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS AS TO HOW QUICKLY WE CAN SLOPE DOWN AND GRADING REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE THOSE FIRE LANE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTES, AND SO ONCE YOU START KIND OF COMBINING AND WORKING ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN, WE START GETTING FAIRLY CONSTRAINED ON HOW QUICKLY WE CAN COME DOWN HERE AND TRY TO GET BACK TO WHATEVER THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE THERE, AND THERE WAS, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THERE WAS THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY AND CREATE A LARGER ISLAND AROUND HERE TO SEE IF WE COULD MAYBE GET SOMETHING TO WORK SPECIFIC TO THAT TREE, AND JUST GIVEN THE LIKE I SAID, THOSE CONSTRAINTS, I KIND OF JUST RAN OVER. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT WAS GOING TO BE HEALTHY FOR THAT TREE AND KEEP IT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THOSE EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND SO THAT'S PRIMARY REASON WHY WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SAVE THAT ONE IN THE CORNER, BUT JUST TO SAY THAT IS IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE WILLY NILLY OR WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT THAT WENT IN AND TO DOING AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY COULD TO GET DOWN AND LIKE I SAID, JUST MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND STICK TO THAT ORIGINAL PLAN.

SO YOU HAVE AN UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOT, AND YOU MODIFIED YOUR BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOT BY TAKING OFF THE CORNER ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING, AND I'M SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME THING TO ACCOMMODATE THE TREE PRESERVATION THAT IS EXPECTED BASED ON WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE PD. SO I THINK YOU CAN DO IT.

YOU JUST HAVE TO WANT TO DO IT, AND MY RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WOULD BE TO KEEP THAT ONE VERY LARGE POST OAK IN THE CORNER, AND I THINK THAT THE, THE PD MAKES THAT A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST.

[01:50:03]

I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT EXTRA DRIVEWAY THAT YOU POINTED OUT COUNCILMAN SCHIESTEL.

SINCE WE HAVE AN ENTRANCE EGRESS TO THE WEST AND ONE TO THE NORTH, ISH.

ARE THOSE NOT TWO REQUIRED ENTRANCE AND EGRESS POINTS, OR DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT THIRD? I WOULD HAVE TO KIND OF GO WITH STAFF ON THAT ONE, AND THAT'S PROBABLY MORE ENGINEERING IN DEFENSIVE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEIR TEAM BEING MORE ENVIRONMENTAL. IN MY ENGINEERING OPINION, STANDING HERE, I THINK YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT TO SAY THIS ACCESS POINT AND THIS ACCESS POINT WOULD SATISFY THOSE NEEDS, BUT WE'D CERTAINLY WANT TO CHECK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT. IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN FOR REAL QUICK ABOUT THAT AND THEN TO GO BACK ABOUT THE PD REQUIREMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE CROSS ACCESS, THERE'S ANOTHER APPLICATION IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

IT'S THE SITE PLAN THAT ONCE THIS IS CONCLUDED IT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ESSENTIALLY MINISTERIAL. SO WE CAN STILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION REGARDING THAT ACCESS POINT ON THE EAST SIDE.

AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE, THE PD AND COUNCIL MEMBER SCHIESTEL BROUGHT THIS TO OUR ATTENTION, AND I KNOW THE PLANNING STAFF AND JAKE HAD LOOKED AT IT PREVIOUSLY.

THERE AREN'T ANY SPECIFIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS WITHIN THE PD.

THAT CORNER WAS NOTED ON A SCHEMATIC PLAN FOR PRESERVATION, BUT AS YOU DUG INTO THE DETAILS, THERE WERE NO CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AND IN FACT, IT DEFERS TO.

AS COUNCIL MEMBER SCHIESTEL MENTIONED, THE EP AND IN THE EP, THIS AREA, THAT PARTICULAR CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IDENTIFIED AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA NOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR THAT.

SO OBVIOUSLY THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT STILL BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE AREN'T ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT ARE CODIFIED WITHIN THIS PD FOR PRESERVATION WITHIN THAT AREA, BUT , TOMMY, THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT THAT THIS AREA WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS SUBDISTRICT C1, WHICH IS EARMARKED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION, AND THAT'S IN THE SCHEMATIC.

YES, IT IS ONE PIECE OF A LARGER SUBDISTRICT, C1, THAT WAS PRIMARILY THE MAJOR, CORE FLOOD AREA, JUST BEHIND MOST OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKESIDE PARKWAY HERE.

SO THERE'S NO MINISTERIAL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDISTRICT C-1 STANDARDS.

BUT A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPROVAL OR DENIAL WOULD BE A WAY THAT WE COULD ENFORCE OUR OPINION OF WHAT THAT STANDARD SHOULD BE.

IS THAT NOT ACCURATE? REFER TO BRYN ON THAT ONE.

RIGHT. SO YOUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ESSENTIALLY SETS THE STANDARD IN A SINGLE SENTENCE, AND THAT IS THE ROLE OF COUNCIL IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT CANNOT REASONABLY BE DEVELOPED BASED ON ECONOMIC OR OTHER PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION WITHOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION.

SO THEN THAT WOULD ENCAPSULATE THE LEVEL OF DISCRETION ASSOCIATED WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS.

NOW, OBVIOUSLY TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHIESTEL, IF THE BUILDING COULD BE REDESIGNED TO SAVE THESE TREES, ONE OR MORE OF THEM, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD FIND THAT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARD AND THE TREE REMOVAL SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE TREES. THANK YOU. I'D KIND OF ADD IN TO THAT THEN TO, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN DOING OUR BEST, GOING BACK TO THAT, TO ADHERE TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SEEMINGLY ORIGINALLY LAID OUT, OR AT LEAST THE GENERAL INTENT. OBVIOUSLY, THINGS THAT ARE DONE DECADES IN ADVANCE.

WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE JUST DOING EVERYTHING, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DOUBLE DOWN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO STICK TO THAT.

THAT'S NOT TO DISREGARD OR SAY WE DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OPINION ON THAT, BUT JUST TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, PURPOSEFUL THINGS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO DO OUR BEST TO ADHERE TO THAT.

SO, AND WHILE IT'S NOT THE SAME TREE, THERE IS A LARGER ONE THAT IS GETTING SAVED, AND WE ACTUALLY DID ADJUST SOME OF THE GRADING THAT WE WERE DOING, AND THERE IS A LARGE TREE THAT'S GOING TO BE UP IN THIS ISLAND HERE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE FROM WORKING WITH STAFF AND JAKE ON COMING UP, AND ONCE AGAIN, REMIND ME OF THE NAME OF THAT ONE THE SMALL NECKLACE TREE.

[01:55:03]

EVE'S NECKLACE. I KNEW IT WAS JUST AN INTERESTING ONE.

YEAH, IT WAS JUST A NON-PROTECTED SIZE EASE HAS TO HIT SIX INCHES FOR THAT TO BE A PROTECTED TREE, BUT THEY WENT AHEAD AND AGREED TO SAVE IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A MORE RARE SPECIES TO FIND OUT THERE.

SO THEY ADDED THAT NOTE RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP.

YES, AND THAT WAS FROM WORKING WITH STAFF, LIKE I SAID, DOING OUR BEST TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY COULD IN THAT CORNER.

THE TREE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK, IS THAT 'S THREE, NINE, FIVE, THREE.

CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. 39 HIGHLIGHTED ONE RIGHT HERE.

MUCH CLOSER TO THE BUILDING, MAKING SURE I HAD THE RIGHT TREE.

THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO THE PUBLIC IF AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO DOES ANYONE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. NO ONE WANTS TO COME FORWARD. SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF THERE'S ANY DELIBERATION ON THIS COUNCIL, I'LL SUPPORT THIS. IF WE EXCLUDE TREE 3953. I AGREE, AND WHAT ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY? CAN WE FIND OUT HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO FIND OUT IF WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT THIRD DRIVEWAY? BECAUSE THAT WOULD SAVE SOME TREES, TOO. IT'S MINISTERIAL, BUT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE SITE PLAN TO BE APPROVED UNDER THAT CONDITION.

DO WE NEED THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UP? I DON'T THINK SO.

AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS DAN ANDERSON.

4197 MENDENHALL ROAD OR DRIVE IN DALLAS. I'M THE OWNER'S REP.

WAS HIRED ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO TO HELP DEVELOP THIS SITE, AND TO THE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GO WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. WE DEVELOPED THIS SITE PLAN PROBABLY I THINK 8 OR 9 YEARS AGO TO HAVE TWO BUILDINGS ON IT AND TO STAIR STEP WITH THE SITE, AND WE CAME TO FIND OUT THAT AND WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND GOT HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN ON THIS SITE, BUT DURING THAT PROCESS CAME TO FIND OUT THAT THE THAT THE STORM DETENTION HAD NOT BEEN REALLY ACCOUNTED FOR OR CONSTRUCTED PER THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.

SO THIS SITE WAS KIND OF HAD AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF DETENTION REQUIRED.

SO WE DESIGNED AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ONLY WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR A SURFACE DETENTION POND.

SO WE DID AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION AND IT ENDED UP JUST BEING UNECONOMICAL, AND THE OWNER DECIDED NOT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

SO, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE TODAY WHERE WHEN WE KIND OF CAME BACK INTO THIS SAYING, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE PROPERTY NOW? WE CAME AND SAT DOWN WITH CHUCK IN THE CITY AND OR THE TOWN, EXCUSE ME, AND ASKED KIND OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE WHAT THE TOWN WANTED, AND WE LOOKED AT THE PD AND WE LOOKED AT THE DESIGN OF A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT WE WERE GOING ALONG WITH WHAT THE TOWN ZONED THE PROPERTY FOR TO BE CONSISTENT.

AGAIN, WE KIND OF FOUND OUT THAT WE, WE HAD SOME DETENTION ISSUES.

SO WE'VE OVERSIZE OUR STORM DRAINS AND DONE SOME DETENTION IN THE TRUCK COURT TO ACCOMMODATE DETENTION THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE ROOM FOR ON A TRIANGLE SITE WITH A SQUARE BUILDING. SO AGAIN, WE'VE TRIED TO WORK AS MUCH AS WE COULD WITH THE TOWN AND DESIGNED SOMETHING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED WITHIN THE ZONING.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TREES ON IT, I BELIEVE EIGHT YEARS AGO THERE WAS A, AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION AND I BELIEVE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE WRITING A CHECK FOR ABOUT $160,000 WORTH OF MITIGATION FOR THIS SITE, BECAUSE I GUESS THAT HAS BEEN THAT ORDINANCE HAS BEEN CHANGED, AND WE'RE AND WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. SO ANYWAY, WE HAVE TRIED TO DO AS MUCH AS WE COULD TO THIS SITE, AND , AND AGAIN, IT'S A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY AND A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, JUST THE SHAPE OF THE SITE REQUIRES US TO PUT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE LANE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING, AND THESE BUILDINGS HAVE A LOT OF PAVING.

SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. OKAY. ANYONE ON STAFF WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT THIRD DRIVEWAY, OR DO WE NEED TO WAIT ON THAT? AND I WOULD SAY FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, WE'RE FINE WITHOUT THAT CONNECTION.

OKAY. SO IT'S JUST IF WE WOULD REQUIRE IT IF IT'S NECESSITY OR NOT.

CORRECT. LIKE I SAID, THE DISPOSITION OF THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN IS STILL UNDER REVIEW WOULD BE PUT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I DON'T RECALL OFFHAND IF NOT MAKING THAT CONNECTION TO THE EAST, I BELIEVE IS WHAT THE CONNECTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A, AN EXCEPTION, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT'S THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT AUTHORIZES OR AUTHORIZES THE REQUEST.

[02:00:04]

SO I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE.

I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DENY THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE UP FRONT, I HAVE MORE CONCERNS OF JUST GENERAL ACCESS AND CIRCULATION FROM A FIRE STANDPOINT.

SO IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING, MY RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME WOULD BE TO TABLE IT SO WE CAN GET WITH OUR FIRE AND ENGINEERING STAFF BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION THAT ISN'T TENABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT BACK AND HAVE ALL THOSE ANSWERS FOR COUNCIL TO DO THAT.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION.

I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION IF THE IF THE ACCESS POINT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IS WHETHER THEY HAVE TO CONNECT TO THE ADJACENT SITE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE? NO. WELL, THE ADJACENT SITE, A CONNECTION IS TO THE WEST ISH.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THIRD ONE THAT BISECTS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE.

RIGHT. THAT'S. YES. OKAY. SO I DID. AT FIRST I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT TO THE ROAD IN FRONT, AND I WAS LIKE. NO, TO THE SIDE. NO, THEY DO HAVE TO DO THE ONE TO THE SIDE.

THAT WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY, CROSS ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

WE REQUIRE THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO HAVE THAT, THAT CROSS ACCESS.

IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO PLATTED EASEMENT ALREADY, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS PLATTED DURING THE FIRST SITE PLAN.

PROCESS THAT CAME THROUGH. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD TELL SOMEONE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE A PLATTED EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT.

WELL, OUR PLAN IS TO REPLAT THE PROPERTY. THAT'S IN PROCESS.

SO WE COULD , WITH OR WITHOUT. OKAY, SO IF YOU REMOVE IT, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH PROBABLY WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

OKAY. THEY HAVE THEIR THEY HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS OF THEIR OWN.

OKAY. OKAY. SO THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE. A REQUIREMENT PER ENGINEERING AND FIRE.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, WHEN THE FIRST SITE PLAN CAME FORWARD, THAT THEY HAD TO PROVIDE THAT CONNECTION TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

OKAY. SO THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED TO TABLE THIS.

COULD WE SEE THAT SLIDE NUMBER ONE AGAIN PLEASE? THAT GIVES US THE LARGER PICTURE OF WHAT'S ADJACENT.

IT PROBABLY DOESN'T SHOW THE NEW BUILDING. OH, SO THERE IS A PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT, BUT CORRECT, AND THEY'VE MADE THAT LITTLE CONNECTION, BUT THEY HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS. THEY HAVE TWO ENTRANCES.

YEAH. IN OUR ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, I THINK THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE WITHOUT MAKING THAT CONNECTION. SO DO WE NEED TO TABLE IT TO SEE IF THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST HAS THE TWO REQUIRED ENTRANCE AND EGRESS ACCESS POINTS IN LIEU OF THE BISECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND DO THAT, AND I BELIEVE THE REASON WHY THE ORIGINAL ACCESS CONNECTION WAS REQUIRED IS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS GOING TO VIOLATE THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THEN WHEN THE MCIVER SITE PLAN CAME FORWARD, THEY GOT AN EXCEPTION FOR SPACING BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY TONIGHT WAS NOT DEVELOPED. SO YEAH, WE CAN DOUBLE CHECK NOW THAT SINCE THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED, IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO REPLAT TO REMOVE THE EASEMENT.

I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW FRIEND HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN TELL SOMEBODY THEY HAVE THEY CAN'T USE THE PLATTED ACCESS EASEMENT.

IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE THAT OR YOU NEED AN EXCEPTION.

100%. I WILL SUPPORT THAT. AS LONG AS THE FIRE CHIEF DOESN'T COME UP HERE AND SAY THAT HE CAN'T PUT OUT A FIRE.

SO 100%, I WILL SUPPORT THAT. AS LONG AS WE APPROVE THIS, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT, IT'S NOT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED CHIEF HENLEY TO COME UP HERE.

IT'S NOT PART OF A FIRE LANE THAT EXTENSION TO THE PROPERTY.

SO TO THE MCIVOR PROPERTY. YES. RIGHT NOW, THIS LITTLE GUY RIGHT HERE IS A MUTUAL ACCESS AND EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT. SO RIGHT NOW, OUR PLAN DOES SHOW THAT AS A FIRE LANE AND IS GREAT IN FOLLOWING ALL THOSE. MY ASSUMPTION IS YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION, AND THEN AS LONG AS THE FIRE CHIEF SAYS WE CAN STILL PUT OUT A FIRE, THEN I WOULD 100% SUPPORT THAT EXCEPTION AND MAKE THIS A LITTLE EASIER FOR YOU TO DEVELOP AND SAVE A LITTLE A FEW MORE OF THESE TREES. I WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THAT. OKAY, NOW TO CONFIRM TAKING OUT.

WELL, IF BEAR WITH ME. SO, YEAH, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN KIND OF SEE SOME OF THESE IN GRAY HERE.

THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO GAIN BACK, I GUESS TO CLARIFY, WERE YOU STILL REQUESTING THAT THE SITE PLAN BE CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TREE OR AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO, OR WERE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE SAVE THIS MORE THAN ONE TREE OVER HERE IN

[02:05:09]

LIEU OF. SAVING THIS ONE TREE. WELL, SINCE WE CAN'T COMMIT TO ANYTHING IN THAT AREA TONIGHT, THEN I'M STILL GOING TO SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THAT TREE PERMIT, BUT IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR YOU TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD THAT ROAD IN EITHER SCENARIO.

SO. SURE. AGREED. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. COOL. OKAY.

YEAH. JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW WE ARE ON SCHEDULE TO GO TO P&Z ON MONDAY NIGHT ON THE 28TH WITH THE WITH PLANS SUBMITTED, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. SO. OKAY. OKAY. SO. SO IS THERE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN YOU HAD HOPED TO GO BEFORE P&Z TO COME UP WITH WHATEVER REQUISITE EXCEPTIONS THERE WOULD BE? SO IF THE ITEM TONIGHT IS TABLED AND TALKING TO LEXIN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE ON THE PNC AGENDA BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE.

THEY WOULDN'T PNC WOULDN'T APPROVE OR CAN'T APPROVE A SITE PLAN THAT REMOVES PERMITS THAT AREN'T AUTHORIZED OR TREES THAT AREN'T AUTHORIZED FOR REMOVAL.

SO YES, IF WE DO TABLE IT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND ADDRESS THE STUB OUT EXCEPTION TO THE EAST.

WHAT RAMIFICATIONS, IF ANY, KEEPING THE TREE UP FRONT DOES.

FROM A CIRCULATION AND FIRE COVERAGE PERSPECTIVE AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL HAS AT THIS POINT? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH. SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT, WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT PRESENTATION.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. NOT A PROBLEM, AND TAKING THAT TIME.

TOMMY, UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. WOULD THAT BE OR DO YOU WANT JUST UNTIL STAFF DETERMINES IT'S READY FOR TO RETURN? YEAH. I MEAN, BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF IT WILL HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT.

I MEAN, WE'LL FIND OUT INFORMATION, BUT THEN THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE WILLING OR ABLE TO DO.

SO I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN THEY'LL BE READY BY THE NEXT MEETING, BUT RIGHT THERE, WE'RE OPERATING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO KEEP THE TREE UP FRONT. SO WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CODES IN THE TOWN'S ORDINANCES THAT TRIPS UP, AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DESIGN THAT IMPLICATIONS OF THAT. IN MY MIND, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT A GIGANTIC LANDSCAPE ISLAND THERE.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL PERSPECTIVE, MUCH LESS THE TOWN'S SHOP OF THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS PERSPECTIVE.

OKAY. SO I'LL JUST MOVE TO TABLE TWO AN UNCERTAIN DATE UNCERTAIN.

OKAY. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A ALL RIGHT. I'LL JUST MOVE A MOVE TABLE ITEM K3 UNTIL AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE DATE.

SECOND. OKAY. THERESA IF YOU'LL TAKE THE ROLL.

OKAY. ITEM K3 IS GOING TO BE TABLED, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO

[K.4. TRP25-0003 - 5000 Lighthouse Drive - Public Hearing to consider an application for a tree removal permit (TRP25-0003) for two (2) specimen trees on the property known as 5000 Lighthouse Drive for the proposed single-family residential development. The property is generally located east of Lighthouse Drive, and north of Cross Timbers Road. (The Environmental Conservation Commission recommended approval of tree #8975 and denial of tree #8982 by a vote of 6 to 0 at its April 1, 2025, meeting.)]

ITEM K4, THE LIGHTHOUSE DRIVE, AND JAKE, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

YES MAYOR I'LL BE ON THIS ONE. OKAY. SO THIS IS FOR LIGHTHOUSE DRIVE IN TOUR 218.

IT'S TRP 25 0003. THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR AGRICULTURAL USES. THERE'S SEVEN SPECIMEN TREES ON SITE TO FACILITATE THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

THE SPORTS COMPLEX PARKING. TWO OF THE SPECIMEN TREES ARE REQUESTED FOR REMOVAL ON APRIL 1ST, ECC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR. LET'S SEE HERE.

REMOVAL OF THE TREE 8975 AND DENIAL OF 8982.

OKAY.

OKAY. SO THIS IS THE TREE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THAT IS TREE 8975, AND THEN THIS IS THE TREE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

I'LL SHOW YOU THEM ON THE PICTURES. SO THERE'S EIGHT, NINE, SEVEN, FIVE.

THIS ONE'S IN FAIR CONDITION. IT HAD A SMALL WOUND AT THE BASE OF IT.

IT WAS ABLE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE THAT, BUT IT IS ALSO EXPERIENCING SOME SLOW GROWTH IN THE CANOPY,