Nov 06, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-11-06 2:00 PM

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the PNZ Commission work session meeting for November 6 2019. Seeing that we do have a quorum I'll open the meeting at 2 0 5. First item of business is to receive a report and hold the discussion over the new administrative criteria manuals and updates to existing criteria manuals and I'll invite Ron McGuida for presentation. Thank You Chair, members of the Commission, good afternoon. Ron McGuida again with development services. Sorry get back to the beginning of the presentation. The purpose of this work session item is really to introduce the work that staff is doing to create some criteria manuals as well as update some existing criteria manuals. But just way of purpose and background we continue to update and improve our development review process by enhancing customer service and enhancing efficiency. By doing so we are making sure that our documents are updated and making sure that we have the documentations that our developers our residents and our property owners need in order to develop here in the city. One of the things that the staff did when we did update our criteria manuals as well as draft our criteria manuals we wanted to make sure that we're streamlining the process that we're removing any work guesswork reducing any inconsistency and then involving the stakeholders as much as possible in the process. So just want to lead that into how we are here today. What we're presenting to you all is a set of two new criteria manuals and also five updates to existing criteria manuals. Now those that are not familiar with criteria manuals the criteria manuals are essentially supportive documents that help administer the Denton Development Code. It is maintained and updated annually and so this is the process. We are at the last part of the year and we're looking at updating our criteria manuals. There are a number of members of staff here present that will provide an overview. There is again a total seven criteria manuals and we'll go through that again in the next few minutes. At the end and towards the middle we will also be discussing a summary of how we are here and where we're going to go and what needs to happen next. Just to give you just a quick update before we get into the presentations we're now currently here obviously on November 6th at a public P&Z work session. This Friday will be a conference that the staff will be presenting these criteria manuals to a group of professional engineers. Following that there will be a work session with City Council sharing the same information that you all are getting today. We'll have a public open house shared sharing the information that we have with the public and hopefully get some good impact, impact input that is. We hope that by November 30th the end of this month we'll have enough information to bring back this item to the Planning Zoning Commission as a public hearing item and those items are just going to be the Administrative Criteria Manual and the ESA Criteria Manual primarily because they are new criteria manuals. Those existing criteria manuals do not require a public hearing they just require a public hearing with the planning I'm sorry with the City Council. Here is the list of criteria manuals that we are working on. Again two new ones are in the top two. I will be facilitating the Administrative Criteria Manual. Deborah Vieira and Christy Upton will be administering the environmental sensitive areas. Now you heard from Christy Upton a couple meetings ago I think was October 16th so she will now be presenting here at this work session again because that presentation was made several or one PNZ meeting ago. Eugene McKinney is here to talk about solid waste and Pritam Deshmukh is going to discuss the rest of the criteria manual as you see here. So with that I'm going to go ahead and start with the Admin Criteria Manual. The Admin Criteria Manual replaces what we often refer to as the Site Design Criteria Manual. It again as mentioned in the introduction the Administrative Criteria Manual assist in the administration of the development code and the development process. It provides information and guidance to our property owners our citizens and our developers in relationship to development. It is a supplemental document and it contains a number of items including a development process guide. You see a little bit of it here which will be included in the Administrative Criteria Manual so if you haven't seen it already it's a helpful page or a helpful PDF that identifies five stages of development review. There are also other approvals and procedures included in the Administrative Criteria Manual as well as appendices and contact information. Those appendices are important because they're primarily what our development community looks for when looking at how to develop here in the city. As you can see starting with number one it's starting off with how do you apply? You know what what do you need to submit through a checklist as well as how to access your project through eTrackit and through Project Docs. It goes into further standards and regulations that again these are not competing with the DDC they're primarily supplementing the DDC and supporting it in ways that is not included in the DDC. So again these standards that you see in the Administrative Criteria Manual are just technical standards that are required for development and as you continue to go down the list you see that there's helpful information again that is used either from an architect or a landscape architect or just in general someone that's developing and trying to put together a site plan. They've got all the information that they need hopefully within the Administrative Criteria Manual. Does anybody have any questions on the Administrative Criteria Manual? Again it's really a how-to instruction document as well as it houses a lot of the supportive materials that our developers and property owners and citizens often look for or look to when proposing development. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Ron I did have kind of a specific question as I was reading through this with regard to the certificate of zoning compliance which I know is new. So it says on there applicants may be required to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance at the time of applying for a building permit. So that's not all. So what are some examples of who would be? So some sometimes like all you know all that we know is there's there's a CO currently. We're trying to get away from issuing a CO for everything. So the zoning compliance certificate serves as that a portion of that. For example a parking lot you know somebody wants to develop a parking lot. Well there's not it's not a CO because there's no building to occupy so a certificate of zoning compliance would fall under that category. So just a case-by-case project by project? Correct. We hope to have a zoning compliance certificate for most of our properties. That's that's the goal but there are specifics that specific ones that would require it. Okay well I'm going to introduce Eugene McKinney to talk about solid waste, solid waste criteria manual and he'll provide you with what's being updated. It is a pleasure to to be here this afternoon and to give you all some updates on some things that we're doing in solid waste to update our our site criteria manual. As noted this criteria manual has been updated since 2009. So some things in the industry and our vehicles and things have changed. With that being said we wanted to clarify some edits in there within the language. One of the things that we did put in about solid waste determining the sizes, types of containers but we want to work closer with our business owners and our builders to determine if they're receiving the right kind of container, right type of a container for their business and the business needs. For example you may produce eight yards of debris, garbage, you may only need a container. You may well I'm sorry you may produce eight yards and maybe once a week. Do you pile it all in a yard container or do you get a smaller container or multiple times a week? So we want to create a relationship to make sure that we are getting the right you know right type of container. Traffic and other things matter so we just want to increase that relationship to make sure we're doing right by our customers. We want to widen our enclosures. As the industry has changed our trucks have changed specifications and everything. Our trucks are a little wider to protect against some vital organs. I say organs in arteries our hydraulic lines in particular electric lines. They now run on the outside of the truck for easy repair and they have shields on them. So with those shields with that being said the shields cause the trucks to be just a little wider inches not a whole lot but inches. So by widening our storage our eventments will actually allow us to go in without causing damage to our trucks or property. Also we've asked these eventments to be wider just in case there's storage in the eventments. We've often ran into situations where we'd service a container and there's all type of valuable storage items in the container and it's damaged because there's just not a room enough room inside there. So again creating a relationship we're working with the property owner will rectify a lot of that stuff a lot of those things like that. Our measurements represents the inside wall dimension. I think previously it was outside but if we do inside that'll ensure that we're making we're meeting the right measurements here. I mean you can say for example you say 12 12 feet inside or 13 feet inside or that that ensures that we have 12 feet or 13 feet of clearance to drive the truck in. Opposed to outside that's 12 feet outside well when you put everything in and the ballads and the gates and everything that might turn into a 10 or 11 feet. So we just want to make sure that we're clearing our language. Something we're looking at as well our dual enclosures we want to increase them from 24 or 5 to 26 feet. Again with the trucks being a little bit larger a little bit wider we need a little more space to get in. In between that each each on the duals each enclosure should be 12 feet 8 inches. That gives us that allows for a 4 inch for 5 inch pillar in the middle to close the gates and to compensate with the increased size or the width of the truck. All our drawings with this to go along with the conversation the drawings have been updated and everything is alphabetically in order. Any questions? No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Deputy City Engineer. I'll be talking about the remaining manuals and start with the construction guarantee manual. This is the manual that deals with public infrastructure within private development. So if you have a development that has streets and other facilities water waste water drying into it this defines how things will be laid. This manual was updated back in 2002 so it's pretty old it has not been updated. So I'm not going to read through all of these bullet points but the highlights of this is there are a lot of roles and responsibilities that have changed so the organizational structure has changed. We've updated that portion. We've added extra language of what is required in the construction plans. We've added extra information that's needed as part of the construction plans and then we've also tightened some of the things as far as safety is concerned. So traffic control plans and traffic lane closure plans while you're tying into the street water sewer system and stuff like that. So we've elaborated and added a lot more language to make it more understandable easy to read and that's what's entailed in this particular update. Any questions? I'm gonna move on to the next one. Stonewater design criteria manual. This is a much newer manual. This was updated last year. I came here in front of BNZ and presented. What we're doing every year as part of the updates is really making sure that we listen to all the developers to listen to their needs and some of the things you can notice they're included in these changes are more explicit language, more elaboration, more descriptive narrative. At the same time we're adding more materials that are we're able to use. So some of the stuff that is in here, earthen channels are now allowable once we understand what the velocities are and then the main important thing here is the private detention. We no longer require a public drainage easement over private detention and there was a large note that was in every plan that you've probably seen over years. We're trying to take that out. All we need is an operation and maintenance manual and it's an agreement between private properties so we don't need to get involved in some of this. So that's one of the major changes in the Stonewater criteria manual. Yes sir. So I appreciate getting a more explicit language for developers and everyone else to understand. Is there explicit language around the velocity analysis of earthen channels? So that will be part of the analysis that they conduct. They will conduct a hydrology analysis and that defines velocity. So they have existing velocities, existing flow lines and they will go through analysis and say here are the existing velocities and this is how much we're proposing to get. So based on all that analysis we'll determine. So there's no specific one formula fits all. It just depends on the terrain. But there is a certain assessment threshold. Correct. It's not arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. Okay. Any other questions? This I'm gonna skip. We're gonna come back next P&Z and talk about the criteria manual. None of the background information was included in your packet so I'm gonna bring it back and as you see it's very little update but the last manual is the water wastewater criteria manual. And similar concept, similar thing, theme going on here. We have added more materials. We have expanded some of our tables. If you see some of these down here we've added more pipes, pipe types of material that are acceptable, manhole material that are acceptable. We've added some language for protecting our water lines under other utilities and fences and so on and so forth. So yes similar to the previous criteria manual. This is more clean up. This is more we've listened. We've gotten your feedback from most of the contractor developer that are trying to put infrastructure in the ground and we've made it much more easier. For the item where you were simplifying it to the TCEQ guidelines, I mean was our were our guidelines before and I'll admit I haven't read through all the old guidelines. Were they identical to the TCEQ guidelines? I think Jim had a better question. Jim Wilder, Engineering Services. They were at one time. The problem is as TCEQ would update things and the criteria manual would not be updated. It is simply easier to not try to reproduce something that another organization is already updating continuously and just simply refer over to them. We've done that also in the Drainage Criteria Manual with the iSwim standards that NETCOG puts out regarding erosion control for construction projects and similar things. We were just trying to get rid of information that could become outdated because somebody's not updating it. And so for this reference, we have additional guidelines for the city. So we have both of those in this section or we are simply using the TCEQ? We're simply using the TCEQ. The original one copied the TCEQ requirements but again nobody kept up with it and we didn't realize that it wasn't being kept up. So you would read our Drainage Criteria Manual and it would say one thing but the current TCEQ rules said something different. And the TCEQ governs this item. We can't supersede it. So it was a discrepancy that we needed to just clean up and easiest way was just to remove it, refer everybody to TCEQ. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I think we're on the last slide again. So we're just gonna wrap up. Thanks to these folks to presenting, which is really helpful. We will be coming back to the Planning Zoning Commission on December 12th for the Administrative Criteria Manual and the ESA Environmental Sensitive Area Criteria Manual as a public hearing item. Again, as part of that process to get them created. As Preetam indicated, there will be a future work session item on the Transportation Criteria Manual. We will discuss that at that time. But as far as the other criteria manuals, what we hope from this work session is to just receive input and answer any questions that you may have. If there's no other input or questions, they're going to be scheduled to go to the City Council for consideration on December 17th. Again, those are the Construction Criteria Manual, the Storm Water, the Wastewater, Water and Wastewater, as well as the Soil Waste Criteria Manual. That concludes our presentation. And again, if there's any other follow-up question, we'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ron. Okay. The next item of business this afternoon is item 1B, DCA 19-009, Receive Report and Hold Discussion about subchapter 1 and subchapter 6 and subchapter 8. Looks like Hayley's going to start us off. And if you all are amenable to it, we can go ahead and roll in the public hearing clarification of agenda items into this same discussion if you'd like. Sure. All right. So I wanted to start by giving you all a little background since we do have a new code and some new commissioners on how the code amendment process works. So section 2.7.4 of the DDC specifies that text amendments may only be initiated by three entities. That's either by the Director of Development Services, which would be a staff initiated amendment, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or by the City Council. So the amendments that are before you today were initiated by the City Council following a series of work sessions as we talked about at our last meeting here. So your role in this process is to hold the first of two public hearings that are required by code and review the proposed amendments in accordance with the criteria for approval and then make a recommendation to Council who will hold the second of two public hearings on this item. So as I mentioned there there were a series of Council work sessions and policy discussions that led to this. Those started back in September of 2018 when the Council initially requested a work session to review and discuss the city's gas well setback requirements and how Denton compared to other DFW cities. At that time Dr. Banks from our environmental services department presented that information to them as well as information about the Fort Worth gas well study that was kind of the the basis for where we are today. In July of this this year Council requested a second work session to continue that discussion. At that time there was also discussion of whether a Denton specific study should be done to look at the emissions in our area and try to determine a specific setback. Council opted not to go that route but they did at that time provide direction for staff to begin working on code amendments to increase our reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet. So those first two development services was really not involved in those were led by the environmental services side of things looking at the scientific background of this but once they provided that direction for the code amendment it then fell to our department to begin drafting those in conjunction with our legal department. Haley can I interrupt real fast? I apologize. The decision not to have a Denton specific study is that a vote or is that just general consensus in a work session or is that would they take a vote on that? No it was just part of a work session discussion so it was kind of an informal vote if you will where the mayor you know asked for a show of hands on who was interested in that particular topic. Dr. Banks provided them with a cost analysis at that point in time that should be available in the presentation if you were to look back at that date and I think just based on the timing that it would take to do such a study and the cost of it they chose not to move forward with that. Was there a general consensus across the council for that or was it split? I believe it was split. I know there wasn't a majority in favor of it but I'm not sure what that specific was. So the result of that was then a subsequent work session led by development services where we brought forward some proposed text language that would increase the reverse setback to 500 feet as they requested. At that time we also discussed variance options and the potential creation of non-conformities and got council direction on how to move forward with that. So that's that's what we'll be looking at today and if you remember at the last meeting we brought forward those are initial drafts. There have been a couple of changes based on what we talked about in our October work session but we will get into the specifics of those a little bit later. Mr. Beck. So back to the second bullet, during council did what I mean I guess I can review the agenda for myself so if you could just give a maybe a really simple overview of what sort of materials were presented to council in terms of the rationale for for those kinds of distances that they that led them to that 500 foot decision direction? There were council had mentioned in various forms of requests through emails and things like that to staff different setback options that ranged from you know 300 feet based on the fire code up to 1200 feet I believe based on flower mound. So staff brought forward data related to how all of those you know what what that land use effect would look like on those and in the end the only the only scientific study that's been conducted in this area within the Barnett Shale was that Fort Worth study that Dr. Banks summarized for them and they used that as the basis for this rationale rather than doing a Denton specific air quality study. So again just to make sure we're all starting off on the same page here we do have really three different types of setbacks in the DDC but two two very broad categories the first being those applicable to gas well sites that are developing so that's type one here on the left those are the setbacks measured from the pad site when it develops out to the the structures and protected uses type two is the reverse setback which is what we're looking at today and that is measured from those structures towards the pad site when the protected use is the developing entity and then the code currently also has what's called a minimum setback and that is kind of a subset of the gas well setback because it's what an operator can seek a reduction down to through various variance processes and before we jump into the text of the code amendment at the last work session there was a request for information from legal regarding takings so I've got a few slides on that that I'll let Cynthia present. I think she's gonna do it from here Haley if you just drive the slides. I will drive this bus. Just presenting a very general overview of the takings and the issue related to increasing the gas well setbacks like the United States Constitution states that governments are prohibited from taking property without just compensation in a in a typical taking scenario it's an eminent domain of condemnation action where we're purchasing land for a roadway or other expansion. In that case we're actually filing if we can't come to an agreement we're actually filing suit in court to obtain the property. In this case where you'd have a local regulation that could be somehow interfering with a person's right to use their property it's could be considered a regulatory taking. That type of taking occurs when the regulation destroys the value of the private property. There have been several big US Supreme Court cases on that that have given us guidance on how to analyze those cases. In that case the property owner would be filing a lawsuit against the city so it's a we would be the defendant in that matter. So in 2015 there was a discussion about increasing the reverse setbacks to 500 feet and there was a lot of concern and comments from the real estate community and landowners and it was this this argument the takings claim that was brought up and that's why the setback was not one of the reasons why the setback was not increased to 500 feet. The 2015 ordinance also had a thousand foot setbacks for for pad sites that that was actually reduced in that ordinance from 1,200 feet due to legislators testimony and the the 250 foot setback for existing pad sites was was retained in that 2015 amendment. So in order for this the city to or any local government to defend a takings claim we would have to convince a court that we are doing it to protect the public health safety and welfare of the community or to obey the nuisance and a nuisance is really a it's a legal term it has meaning to it so it'd be a judge declaring that a certain use is a nuisance it wouldn't be the city saying on our own that it was a nuisance activity. So we must we must the city must prove that that the gas wells present a public health safety and welfare issue to increase that setback that's the general consensus and in order to do that we would have to have a scientific evidence that the setback should be increased and in a a takings lawsuit it would really be a battle of the experts it would be the city's expert against the the operators expert or other parties that are involved in it to to convince a court that what's what side is right so it'd really be science that would win win in this case and just to note the the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission well they won't accept a study that was a commission by the state with regard to the gas well setbacks. Commissioner Beck. Can I follow up on that point real quick though if they what what are the implications of not accepting a study from the Railroad Commission or the TCEQ in terms of our legal obligations? They not accepting a study means what to the the procedures of any claim in a takings claim? Well the state does that would have some weight with whether or not the state recognized the study with regard to any any lawsuit or the support of the setback increase. And courts never override the REC? I can't predict that but that I generally that's the consensus is they would have to accept the study. Jerry, you're not going to the mic well if you want to pick up or Cynthia can speak. So even it even if we even if we prevail in a lawsuit we still have may have to pay if the setback is not deemed reasonable. So these are all things that the city has considered in the past when reviewing this very issue with regard to takings claims and as Mr. Drake has mentioned there is there's state preemption with regard to what we can regulate for gas wells. So following up on that point if I might the there's a number as you said there's a there's a number of rationale for when something is a nuisance or noxious use and that we can regulate and so and and I understand that HB 40 pretty much mandates and controls things let's globally say below the ground but left nebulous or even in our purview the things above the ground especially not the gas wells themselves but the things around the gas wells the other developments that we'd be talking about. So my I guess my question is to in in in this regard and yes it's it's making a judgment call that you'll probably push back and say well we're not going to make that judgment call but in in cases where there are potential takings it's incumbent upon the the the person who thinks there's a taking to to address that so out of X thousand instances where there was a potential takings how many people actually sue their municipality under these kinds of conditions or at least start procedures whether or not they complete them and then to another extent how how often are they successful implying that the municipality made a bad judgment call by even let's just take the RC and the TCEQ's judgment or whatever the court uses in that case so it seems like there's being a risk assessment that is extremely risk averse for for lawsuits that that I guess I'm asking how warranted is that risk assessment? Well to answer your first question you want to know how many lawsuits there were? I mean I can't answer that and how successful they were I can't answer that but Mr. Drake since you are are the city's litigator would you mind responding? We haven't seen very many inverse condemnations cases I have seen one that involves power lines on body break and that that turned into a case where we counterclaimed it settled with the homeowners to acquire additional right away in that circumstance but as far as preemption is concerned you know I don't really wanted to assess risk in the context of an open session but I do think that in general most cities are aware of those areas where there is a preemption argument and are going to be very circumspect about it and are going to try to avoid an issue where preemption is is likely or in the case of House Bill 40 stated explicitly because that's that's a situation where it leaves you very vulnerable where the legislature has already stated that a certain situation is is preempted to go into it anyway is a very difficult situation to defend. So if I might follow up the these particular cases that were being asked by council to review are reverse setbacks they're on surrounding development so even you know taking the the notion that HB 40 is is splits creaking through the code and demanding behavior that isn't really germane to the surrounding development is it? Well I therefore the risks are different. HB 40 is one flavor of of preemption yet you have to understand that in Texas the rights of the mineral owner are superior to the rights of the surface owner and that that that's well established in Texas law and so yes there there are ways to fashion arguments around that but you know again I I don't know that this particular arena is a correct discussion for arguments to be made or strategies and litigation I think the point is that we wanted to make sure that we impressed upon the public in the Planning and Zoning Commission in particular that that that this isn't an easy or easily dismissed issue it's an issue that is it is is fraught with danger it's an issue where the state has spoken on it they have declared that that at least in many areas that that there is definitely preemption against local municipal regulation and it's an area where the state has long held that the rights of mineral owners are superior those of service owners we just have to try to steer a course that that protects the citizens as much as we possibly can I guess I'm good at the same question though and I'm not asking to do a private session comment here so you can redirect that obviously but we're discussing reverse setbacks and and the mineral rights would be the mineral rights for the property in development not not the gas well property well and they're separate is we're discussing development around the gas well we're not talking about regulating the gas wells or the gas production facilities right we're talking about that the development potentially around those kinds of uses mm-hmm so I keep and a lot of the points that I've seen in the last slide are seemed to be related to the gas wells themselves and I'm trying to get a clear picture on how what's what's why why are we discussing the gas wells if we're discussing what's around the gas wells I think the whole purpose for the reverse setback is recognizing that there are studies that support the strong possibly help adverse health effects to people who are surrounding gas wells particularly for what we've defined as protected uses and and the point of having the reverse setbacks is to make sure that those uses are are protected against those impacts and with the Fort Worth study there is at least some support for that that we can rely upon and incite as evidence the and I guess the the question is if there is something that shows a different where is that evidence and you know we would need to be able to cite to that - Charles thank you chair are there past court cases that were reviewed from other cities that led to the points that were just made Cynthia or Jerry I well I think that to a certain extent Denton's kind of in a leadership role among Texas cities and in in challenging many of these regulations but there are other cases in other states that have gone after gas well regulations that you reviewed when you brought up these points is that right okay the slides are general general takings law established by the the US Supreme Court so that's the analysis that that we would use or we have used mr. Drake can I ask you one question please it's actually two questions I lied are you able to disclose or estimate the amount the city spent and then settled with the case on Bonnie Bray I don't remember was it what it's not posted for that that's not a posted item I hesitate to even go into that you know if it's if it's not a posted topic I was just using that as an example of one case that involved the claim of a taking that we defended I understand was it insignificant the money allocated to city litigation and then the settlement of that land I just don't remember it's been years since I've looked at it I know that I worked out for a while we referred it out once we realized that there was a desire to acquire additional right away for the future and then do you remember an estimate how much land we were talking about here was it acres no no very small very small a lot of work okay thanks Haley back to you all right so if there's nothing else on that topic we can jump into what the public hearing will be tonight so again the request before you would be to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to subchapters one six and eight of the DC related to these increasing reverse setbacks and associated procedures and definitions there are really four major topics of changes that are occurring in the code so we'll go through each one of those in detail and just as a reminder it was in your backup but the code does have five criteria for approval for a code amendment whether it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and other city policies rather it conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the municipal code of ordinances if it's necessary to address a community need or respond to a substantial change in conditions or policy and rather it's consistent with the general purpose and intent of the DDC so the first of the the major topics for this change would be the increase in reverse setbacks themselves so this slide is just showing you our current conditions today all of the reverse setbacks are at 250 feet no matter the scenario regarding zoning or the the status of the gas well site and this is what that would look like if we make this change so reverse setbacks across the board per council direction would be increased to 500 feet and with that there is a need to introduce then a new setback category in the same way we have a minimum setback today for the operator to seek a reduction the same would have to be or would need to be offered to the developers because of those takings claim concerns that they could then get a reduction down as low as 250 feet. Mr. Beck. So Haley when I reviewed some of these materials that you presented before and went through the code I was a little confused by one item and that's the 250 itself and and you can help me clarify this it looked like the there was actually a minimum 300 foot distance for fire code operational distances between structures for just getting in and taking care of an emergency how is that 300 foot not superseding this 250 how can they both exist? Let me go back to this diagram and maybe that would help with that so the 300 foot from the fire code is taken from a different point the reverse setbacks and setbacks are measured from the perimeter of the pad site whatever that's established to be on a gas well plat or gas well site plan the 300 foot per the fire code is measured from equipments that contain flammable liquids and gases and typically within a pad site there's well more than 50 feet of space in between well heads or equipment and the edge of that pad so in most cases the 300 actually falls within the radius of the 250 foot but both of those measurements do come into play for a protected use and then similarly the for residential development at least the 250 is measured for a new subdivision to the residential lot lines whereas the fire code measurement is structured to equipment so again they typically don't have any conflict within one another it just ends up being the lot line can go at the boundary of the 250 structures can't encroach within that 300 so both measurements are taken when we're looking at a residential subdivision or other protected use and this the fire code that we're using for for the 350 is that ours is that the states what's the source of the fire that's from the international fire code okay you're welcome so again just a caption of what that would look like in the code if you look through the red line you'll see it's it's a much more spacious thing it's not the summary table but those are the same numbers that are in the drafts that were given to you associated with that we then have to introduce a definition for what a minimum reverse setback would be so that would be the minimum distance that a protected use or residential lot has to be separated by the surface owner from an approved drilling and production site and then the reverse setback measurement is then amended to strike the word minimum previously there was no relief for the 250 foot reverse setback now that that setback is increased and we're introducing a minimum that word needed to be struck for consistency and to reduce conflict there but they're the same number the minimum reverse setback and the setback are the same the minimum would be 250 under the scenario the reverse would be 500 perfect thank you and then the other change within the setback portion of the code itself would be to the measurements currently the code says that the measurements for this are taken from the closest exterior point of a proposed structure to be occupied by a protected use in a straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects to the closest boundary designated for the site or for a proposed residential subdivision like I mentioned previously that setback would be measured from any undeveloped residential lot boundary to the closest boundary of the site we went over this briefly last time I showed you the example of McKenna Park with the increase in reverse setback roughly 40% of that particular park will fall within the setback so we wanted to clean this section up a bit to provide guidance to our parks department and future park dedications as to how that measurements taken when there's not an occupiable structure so the language that we have proposed is that for the purpose of setback measurements at a public park measurements would be taken from any improvement such as a building playground equipment pool splash pad a permanent ball field or a pavilion and it would not include flat work such as sidewalks or parking areas so just to again give a little bit of guidance to our parks department if they were to ever seek to add new improvements at McKenna Parker if we had another park that happened to to fall into this scenario the second of our major topics would be nonconformities we went over this at the previous work session I showed you the numbers of where we were at just doing a quick GIS analysis of what structures there are it was approximately 900 or so non conformities that would fall within this 500 foot setback if it were increased and if you recall at the time when this went to council they directed staff to find a way to prevent the creation of non conformities so we we pulled language that's similar to what was put in the new DDC for single-family uses to prevent any of those from becoming nonconforming so that's what what this would look like was that we would have to introduce language in the code saying that reverse setbacks as introduced by this ordinance shall not cause existing legally established protected uses or lots to become nonconforming and then we further defined that legally established would be extended to any project that's under review today so applications that we currently have in the queue for preliminary and final plats the issue with this language is that we would then be creating unique classifications of nonconformities so and structure or home that's existing today and nonconforming to the 250 foot setback wouldn't enjoy the same protection they would remain nonconforming and as the codes written today that would mean that if their home was destroyed by more than 50% they could not rebuild that structure so we wanted to avoid that separation of creating different classes of nonconformities this also wouldn't help anything that's nonconforming to other city regulations so we would have sections of the city that could rebuild if a disaster occurred and sections that couldn't so to avoid that bifurcation we worked with our legal department and actually found language from the 2002 DDC that could help the situation so in lieu of option one for nonconformity staff is recommending that you can consider option two which is would be introduced into a different section of subchapter one and it would provide that a nonconforming structure that's been damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 50% of the gross floor area shall not be rebuilt or occupied except upon action of the Board of Adjustment so our 02 code actually allowed this I can't think of a single instance when it was utilized but it did have that option for a nonconformity to rebuild if it were destroyed so we would just recommend adding that language back into the code it would apply citywide and any nonconforming structure use could could have the same option to go to ZBA and seek a the ability to rebuild in the event of destruction by fire, tornado, whatever that might be. Commissioner Bec. So I noticed that there's no there's no minimum setback distance or minimum there's no numbers in this new language versus the the option 3a the multi-standard version and so I was curious why the minimum wasn't specified to guide the ZBA when they're trying to do that. The minimum would fall back to this definition which is the minimum that it could be reduced to after relief or variance is granted so it would go back to the 250 foot minimum reverse setback that's proposed. So in this situation if someone has I'm just trying to add clarity if someone is currently within 500 feet but greater than 250 feet and their house burns down they would have to go to ZBA to get a permit to rebuild. Correct if this increase were approved. And if they are under 250 feet they have no ability to rebuild. This could allow ZBA that option I believe. Well the answer is it's in conflict with that. Yeah. I'm not sure where they would land on that. It doesn't again it doesn't specify to his point but I think they would be in the same situation they are today where they're they're out of compliance so they could request that of ZBA. ZBA may not be able to approve it. Okay. It's it's neither neither one of these options is so unclear. Neither option one or option two provides a homeowner within 250 feet of a gas well who gets hit by a tornado to rebuild. That's my understanding with the definition of minimum reverse setback as it's drafted. Yeah unless we were to modify it some way where this would would apply to all nonconformities as a result of whether it be under the new or the old. And then that is the case today with with the nonconform with anything nonconforming to the 250 and there are and I believe in the neighborhood of 300 of those. What's the number of current structures within 250 feet of a gas well? I don't have it handy at this point it's in the neighborhood of 300 single family structures. It might be rhetorical question but the city is okay generally speaking with 300 property owners in our city not being able to rebuild what they currently are occupying in the event of a disaster. That is the nature of nonconformities unfortunately that the goal. Well I understand the nature of nonconformities that exist but this is an opportunity right now it's not passed. The the proposed dialogue being presented as an option thereby restricts 300 or whatever that number is. I understand the essence of nonconformities. What I'm curious about is there is there not a methodology to protect 300 citizens of their property that they already have? And maybe that's it. There could be to Richard's point you know this this is proposed draft language we could potentially craft something that would speak specifically to that to allow the minimum reverse setback to not apply in these instances but that's not the situation today. The hesitation that is having different nonconformity districts or? I think you got to look at almost kind of step back going back to the old deep this language was in the old DDC so the the original reverse setback was part of that old DDC so this option would have been availed to those nonconforming there wasn't a separation of only this nonconforming structure can apply for that. What didn't care this language did not carry over into the new code. So the way this is structured really I don't think would differentiate between the two unless we state stated that it did. Well if it's going before ZBA this might be thinking way out of the box but why not allow any nonconformities to go back to ZBA? No this one she just said refers back to the reverse minimum setback at 250 feet. And that's my initial thought on that because of the way that language is crafted it may be that we need to reconsider the language in the minimum reverse setback definition so that it allows for this option. As it's crafted today I think they're in conflict. I agree I believe they're also in conflict and I would be a proponent of looking at language that if we're if they don't have it by right to rebuild if we're already taking that away from them and require them to go before a board to rebuild the exact same house that they've been living in for 50 years then I think it would be appropriate I'm interested the other commissioner's thoughts that we'd not have the reverse minimum setback for nonconformities so that ZBA can actually say you've been here 60 years you can rebuild at your own peril studies show you shouldn't we'd have disclosures against that but the idea that by no mechanism if you live within 250 feet of a well you couldn't rebuild is trying to process through that. And that is possible that we I think the exemption would need to come in that definition that we looked at previously so that the language in subchapter one applies universally across the code to all nonconformities because the scope of that change would affect every nonconformity in the city for any regulation currently even if you just encroach in your your side yard setback and your house gets blown away you couldn't rebuild with the way the code is written so that that would be a universal exception I would think the specific exemption would need to come in this definition language so we can work with with legal on that if that's the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you know when when we crafted the new DDC we put in there that no single not single family but no residential would become nonconforming with the changes made in the DDC correct? Correct. That's the main concern I think is if somebody's living within this they can't rebuild their home is there any way to make that part of this change to where a resident should? That was the intent of this language option one was to extend that same the same type of exemption but that would not again it wouldn't benefit anyone who is nonconforming to the 250 today. It doesn't because this actually mentions a residential lot that that's not what we did in the DDC we we made it in a state a an existing residence not not this. The lot component comes in because the setback is measured to the lot line so there would be many lots that are in platting today that could in theory be a plotted lot that could never be built upon if that if the language didn't include the lot distinction. No and I understand that I don't like this option at all yeah that's not what I'm that's not what I'm saying I think that's yeah that opens up all kinds of issues. What I'm saying is is there a way to exempt residential existing residential homes like we did with the new DDC what may more broadly speaking to Commissioner Ellis's point what's we're obviously not gonna write new code tonight on the fly to provide a suggestion to City Council so to the extent this conversation is is in a matter of voting no to this and then this still gets presented to Council as is or what's the actual procedure for the Commission to speak in to issues that we might have for that to be then recrafted by legal can you tell me about the policy the process of improving the work so if you were to say make a motion to approve with certain changes and again we don't have to have the specific language you could provide staff direction to work with legal to craft language that accomplishes X goal prior to City Council and then that's that would move forward to Council with us crafting those changes in the meantime to satisfy your desire or the Commission could vote to postpone this and bring it and request that we bring those changes back to you all before proceeding to City Council for your review okay thank you Mr. Cole so you know last work session the example you use was my house because I'm within 250 feet of a gas well house bill 1952 well I'm not gonna be able to rebuild that I have a 70 year old hay barn that I'm about to have to rebuild I'm not gonna be able to build that either I'm on an agriculture operation you know what you're doing is depriving me of a place to live and place to you know put my hay and livestock and it's just my I mean it shouldn't be as simple as if you're conforming before you're conforming after I mean I appreciate the work y'all did to bridge that gap but it's a mile wide still I mean it's it's and I don't want my fate before the ZBA no offense I don't it shouldn't be up it shouldn't be that it shouldn't be any I mean think about the mindset of someone whose house just got taken out with a twister think about what's going on in your life you're having to deal with the insurance company where you're gonna live everything and then now you got to go deal with didn't this is I mean this right this one thing here is just unacceptable I mean you know I'm sorry I'm getting but this is personal I mean so I won't be able to build a barn here in another year or two I mean right the the agricultural uses on your property wouldn't be protected uses under the gas well ordinance so those could continue the residential structure would be the protected use what about the structure to store the you know bounty of the land you know the hay or whatever and the livestock can you build that get the agri any agricultural operation is not protected use but not the house but least I'll have a barn that stay in the bar yeah put a mattress out there right thank you Commissioner back so so one of our problems that's germane here is how do you protect people but then not break code where the city can ever make a change so if you grandfather every single change in all the time then the city can ever do anything they have to stick with you know 1850s dentin and and I know I'm exaggerating a little bit but to the to the to the extent that you can't you you need to give the city some mechanism to to change the configuration of the city Mr. Anderson is there a way this could I mean I agree with Jason on this because you got all these citizens out there that have lived here for years the house comes the tornado comes through and destroys it you're gonna be out they're gonna be dealing with the insurance you're gonna be doing adjusters you know then the board says you can't build then they got to find out somewhere else to live I mean that's just too much put on but I mean it's kind of hard to change the rules during the middle of a ballgame so I look at it I mean they've lived there if there's like chair I mean like the Commissioner said if there's a way we could put in there that if they're already an existing established residents there that they're included they can rebuild I wouldn't have a problem with then I mean but it's just all these houses that something unfortunate did happen you know kid loved it you know mom left it was cooking dinner left the gas light on boom the house blows up you know our tornado comes through wipes out five houses now we have a 500-foot setback you got a neighborhood with a half a street that you can't be built back on now that that neighborhood is gonna look stupid I mean that's just my two cents I apologize so I think since everyone's made a point here what I'd like to do is continue the presentation we're gonna hear this again public and I think it would be most appropriate to finish this dialogue after we hear public testimony and then we can look to find a vote in chambers if I think that's why agreeable to progress this conversation so hey let me turn back over to you oh yeah I just wanted to make one point there could be that option three the option three would be removing the Board of Adjustment language and we're just be automatic again that could be something you could suggest to to counsel great thank you for that insight all right so topic three of the four main topics within this change is variance options so there there are two types of variances that have been added into the code that would be applicable to a new protected use developing in proximity to a gas well the first would be the language that's been added to the permit requirement section of the gas well ordinance it references the procedures for protected use and residential lots so this one is really just kind of a placeholder for when you get to the option of I want to get a permit what do I do this tells you where to go to find those variance options if you're non-conforming then the first of those options when you get to that section would be the the option to go to ZBA through the standard hardship variance process so this language has been added that in deciding request by a property owner or developer for a or a for a residential lot the ZBA would have the standard hardship variance criteria to rely upon which we looked at last time I believe I've got those in here if we need to look at them and in addition we would add three new criteria so that would be the reasonable use of the surface of the subject property by the owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs or subdivision layouts so have they considered other options within the code to design their site that would get them to the same lot yield as this would if they got the variance and then the compatibility of the proposed development with any existing gas well development plat or site plan so most of the city's gas well sites have either a platter site plan that stipulates things like access to the site so we would need to be cognizant of whether this development is encroaching on the developer or the gas well operators ability to get to their site and these are those standard hardship criteria that would also apply so if ZBA received a request from a developer to again reduce the setback from 500 down to anything as low as 250 ZBA would have to find that the request meets all of these criteria in addition to those three that are specific to this situation the second type of relief that's offered is not going to the ZBA it's it's modeling a procedure that's offered to operators today where if you meet certain criteria staff can approve a reduction in setback in this instance staff could not reduce that setback to as low as 250 it would only get down to 375 feet and to to meet these criteria the developer would have to show that over 50% of their site is encumbered by the reverse setback and then if that is the case they would additionally have to apply these alternative site design standards to their site so for a residential subdivision we relied upon our cluster development standards so that's an existing procedure in sub chapter 8 that allows lot sizes to be reduced setbacks to be reduced to cluster the lots in an area of the property to keep another portion open so that would would have to be applied in this instance we do however request recommend that the requirement for a plan development zoning be waived in this instance so that they don't in addition to redesigning their site have to go through the zoning process and that the five acre minimum be waived because many residential subdivisions may come in and be under a five acre total size and then the second option for any other protected use so churches schools hospitals anything else on the list that's not a residential subdivision there are some adjustments that staff could approve to maximum building height and maximum building coverage to be increased by as much as 20% to allow additional development on site and then the minimum unit size and minimum number of parking spaces could be reduced by as much as 20% in those instances to allow them to have more developable area on the site Mr. Beck so I think that's a really great idea do we apply that sort of increased height and other sort of administrative variances to other noxious uses they're currently the code offers what's called a minor modification to any development and that gets all of these building height setbacks various things like that can be modified by as much as 10% without having to go to the ZBA this is simply an instance again to help with those those takings claims for sites like we looked at the last meeting where the church had 90 something percent of their site encumbered by this this would just be that option to say staff has the ability to give you a little bit more if it works great we can go this route if it doesn't you can still go to ZBA to seek that variance to those requirements to to try to develop your site so other similar things are 10% and this is 20% okay thank you all right anything else on this one and then finally the the fourth kind of change that's made is the change to sub chapter 8 that was referenced in the item caption tonight and this is a really simple change just to enable that last variance option that we looked at the cluster subdivision standards again as they apply citywide today require you to rezone to plan development and require that you have a minimum of five acres to qualify so just for the sake of gas well reverse setbacks only we would strike those two requirements so the applicability section would strike the five acre parcel size and then the the standards would would then wave that PD zoning requirement to make the process a little bit easier for those sites that are overly encumbered by the gas well setback and then again I just wanted to run through there are five criteria for approval for a code amendment with regard to consistency with the comprehensive plan there are comp plan as it stands today does recognize that sensitive and protected uses are inherently incompatible with industrial uses such as gas wells there's no specific setback distance prescribed but this does fall within the parameters of that incompatibility concern that's identified rather the amendments conflict with any other provision of the DDC or the municipal code of ordinances for the most part none of this creates a conflict if you were to pursue option one of the nonconformities that would create again those different subsets of nonconformities that could create a conflict with other codes as it stands today because others don't have that same option to not be nonconforming and then the third criteria is rather the amendment is necessary to address a demonstrated community need the council through that series of work sessions that we discussed requested this amendment be brought forward due to their concerns about community health and safety as well as other nuisance concerns from gas wells such as noise lighting truck truck traffic dust vibrations and they did find that a 500 foot reverse setback would be more protective based on the results of that Fort Worth air quality study that we discussed the fourth criteria is rather it is necessary to respond to a substantial change in conditions or policy there's been no change in conditions or policy other than we have a different council today than we did in 2015 and 2015 they found that 250 feet was sufficient for reverse setback our council today has identified additional nuisance and health concerns that they feel merits the need for this increase and then the fifth criteria is whether it's consistent with the general purpose and intent of the DDC the overall intent statements if you look in the DDC are primarily to protect public health and safety so again those concerns would would fall within the realm of that notification was published in the newspaper and online you had passed out to you four different written responses that have been received to date those were all opposed to this change for various reasons and staff again as was stated in your backup is recommending approval of as it was presented at this meeting option two for the sub chapter one amendments that would be the ability to go to ZBA and then the changes as provided in sub chapter six and sub chapter eight hey can you clarify we there is four points that you walk through but there's only three bullets here right two of those fell within sub chapter six and happy to stand for any questions you may have so I do have a question submitted by we got this before the meeting by Mark and Linda Cole I wouldn't assume they provided an interesting diagram on their page two and I just wanted to see if the situation we talked about earlier would apply to their situation in which it does seem like we would basically making be making their property useless is this something that would fall under the ZBA variance that we talked about or is this diagram that I'm looking at actually true that it looks like there's a home I don't know what direction this is but I'm gonna say it's on the south part of the property I believe that's on the north side of gem crystals of the home is on the south end of the property and then are they in their interpretation correct that they cannot build anything on this property I did not attempt to verify where they took their measurements from there's no scale or anything on that image in general it appears roughly correct I think they may have been just drawing a point in the middle of the pad site extending it out so those radii may go even further when you take them from the edge of the pad that instance would be similar to the church we looked at at the last meeting where I think it's safe to say over 50% of their site would be encumbered by the reverse setback so they could qualify for those administrative waivers that would only get them to a 375 foot radius that may or may not work depending on what they were trying to rebuild so they could then go to ZBA to get the setback reduced to the 250 that it's at today okay perfect thank you for that clarification any other questions for Haley on this item okay great so that actually was part of our public hearing those item 5f so we're done with that item but if we're skipping back to page one of our work session we're going into clarification of agenda items listed on the meeting and I think Richard has some updates for items 4a 4b but Richard can you clarify any other items no I mean other than other than 4a and 4b those applications have been withdrawn we just received a notification from the from the property owner that he is withdrawn those two preliminary plat applications what it is really they brought on a new engineer redesigning the project unfortunately with the with the confines of House Bill 3167 it really needs to just start over as a new as a new project so that's why we initially were taking these as a denial but instead of taking them as a denial he just chose to withdraw the application as as we talked through that with him yesterday so those items will not be heard and I think item force excuse me item four season be looking for a postponement they are allowed up to 30 days but then next the calendar doesn't allow for a meeting a month from now be past 30 days so we'd move them to the November 20th meeting we can't push them to the December 11th meeting because it's past 30 days that moves us yes thank you are we taking a vote to postpone that then is that what we're doing yeah we'll take a vote and public so that moves us to item 2 consideration of minutes is there any edits or updates needed for the October 16th minutes great next is items 3 this consent agenda with this many what I'd like to do is just if there's any questions about a particular item we just ask that individual be called up do you have the questions about night I'm mr. Beck yes thank you chair I had this is 99% because I wasn't a commissioner before when this was going through so I just had a question I believe it's Haley which item 3a sorry and and that was I was this is the the development near the swap fair on Gisley near the encore station it's so how how I'm just I'm a little unclear from the from the language instruction I was just asking for clarification how how closer they do to them the encore actual facilities and and and the electrical right of ways and things like that for the for particularly just mostly for those close plots so there are I believe multiple substations in the area that they would be abutting in the southern part of the property I believe this is a substation today as well as one of these lots down here so they would you know these homes would be you know backing up to that facility with regard to the transmissions lines that cross the property these dashed lines represent the boundaries of the easement that's required for those lines I believe it's a 75 feet total width for the National Electric Safety Code so those lots are staying outside of that 75 foot total width of easement there I'm not sure if you had any other specific question and so now I think I'm good thank you chair thank you thanks Haley is there any other questions on items can mr. Ellis I do on on B which I think is still Haley it's still Haley yes okay so from what my recollection this is this is off points out and it's a multifamily right that will have the shared access to this site there is the area that's kind of great out here at the bottom is the palladium multifamily development that's under construction this particular property is being subdivided for commercial development but there is a additional multifamily here to the east of them that would share this access easement in this area so the way the only access to this is going to be through that them is that correct no there is frontage here on Sherman and here in the loop so they'll be extending and they're just sharing that just as a alternative option for the multifamily very good thank you thank you again Haley any other questions on the consent okay moving on to items for individual consideration just to remind you item 4a and 4b have been formally withdrawn item 4c is seeking a 30-day request which will move it to the November 20th PMZ meeting I will take a vote and chambers for that next item of business is item 5a it's just for clarification on C do you want staff do you want to take the vote on the do you want us to go full through a full presentation on that item or do you want to consider a the postponement prior to just given the number of items on the agenda it's it's really up to Tricia also have thoughts we're talking about the one we're postponing yeah well I mean a question on it but do you think things are going to change because of their postponement so would it be a waste of time to discuss it it would come back as exact same item on on if it is postponed the exact same item would come back on and we definitely get a presentation that night yeah so by show of hands you know does anyone have issued our commissioner I did have a question it's sort of related to Commissioner Ellis's question I'm just unclear what if we're if we are simply moving this exact item later with no changes so they're in the next whatever two weeks there could be no changes to the proposal is that correct that is correct okay thank you so I went show of hands are we okay postponing the actual presentation as well this evening okay Richard we will not say presentation we'll just move straight to a vote on item 4c so that moves us to their public hearings first one is item 5a which is presented by Haley this is a request for a replant of a property located along Teasley Lane so it is currently one lot today with frontage here on Teasley the intent is to subdivide this into three lots for commercial development there's a believe a daycare under construction on the northernmost lot so the southern two lots would simply be left for later commercial development happy to answer any questions you may all have about the specifics of the plot mr. Beck so in just Google mapping and looking through things there is sort of I'm gonna use the wrong word here and you substitute the correct word there's sort of a riparian tree buffer between the school where the wording is and the banks in the upper corner of this this figure so that's that would all be going away if we develop these three lots from the preservation plans I've seen for their trees there aren't a lot of trees on the northern end of this particular property those may be on the the lots immediately north of there or perhaps on the school site itself I believe they have a couple of large trees the daycare is preserving here on their westernmost perimeter and then the bulk of the trees on this side are actually located down here at the southern end around the existing detention facility and they have not presented plans to show what the specifics of tree preservation would be there each lot would need to do a tree preservation plan and survey when it comes in for development so that would be determined at that time they would have to meet the minimum 30% preservation of the code thank you okay next is item 5b z 19 - 9a perfect and with item 5b Cindy please here to present 5c as well the zoning and SUP case I'm going to combine the B and C into one presentation you'll still have to take separate votes on each item but since they both concern the same site I thought it would be easier okay this is our request to rezone approximately 2.430 acres from rural residential to mixed-use neighborhood and 0.838 acres from residential six are six to mixed-use neighborhood the companion to this is s 19 0 0 1 1 a request for a specific use permit to protect to permit an electric substation on the site as you can see the 3.27 acre site is located on the north side of blag approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of blag and gisling and you'll note that the site is surrounded on two sides by a small electrical substation here and then a larger DME substation located here the walker tract that is a preliminary plot that you are looking at tonight that Haley presented is located right here this shows the current zoning map and you can see that the site is surrounded by rural residential to the south and then our six and public facility and rural residential again on the east west and north side if this is approved this is the proposed zoning map as it will look with the requested MN we have in our code general criteria for approval of all applications which I went into detail in your backup I am just showing you the criteria for the general the site complies with all of these I'm going to go into more detail with the criteria for approval of a zoning case which is in 272 D number one the dent in plan 2030 the site is designated as moderate residential excuse me moderate density residential it's intended for residential neighborhoods with a density between 4 and 12 acre dwelling units per acre and it applies to transition areas between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas and this is that this is where this applies this is actually a transition area between the US 380 University corridor and then black road and the low residential areas to the south criteria number two is that it's consistent with relevant small area plans well there is no small area plan in existence for this site right now number three is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district the purpose of the MN district is to provide compatibility between high intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential areas the MN district in this location satisfies this locational requirement it will be located between the lower intensity are our district to the south and the US 380 quarter to the north the substation is permitted in the MN zoning district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the use specific standards in section 5 3 7 a the applicant actually this is the least intensive zoning district that electric substations are permitted in so the that is the reason the applicant is requesting this particular district criteria for there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change well there are there have not been any significant changes in the area as I noted previously there is a residential preliminary plat for the site located to the northwest and west of the subject site that is on the agenda tonight electric substation is not a permitted use in the current rr and r6 zoning districts as noted previously the purpose of this request is to rezone the site to the least intensive district that permits electric substations upon approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas electric substations are have a real low intensive impact on areas with regards to the streets there very little impact on the infrastructure the employees will visit the site a few times a month to perform maintenance or security checks black road is designated as the two lane collector with a right of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will be dedicated when the site plats with regards to water and wastewater water and wastewater is not available to the site however the use does not require access to water and wastewater so no extension of public utilities will be required for this particular use with regards to parks the proposed use of the site is a non-habitable electric substation and proximity to parks is not applicable to this use with regards to schools excuse me the proposed use of the site is a non-habitable electric substation and isn't expected to generate a student population with fire stations the subject property is located approximately 3.2 miles from fire station number 2 within the eight minute or less response time boundary staff recommends approval of this rezoning request as it complies with the criteria in section 2.4.5 e of the Denton development code and 2.7.2 D of the DDC for approval of a zoning change going to move forward now to the SUP and again here's the general criteria for all applications which as I note in the backup this does comply with here is a copy of this the concept plan that was provided Black Road is located here you can see here is the substation itself it's going to be surrounded by a masonry wall on all four sides around the perimeter the landscape plan indicates that the site will comply with the required landscape buffers that are in section 2.7 I'm sorry I don't have that the requirements for electric substations there is a 10-foot buffer along the front on the street because per that section the street is considered to be a buffer the criteria for approval of an SUP a the specific use is proposed is compatible with the surrounding area there are two other electrical substations in the area one is located directly adjacent to the site which was developed prior to the annexation of the site into the city and then there is one north and northwest of the site which is the DME substation that was approved in 2015 the specific use proposed has minimal impacts on the future development of the area the price I noted reason previously there is a proposal for single-family residential subdivision to the north and east of the site if you looking at the plot of the preliminary plot that will is before you this month today you'll see that this area right here is not proposed for development and is actually an HOA lot there will be no single-family homes that would be directly adjacent to this site the sites to the south are large lot ranch and agricultural sites there is we did receive one response that is opposed to this from one of these sites and I'll show you where it is later on in my presentation I've but it really shouldn't affect any of these particular properties either due to the low impact of the site it's not like we're going to have a lot of people visiting the area to workers coming to the electric substation see the specific use proposed meets all the standards of the DDC and all other applicable city I'm sorry my mouth isn't working are all other applicable city codes this transformer does meet all of the applicable city codes as noted in the backup for of your staff report and it meets all other requirements as well any impacts associated with access traffic emergency services utilities parking refuse areas noise glare and odor have been adequately mitigated the site should have very little impact on the infrastructure in the area as previously noted does not require water wastewater or solid waste services and there is no order or noise associated with this proposed use the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and any other adopted plans the subject site has a future land use designation of moderate density residential which applies to transition areas between established single-family neighborhoods and higher density residential or commercial areas as I pointed out earlier in my presentation and the site the use adversely affects the health safety and welfare of the inhabitants of this area and the city of Denton this use complies with all applicable requirements it will not adversely affect the residents located in the area or in the city in fact it will help them in making sure that there is electrical service provided for all property owners and residents we sent out notification to property owners within 200 and 500 feet of the site we received one response in opposition located here and this was only in opposition to the zoning case I it represents five percent of the total land area within the 200 foot buffer and the applicant did not hold a neighborhood meeting so you kind of up to you briefly it seems like recently we also had a zoning SGP case and if I recall correctly citizens were only responding to one of them yes is that issue being maybe it's not an issue but it seems as though when there is two things happen same property citizens don't know to duly express their opinions they are getting two different notifications they are I my my thought is that they think if they send in the one notice that that takes care of it is what I'm thinking I can't say for sure but that's that is what I know if I were not in this profession I would think the same thing that one notice would take care of it I certainly am not one to add to anyone's workload intentionally but I wonder if there's a opportunity that if we get if this property owner we got it in is to a quick phone call or email and say what is your opinion on the another item and instead of us because obviously our assumptions we can't tie to the SGP case because we don't know so I wonder if there's an opportunity just to ensure that communications being made definitely Mr. Beck thank you chair is there a mechanism where we can put more than one item on the same notification I know we have a work session item coming back I think in December to talk about notifications within the ETJ and I'd like to probably also talk about this as to if we have two zoning action items going to the on the same agenda like this whether or not we do a dual notice I would just need to talk to legal about that one thing that's different in this DDC whether whether we have to do two different notices I just need to confirm that if it's okay to add them on to one one thing to note though under the new DDC once an SGP is approved it goes on the zoning map with the demarcation of SGP in the past we did not do that so whether or not we can just do that as one notice we'll provide we'll bring that information back great for that work session that'd be helpful thank you Richard and staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the criteria in section 245 E and section 252 D of the DDC that concludes my presentation any questions for Cindy and just city mentioned this I just want to reiterate this evening we'll hear one presentation and then we'll take two separate votes correct the zoning vote has to pass in order for the SGP to be applied to exactly if the zoning doesn't pass then you don't need to consider the SGP Christian thank you chair and then real quick with a motion on the SGP it's assumed that the site plan and landscape plan presented are part of the approval right or do you need to make that part of the motion it's part of the ordinance okay thank you and just for clarification there will be two votes regardless since the SGP has been agenda eyes agenda eyes put yeah put on the agenda making of words here there will be two votes but it'll be separate thank you Cindy sure next up is Ramaguita for items 5d and 5e updates to our DDC thank you chair members a commission this item is development code amendment for a specific section of the code as it relates to the rezonings with overlay condition properties so for those that are new some of the commissioners when a property is rezoned sometimes the commission ultimately the council approves it with a condition for example if it's a residential subdivision they can condition the number of unit dwell units per acre or they'll add certain conditions related to landscaping whatever it may be those are what we call zoning's with overlay conditions and in 2000 2019 and this year in April when the development code update was approved those properties transitioned to plan developments primarily because they they're not able to transition to a zoning district because they've got those conditions so if you look at a zoning district one versus the other because that one has conditions it doesn't equal the same as the other zoning district that it shares so in essence we've given it a PD designation and therefore those PDs that were calling rezoning's with overlays with overlay conditions has a provision under section 1.7.8 and here it illustrates what it basically says and I will get into the text in a couple slides but properties rezoned with overlay conditions are governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning that it governs what that means is if you look at that that means that we apply the 2002 regulations and standards that's how we read it however later this year in September the City Council approved the zoning map with a zoning train a district transition chart which is shown here and I apologize it's not very easy to read but I've got basically a summary of what that chart indicates for these PDs these rezoning's with overly conditions and it states that all remaining zoning districts I'm sorry all remaining zoning regulations and design standards that are not under our condition or whatnot fall under the 2019 development code so there's a conflict between what's in the code section 1.7.8 and what is in the transition chart that dictates where or what development code applies in these particular properties that have rezoning's with overlays we've got about 45 of these properties in the city that were approved by council recommended by some by this Commission that have conditions and again those transitioned into a PD what we're calling PDs of course not all of them have developed and we want to make sure that we apply the right code in this case obviously we've got a conflict and what we are recommending staff is recommending that we amend section 1.7.8 to be consistent with the transition chart so the language that you see here is right from the code with some changes again 1.7.8 what we're saying is and I'll read it so that we have a general understanding any property that was rezoned with overlay conditions under the prior regulation shall be designated as a PD on the official zoning map and shall be governed by the conditions remember those conditions that council approved will still apply unauthorizing the rezoning all remaining zoning regulations and design standards that are not included in that ordinance shall be governed by the 2019 the today's development code and that's all that we're asking to do with this code amendment it is a city initiated zoning I'm sorry city initiated code amendment to fix that conflict and be consistent in how we apply for these 45 properties that's that's the purpose of this work session I'm sorry this public hearing item that will be later considered by y'all that concludes my presentation Sanford any questions I got a question sir hopefully I can word this correctly if someone came to us two years ago and was approved for a PD with three conditions but I'm rezoning sorry to cut you off sure rezoning and it had overlay three overlay conditions density or whatever else we put on it but they didn't ask for any more conditions because in the 2002 DDC they didn't need it now we have this updated 2019 DDC which might actually those three conditions that they had overlay on those stay correct but all the other ones that changed might cause friction with the development that was approved in 02 because they wouldn't have known to ask for the new conditions that have been placed on by the 2019 so I'm wondering can you help me walk through sure so in those situations in staff's opinion it would be there's an opportunity to amend that PD or that ordinance and if there is something that they need to add or change they can certainly bring it up through this that second actually that last sentence here proposed changes to such properties to follow will follow that PD amendment process so it would it would require them if they need to amend or have it I guess a different requirement they can add that to their PD if that's what they need the amendment process for plan developments is that through city staff it it goes through the planning zoning Commission City Council so it requires a dual public hearing it's a zoning item so it has to go through that process and again we're just talking about zoning items if there's if there's a design standard that they did not they can't meet under 2019 there is obviously flexibility built in to the new the development code but again there's there's always options for amending the PD if that's the case okay any other questions on item 5d great thanks Ron I think you're the next one 5e yes sir so this code amendment is also a city initiated code amendment and it relates to the development criteria manuals that we just heard earlier similarly in April of this year the development code update was done and as part of that update provisions related to criteria manuals were either revised deleted or updated ultimately what we found out was the process in which to create and also update criteria manuals was altered and we need to fix that in order to continue with what we're trying to do with those criteria managed that we heard earlier and so it is a an opportunity for us to clarify basically the authority of the criteria manuals and also to restart re-establish that process of creating and updating the criteria manuals and those are insane and those will be part of section one three point four as well as 211 now a one three point four exists and again we're just going to be adding some wording there to help clarify the authority of criteria manuals section 211 is actually a new section that we'll be adding in essence what we did was we looked at the previous code basically copied and we're inserting it back into the 2019 development code so this is the first section one three four B and again adding where we have underlined is adding those wording again section 211 is the reference in this section we're also adding and updating our list of criteria manuals so really just clarification when it comes to section 211 which is the establishment of the process I didn't put it all in my PowerPoint presentation you do have a copy of what's proposed in the AIS essentially there's gonna be a purpose minimum standards and responsibility and the meat of what we're trying to get to is this procedure there's the initial approval or creation of criteria manuals as you can see here it requires two public hearings as far as updates administrative updates that only requires a work session with the planning zoning Commission and then having public comments followed by City Council public hearing which they will consider it and approve it by ordinance we also have a section for legislative updates and then the last item on the section is an approval criteria again this is a city initiated code amendment to establish that process which we hope to take to council later this month in time for us to bring forward those criteria manuals which will be again in December of this year so just following that that sequence that ends my presentation be happy to answer any questions Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so Ron the only question I had is so we get it in a work session prior to the 30-day public review and then it states that staff would try to address concerns that come through that 30-day review then it goes to council for a vote if changes are made to that because of public comment you know we never see that again and so I'm just trying to run through we we can we can you know if we get it in a work session and we throw back to you things suggestions and things that we don't like and then it goes to public and there's more comments that are addressed then we don't really know what's necessarily going to council so I and maybe it doesn't even need a recommendation by us anyway I guess I'm just I'm just I'm trying to work through how you came up with that process I think what well we normally would do in that situation is it's like any other Commission and in this case this wouldn't require a formal recommendation but we certainly again as you did this afternoon we'd like to hear from you as far as comments and input and by this by this Commission having his work session it's it's a little bit of a formal you know submission of comments but certainly there are opportunities for everyone anyone to submit comments the idea there was to just provide the council with input and not a recommendation okay and if there is you know more certainly we can pass it along if and when we do get comments from you okay so when you bring it to council for a vote it's really going to be brought as a staff initiation not really a P&Z recommended correct correct but we will make sure to add we've been you know to add any comments that you provide during the work session okay understood thank you I don't see any other questions all right thanks Ron we've already covered 5f previously so with that our agenda is completed we will I'll close the work session meeting at 354 we'll reconvene in Council chambers at 630 good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday November 6 2019 seeing that we do have a quorum I will open the meeting at 631 the first item of business is to stand if able and provide a Pledge of Allegiance next item of business is to consider the approval of the planet zoning minutes from October 16th mr. Anderson you want a motion for approval yes motion to we have a first for approval mr. Cole second we have a first and second for approval any discussion seeing that I'll call for a vote on the board keys verbally okay motion carries five zero with one recuse next item of business is the consent agenda Christian Ellis we have a first for approval Christian Pernetta the second we have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries six zero next item of business is items for individual consideration item 4a PP 19 - 0 0 3 2 as well as item 4b PP 19 - 0 0 3 3 have been withdrawn from this evening's consideration item 4c is requesting a 30-day postponement which would within the 30 days the next meeting would be November 20th the chair would ask for a motion to postpone to the date certain of November 20th commissioner Ellis to a date certain November 20th meeting we have first for the postponement and Christian Pernetta second motion we have first and a second postpone item 4c to a date certain November 20th any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5a fr 19 - 0 0 2 0 I will open the public hearing invite Haley for presentation good evening Haley with the planning division this is a replat of lot 6r 1 6r 2 and 6r 3 block a of the Teasley Commons edition the property is located along Teasley Lane with frontage here on the east side of it it's approximately two and a half acres in size and they are subdividing one lot into three for future commercial development I'm happy to stand for any questions I did not see thank you Haley for the presentation this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this item they certainly do so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn the dais for discussion or motion Christian Pernetta we have a first for approval commissioner Ellis second we have first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board motion carries five one next item of business is item 5b z 19 - 0 0 9a and I will open the public hearing invites Cindy presentation thank you Sharon for the record I'm Cindy Jackson with the development services department I'm bringing for you z 19 - 0 0 9 and s 19 - 0 0 1 1 I am going to make the presentation for these items together as they're both on the same lot however you will vote separately on them z 19 - 0 0 9 is a request to rezone approximately 2.43 acres from rural residential to mixed-use neighborhood and to rezone approximately eight point eight three eight acres from residential six to mixed-use neighborhood s 19 11 is a request for a specific use permit permit a substation my first the first part of my presentation will be towards z 19 - 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 the three point two seven acre property is located on the north side of Black Road approximately four hundred and thirty feet east of the intersection of Black Road and gisling here you see the current zoning map and you can see the site is surrounded by rural residential public facility and our six residential six if this is approved this will be the zoning map showing the site as MN we have general criteria for all applications that was covered in detail in your app in your backup these are the criteria I'm going to move forward now to the criteria for approval of a zoning case in section 272 D these are the criteria and I'm going to go through them one by one the first one is that the site must comply with the future land that request must comply with the future land use designation the site is designated moderate density residential this is intended for residential neighborhoods with a density between four and twelve dwelling units per acre and it applies to transition areas between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas that can accommodate greater density or adjacent key corridors as you can see the site is actually located between a low residential more rural area and US 3a University which is it's going to be more commercial and a bit more intense with its uses in the future criteria - it's consistent with relevant small area plans there are no small area plans for this location criteria three it's consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district the purpose of the MN district is to provide compatibility between high intensity mixed-use areas and adjacent residential areas the MN district in this location satisfies the locational requirement as it will be located between the lower intensity rural residential zoning district to the south and the US 380 corridor to the north the proposed substation is a permitted use in the MN zoning district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the specific standards in section 537 a criteria for there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change there have not been significant changes in the area however a residential preliminary plat for the site located to the northwest and west of the subject site was approved tonight on the consent agenda it's PP 19 - 0 0 0 4b for the Walker track the site is zoned rr and r6 electric substations are put is a permitted use in the rr district but is not a permitted use in the current r6 zoning district the purpose of this request is to rezone the site to the least intensive zoning district that permits electric substations with the approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse effects for number one the streets the proposed electric substation will have very little impact on the street system in the in the area employees will visit the site once or twice a month just to perform maintenance and do security checks and black road is designated as a two-lane collector street with a right of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will be dedicated when this site plats water and wastewater public water and wastewater services are not available to the site however the use does not require water and wastewater services so no extensions of utilities will be required to support the development parks the use of the site is a non habitable electric substation proximity to parks is not applicable to this use and the same with schools the proposed use is non habitable and as such it's not expected to generate a student population that would affect the schools fire stations the subject property is located approximately 3.2 miles from fire station number two within the eight minute or less response time boundary we set up notifications for this this site within 200 and 500 feet we did receive actually we received two notices I gave one to you earlier it's for the one I gave to you earlier was for tonight was for the SUP however I talked to the gentleman he's here tonight and he said he is actually against the zoning as well the second one is active is located within the ETJ and it's this property right here the property you see in red is located in the city and it is represents 5% of the land area within the 500 foot boundary a neighborhood meeting was not held for this staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the criteria in section 2 4 5 e of the Denton Development Code for approval of all applications as well as section 272 D of the DDC for approval of a zoning change we'll move on now to the SUP s 19 - 0 0 1 1 and this is a request for a specific use permit to permit an electric substation in the same location as I just highlighted on the north side of black there are you specific criteria for electric substations in table 5.2 a the table of permitted uses in the DDC if the following criteria in section 5 3 7 a is not satisfied a specific use permit will be necessary to in order to use the site for a substation the first criteria is the use of the property is associated with a City Council approved capital improvements plan or other City approved master plan and this is not part of a CIP plan number 2 is a public hearing was held at City Hall for the selection of the site public hearing was to include written notice of the public hearing to property owners within 200 feet and physical addresses within 500 feet at least 12 days prior to the public hearing a sign advertising the public hearing was posted on or adjacent to the property for at least 12 days prior and the proposed screening wall location and design were reviewed and approved by the City Council this this was not part of the this site either because it wasn't part of the CIP plan which all of these number two applies to the CIP plan a neighborhood meeting was held at least 15 days prior to the public hearing at City Council for the acquisition of the site this is not City owned so a public hearing was not held for this reason the applicant is coming before you with a request for a specific use permit the general criteria for approval for all applications applies to this and I went through it detailed analysis of it in your backup I just have the list here I'm going to show you the concept plan for the site Black Road is located right here this is the substation itself and it will have a masonry wall around the perimeter of the site along with landscaping here's a landscape plan which shows landscaping that is required specific for a specific use permit not a specific use permit an electric substation and the site complies with those requirements that are in subchapter 7 we also have SUP criteria for approval in section 252 D the specific use proposed is compatible with the surrounding area the site is compatible with the surrounding area given that there are already electric substations located to the directly to the west and to the north and northwest of the site you can see them on the aerial photo right here there is there are rural properties to the south and to the north and east is is the Walker track which preliminary plot was just approved last tonight the specific use proposed has minimal impacts on future development in the area the property to the northeast and east of the site is undeveloped and is expected to develop it's a single-family subdivision per the design standards for electric substations and 7 13 7 amazingly screen masonry screening wall with a 20-foot clearance zone is required around substations with an additional landscape buffer next to the clearance zone excuse me and I do want to point out that per the preliminary plot for the Walker track this this site is adjacent to a large HOA HOA lot and there are not going to be any residences adjacent to this in the Walker track the specific use proposed meets as proposed meets all other standards of the DDC and all applicable city codes the proposed electric transformer meets all these applicable requirements any impacts associated with access traffic emergency services utilities parking refuse area noise glaring odor have been adequately mitigated this proposed sub station will have very little impact on the infrastructure in the area as previously noted the site does not require water wastewater or solid waste services there's no odor or noise associated with this proposed use the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan in any adopted plans the subject site has a future land use designation of moderate density residential which applies to transition areas between the established single-family neighborhoods and higher density residential and commercial areas as I previously explained as previously noted the area serves as a transition between the rural residential areas to the south and the US 380 quarter to the north the use adversely impacts the health safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the area the use complies with all applicable requirements and consequently will not adversely affect residents located in the area and in the city again notification was sent out for this request we received two responses in opposition here you can see the area that is an opposition that I handed out earlier tonight which is in the ETJ and then here is the opposition that was in your packet which represents 5% of the land area within 200 feet staff recommends approval of this request as it complies with the criteria section 245 E and section 252 D of the Denton Development Code and that concludes my presentation the applicant is here thank you very much for your presentation Cindy I just wanted to update the record that the public hearing for item 5 BZ 19 has been open and I will officially open item 5 CS 19 the public hearing open for that item as well during this time it is a public hearing so I don't wish to speak may certainly do so we can converse and discuss about both items but for the Commission will take them separately zoning first then the SUP Cindy I don't see any questions for you this time okay thank you as I mentioned this is a public hearing for both items if you like speaking you can come on down well I it needs to come down to the mic I apologize and when you get here if you just state your name and address for the record I mean certainly sorry my name is Jacqueline Bella and I live directly across from where you guys are trying to build or where it's trying to be built but I don't understand as for opposition only receiving two because myself and my husband we've opposed it we dropped it off at the location I have copies of the opposition that was sent out or dropped off and so I don't understand how there was only like one or two oppositions did did you and do you and your husband represent the same property yes so we highlighted property in opposition not necessarily individuals in opposition okay no but then we'd have within that 200 foot boundary we'd have our house our neighbor would be three people three residents I can ask Cindy what responses you received did you receive three different resident opposition you know you've got in your hands what I received I have I didn't receive anything else I have it on the log to where I signed that day dropping off here's my so it only includes one house for one house from the impression we received we received one property and then one ECJ property okay because we have two houses on our property and my mother-in-law lives in one of them too so does her vote count as well we can certainly receive the opposition stated this evening and then if there's any formal updates we can make going to council yes ultimately the the opposition percentage wouldn't apply from a supermature that the opposition is primarily used to see if we need a supermajority for a vote at council so we can certainly hear the opposition tonight and then if that threshold of five percent that you saw this evening goes to 20% it forces a supermajority at City Council then my other concern it can I continue absolutely sorry this is new to me I've never done this so sorry so currently right now you'll see when you saw the above the aerial view our property would be this is how it looks like whenever you're at our facility I mean walk out our side over to work yeah can we pull up a map and then ma'am would be helpful is that felt right next to you if you just put this picture okay and it'll okay we'll broadcast that everyone watching and then before we turn the eye of the sky on ma'am can you point generally on this map so you see where the yellow is our property is right across the streets so what what their entrance is on there so you see the didn't like right here this is a substation that's supposedly was supposed to be removed within two years because we bought the property and then we were told that within two years didn't electric would be removing the substation and so whenever we walk outside our door this is what we see so that's why I kind of just don't really understand why we would need pretty much three substations in the same area and the road I mean it's you know brings an issue of drainage you know with whenever we're bringing in if you're gonna bring in another substation and then also with you're saying the landscaping it's great for everybody else but when it's directly across from our street you'll see that you know it's the driveway I mean you'll see it's just the entryways so for example that's their gate for one of the substations next to it like directly behind it so if a gate like that is being in front of our house it really doesn't mean it's you know it'd be hard to sell later our property value and just kind of decreases and if we would have known ahead of time about the substation because especially having three of them we were told that the other one was going to be removed it just adds concern for our value of our house drainage and you know I know everyone's saying yeah there's no conclusive evidence or whatever about health and safety but I don't I mean honestly would you want to put your kids there you know we have kids and stuff that you know just doesn't sit well with me on that part and just I don't understand why we'd have to have for Denton Electric and Encore to have two so you know separate substations this picture is off Gisling correct and then your property there's there's two properties directly across the street is yours on the west or the east of those two houses my mine's directly south of it so I have two I have two houses on my property and then here I'll show you another so it just kind of gives a sight for sore eyes so when you're walking out and you're hoping that they're going to remove it now you're we're here to see if we can approve another substation it just kind of adds for concern on top of how much you know if you have two substations how are you you know what's you know really 100% can you guarantee me that's not going to affect someone's health or a kid's health later in life sure we do have a question for you mr. Pernetta your property it was the area that's immediately below the correct where your where the driveways would be or the entry to this facility and the second was you've mentioned a few times that you were under the impression that the substation would be moving the old substation where did that communication come whenever we're purchasing the house they were telling us and the city or from the realtor from the realtor and from the owner the owner because it's no longer on but it did kick on last year in the wintertime and I'm telling you can feel it I was kind of I was worried about it at first I was like do you feel that you could feel this when you can feel yourself vibrating and I just I didn't sit well with me and so usually I mean we only probably felt it maybe two nights last summer last winter but other than that haven't seen it kick on the old substation this one that's right here but you could feel it when they kicked it on well I appreciate you coming to give us some context to the situation Cindy can I ask you a quick question are both substations active is there plans to shut either or any of those down to the knowledge that you have during staff review the DAT review I had heard that the older substation could possibly be removed but I had that's all I've heard okay as the old substation the one in the south of the north is the smaller one of the larger actually the old substation is right next to the subject site right here this is the one that was developed when we annex the property okay so there is a potential for that one to shut down and be replaced or well I don't know if it's going to be replaced is there is a potential for it to be shut down but that's all I've heard great I appreciate that I mean how does this affect I mean if you approve of it how does it affect the roads and the traffic traffic there because it's some pretty narrow road and the entryways if you're bringing in some big trucks to build and I just have a lot of concerns of the drainage issues that's going to impact our you know our properties as well so it has to go through a platting process apart from this in which drainage infrastructure streets traffic that all has to be addressed okay in order for them to get clearance to build whatever they're building so I can't speak to it now except that it wouldn't get built unless it meets all city requirements okay thank you thank you this is a public hearing if you wish to speak to me certainly use them if you just state your name and address you'll have four minutes to speak hello my name is Gary Castro and I reside at 3796 black road one second here I'm if you're looking at the map the panhandle and West Texas is my property first I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee we moved I moved to my family to the this property 30 years ago we don't get for 30 years next month and we are within the 200 feet and I'm confident that this council will represent the city of Denton and its residents interest as it relates to the substrate substation expansion more specifically consider my interest in the other residents that reside close by and who speak and address you I'm opposed to this request for the following reasons there's there's health reasons that was mentioned just a few moments ago additionally I'm just going to bring to your attention because I'm not really sure the process and how you'll deal with some of these these issues so I'm just going to state some of the concerns I know I only have four minutes so additional traffic will make the this road even more dangerous than it already is with the steep drop-offs on the side of the road some three feet deep with no curb and within six inches of the edge of the asphalt it was a dark road for the first several years of me living at this address and there have been no improvements to the water runoff drainage gullies to date and it's my understanding that that's accounting it's maintained by the county not the city it's part of the ETJ or something that fact previous expansion plans with the most recent expansion building the new substation was completed within the last couple of years we were informed that the existing smaller substation which is now being expanded was going away as was stated and that was explained to me by the city landscaping has been addressed but I think that we need to have some input we're the ones that pay the taxes there and we have to look at the substation every day I think that you know if this is inevitable you know then I'm going to speak to some of the things that I think need to be considered before it's proved again the landscaping a privacy wall or barrier not just on one side of the property but even across the street consider looking at the tax rate the appraised value rates that's being addressed consider providing city services which we don't have we don't have water and sewage the water runoff erosion when the plant that was built that they pointed out earlier within the last two years I've had about between $7500 and $10,000 worth of water runoff erosion protection that I had put on my property I think these are reasonable requests that need to be considered for the consequences the long-term consequences that the residents close by will have no option but to live with if it's improved so thank you very much for your consideration are there any questions or mr. Beck you said you spoke to someone in the city you remember who you talked to it was prior to them building it's gonna be 34 years ago I can look in files and see if I have anything that I can recover but I don't recall they they I mean we did speak to them I mean did you call city offices did you come into the city itself I mean do you remember the context of who you spoke with and no this is the only reason I'm engaged now is because the past we didn't we didn't even oppose and I can't recall what the circumstances were thank you yeah but if it helps I can look and see but I'm sure the city has a record of if there's if it's in writing you think or somebody should at least be able to because if we did find it then I would think that there'd be an option to have somebody research that in terms of plans or what was presented but that's for that consideration thank you sir I speak sir they just state your name and address for the record we have four minutes my name is Carlos Gonzales and I recite on 37 survey black it will be south of the substation that they try to build and my only concern about it is health issues because so far we haven't get any information about the risk of living too close to substation I mean other than they gonna say that there's nothing to prove that is cause cancer or anything many health issues but we're really not sure about it so that's that will be my only concern health issues for my family and I mean being like within 200 feet I guess so that that's all I would like to know thank you thank you this is a public hearing and you want to speak may certainly do so need to state your name and address yes Brian Saturday with half associates 3803 Parkwood Boulevard Frisco Texas sweet 800 under the applicant yes or representing the applicant encore one of the encore representatives with me as well happy to address any of the questions that y'all may have and also highlight some questions that have been raised by the public yeah if you want to start with answers to the questions and then we'll see if the question has any additional yep and my name is Seth Samson I'm representing encore electric right away sighting specialists our address is 115 West 7th Street Fort Worth Texas and saying I'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have for us so just off the top of my head the ones that have been brought up there's been drainage traffic and health can you speak to those three those three concerns sure and I'll let Brian speak towards the drainage he's an engineer I'm not but I'm just to address kind of the reason for this substation is essentially the the two substations that are currently serving this area are maxed out there at about 113 percent over capacity the reason for this location would be to bring higher reliability and for any type of storm or that whatever that may be the added residential growth that everyone in North Texas is seeing certainly Denton is also seen so that's the reason for the substation would be the the load in this area is growing so substantially substantially and as far as the the health concern concern so the they mentioned EMF's the I don't know how much you guys have looked at a substation but essentially a substation doesn't create any additional power that everything that's there is in the transmission line already it's already been in the area substation essentially takes the high voltage current from the transmission line it steps it down multiple times to put it into a safe state that we can then shoot off to distribution and using your homes and neighborhoods so it's not it's not like a power plant or anything like that it's not generating electricity it's taking it from the transmission lines and pushing it out to other residents so it's there's no additional creation of electricity essentially you mentioned drainage I'll let Brian comment on that what was the third one there's three there's traffic oh traffic sure yeah okay yeah and I'll let Brian speak towards that on as far as the construction wise but once once substation is built we generally have maybe one to two trips a month so it's generally just general maintenance make sure everything looks good security wise and make sure all the equipment still functioning well but yeah trip wise it's it doesn't it doesn't generate trips and out of curiosity the woman spoke about a wall wall wall sound I think it was kind of how you said it what what would be that sure so without getting into the DME site I'm not going to comment on another site as far as it's not ours but sometimes I've heard that you know that could be the generators that is old that's an old substation and any of our new substations that we've built we haven't got those complaints from residents just because the technologies so much different I'm not sure when that DME site was built but we really haven't heard any feedback from residents and substations that we've built really for a long I mean like you'd have to go long ways back to that type of technology and secondly it's encore's standard that at the wall as far as noise you measure at the wall it'd be at no more than 55 decibels in comparison 55 decibels is the equivalent of a inside voice conversation so it it's not something that we've heard a lot of feedback from residents so that's kind of where we stand on the noise okay thank you to to address the the drainage concerns you know as part of the the continuing process for this project you know we will be going through after SUP phase would move into full site plan and engineering and follow all the appropriate city standards manuals drainage analysis and construction documents that will all be addressed I do understand his concern the the drainage is a difficult site there's there's a culvert under black so we'll make sure and take appropriate consideration provide necessary detention if that's warranted by drainage analysis and take that into consideration on the traffic side Seth mentioned that during operation of the station there's very little traffic on the construction side you do have significant traffic coming in building the station but encore has a good list of approved contractors that are reputable experienced in building this kind of facility understanding exactly what encore needs and they do you know obviously work with cities inspectors on you know keeping traffic control as necessary keeping the street clean of mud debris anything washing out on the drive keeping the SWIP in place up to good standards so I know your your inspectors will be on them for that and they'll comply what's the general timeline for a substation build out the the main grading operation I think takes about six weeks after that for the equipment maybe another six to eight weeks bringing in some of the larger pieces you know encore does have logistics teams that that make sure you know everything can move into the site as necessary to bring in the control center or some of the larger pieces and there's already there's already been work done in the area you know with the other substations and the transmission line so you know encore is experienced in working with that and following all rules that will be required okay thank you very much yes sir I'm gonna ask Richard real fast commissioner to add a status to the substations if you look at sort of northwest of the site that's being considered that's the city's Arco substation that was recently constructed the to the south of that that substation interestingly enough is two parcels part one a small northern piece is the city of Denton the southern part and then the property to the west is TNPR Texas municipal power that station has already that substation has already been de-energized and so the intent was once the Arco substation was up and going they would de-energize that which has occurred and then that equipment would be removed is there a timeline in that removal that I don't have I don't see other questions for you thank you being here this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing none I'll close the public hearing for both 5b and 5c and then turn today as for discussion or a motion we'll take in terms of a motion we will take 5b first and independent of the other item kirsten pernetta just wanted to clarify for the residents around that what's proposed for the for the zoning what we are voting on today is simply the zoning and the SCP the concerns that they have about drainage and everything like that would be something that they could address at a later time so typically that wouldn't be a public hearing but there'd be an opportunity to review and speak into but during the plotting period it's just many technical specs okay the plot would be brought back in front of his body so I appreciate the residents coming out I had a friend or have a friend that lives on Black Road actually on Beatty Bend I think it's called to the west of the island so I'll throw with that area and I know that it's not the greatest of roads I'd love to see that improved or at least wind a little bit especially when two cars are going next to each other can be precarious but I do see the need and and getting the substation taken care of I would highly encourage the city to get on that's been de-energized whoever needs to be addressed let's clear that out that's crazy in my opinion to still have a de-energized substation just sitting there as a plight but considering that this is a need and there's it seems like a plausible location I'm going to move to approve the item understanding that drainage traffic landscaping all those will come back to a plot and must be up to state standards for this to move forward but I'm glad to hear that the noise isn't an issue and the health shouldn't be a concern as far as I understand it so with that I move to approve item 5B. I will second yeah I think it's necessary infrastructure I think concerns have been addressed with with the newer technology concur absolutely that we need to get on the de-energized substation that's there but yeah I will second to it. If I can add just for Encore specifically from the pictures shown the the DME site or whoever owns the northwestern site looks like has a nice brick facade out front and the gate and I don't know the plans are but maybe it'd be nice to have a visual barrier in front of the substation I don't know what Encore's policies are but having some sort of visual barrier might be helpful. We intend to meet City of Denton's screening requirements. Denton's actually unique as far as cities go that you guys actually have a specific substation designation and ordinances surrounding that a lot of a lot of cities don't have that so those ordinances we we intend to comply with and as far as landscaping and screen wall the the the screen wall there's a lot of different options for what that can look like as well so yeah we intend to meet you guys on this. Great. Thank you. We do have a first and second on the item. Is there any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0 that moves us to our next item 5-C it's the SGP attached to this zoning case and the chair will again entertain a new discussion and/or a motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion on the item? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5-D DCA 19-0015. I will open the public hearing and call Ron McGuida for a presentation. Just real quick just trying to find a presentation here. Thank you chair members of Commission Ron McGuida with Development Services principal planner brought forward to you for consideration this evening is a city initiated code amendment regarding rezonings with overlay conditions to way of background the Denton Development Code 2009 update was adopted in April of this year with that adoption the creation of section 178 was inserted it again pertains to properties rezone with overlay conditions as it is stated it is governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning and that is interpreted as the 2002 DDC following this in September of this year there was an adoption of the zoning map and with that a zoning district transition chart in that chart it refers to again these properties that are zoned with conditions it states that all remaining zoning regulations and standards are governed by the 2019 Development Code so to clarify and to correct this conflict staff is requesting that there be a city initiated code amendment again amending section 1.7.8 we know that there are 45 properties that are zoned this way or that are now considered PDs so in order to address them as they move forward with development we want to make sure that we apply the appropriate development code and what staff is proposing is that those properties be under the 2019 Development Code now those conditions that were approved with the rezoning will still be governing however anything that is not under those conditions the underlying zoning would would prevail or govern and again what we're saying is the be the 2019 Development Code that is really it it is a city initiated code amendment to provide that clarification that concludes my presentation I'll be happy to send for any questions thank you for the presentation I don't see any questions this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item may certainly do so seeing none I'll close the public hearing and certain to the days for discussion or motion Commissioner Pernetta motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for vote on the board motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5 E DCA 19 - 0 0 1 9 I will open the public hearing and invite Ron back to present thank you chair again Ronnie gave development services this is a second code city as an initiated code amendments regarding development criteria manuals as we heard during the work session we had a presentation regarding our criteria manuals and how we're creating to and we're also updating five existing criteria manuals just way background we again with the 2019 Development Code adopted an update and in doing so we looked at in provisions related to criteria manuals we revised we also updated but we also deleted some provisions related to criteria manuals what we found out was that the process in order to create and update criteria mountains was removed so what we're asking as part of this city initiated code amendment is to bring back of that process as part of this request again just to clarify the authority for criteria manuals we want to make sure that we include that but really is to establish reestablish that process in which we create and update criteria manuals we're looking to amend sections one three four as well as establish sections two eleven section two eleven this first part here as you can see by the slide anything that's underlying and highlighted is being added to the to the provision or to the requirement we want to make sure that we fully clarify that the criteria manuals are approved by ordinance and that they are established under section 211 which is one that we are adding and also we want to add and update this list of criteria manuals that we have here so that it'll be consistent with what we have being proposed the other section which we are re-establishing this as part of the procedure element or a procedure chapter under sub chapter 2 is to add this section it will contain a purpose minimum standards and responsibility and really the the key to this amendment is the procedure in which initial approvals or creations of criteria manual will require a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission as well as City Council the updates rather will just have a work session required for the update of the criteria manuals there will be opportunities for public input throughout the process and following that update or an public input process a City Council public hearing will be held to approve those updates so again there's ample opportunities for input and opportunities to provide comments in in addition with the procedure there is a legislative update section and then lastly an approval criteria in which the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council can use in order to consider the new creations of criteria manuals as well as the updates that concludes my presentation again this is a city initiated code amendment to provide authority under the criteria manuals as well as to establish the process in which we create and update our annual updates that is for criteria manuals with that I'll stand for any questions Ron thanks for presentation I don't see any questions at this time this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak about our ordinances may you certainly do so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion of discussion or discussion and a motion Commissioner Beck motion to approve we have a first Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board motion carries 6-0 the next time to business is item 5 F DCA 19 - 0 0 0 9 looking at the subchapters 1 6 and 8 of the DDC I'll open the public hearing and invite Haley for presentation all right good evening Haley's Gursky with development services so the item before you is a request for code amendments related to the gas well ordinance specifically for reverse setbacks before we dive into that I just wanted to go through some of the background information that we discussed at work session for the public so the the first thing I wanted to cover is the code amendment procedure and our new development code it does outline a very specific dual public hearing process for code amendments and allows for three entities to initiate those either the director of development services which would be a staff initiated amendment such as we just saw from Ron either the planning and zoning Commission or the City Council could also initiate those requests this particular request was initiated by the City Council following a series of work sessions and so your role in this is to hold the first of those two public hearings and make a recommendation to council regarding the proposed amendments the background that I referenced with a series of work sessions started in September of 2018 at that time council first requested a work session to discuss Denton setback policies and how that relates to other area cities and look at what increasing those setbacks and reverse setbacks would be that was followed up in July of this year with further discussion of how Denton compares to other cities and a closer look at some of the setbacks and the potential for air quality studies within the city at that time the only consensus that the council reached was to move forward with increasing Denton's reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet so staff was directed to begin revising our ordinance to in that direction development services really became a part of the process at that point in time so in August we again went back for a third work session with the draft amendments that council had requested to implement that increase set reverse setback and at that time we also brought forward other concerns that we had such as the potential need for a variance processes and the potential creation of nonconformities if the reverse setback were increased council provided direction at that time to try to draft language that would prevent the creation of those nonconformities and to pursue a combination of variance options that would allow reductions of that 500 foot down to as low as 250 the final work session was with with this Commission on October 16th and that is what led us to where we are today so before I get into the what's changing I just wanted to go over again the types of setbacks that are in the code to narrow down what we're looking at there are two primary types the drilling and production site setback and the reverse setback the drilling and production site setback is what is applicable to the gas well side itself it's measured from the pad site boundaries to the surrounding uses or lot lines the reverse setback is essentially the opposite of that it's the setback that applies to the developing protected use and it's measured from that structure or residential lot line to the boundaries of that pad site the code currently does have a third type the minimum setback is a basically a subset of a drilling and production site setback so it's what that number can be reduced to after a variance or other relief is provided so bringing us to the the public hearing component of tonight the request before you are amendments to sub chapters 1 6 & 8 to implement those changes that council has provided direction on related to reverse setbacks definitions and procedures there I've kind of broken this down into four primary topics that we'll talk about the the reverse setbacks and associated definitions and measurements the nonconformity provisions that I referenced earlier the variance and relief options and then some changes to our subdivision standards that would be needed if the variance options are considered again as I mentioned there are criteria for approval for a code amendment that the DDC requires we look at there there are five of those the first being consistency with comprehensive plan and other policies the second whether there are any conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the code of ordinances third whether there is a demonstrated community need fourth the whether it is in response to a substantial change in condition or policy and then finally whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC so we'll look at each of those in turn once we go through the changes the first of those topics as I mentioned were the setback requirements themselves this is just a look at what we have in the code today drilling and production site setbacks range from a thousand to two hundred and fifty feet depending on the scenario minimum setbacks are five hundred to two hundred and fifty for drilling and production sites and reverse setbacks are currently two hundred and fifty feet in all situations what this would look like with councils recommended change would be that reverse setbacks are all increased to five hundred feet and then we would introduce a new type of setback similar to how the gas well operator has a minimum setback that they can seek relief down to there would now be a reverse minimum setback of two hundred and fifty feet for protected uses that seek a variance or waiver so we needed to introduce definitions for the the minimum reverse setback into the code so that's being added into sub chapter six that definition for a minimum reverse setback would be the minimum distance that a protected use a residential lot must be separated by a surface owner from a an approved drilling and production site or from a gas well within such site after administrative relief or other variance is granted to reduce the reverse setback requirement the reverse setback definition would then be slightly modified to strike the word minimum since there's now a variance option to reduce that and then finally with regard to setbacks the other consideration is measurement with in in the code previously there wasn't a need to necessarily consider how the measurements were taken for things such as parks because there wasn't a lot of overlap between gas well sites and parks what we found now with this increase is that McKenna Park in particular would be highly affected by this increase reverse setback it would be over 40% within that 500 foot radius from the pad site so that could affect them if they seek to add additional improvements at that park in the future so whereas the code currently points to measuring from the closest point of a structure to be occupied by a protected use or from a residential lot line we would propose amending that to specify occupied or utilized by a protected use and then further clarify that for parks the setback measurement would be taken from improvement such as buildings playground equipment pools splash pads and then any permanent ball fields or courts or pavilions and it would not include flat work such as parking sidewalks and trails moving on then to our second topic which is nonconformities based on the information that was provided to council during that series of work sessions they requested that staff look at ways to reduce the creation of nonconformities so at that time this language was crafted and brought forward to council it would be added to sub chapter one of the DDC and it would essentially add a new section for non conformities for the applicability of gas well reverse setbacks that would allow reverse setbacks as increased by this ordinance to not cause any existing legally established protected use or residential lot to become nonconforming such existing legally established protected uses or lots would be deemed lawful as lawful site features lots or structures provided that the use is not closer than 250 feet from the pad site so that is essentially saying that this would not assist anything that is nonconforming to the 250 feet today would remain nonconforming it would not be benefited by this clause would further clarify that legally established would mean any protected use structure site feature or lot that is lawfully existing today or any that is a part of a project under sub chapter 245 of the local government code which would allow for projects that are in the queue right now going through preliminary and final plotting to not be deemed nonconforming and then it further specified that no additional improvements would be permitted that would decrease the existing setback you'll notice in red it says say that our legal staff does not recommend this provision so there is an option to for the nonconformities that we're introducing the rationale for not recommending this being that we would then have subsets of nonconformities across the city where certain nonconforming uses that fall between 250 feet and 500 feet wouldn't be nonconforming they'd be protected and be able to rebuild if something were to happen whereas other structures such as those that are nonconforming today to the 250 or a structure that's nonconforming to any other provision of the Denton Development Code would not be eligible to rebuild if it were destroyed by more than 50 percent so that that inequality is what we're striving to not create therefore option two that staff is recommending be considered for for how to address nonconformities as council requested would be adding the following language to the nonconforming structure portion of the code and that would be to amend it to say that nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural causes or accidents to the extent of more than 50% of the gross floor area should not be rebuilt or occupied except upon action by the Board of Adjustment to permit the reconstruction and occupancy and then the action by the Board of Adjustment would have due regard for the property rights of the persons affected and be considered in regard to public welfare character of the area such as the structure conservation preservation and protection of property so this is actually language that was in the 2002 development code that allowed nonconforming structures to be rebuilt by action of the Board of Adjustment this language was removed with the adoption of the 2019 code to be more stringent and simply say that if you're destroyed by more than 50 percent you cannot rebuild so by adding this language back in we would extend the protection not only to those that are affected by the reverse setback but to any nonconforming structure citywide to give them the option to go to ZBA to try to rebuild based on the discussion at work session I know there was there was some concern because of the addition of that minimum reverse setback definition that even those nonconforming today to the 250 may not be eligible to rebuild so we would recommend clarifying that by adding language in subchapter 6 for minimum reverse setbacks to simply make that not applicable so we could say something similar to what I've got here that minimum reverse setbacks do not apply to structures or lots that are nonconforming to the reverse setback so that would capture that subset that you all were concerned about for those that are nonconforming today so that the minimum reverse setback wouldn't apply ZBA could therefore potentially approve requests to rebuild if you are within that 250 foot radius that's just one option we can certainly look at other things if you all have additional concerns or or want us to go a different direction but I wanted to provide that as as one possible solution to what we discussed at the work session the moving on then to the third of our topics which are variances so the gas well ordinance today offers operators of a gas well site three different means to to seek a variance or waiver from the setbacks so that same option we thought should be reasonably extended to developers or owners of protected uses to allow them to seek some relief if they're if they're affected by the reverse setback so this language that you see on the screen here is simply adding in a statement in the permitting requirement procedures of the gas well ordinance that says if you don't meet the setback requirements here's where you go in the code to find out what your relief options are so this is simply kind of that placeholder and directional piece the actual variance option language would then be divided into two separate two separate options the first would be introducing the standard hardship variance process for protected uses so any operator surface owner or affected property owner could then seek a variance through this procedure ZBA does have standard criteria for approval of a variance that are stipulated in state law those would remain the same and would apply in these instances in addition to that though we would also introduce three specific criteria that would just apply to protected uses seeking a variance and that would be reasonable use of the surface of the subject property by the owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs or subdivision layouts so has the developer looked at all possible options to try to use utilize the property before seeking the variance and then finally whether it's compatible with approved gas well site plans or plats so ensuring access to gas well sites isn't cut off as an example there just for reference these are the standard hardship criteria that ZBA would also have to consider it's worth noting that any variance request to ZBA does require a super majority vote six out of seven so it's not necessarily an easy process to go through the second option is also modeled after a an existing option that operators have that is if they meet certain criteria they can get a waiver granted by staff not to the full minimum setback but to half of the difference between their requirement and the minimum so in this case that would be down to 375 feet if we split the difference between 500 and 250 so this option well would stipulate that the director could grant administrative relief from the reverse setback requirements upon application of the owner of the protected use or lot where they have one utilized all of the applicable options for alternative site designs so for a residential subdivision that would mean that they have utilized our cluster subdivision standards to try to maximize the potential of their site before seeking a waiver and then for any other protected use that would mean that they have applied essentially enhanced minor modifications so the code allows for staff to approve deviations of up to 10% on almost all of our zoning criteria this would extend that to 20% for building height building coverage and then for minimum unit size and minimum parking requirements those could be reduced by up to 20% through this procedure the second criteria they would have to meet is that their site is 50% or more encumbered by the reverse setback so it would only be very specific instances where staff could utilize this to lower the setback as low as 375 and then finally along the avenue of the variance procedure by seeking to apply the cluster subdivision option for residential development through that administrative relief procedure we did see a need to to adjust the applicability of cluster subdivisions because citywide if you seek to do a cluster you have to have a minimum parcel size of five acres there would be many sites affected by gas well reverse setbacks that may be under that so we wanted to strike that requirement in these particular instances and then also citywide if you do clustering you're required to rezone your sites to a plan development so for these instances where they're overly encumbered by more than 50% we would also strike that requirement so getting back to those criteria for approval the first being consistency with the comp plan and other policies our comprehensive plan does just has a section on gas wells and it describes how protected and sensitive land uses are generally incompatible with industrial developments such as gas well sites the comp plan does not prescribe any specific setback or separation distance but it does have that language so this would be consistent with that policy that we want to you know reduce the incompatibilities thereby providing greater separation the second criteria is that it doesn't conflict with other provisions of the DDC or code of ordinances the language proposed in subchapter 6 and 8 wouldn't have any conflicts that we identified the the first option that we looked at for nonconformities that would create those inconsistencies between types of nonconformities citywide would be potentially inconsistent and in conflict with other parts of the code so we recommend against that particular option for that reason third whether it is necessary to address a demonstrated community need when the council brought this request forward they identified that there were concerns regarding community health and safety as well as other compatibility and nuisance issues noise lighting traffic vibrations and similar nuisances and they felt that the 500 foot reverse setback would be more protective than our existing 250 foot setback and that decision was based upon the results of a Fort Worth air quality study that we discussed at work session the fourth criteria is whether it's necessary to respond to substantial change in conditions or policy there have not been condition or policy changes other than that the council of today feels differently than the council of 2015 as to what is an adequate and protective reverse setback and then finally whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC these amendments are consistent with the purpose statements in the DDC which includes encouraging appropriate use of land promoting general health safety and welfare of the city's inhabitants and implementing the goals of the comp plan notification was provided in the newspaper and on the city's website in October and we did receive four written responses in opposition to this request passed out at the work session staff is recommending approval specifically of option two that we looked at for subchapter one and then the changes in subchapter six and eight as provided in your backup the next step for this would be a public hearing at City Council it has been tenet noticed for November 19th at this time and I'm happy to stand for any questions Haley thanks for the presentation we do have one question for you Commissioner Beck yeah Haley thank you doesn't option be also create variability in the code by freeing up other nuisances to potentially have exceptions to go to ZBA so both option a and option B both create multiple standards in the code option a is a concern because of the distinction being made between different non-conformities option B would apply to any non-conforming structure I should say citywide so yes it could allow for something non-conforming to another standard in the code to seek a variance but it would put everyone through the same somewhat rigorous process of going to ZBA and making their case for that so it still equalizes the playing field citywide in terms of how non-conformities are treated but we'd be a change to all nuisances everywhere potentially but at the same time not necessarily because that same provisions been in the DDC since 2002 it was only removed as of October 1st with the adoption of the 2019 code in my time with the city I've not seen that provision used so unless some disaster were to strike a large portion of dent and I don't know that we would see that widely utilized but it it wouldn't be a change from where we've been over the past decade at least. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Haley why do we use the measurement from the pad site to what we're measuring do you know why we do I'm assuming all pad sites are not created equal right so correct they do vary in size but at the same time equipment locations vary within pad sites so for for example you could have a site with multiple wells that are spread throughout the site and then you would have to take measurements from each of those well heads if we were measuring from the well head as Fort Worth does this provides one uniform measurement radius simply from the typically the fence line or the the gravel edge of the pad site boundary so it just creates an easier measurement tool because everyone's measuring from the same perimeter not from different well head locations within a site that makes sense but aren't you getting varied measurements though depending on the pad site size in terms of the the area encompassed by that radius yes it would it would vary depending on pad site size they're typically one one acre or more the code allows them to go up to I believe five to seven acres in some instances for very large sites that demonstrate certain criteria so the radius itself is different but it creates consistency within how that's measured for say surrounding developments Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so that brings a book I have a maybe a similar question to Commissioner Ellis and that is if if we're measuring from the pad site for sort of ease of language and consistency but the pad site itself is made up of anywhere from 1 to n wells whatever is allowed by code then we have a any given pad site would have a variable amount of potential exposure risk whatever the associated characteristics of the pad site are would vary greatly from pad site to pad site depending on the exact nature of the pad site it could but with the measurement being taken from the boundary of the pad site if the setback are established at 500 feet you would have a minimum of 500 feet between the structure and the edge of the site whereas if you measure from well head one house you know a 500 foot measurement from this well head may affect certain parts of a lot may not affect other parts of a lot it creates a lot of inconsistency in measurement whereas measuring from the fence line or the boundary of the site creates that minimum that everyone is at least 500 feet away from the equipment and I see the the advantages to that but that's a pairwise approach and there's not necessarily the same characteristics and features of a multi site pad site that there are to a single pad site or even a small number of well heads and so the risk and exposure of the air quality mitigation all those kinds of things will vary depending on the composition of the pad site itself and so even though yes the language would be simpler if you went from well head to well head or sorry from from the pad site boundary those pad sites are still different your risk would be different for a different composition pad site potentially but in terms of measuring and locating lot lines for developing subdivision it creates the greatest consistency and is more protective generally because equipment is located interior to the site and not directly on the boundaries of it in most cases at least the well heads are typically in the middle of the site so it does create a wider separation distance than say Fort Worth where they measure from well head to site because you have that additional the buffer of the the operational space within the pad side around there so on average when we compare Fort Worth 600 feet from a well head is more like a 450 to 470 foot measurement from the pad site boundary so our rounding that up to 500 for measurement sake is more protective by up to at least a hundred feet than what Fort Worth has measuring from equipment Haley can you pull the example I think you had on slide yeah I don't know that has a at least to give a visual of the location of the equipment yeah and this is just you know boxes on a page if you will but you know a site that has three wells on it there there's typically 50 to 100 feet of space for maneuverability around that measuring from the well head if that 500 foot radius came out would be somewhere in the middle of this rather than when you measure from the perimeter you get the benefit of that additional space sort of my last follow-up to that sort of is are the characteristics of two or more well heads the same is it is it composite or is it pairwise so the the implication of looking at a pad site in general is pairwise but and saying that there's no composite behavior there's no gestalt there's no additive behavior from multiple well heads multiple equipment multiple pumps whatever is is that true do we know that I don't have any knowledge as to what the cumulative effect of multiple well heads on a site would be in terms of of air quality or other nuisances I I can speak to at least that Council's rationale for this was based on Fort Worth study where the 600 foot was found to be an adequate setback from a well head we modified that simply based on our measurement techniques as we've discussed because ours are generally more conservative and result in a larger amount of space between the well head itself and the home but the cumulative effects of pollution from the all the equipment and well heads on the site I can't speak to okay thank you we have a couple more questions so I'm gonna hop into a fast question for that for clarification when we look at setbacks do we also measure the output of each well if it's active or fully producing or halfway producing to come up with any variable distance and no the setbacks the same across the board regardless regardless of the status of a site so even if a well is closed in and not producing anything we would require the same setback distance Christian for that and I guess I want to kind of piggyback off what Commissioner Beck said so and I and I understand his concern if we had that square pad site right there and it had you know one well in the middle of it you know the potential danger in terms of pollution everything would be significantly less than if that pad site had six wells on it right and I guess the question is right now we are making an assessment that's based on simply a number and that number is in a seemingly arbitrary sense drafted from some other cities guidelines what I'm not hearing right now it is that it is anything that says that we are in any way measuring you know the output of that and basically the the the effect that pollution particulates that kind of thing from there is going to happen I mean are we do we have any mechanism that would complement that 500 in terms of making sure that the danger posed by what's within that 500 feet is stronger or weaker than any other pad site does that make question make sense I think so so the city does have inspections and air monitoring that's done for all pad sites on a variable basis depending on how close they are to protected uses and any time a release or an emission is found even if it doesn't trigger a threshold set by the state for for a release is still reported to the operator and rectified in terms of does that pair with you know setbacks increasing or decreasing from a pad site that no it doesn't at this point the setbacks are across the board for all sites regardless of size and character measured from the perimeter of that site outwards in a radius all the way around and they're just generally treated the same across the board I I don't know that we have the tools to go the direction that you're referring to without the city trying to conduct its own air emission study which council did consider and chose not to move forward with at this time and I guess that was gonna be my next question because you know as other people have mentioned you know with a stringent criteria and actual plan and basically things that are enforceable you know it 1000 feet 500 feet is all is all kind of different right in terms of the effect of people around it one thing that I don't see in this and I apologize I missed the work session today that I don't see in this set of slides that we had I guess a couple of weeks ago was there was a slide that discussed the impact of 500 feet versus a thousand versus I think 1200 and and what the range would be in terms of affected properties and and I guess I'll kind of toss this out to you know Richard I don't know if you'd be the one to answer this I believe Commissioner Beck had a question last time where we talked about what our liability was in terms of you know arbitrarily picking a distance when I was looking at that slide one of the things that I noticed was that in theory if we went to a thousand feet which would seem to be you know significantly more severe than the 500 looking at looking at the slide and in terms of the impact that it had on the properties when I when I look at Denton proper there was there were no impacted properties right at Platts and when I looked at most of what's developed in Denton we didn't see that now going to a thousand feet we would see a significant number of impacted you know properties that that are non-developed right now to our to our south and west I guess one of the things that that concerns me is right now whether it's 500 feet or a thousand feet it seems like we would be negligent by not taking the maximum for undeveloped properties because we know that people in the city are not going to get new wells we know that they're not going to be significantly more impacted but the decision that we make are going to be making are going to be impacting future residents of Denton right and I guess my concern on this one is if we pass a 500 as opposed to a thousand the people who live in town right now are already there nothing's really going to happen with them but I want to figure out what we can do to make sure that we're providing safety for future Denton citizens to come does that make sense to do I know that there's a and we can probably you know I'll defer to ever because I know there's people waiting but we'll I'll ask some other questions on that I'm sorry I'll go ahead to that I'm going to ramble sorry. Commissioner Anderson well as of now we haven't had any case studies in medical issues come across about any issues medical issues about being 250 feet correct not certainly not in Denton there haven't been any studies of that nature of any reports that I'm aware of there are studies from other other states in other areas that that indicate there may be potential health ramifications from it but there's nothing definitive for this area that I'm aware of so why would we now just decide to try to make it five hundred feet or a thousand feet when we haven't had any issues I mean I have no problem doing it on future developments you know future wells and stuff like this you know to add the language in there but for existing I think like I said earlier you know you're trying to change rules of the ballgame during the game and I think that's going to affect several people but I mean if we could do this to future developments I'd have no problem with that but existing properties I think that's kind of an issue that's my question back so to get a Commissioner Anderson's question do we feel that studies that have been done at different deposits in the Barnett shale at different deposits at any national gas field across the country are somehow substantially inferior or worse than studies that would be performed here in Denton itself certainly not an expert on the matter my understanding from from staff and from conversations that have been had with the TCEQ is that the Barnett shale is simply a different geology than other basins in say Colorado or Pennsylvania or elsewhere where natural gas production occurs so speaking to what what air pollutants and health effects may occur there could be radically different here but my understanding is that the TCEQ hasn't felt the need to commission studies for the Barnett shale and and they wouldn't necessarily support or accept those studies if they were conducted by an entity other than themselves and no other studies have been conducted in the Barnett shale I actually happen to know that's not true but they could have been done they have not been done in Denton is what I'm trying to say Denton Denton has not commissioned such a study and council chose not to at this time I'm gonna interrupt real fast Haley and I think we have to have to consider a couple things here one I don't know if I would necessarily say was an arbitrary number I think when council looked at this they looked at a variety of measurements I think they looked it was five hundred a thousand fifteen hundred and there were two things that they really looked at one the risk associated with inverse condemnation I think that we talked about that that earlier taste part of the work session and what was decided upon was looking at that looking at increasing it at 500 feet and then using that Fort Worth study to rely upon as support if we were to be challenged and that was really that was really the policy direction that came from council and so it wasn't really whether there was additional they did not want to commission a study specific to Denton and so that was really the impetus for for this amendment it wasn't to to bring additional studies debate additional studies it was this initial this was the initial direction that we got from from council not to say it can't change in six months or in a year in two months but this is what again we were tasked with bringing forward anything else question for that and real quick I do want to you know this is one of the things where I would like to hope that before we make a decision we could possibly postpone until we hear further scientific evidence because because one of the things that you know that like Commissioner Anderson bought up was the idea of 250 feet do we know that that's dangerous do we know that it's not dangerous we had a you know kind of conversation over dinner earlier we were talking about smoking and you know we know the surgeon general report didn't come out until the 60s and we all now accept the smoking you know causes cancer now people smoked for hundreds and hundreds of years before but nobody ever figured out that it caused cancer because they died by being killed by bears and stuff right before they could die slowly of cancer but now we know that this is you know that this is the case you know we don't know what the number is right now in terms of how close to a well is dangerous but one of the things that I also want to stress is that we haven't been fracking in dentin free you know for a terribly long time you know if we haven't had studies that show specifically what the danger zone is it's going to be because it takes a long time for statistics to be put together in studies to be to produce you know good data you know we don't know exactly how many kids have asthma now compared to would have otherwise we don't know how many people have cancer now compared to how you know how many there would have been otherwise but we do know that these things are pollution and pollution is bad and it makes people sick so I kind of hope that you know we kind of start leaning towards the idea that being farther away from a pollutant it is better than bringing one closer to us that's all I want to say thank you I'm gonna ask legal to provide insight mr. chair I just I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions that were raised this evening with regard to reasonableness of the proposed 500-foot setback it is based on the Fort Worth study so it would not be considered arbitrary there is some basis for it and coming up with a different amount would be you know additional support or study with regard to to come up with a different number and as as mr. Kanoni said the direction of the council was excuse me a 500-foot reverse setback thank you I don't see other questions besides this Haley did the City Council ever get to a cost of a study was there a cost analysis done on a study that would be approved by TCQ leave it was at the July work session I would have to go back and look I believe at that time dr. Banks presented them with rough estimates just based on the the company that currently helps us with our gas well air monitoring and I believe it was in the range of 1 to 2 million depending on the scope of the study for example Fort Worth study simply looked at their 600-foot setback and said is this generally protective and that study would be on the lower end of that price range whereas a study trying to identify just without a number in mind what is a safe setback would be a much more extensive lengthy and costly study on the higher end of the spectrum I appreciate that I don't see any other questions so thank you for that this is a public hearing I do have several cards here we'll start with these but if you didn't fill out a card and still want to speak we certainly will welcome that opportunity the first card I have is for Michael Hinnan and if you could just state your name and address for the record you'll have four minutes to speak thank you commissioners Michael Hennan 724 Thomas Street in Denton I live across the street from McKenna Park and within a thousand feet of the gas wells that are at Scripture and Bonnie Bray so I'm familiar with the the sites and their impact on the area when the City Council enacted the ordinance back in 2015 in the resolution preceding its its ordinance it found that significant and compelling environmental and land use compatibility concerns are associated with gas wells and it found that the potentially harmful effects of gas wells and their impacts and the production of gas fall most heavily upon the neighborhoods and properties that are adjacent to those gas wells and that's why we're here discussing this tonight and I'm here in opposition to this item because I believe that the 500 feet is not a sufficient protective zone for the health and safety of the residents of Denton the studies that I think that have been referred to and have been many of which I think have been forwarded to City Council members and perhaps some of you have seen dr. Zachariah Hildebrand for example who spoke here in Denton back in September referenced 11 studies from various areas that dealt with the health impacts of people who sometimes live only within a mile of a production site and still have significant statistical impacts on respiratory issues on issues concerning pregnancy and on the unborn and often we know that these gas wells do leak we know that the infrastructure that supplies the gas the pipes the various compressors all the items that are on these wells they do leak we've seen the studies and we've seen the pictures of these gas wells that are taken by infrared equipment that show a lot of escaping hydrocarbons from these sites so that they do have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods they have impacts on the soil because these things that go into the air come out of the air in the rain and impact the soil as well as the general environment of the areas near the neighborhoods I think we should follow in this case the precautionary principle and err on the side of caution when we put an industrial use when we allow neighborhoods to approach an industrial use as dangerous as a gas well we know they explode we know they leak and we know that they can cause impacts on our soil and our air the this proposal I do believe does not adequately address those issues certainly 500 feet is better than 200 feet 250 feet but it is still not adequate in my opinion to protect our citizens the I think but what we need to do is step back and say what is our responsibility here and that is to protect our citizens we should not allow developers to get close as we're talking about to these gas wells I know that there's some concern about whether or not this would be a taking of property rights I believe that the property rights the taking was done by drilling the gas well there in the first place if somebody has affected the ability of the use of that property it was the people who drilled the well I appreciate you being here I have one question I did not listen to dr. Hildebrandt study but for several people reference it what was the number that he concluded was a safe distance well he I think looks at at least between 1,500 and 2,000 feet that's what he concluded that's my recollection okay thank you next card we have is Jody is Mert if you just state your name and address you might want to need to pull the mic down but you have four minutes I'm definitely pulling the mic down Jody is Mert 819 Anna Street and so I am in opposition to this for similar reasons because I think the 500 is inadequate the 500 feet is inadequate so part of the Denton Development Code and the purpose the first thing that's listed is to promote the health safety and general welfare of the city's inhabitants that's that's the first thing that's listed in the Development Code as far as the mission statement is concerned and from what I'm hearing from the presentation is that we didn't really look at recent studies because dr. Hildebrand I know that's been mentioned before he provided a lot more recent studies than 2011 even cancer clusters in certain areas due to due to fracking operations due to well operations so we're starting to see that come out we're starting to see data for this now it's been long enough to where we're we're actually starting to see some of the impacts so I definitely would hope that you guys would postpone your vote until further research can be done I think 500 is great start I want to applaud the city for considering this and I think this is a discussion that we absolutely have to have I just think the scope of what city staff was asked to do was not broad enough I think that we need to have a broader scope as far as what is looked at we need more robust protection for citizens who will be near well operations I'd like to also talk about soil impact because dr. Hildebrand had mentioned that heavy metals are found in the soil near well operations abandoned well operations active well operations and so soil testing is something that's new but heavy metals radioactive materials so I think especially with protected uses like parks and schools and playgrounds you know children you know and most of us probably hear our parents and I know one of the first things my daughter does when she goes to a playground it's a very intimate relationship she wants to get in the sand she wants to search for insects you know when she was little she would put things in her mouth rocks and we're letting our kids play on playgrounds that you know like McKenna Park for example that's you know within this zone that's unsafe and you know when we figured out that Eureka Park was covered with Carson Carson engines we tore it down and we built a new park because we wanted as a community to protect our kids I think that we should do the same here we should postpone the vote we should have a broader scope we should look at the more recent studies we should not have protected uses like schools and playgrounds within 500 feet of well operations because when you think about it 500 feet and maybe it sounds like a large long distance if you are if you've ever run on a track before it's a hundred meter dash it's a little bit longer than a hundred meter dash or if you play golf it's a nine iron it's it's not a very long distance and so I would like to encourage us to perhaps look at extending the distance thank you very much I do not see any questions appreciate you being here though next card I have is for Ed soft and if you just state your name and address for the record my name is Ed so I live at 1620 Victoria Drive here in Denton of tear about 32 years I had had a prepared statement which I've sent to you and I'm going to not read that unless I have time because I want to comment on some things that have been said here if you don't mind the whole process that has brought us to this point was terribly flawed and I say this because dr. Hildenbrand published an article with dr. Shug in the Dallas Morning News in November of 2018 I sent that to City Council because it was already in the pipeline that that's revision was going to happen I sent it to council I sent it to staff innumerable times please this man is a good resource he's local he knows what's going on around here have him come in and speak no response no result no outside expertise other than an outdated 2011 air study from Fort Worth if you haven't read that study read it read the executive summary and read the conclusion and see how comfortable you feel with the efficacy of that study I inquired to staff thinking hey there are great concerns in the community about the health impacts of this possible 500 foot reverse setback do the developers know about these concerns staff has met with developers are they discussing this with them are they giving the developers a chance to say wow I didn't realize that let's see what else we can do no I don't know because again I never got a reply I never got an answer after repeated questions regarding to the developers know how the folks feel about this I never got an answer staff has given the impression that the only valid study is that 2011 Fort Worth air study well as you know and I appreciate your patience with me I sent you four more studies today one of those studies actually used the TCE queues own air monitors to come up with its conclusions about the impact of gas well drilling on ozone production and as I think I mentioned to you ozone is bad it exacerbates childhood asthma ruins people's lungs but that was only one I sent you three more and I hope you will look at those because the city hasn't responsibilities on your shoulders because the city did not do due diligence so with time left if you don't mind I will read my statement most if not all of the 13 pad sites and 51 gas wells on the 6,000 acres of the proposed coal hunter ranch development are low priority this is also true for pad sites and wells on many other yet to be developed tracks in Denton these low priority wells will become at least moderate priority with a new residential and commercial development and these former low priority wells may have plat language that allows the drilling and fracking of more wells and the refracting of existing wells on those pad sites we must know what which pad sites those are because of what has already happened in Denton we cannot forget the horrible experiences suffered by the residents of the vintage neighborhood constant noise and lights cracked house foundations the air filled with choking silica dust the stench of toxic chemicals and exhaust fumes and frightened children with nosebleeds headaches and asthma attacks an expectant mother who lived in the neighborhood came before counsel stood right here and asked what's going to happen to my baby we know now that proximity to gas well operations at distances of more than 500 feet poses grave health risks to both the expectant mother and her unborn child this raises some questions which have to be answered before we move forward can the city assure expectant mothers that a 500 foot reverse setback or God forbid a 250 foot variance is safe for them and their infants can the city assure residents that continuous air monitoring of wells is unnecessary to protect the health and safety of people living and working and playing and raising a family 500 feet from existing wells and pad sites can the city assure residents that it is safe to live within 500 feet of a reef racking operation it boils down to this are you willing to take the chance that new Denton neighborhoods have to experience the same nightmare as the vintage neighborhood because the one thing we do know absolutely is that the closer we live to well operations the greater the hazards to our health and safety whether it's in Colorado Texas or Timbuktu it's been almost six years since that expectant mother stood here and asked her question I hope you'll agree that it's time to do what is right so that future mothers won't have to stand here and ask what's going to happen to their children you all can make it right by voting to postpone the adoption of this current ordinance revision please there are simply too many unanswered questions thank you very much thank you we do have questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. self I because we've been in session most of the day I haven't necessarily had a chance to read all those studies are those peer-reviewed studies accepted by other scientists three of them are and the fourth one which is a journalists summary of another paper if one goes to the references referenced in that article they will find that those sources are all peer-reviewed thank you Krister pernetta yes mr. so yeah you mentioned the other the request for a postponement and that's come up a couple of times and and I guess I have a couple of questions and you may not have the answer this is because I'm asking you right now you know as mr. can only mentioned this came back due to basically a political shift in our City Council right and because of that we know that any action taken by council may not necessarily be based on science but rather on political whim if my fear is this we have 250 feet right now we have a momentum to get 500 which is still not great but better than it was I have a fear that you know if we postpone and wait for 1,000 by the time it comes back to council we may not get a vote and wind up stuck with a 250 so my question though is when we're discussing a postponement to ensure that we get more data to make a decision what kind of timeline are we looking at here because I would be reluctant to push for a postponement if I didn't feel like we could have something come back within 60 days you know what I mean because what we're in November now 60 days puts us puts us at January we know people are going to start filing to run for City Council in February and you know I'm worried about that but but I'm guessing you know the oil and you know the drilling awareness group has some experts that they'd like to bring in some data they'd like to have considered can you give us an idea of what a postponement would look like and what we would be bringing back and how soon we would be able to do something actionable on that I obviously don't know how postponement would work because I would that's it's up to staff obviously to set a realistic time frame for any further discussions okay and that's as far as dent and dag helping out as we tried to do before yeah we're ready at moments notice to get whomever the city wants to talk to so as far as I'm concerned it's up in some ways to you folks to set a timeline that you feel is is workable and to work that out with staff I mean it's not hard it's it's not hard to to research this stuff as you know and there's no reason why within a reasonable amount of time there cannot be a meaningful dialogue that takes into account those questions that I asked in my statement because those questions have to be answered and I don't know what else to say in that regard and I guess my question would then go to staff I mean what would a turnaround like that be if they were to if we were to bring in some peer review studies and you know some people to testify before council on you know what the impact of a 500 number versus what else would be I just want to make sure that we the decision that we're making is you know as close to founded on recent information as possible again I think it certainly if there were to be a postponement and a request for additional studies or analysis I would I would have to take that to City Council for for consideration and recommendation again this this was an amendment that was brought on by that a request by council right initiated by them I do know at I was going to mention it it's part of the the matrix I do know at next week's work session they will have a discussion on whether or not they want to consider I think there's four or five items that that mr. So's group had brought up for consideration whether or not council decides to move forward with that again that's ultimately up to that that body as a whole that wouldn't preclude them from making changes or if this were to proceed to then come back two months later or three months later or shorter or longer with an additional amendment there's no limitation on on a city initiated amendment that's driven by City Council Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. soap is always for sharing your insight you know my concern here with postponement is it's taken us a year to get where we are right now and I what I'm not understanding and help me here is why we would think this amendment isn't for the protection and welfare of the citizens I'm not saying it's a fix-all but it's better than where we're at now and it doesn't preclude future amendments to this ordinance so I'm at the moment uncomfortable with postponing because like I said this got brought up in September of 18 this is November of 19 so I'll let you speak to that I I have a problem with with it because science tells us that beyond doubt 500 feet is too close and if one does go with 500 feet though one must have continuous air monitoring of the wells that are within 500 feet of new homes how can I say they're wrong I can't and mr. Hennan mentioned the precautionary principle we take precautions every day we put on seat belts when we get in our car not because we're sure we're gonna have an auto crash because we might or we could we get home insurance not because we know our house is gonna catch fire but just in case it does you follow my drift we go to the doctor when we feel great because we want to make sure we're not getting sick that cut same kind of thing needs to be instituted in how the city thinks about things like this that have such drastic possibilities for horrible impacts on the public health and was mentioned about cigarettes you know how long did it take science knew long ago just like science knew long ago about global warming and what is it gonna take we're gonna sit until it's right there till we've got the bodies to count till we've got the cancer clusters that we have to we have to think like that because things are not getting better when we have this wait-and-see attitude so I see absolutely no reason for especially what I said about sitting down with the developers and explaining this to them and see if the consensus can be reached with a either monitoring systems if it's if it's a lesser distance or even working out ways in certain situations I mean god there's great example right there with multiple wells on one pad yeah that group should require a different setback difference because there's more wells there's more pollutants it's that simple but at any rate that's what my take on that and I understand that but you you're comfortable with postponing it to an indefinite period of time no not indefinite better quicker by at least increasing it double from what it is currently I don't know I just want the dialogue because the dialogue has not happened because the resources have not been studied it's the net focus of this is entirely too narrow for the for the for the for the for what we're dealing with right but why do you think the dialogue is cut off if this if this were to be recommended City Council and ultimately approved by City Council why do you think the dialogue would be cut off from other concerns that for the same reasons that it's taken us so long to get here politics vested interests you name it so I mean we I I'm looking at it a at it realistically because in my 30 years here I've seen how the system can work Eureka the IPM plan that the that the city parks have and I've seen how it doesn't work to the point that we had to pass a fracking ban you know Christian back yes thank you chair so in the discussion that you brought up and counselor printed brought up they had the analogy to smoking maybe that's an appropriate analogy in more ways than you suspect we all have the 90 year old grandma who's been smoking 10 packs a day and is 90 so mate but what she does is go to the doctor regularly and all the time so maybe the appropriate responses to follow maybe what counselor pernetta and counselor Ellis are suggesting and and that is except a partial increase because we're unaware of the risks but then measure more so I guess maybe this is more of a question to Richard and that is can we go can we make the recommendation to accept but then encourage City Council to go to say you know something much more frequent monthly bi-weekly continuous monitoring in order to mitigate risks then you could have the smaller setbacks especially if you didn't have if there was no proof of release if there's no VOCs if there's none of the health issues because we have proof then it would be entirely appropriate to have less a shorter setback distance and then we mitigate some of these qualms that some of us here have at the dais I just want to make sure understand so you're asking whether or not as part of the recommendation is if it is at 500 could could there essentially be an add-on that there be additional monitoring that's conducted by the city yeah regardless of the distance regardless of the distance can we make the recommendation regardless of the distance that we go to as near practical continuous monitoring as possible yeah I mean I don't know that that would necessarily be a land development regulation I do know we have our own inspection that we do on a you know that I think I had forwarded that modern geosciences handles but it could be a suggestion that we could certainly pass on or be made as part of the the recommendation to counsel if I remember correctly that that the report is that even for a short distance those short distance setbacks those are only monitored twice a year and that for anything longer than that they're at best monitored once a year and sometimes every other year so I think again we don't go we're not going to send our 90 year old grandma to the doctor every other year if she's smoking two packs a day so perhaps regardless of what people feel about individual distances I would like to encourage us to put some thought into increasing the frequency of recommending to council that we increase the frequency of monitoring and as I understand our code now it is already incumbent upon the operator to pay for inspections so I don't see how that would change or have any impact on the city's bottom line yeah I think there's unless sort of a two-fold because I know there's there's testing that's required by TCEQ that we're sort of preempted I think these are our inspections that we do in addition to but if I understand the question it's whether or not the the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a recommendation to the council that they amend the gas well ordinance with regard to the air quality monitoring is that your question yes or at least that's part of it yes it's it seems to be outside of the the gas well ordinance but as mr. Kanoni said something that could be passed along as part of the discussion of this ordinance just to clarify the air monitoring policy that council has with modern Geoscience is not derived from the code that's an additional policy that they adopted so it could be part of that perhaps the the operator payment for inspections is a requirement in the code but those are the inspections that city staff is able to conduct for the the surface elements that are allowed under House Bill 40 so that is a separate totally separate from the air quality monitoring that the council has a separate policy for but since you bring that up it's it's our standards and our service standards that they're monitoring and that it's our scope of work that they're following when when they do an investigation is that correct correct that was a policy adopted by council so if it's our scope of work we can set our scope of work or rather we can recommend to council to alter the scope of work council could potentially do that it's to Richard's point simply not a part of the gas well ordinance so it wouldn't necessarily be part of the language in an ordinance that were to go to council but it could be a recommendation that's passed along to them from this interject I think the response is it wouldn't be part of recommendation but it could be a suggestion to move to council but I want to make sure we stay to germane to the topic of the setback that we're looking at the ordinances and the sub chapters identified tonight I actually had a question for mr. self if I may I think Mr. Ellis was asking this question I was maybe asking a little more directly and maybe even more frankly we have an opportunity tonight to change it to 500 there's you and several others I've had a peak one a postponement I'm trying to understand the rationale if while developers are knocking at our doors we can put a stopgap measure in place I'm trying to stand the rationale to go ahead and postpone and leave the door open for 250 foot reverse setbacks for 30 days 60 days and provide an opportunity for a myriad of developers to come in and get plans under the 250 where tonight although might not be the thousand feet seeking I don't I'm trying to understand why the advocacy for a postponement is is what you suggested and others have suggested rather than we support the move we don't think it's adequate there needs to be more done can you help me understand that rationale well I don't know about the myriads of developers I mean I I know what's on the horizon yeah I would the only way that I would feel comfortable and I guess you would feel comfortable too with this is if you did pass this 500 rather than postpone it if you really have fears of developers coming in and taking advantage of the 250 foot reverse setback as it stands now and you feel that you will alleviate that worry by promoting them are passing the proposed 500 that at least you put some conditions with it and those conditions some have already been mentioned air monitoring continuous air monitoring soil testing drawing a blank air monitoring soil testing pardon me no thank you yeah adding the compressor stations line compressor stations to the to the ordinance which are not in there at all and I think I sent you those those points in an email earlier but I that's the only way that I would feel comfortable knowing that you would provide the groundwork for actually strengthening the protections whether it with the 500 foot reverse setback which I hope we all realize has has great health hazard potential and implications okay I appreciate the clarification yeah thank you make sense your what you said I understand okay your perspective thank you thanks that's the last card I have for individuals wanting to speak I have some white cards I'll read into the record and then anyone who still wants to speak they certainly do so the first card I have is from Larry Beck I'm gonna read and to record the notation on the card it says outside of what the Commission raised in the work session today about language that fails to protect non-conforming residencies in the proposed expanded reverse setbacks these amendments also fail to acknowledge the current science that shows setbacks less than 1,000 feet raised serious health and safety risk for protected uses in close proximity and fails to address the need to provide sufficient air monitors that can alert neighbors when the toxic emission levels exceed recommended thresholds the next card I have is Kim McGibbon and she is an opposition not wishing to speak she has a note here and I'll do my best to read the handwriting it says please postpone I want more consensus about the science behind needed setbacks what do firefighters have to say distances need to be a minimum of 500 feet and a thousand feet and the last card I have is Carol and so Carol and so she is an opposition not wishing to speak but noted here please postpone until further health studies are done you absolutely can if you just come down and if you just stage your name and address for the record Carol so 16 20 Victoria I have one other condition that you might want to consider and we've talked about it a lot in our group that the people in the vintage were surprised and they didn't know that this was going to happen to them and we talked about disclosure and we would like the homeowners to know ahead of time that they're buying a house that may or may not have well behind it or that something might happen there might be refract they just don't know so I don't know if that's within your realm or if we wait till City Council to ask for that but I thought I'd throw that in as a condition I appreciate that thank you this is a public hearing anyone was to speak I certainly do so Christopher do you have questions for my question was to Haley or Richard with regard to the disclosure what would our guidelines be in terms of notifying people who are going to buy a rent within near site there are requirements in the code today for disclosure at the time of platting there's believe four different requirements on the plat itself which a homeowner receives a copy of when they purchase a home there is a note and all lots are called out with the distance to the well for lots that are within a thousand feet there is a requirement that the HOA documents indeed restrictions for the neighborhood contain disclosure regarding proximity to a gas well and then there is an additional separate document that gets filed with the county that lists each individual lot so that when a title search is done that document comes back saying this home is within a thousand feet of a gas well new wells could be drilled or added on the site and work over operations could be completed on the site all of that's currently in the code that doesn't necessarily speak to rental properties as you mentioned that is a separate item that I know the committee on citizen engagement has addressed previously and at this time they've not provided staff direction on how to proceed with notifying renters okay but right now regardless of whether we go to whether we're 250 or 500 if they're within a thousand they do get that notification correct sorry were you motioning to speak yes my name is Kevin Bankhead reside at five two two one North O'Connor Boulevard suite 700 Irving Texas seven five oh three nine I'm speaking on behalf of Allegiance Hillview which is a landowner we are adjacent to a two acre pad site one of our neighbors is here the pad site is the razor unit one two and three speaking in opposition to the proposal a little different reason than the anti-fracking crowd has presented though there may be some other studies the one study that is being cited is presenting a demonstrated community need is the Eastern research group study that was done for Fort Worth in 2011 this was a attempt to look at the public health concerns that were raised by the Fort Worth community at the time however that study seems to have been mischaracterized the report itself if read Ed Soph had suggested that everyone read that report I'm not sure who has but the report does not state that a minimum 600 foot setback from the wellhead is required for public health reasons in fact reading from the report the adequacy of setback limits was one of the charges for Eastern research they state taken together monitoring and modeling data provide a basis for assessing the adequacy of the city of Fort Worth setback distances plural the minimum setback distance required is 600 feet though variances can lead to setbacks as low as 200 feet this is also from the wellhead not from the site plan line the critical issue is evaluating the setback distances is the extent to which air quality impacts decrease from distance from the facilities the actual finding from the report was that the concentration was less than the TCEQs short and long-term ESLs at both the 600 foot distance and 200 foot distance so in essence their report actually found that 200 foot distance was below the TCEQs long-term and short-term ESLs level a couple of other points ESL of course is environmental screening levels another couple of points I'd like you to consider in a previous work session presented to you as a PNZ body by city staff it was reported that there was some 265 single-family residences that are currently affected by the 250 foot reverse setback staff I believe identified an additional 750 residences that would be affected by 500 foot reverse setback that's 750 additional residences that would be adversely impacted their marketability their insurability and their financability by an increase in reverse setback I asked and staff did not individually mail notices to any of these 750 residences I would have concern that those residents were not truly informed of the proposed negative impact on their residences by this proposed ordinance and in fact that doesn't appear to be any individual resident here to speak for the Commission one last point briefly one available variance process that's been presented is to go through the ZBA process my understanding is that the ZBA approval requires a six out of seven vote that would mean that only two appointees could deny or block any and all variances that are brought in front of it I do not believe that that's a fair and equitable process those are the points I'd like to present and thank the opportunity to the Commission I appreciate you being here I do not see any questions for you this time right thank you this is a public hearing you want to wish to speak may certainly do so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais and I think a motion is most appropriate to lead out the discussion and in terms of just the effectiveness of the discussion Mr. Beck thank you chair I'd like to actually make a motion to postpone and and I I've heard the arguments that we say it said here on the dais and I understand that it was sort of bird-in-the-hand kind of idea but most concerning to me is not only the the health effects that we've been discussing but also the ambiguity in the language whether we're considering 3a or 3b options because there there seems to be an issue with how we are going to treat legally non-conforming properties and so from the property perspective that ambiguity continues to exist in these documents regardless of what the actual distance is and then on top of that we're discussing these various health effects distances and then I brought up the concept of whether we're allowed to suggest and propose continuous monitoring all three of those points could be addressed by you know a delay staff input as well as a suggestions to counsel so I'd like to make a motion to postpone while we addressed some of those issues particularly the the ones about the confusion between 3a and 3b and the health effects and just to clarify a question back you're wanting to postpone to a date uncertain I'd be willing to entertain some reasonable near-term date because I think we could resolve most of these within a near term I think we need to be more specific in terms of a date so we have a November 20th meeting the December 11th meeting given the holidays I think that might be tight what's the January meeting 8 the 22nd so we have the 8th and the 22nd of January I'm gonna make a motion to postpone till the January 8th meeting yeah there's a multi-part motion I'm making a motion to postpone till January 8th in order to clarify confusion in the language choices between 3 and 3b options investigate and report on continuous monitoring as well as get information from sources regarding appropriate setback distances for health effects from staff we have a motion on the table to postpone to a date certain of January 8th with the conditions just listed can we have a second so Commissioner Parnett I would believe potentially go to council that following week for a work session so we're looking at it would be possibly counseled by January 14. Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I guess I have a question for staff realistically can that be accomplished I mean I understand our two options that are here and staff has made it very clear what option they recommend so I'm not sure what we're clarifying there and the other things are not anything they've been delved into yet so that that just doesn't seem like very much time if I just may add and I kind of hinted to this earlier council next week is is there was a request made from councilmember Armitour on the very four items five items that that the group that was here tonight the notification sent to new new home buyers line compressor safety measures continuous air monitoring within 500 feet implementation of soil testing and whether or not to have dr. Hildenbrandt present the council council will consider whether or not they want to take on any of those items separate and apart from this 500 foot distance and so again this is this was not a staff initiated text amendment this was something that was directed from council and so whether or not I don't know how they're gonna vote on Tuesday some of those items are included in this but it could I could come back on January 8th and tell you I this isn't what council directed us to do they don't want to hear this or council agreed and it's going to take another six or seven I just I can't realistically give that a definitive answer would it Richard be more prudent to motion to a date uncertain and then provide get an update from City Council after their meeting to see if a date certain could be assessed that that quite honestly would probably be that the better choice because then I can add it back on as an item and our at our meeting on the 20th depending what the outcome is on the 12th questioner back would you be amenable to a friendly motion for a date uncertain rather than a date certain of January 8th yes I would actually because the January 8th was just to make it expeditious okay so the new motion on the table is to postpone to a date uncertain with the three conditions that Commissioner Beck outlined if I just may also add if there is a suggestion to change the ordinance above sort of what we're what we've advertised we may have to kind of start this started back over and then go back out to do the notification in accordance with local government code and then re-notice again for City Council so right now it was advertised for tonight and then for City Council on the 19th so it would it would essentially postpone that public hearing on the 19th with City Council on the site so I want you to go ahead and speak but after that we're gonna have to see if there's gonna be a second on this because the discussion should take place after a second if you have something to add to this I'd certainly hear it no I just had a question it was gonna be a question about because this is a public hearing right we would have to re-notice for the postponement that came back to here right so we're looking at what at least 30 days from well that the the public hearing is closed so it would we would essentially bring if the if if it is voted for postponement ultimately depending what council decides next week we could we obviously provide the clarification on an A and B any of the other items if they needed to be added to the code we would essentially have to start it it would be a new notification and essentially new new application if you will we have a first on the on the table is there a second seeing non motion fails the chair will entertain another motion and discussion seeing no movement on the dais or discussion items I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion I move Haley can you bring up the recommendations I want to make sure I state this correctly thank you I move that we approve item 5f as staff recommends changes to sub chapter 6 and a sub chapter 8 and in regard to sub chapter 1 I am in favor of option 2 so that is as long as the language and the intent from the Commission is that individuals at any distance between the setbacks do not have to go to ZBA but have right to rebuild if there was something to happen to their structure cursor back so to that last component of your your motion this is part of the reason I was suggesting that there is needing we need additional clarification because it was difficult for you to come up with that motion because of the ambiguity of some of the presentation that we saw not I understand that I as we talked about in work session the intent of my motion was not to craft the language but to provide the intent of language so that can be crafted before presented to council we have a first on the floor is there a second Commissioner Ellis second we have first and a second Commissioner Pereta few things so just to verify the the recommendation you're making is in the event of a disaster of some kind rather than have to go back to ZBA to get an approval to rebuild on their house that that would be non-conforming they would automatically have the right to rebuild on that same spot right correct okay all right okay I understand that so I guess before we go to the vote I just kind of wanted to discuss a few things this has been a very difficult decision for me because one of the things that keeps coming back into my mind is the notion that it's taken us a long time to get to 500 feet from 250 I am not 100% confident that if we pushed further we could we get anything better and my fear is that rather than having a starting point of 500 feet going forward we would maintain a starting point of 250 feet I was hesitant about the postponement simply because based on the fact that it took forever for us to get here I didn't want to wind that having this be a thing where basically we lose a battle of attrition where it's harder to get people to come out to actually state a case that would be that would be persuasive I believe 500 feet is better than 250 so I'll be voting to send this to council what I what I'd hope you get you guys could do is rally the troops and bring people out to talk to council to see if you know council will be able to you know make a decision that would be more amenable to get us someplace closer to safe based on science and based on on that data I just I worry that we would wind up being stuck here in planning and zoning and never get to that point where y'all could present a present a case so I wanted to say I was asked to clarify my motion Commissioner Ellis so on the same page the condition I was specifying in subchapter 1 is at any distance regardless if it's the 500 or 250 that for the rebuilding of a structure at any distance due to a disaster or something happened to the structure, are you okay with that? I am. And you also have the floor Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair and I just wanted to say a few words before the vote you know the way I look at this is staff was tasked by council to craft an amendment language to increase the reverse setback to 500 feet that is what is presented before us that is what they did what they were tasked with it's been a much discussion in several pieces of very concerning relevant information with living near gas wells but that's not what they were tasked to delve into hopefully that will with whatever they're going to be talking about at the next council meeting maybe that will be staff's next task but this task was to increase that setback I don't understand postponing something that makes things better all of this talk has been about care for this is in the city being double the distance away is better than what we currently have sending it into postponement land to where who knows when it's coming back before a vote it is not something that I can support as well this vote does not preclude further discussion and that's what it seems where the disconnect is is if we move forward with this it precludes further discussion of the increasing studies that we're collecting data on that hopefully council will move and we'll make other changes to our gas well regulations so let's go back to the non-conforming we were gonna insert in this so within 250 you can rebuild no matter what and you don't have to go I mean we don't have a process for that I mean yeah yeah might be my motion is to have individuals be able to build back what they had by right if a process needs to be created I can't speak to that but where I am and in terms of the motion is I think it it moves the needle it we have done the obligation of planning and zoning in terms of what we're commissioned to do from the council I have a I take issue with the idea of someone who has already been there who is there before the wells or whoever that timeline happened if something was to happen to their house to then as you mentioned a work session in the midst of everything going on they have to go to ZBA where two boats eliminates the ability from the rebuild and so I'm not really interested in considering solutions that wouldn't allow property owners to maintain the right of what use they've been having for decades and decades pressure back so on that exact point I'm just for clarification of your motion you're you're you're saying no distance metrics at all in your motion just that they would be able to rebuild period is that how I'm understanding that's correct regardless of other DDC codes that may impact potentially question Prada because it's basically what you're what you're introducing as a grandfather class right you had your house something happens to your house you don't lose your house because we have retroactively applied you know a distance to that and I think I think that's reasonably fair because ultimately while we are advancing you know distances and trying to you know create safety for additional people people who already live there have already made their decisions I guess so I guess I'm okay with that but that's I mean right is it was that that was that the question that you had so the the angle that I was angling at was I was concerned well other concerns aside that I talked about earlier but for this particular motion and the reason I asked the DDC question was I we should still hold homeowners liable for other DDC code I worry that the way you stated the motion sort of gives them a get out of jail free card in a way that you didn't intend I mean I feel like we should if this is the kind of motion we're gonna go for and that we could all reach a consensus on then that should somehow be crafted in a way that doesn't give them more rights as it were or more freedoms than they had that this is simply a grandfather replacement which is the intent rather than I mean I'm worried I'm concerned that we're we're increasing their their get out of jail free card miss if you will if I can point that terrible term yeah and I don't think the intention is for someone whose house is burned down to play get out of jail free card I don't know if that's what you're intending to make the accusation that someone in a loss would be doing I'm saying that if someone had a structure or a residence in which they lived in I believe fundamentally they should have the right to build that back I don't I don't think innate and into my motion is suggesting we give them a pass to build anything they want to take a one-story farmhouse and build a hotel I'm suggesting that what they had there would reasonably reconstruct be reconstructed with the same provisions they've had for in the commissioner Cole's case 60 years that's the intent of it. Commissioner Cole. Thank you so when this if if this passes and goes to counsel can counsel change that and I would I would think they have that authority yeah yeah we're the recommending body is this you know my main problem this is the nonconformity and I'm worried that you know this is going to get changed down the road if this passes they'll just maybe take that out of it and then we're back for not you know that's that's my issue you know I just I don't trust the process is what I'm saying. For clarification Commissioner Cole and I know Richard wants to hop in here if the ultimate action tonight was to deny the staff's recommendation it still goes to City Council for them to move forward. Right, right, right. Richard can you add some clarification? Yeah and I just wanted to really speak back to option one and two where option two came from. Option one again that was a request from counsel the concern that created option two was essentially for lack of a better way to you know choosing winners and losers so those that were or were from 250 to 500 you were you would be conforming those within the 250 ring sorry you're out of luck and so you're sort of creating two different again winners and losers the intent with option two was to apply it broadly to all non-conforming structures across the city that that's really where that's really where option two came from. Now the recommendation that that's sort of on the table could essentially be a modification of option one that it'd be all within the gas well again that's the concern that legal had the risk is out there again it's it's a council decision or option two could be that it applies to all non-conforming structures City one now that would that would take any other property that's a foul of not just gas well but some other provision of the DDC there's a number of buildings downtown that are that are non-conforming and again but that goes back that that that's a recommendation that that council would have to consider these would be the options that we would we would present to them in two weeks. We have a first and a second for approval with a condition to sub chapter one option two is there any discussion on the item? So before we take to a vote what I haven't mentioned was the respect I have for the individuals here for you coming out and speaking and for what I mostly appreciate is the articulation of studies being done for our edification that we don't have I don't have a lot of time to read and so the summaries that were presented including mr. Beck who stepped out I don't think it's insignificant and I would like to see more studies conducted I believe we're all on the same page maybe not I can't speak for everyone I'm on the same page of more research being done so we can determine this and there's advocacy that can be done so that in two months we kick-start another campaign for council to look at extending that that's not off the table in this discussion so my motion was to solidify the request of council to move it a little bit take take a maybe a perceived small win in this conversation but also obviously I have issue with the nonconformity of the rebuilds that I will certainly be following up with my council member about and ensuring that that hopefully is taken seriously into consideration but that's where I am that's the intent of my motion I appreciate you staying late tonight and having this conversation with us I do have two small kids and I take it seriously with the parks and the city we live in so with that I don't see any other discussion so I'll call for motion on the board our vote on the board motion carries five one the next item for agenda this evening is item six the project matrix and I will turn that over to Richard and just one moment before we get into the matrix I did want to publicly thank mr. Jerry Drake for his service to our Commission he was here longer than I think he wanted to be it seemed but nevertheless I leaned on him almost every meeting so I appreciate personally the council you provided me and running the meeting but also on behalf of the Commission thank you for your tireless hours and your vast knowledge to bring to the table and help guiding our discussions I appreciate it very much with that we can introduce to you finally Cynthia is it Kirk off Kirk off she will be our new legal help on a dais going forward so we welcome you to the Commission and thank you for finally being here I'm glad the Texas bar got that that taken care of with that Richard I'll turn it over to you we start the matrix conversation I'll be brief just wanted to update a couple of the items on there if you see we I was a help how the I think because we cleared that list so much we didn't have to update the status column so we added the status column back in and just wanted to give an update on the city initiated rezoning's we're going to council work session next may actually it's a 19th I think it's been moved today but we're looking to bring that back to P&Z on 12/11 regarding the discussion on notification what will be added to that is that dual notice item that we discussed in work session as it relates to zoning and SGP items so we'll also have that on the 12/11 work session what I'm looking to do I have the policies and procedures that is just always kept on I know we've had a discussion as a result of the gas well of what can be and can't be put on work sessions and there's since we do follow the council rules of procedures that's even changed about how they request items beyond work sessions of we're working through and getting how that applies to to P&Z again different from from the policy setters IE council but how that would apply to to this to this commission and so that's what what is intended to to be part of that discussion on 11/20 so we hope to have someone from the manager's office and as well as legal provide some provide some guidance on that in addition I think we can also just like that yeah it was on the policies and procedures have all these notes and you just drop that yeah that was the one I didn't write down it's always the case I'll remember it after as soon as I leave that was it the only other thing I wanted to update on the brush Creek rezoning I can't remember if I updated that last meeting they did withdraw their application so that that has not moved that will not be moving forward and then the the two text amendments clean up at the MN and then the NPC Council did approve those last night 7-0 thank you for the update Mr. Ellis thank you chair Richard can you provide us when you have time with an update to that substation and what it would take for the city to initiate that cleanup or where where it's at in in in removing that yeah and that is the TMP so the substations actually the the Texas Municipal Power Authority or Association so it's not technically the city's equipment but I will reach out to DME and get that get an answer and I'll just provide an update yeah maybe just some kind of update of what's the process the procedure what can what can those people expect thank you crystal what was the count on the NPC but what was it was it unanimous what did you say I believe it was unanimous last night on adding those again it was just a clarification language I have one item it literally affects no one but me and I guess maybe the mayor and Kathy's you could listen to this for some reason on the summary of votes the recuse number doesn't show up up top so tonight we had a recuse and up top it said five zero zero I have no idea if that's a tech issue but I hate to recall a boat wrongly that you know what I'm saying okay okay it gotcha when I almost miscalled it tonight but I saw blue bullet next to whoever's recusing themselves but at the top there's three blocks it always says zero for recuse I'm surprised Mayor Watts doesn't complain about that but I am complaining about it formally thanks for the ears any other discussion tonight for the matrix great with that I will close our meeting at 917 thank you