1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,420
 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the PNZ Commission work

2
00:00:08,420 --> 00:00:13,240
 session meeting for November 6 2019. Seeing that we do have a quorum I'll

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:18,520
 open the meeting at 2 0 5. First item of business is to receive a report and hold

4
00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:21,480
 the discussion over the new administrative criteria manuals and

5
00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:29,920
 updates to existing criteria manuals and I'll invite Ron McGuida for presentation.

6
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:40,560
 Thank You Chair, members of the Commission, good afternoon. Ron McGuida again with

7
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:48,960
 development services. Sorry get back to the beginning of the presentation. The

8
00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:54,160
 purpose of this work session item is really to introduce the work that staff

9
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,920
 is doing to create some criteria manuals as well as update some existing

10
00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:04,720
 criteria manuals. But just way of purpose and background we continue to update and

11
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:10,320
 improve our development review process by enhancing customer service and

12
00:01:10,320 --> 00:01:16,000
 enhancing efficiency. By doing so we are making sure that our documents are

13
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:19,640
 updated and making sure that we have the documentations that our developers our

14
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:24,760
 residents and our property owners need in order to develop here in the city. One

15
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:30,040
 of the things that the staff did when we did update our criteria manuals as well

16
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:34,320
 as draft our criteria manuals we wanted to make sure that we're streamlining the

17
00:01:34,320 --> 00:01:43,000
 process that we're removing any work guesswork reducing any inconsistency and

18
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:47,240
 then involving the stakeholders as much as possible in the process. So just want

19
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:54,040
 to lead that into how we are here today. What we're presenting to you all is a set

20
00:01:54,040 --> 00:02:01,600
 of two new criteria manuals and also five updates to existing criteria manuals. Now

21
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:06,360
 those that are not familiar with criteria manuals the criteria manuals

22
00:02:06,360 --> 00:02:11,080
 are essentially supportive documents that help administer the

23
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:17,000
 Denton Development Code. It is maintained and updated annually and so

24
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:22,400
 this is the process. We are at the last part of the year and we're looking at

25
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:27,880
 updating our criteria manuals. There are a number of members of staff here present

26
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:33,640
 that will provide an overview. There is again a total seven criteria manuals and

27
00:02:33,640 --> 00:02:39,760
 we'll go through that again in the next few minutes. At the end and towards the

28
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:44,520
 middle we will also be discussing a summary of how we are here and where

29
00:02:44,520 --> 00:02:51,360
 we're going to go and what needs to happen next. Just to give you just a

30
00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:55,560
 quick update before we get into the presentations we're now currently here

31
00:02:55,560 --> 00:03:01,120
 obviously on November 6th at a public P&Z work session. This Friday will be a

32
00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:04,760
 conference that the staff will be presenting these criteria manuals to a

33
00:03:04,760 --> 00:03:09,840
 group of professional engineers. Following that there will be a work

34
00:03:09,840 --> 00:03:13,520
 session with City Council sharing the same information that you all are getting

35
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:18,640
 today. We'll have a public open house shared sharing the information that we

36
00:03:18,640 --> 00:03:23,040
 have with the public and hopefully get some good impact, impact input that is.

37
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,260
 We hope that by November 30th the end of this month we'll have enough

38
00:03:27,260 --> 00:03:31,040
 information to bring back this item to the Planning Zoning Commission as a

39
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:37,080
 public hearing item and those items are just going to be the Administrative

40
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:41,720
 Criteria Manual and the ESA Criteria Manual primarily because they are new

41
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:45,800
 criteria manuals. Those existing criteria manuals do not require a public hearing

42
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,800
 they just require a public hearing with the planning I'm sorry with the City

43
00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:57,440
 Council. Here is the list of criteria manuals that we are working on. Again two

44
00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:02,760
 new ones are in the top two. I will be facilitating the Administrative

45
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:08,560
 Criteria Manual. Deborah Vieira and Christy Upton will be administering the

46
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:13,600
 environmental sensitive areas. Now you heard from Christy Upton a couple

47
00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:18,080
 meetings ago I think was October 16th so she will now be presenting here at this

48
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:23,120
 work session again because that presentation was made several or one

49
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:28,540
 PNZ meeting ago. Eugene McKinney is here to talk about solid waste and Pritam

50
00:04:28,540 --> 00:04:33,840
 Deshmukh is going to discuss the rest of the criteria manual as you see here. So

51
00:04:33,840 --> 00:04:38,660
 with that I'm going to go ahead and start with the Admin Criteria Manual. The

52
00:04:38,660 --> 00:04:42,960
 Admin Criteria Manual replaces what we often refer to as the Site Design

53
00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:48,120
 Criteria Manual. It again as mentioned in the introduction the Administrative

54
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:51,280
 Criteria Manual assist in the administration of the development code

55
00:04:51,280 --> 00:04:56,760
 and the development process. It provides information and guidance to our property

56
00:04:56,760 --> 00:05:01,680
 owners our citizens and our developers in relationship to development. It is a

57
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:07,160
 supplemental document and it contains a number of items including a development

58
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:12,360
 process guide. You see a little bit of it here which will be included in the

59
00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:16,480
 Administrative Criteria Manual so if you haven't seen it already it's a helpful

60
00:05:16,480 --> 00:05:23,320
 page or a helpful PDF that identifies five stages of development review. There

61
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:26,840
 are also other approvals and procedures included in the Administrative Criteria

62
00:05:26,840 --> 00:05:32,300
 Manual as well as appendices and contact information. Those appendices are

63
00:05:32,300 --> 00:05:37,400
 important because they're primarily what our development community looks for when

64
00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:42,520
 looking at how to develop here in the city. As you can see starting with number

65
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:47,040
 one it's starting off with how do you apply? You know what what do you need to

66
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:52,880
 submit through a checklist as well as how to access your project through eTrackit

67
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:58,200
 and through Project Docs. It goes into further standards and regulations that

68
00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:03,000
 again these are not competing with the DDC they're primarily supplementing the

69
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:08,760
 DDC and supporting it in ways that is not included in the DDC. So again these

70
00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:12,440
 standards that you see in the Administrative Criteria Manual are just

71
00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:17,280
 technical standards that are required for development and as you continue to

72
00:06:17,280 --> 00:06:21,720
 go down the list you see that there's helpful information again that is used

73
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:27,880
 either from an architect or a landscape architect or just in general someone

74
00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:31,400
 that's developing and trying to put together a site plan. They've got all the

75
00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:36,240
 information that they need hopefully within the Administrative Criteria Manual.

76
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:42,920
 Does anybody have any questions on the Administrative Criteria Manual? Again

77
00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:48,600
 it's really a how-to instruction document as well as it houses a lot of

78
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,160
 the supportive materials that our developers and property owners and

79
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:59,000
 citizens often look for or look to when proposing development. Commissioner Ellis.

80
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:02,920
 Thank you Chair. Ron I did have kind of a specific question as I was reading

81
00:07:02,920 --> 00:07:06,640
 through this with regard to the certificate of zoning compliance which I

82
00:07:06,640 --> 00:07:11,760
 know is new. So it says on there applicants may be required to obtain a

83
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:16,840
 certificate of zoning compliance at the time of applying for a building permit.

84
00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:23,160
 So that's not all. So what are some examples of who would be? So some

85
00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:28,360
 sometimes like all you know all that we know is there's there's a CO currently.

86
00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:32,800
 We're trying to get away from issuing a CO for everything. So the zoning

87
00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:38,280
 compliance certificate serves as that a portion of that. For example a parking

88
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:41,920
 lot you know somebody wants to develop a parking lot. Well there's not it's not a

89
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:46,680
 CO because there's no building to occupy so a certificate of zoning compliance

90
00:07:46,680 --> 00:07:51,400
 would fall under that category. So just a case-by-case project by project? Correct.

91
00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:56,220
 We hope to have a zoning compliance certificate for most of our properties.

92
00:07:56,220 --> 00:08:00,680
 That's that's the goal but there are specifics that specific ones that would

93
00:08:00,680 --> 00:08:09,400
 require it. Okay well I'm going to introduce Eugene McKinney to talk about

94
00:08:09,400 --> 00:08:14,680
 solid waste, solid waste criteria manual and he'll provide you with what's being

95
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,080
 updated.

96
00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:25,720
 It is a pleasure to to be here this afternoon and to give you all some

97
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:32,140
 updates on some things that we're doing in solid waste to update our our site

98
00:08:32,140 --> 00:08:38,160
 criteria manual. As noted this criteria manual has been updated since 2009. So

99
00:08:38,160 --> 00:08:42,200
 some things in the industry and our vehicles and things have changed. With

100
00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:49,640
 that being said we wanted to clarify some edits in there within the language. One

101
00:08:49,640 --> 00:08:54,680
 of the things that we did put in about solid waste determining the sizes, types

102
00:08:54,680 --> 00:08:58,760
 of containers but we want to work closer with our business owners and our

103
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:02,600
 builders to determine if they're receiving the right kind of container,

104
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:07,200
 right type of a container for their business and the business needs. For

105
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:12,360
 example you may produce eight yards of debris, garbage, you may only need a

106
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:17,520
 container. You may well I'm sorry you may produce eight yards and maybe once a

107
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:21,480
 week. Do you pile it all in a yard container or do you get a smaller

108
00:09:21,480 --> 00:09:24,520
 container or multiple times a week? So we want to create a relationship to make

109
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:29,080
 sure that we are getting the right you know right type of container. Traffic and

110
00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:33,240
 other things matter so we just want to increase that relationship to make sure

111
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:37,840
 we're doing right by our customers. We want to widen our enclosures. As the

112
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:41,980
 industry has changed our trucks have changed specifications and everything.

113
00:09:41,980 --> 00:09:46,240
 Our trucks are a little wider to protect against some vital organs. I say organs

114
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:50,440
 in arteries our hydraulic lines in particular electric lines. They now run

115
00:09:50,440 --> 00:09:54,720
 on the outside of the truck for easy repair and they have shields on them. So

116
00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:58,220
 with those shields with that being said the shields cause the trucks to be just

117
00:09:58,220 --> 00:10:02,440
 a little wider inches not a whole lot but inches. So by widening our storage

118
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:08,560
 our eventments will actually allow us to go in without causing damage to our

119
00:10:08,560 --> 00:10:14,520
 trucks or property. Also we've asked these eventments to be wider just in

120
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:18,960
 case there's storage in the eventments. We've often ran into situations where

121
00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:22,360
 we'd service a container and there's all type of valuable storage items in the

122
00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:24,800
 container and it's damaged because there's just not a room enough room

123
00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:27,880
 inside there. So again creating a relationship we're working with the

124
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:31,400
 property owner will rectify a lot of that stuff a lot of those things like

125
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:37,120
 that. Our measurements represents the inside wall dimension. I think previously

126
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:41,320
 it was outside but if we do inside that'll ensure that we're making we're

127
00:10:41,320 --> 00:10:45,040
 meeting the right measurements here. I mean you can say for example you say 12

128
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:52,240
 12 feet inside or 13 feet inside or that that ensures that we have 12 feet or 13

129
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:56,920
 feet of clearance to drive the truck in. Opposed to outside that's 12 feet

130
00:10:56,920 --> 00:11:00,400
 outside well when you put everything in and the ballads and the gates and

131
00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:03,960
 everything that might turn into a 10 or 11 feet. So we just want to make sure

132
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:07,800
 that we're clearing our language. Something we're looking at as well our

133
00:11:07,800 --> 00:11:12,760
 dual enclosures we want to increase them from 24 or 5 to 26 feet. Again with the

134
00:11:12,760 --> 00:11:16,800
 trucks being a little bit larger a little bit wider we need a little more

135
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:23,200
 space to get in. In between that each each on the duals each enclosure should

136
00:11:23,200 --> 00:11:28,680
 be 12 feet 8 inches. That gives us that allows for a 4 inch for 5 inch pillar in

137
00:11:28,680 --> 00:11:32,920
 the middle to close the gates and to compensate with the increased size or

138
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:38,520
 the width of the truck. All our drawings with this to go along with the

139
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,320
 conversation the drawings have been updated and everything is alphabetically

140
00:11:42,320 --> 00:11:52,800
 in order. Any questions? No questions. Thank you. Thank you.

141
00:11:52,800 --> 00:12:04,120
 Good afternoon. Deputy City Engineer. I'll be talking about the

142
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:07,640
 remaining manuals and start with the construction guarantee manual. This is

143
00:12:07,640 --> 00:12:13,560
 the manual that deals with public infrastructure within private

144
00:12:13,560 --> 00:12:17,400
 development. So if you have a development that has streets and other

145
00:12:17,400 --> 00:12:22,120
 facilities water waste water drying into it this defines how things will be laid.

146
00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:28,400
 This manual was updated back in 2002 so it's pretty old it has not been updated.

147
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:32,120
 So I'm not going to read through all of these bullet points but the highlights of

148
00:12:32,120 --> 00:12:36,800
 this is there are a lot of roles and responsibilities that have changed so the

149
00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:41,280
 organizational structure has changed. We've updated that portion. We've added

150
00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:47,600
 extra language of what is required in the construction plans. We've added extra

151
00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:51,440
 information that's needed as part of the construction plans and then we've also

152
00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:56,400
 tightened some of the things as far as safety is concerned. So traffic control

153
00:12:56,400 --> 00:13:01,320
 plans and traffic lane closure plans while you're tying into the street water

154
00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:05,880
 sewer system and stuff like that. So we've elaborated and added a lot more

155
00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:10,520
 language to make it more understandable easy to read and that's what's entailed

156
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:17,200
 in this particular update. Any questions? I'm gonna move on to the next one.

157
00:13:17,200 --> 00:13:21,760
 Stonewater design criteria manual. This is a much newer manual. This was updated

158
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:27,240
 last year. I came here in front of BNZ and presented. What we're doing every

159
00:13:27,240 --> 00:13:32,600
 year as part of the updates is really making sure that we listen to all the

160
00:13:32,600 --> 00:13:36,000
 developers to listen to their needs and some of the things you can notice

161
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:42,120
 they're included in these changes are more explicit language, more elaboration,

162
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:46,960
 more descriptive narrative. At the same time we're adding more materials that

163
00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:54,320
 are we're able to use. So some of the stuff that is in here, earthen channels

164
00:13:54,320 --> 00:14:00,160
 are now allowable once we understand what the velocities are and then the main

165
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:05,440
 important thing here is the private detention. We no longer require a public

166
00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:11,080
 drainage easement over private detention and there was a large note that was in

167
00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:14,960
 every plan that you've probably seen over years. We're trying to take that out.

168
00:14:14,960 --> 00:14:19,400
 All we need is an operation and maintenance manual and it's an agreement

169
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:23,000
 between private properties so we don't need to get involved in some of this. So

170
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:28,080
 that's one of the major changes in the Stonewater criteria manual. Yes sir. So I

171
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:32,320
 appreciate getting a more explicit language for developers and everyone

172
00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:36,440
 else to understand. Is there explicit language around the velocity analysis of

173
00:14:36,440 --> 00:14:41,840
 earthen channels? So that will be part of the analysis that they conduct. They

174
00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:46,560
 will conduct a hydrology analysis and that defines velocity. So they have

175
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:51,480
 existing velocities, existing flow lines and they will go through analysis and

176
00:14:51,480 --> 00:14:56,920
 say here are the existing velocities and this is how much we're proposing to get.

177
00:14:56,920 --> 00:15:01,000
 So based on all that analysis we'll determine. So there's no specific one

178
00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:05,360
 formula fits all. It just depends on the terrain. But there is a certain

179
00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:12,120
 assessment threshold. Correct. It's not arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. Okay. Any other

180
00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:18,720
 questions? This I'm gonna skip. We're gonna come back next P&Z and talk about

181
00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:22,280
 the criteria manual. None of the background information was included in

182
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:26,440
 your packet so I'm gonna bring it back and as you see it's very little update

183
00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:31,480
 but the last manual is the water wastewater criteria manual. And similar

184
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:37,720
 concept, similar thing, theme going on here. We have added more materials. We

185
00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:42,080
 have expanded some of our tables. If you see some of these down here we've added

186
00:15:42,080 --> 00:15:47,280
 more pipes, pipe types of material that are acceptable, manhole material that

187
00:15:47,280 --> 00:15:52,720
 are acceptable. We've added some language for protecting our water lines under

188
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:58,920
 other utilities and fences and so on and so forth. So yes similar to the previous

189
00:15:58,920 --> 00:16:04,560
 criteria manual. This is more clean up. This is more we've listened. We've gotten

190
00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:08,560
 your feedback from most of the contractor developer that are trying to

191
00:16:08,560 --> 00:16:14,120
 put infrastructure in the ground and we've made it much more easier.

192
00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:23,480
 For the item where you were simplifying it to the TCEQ guidelines, I mean

193
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:28,220
 was our were our guidelines before and I'll admit I haven't read through all the

194
00:16:28,220 --> 00:16:33,760
 old guidelines. Were they identical to the TCEQ guidelines? I think Jim had a

195
00:16:33,760 --> 00:16:45,800
 better question. Jim Wilder, Engineering Services. They were at one time. The

196
00:16:45,800 --> 00:16:50,640
 problem is as TCEQ would update things and the criteria manual would not be

197
00:16:50,640 --> 00:16:56,640
 updated. It is simply easier to not try to reproduce something that another

198
00:16:56,640 --> 00:17:02,560
 organization is already updating continuously and just simply refer over

199
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:07,440
 to them. We've done that also in the Drainage Criteria Manual with the iSwim

200
00:17:07,440 --> 00:17:12,840
 standards that NETCOG puts out regarding erosion control for construction

201
00:17:12,840 --> 00:17:17,180
 projects and similar things. We were just trying to get rid of information that

202
00:17:17,180 --> 00:17:22,560
 could become outdated because somebody's not updating it. And so for this

203
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:30,440
 reference, we have additional guidelines for the city. So we have both of

204
00:17:30,440 --> 00:17:34,720
 those in this section or we are simply using the TCEQ? We're simply using the

205
00:17:34,720 --> 00:17:41,080
 TCEQ. The original one copied the TCEQ requirements but again nobody kept up

206
00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:46,400
 with it and we didn't realize that it wasn't being kept up. So you would read

207
00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:51,000
 our Drainage Criteria Manual and it would say one thing but the current

208
00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:59,360
 TCEQ rules said something different. And the TCEQ governs this item. We can't

209
00:17:59,360 --> 00:18:05,280
 supersede it. So it was a discrepancy that we needed to just clean up and

210
00:18:05,280 --> 00:18:13,680
 easiest way was just to remove it, refer everybody to TCEQ. Thank you. Thank you. Any other

211
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:18,000
 questions? I think we're on the last slide again.

212
00:18:18,000 --> 00:18:28,320
 So we're just gonna wrap up. Thanks to these folks to presenting, which

213
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:32,880
 is really helpful. We will be coming back to the Planning

214
00:18:32,880 --> 00:18:37,200
 Zoning Commission on December 12th for the Administrative Criteria Manual and

215
00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:41,520
 the ESA Environmental Sensitive Area Criteria Manual as a public hearing item.

216
00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:50,080
 Again, as part of that process to get them created. As Preetam indicated, there

217
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:53,800
 will be a future work session item on the Transportation Criteria Manual. We

218
00:18:53,800 --> 00:18:59,040
 will discuss that at that time. But as far as the other criteria manuals, what

219
00:18:59,040 --> 00:19:03,560
 we hope from this work session is to just receive input and answer any

220
00:19:03,560 --> 00:19:09,040
 questions that you may have. If there's no other input or questions, they're

221
00:19:09,040 --> 00:19:14,240
 going to be scheduled to go to the City Council for consideration on December

222
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:18,760
 17th. Again, those are the Construction Criteria Manual, the Storm Water, the

223
00:19:18,760 --> 00:19:24,760
 Wastewater, Water and Wastewater, as well as the Soil Waste Criteria Manual. That

224
00:19:24,760 --> 00:19:28,040
 concludes our presentation. And again, if there's any other follow-up question, we'd

225
00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:35,160
 be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ron. Okay. The next item of business this

226
00:19:35,160 --> 00:19:41,320
 afternoon is item 1B, DCA 19-009, Receive Report and Hold

227
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:51,920
 Discussion about subchapter 1 and subchapter 6 and subchapter 8. Looks like

228
00:19:51,920 --> 00:20:01,960
 Hayley's going to start us off. And if you all are amenable to it, we can go

229
00:20:01,960 --> 00:20:06,120
 ahead and roll in the public hearing clarification of agenda items into this

230
00:20:06,120 --> 00:20:13,280
 same discussion if you'd like. Sure. All right. So I wanted to start by giving you

231
00:20:13,280 --> 00:20:16,840
 all a little background since we do have a new code and some new commissioners on

232
00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:22,840
 how the code amendment process works. So section 2.7.4 of the DDC

233
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:27,440
 specifies that text amendments may only be initiated by three entities. That's

234
00:20:27,440 --> 00:20:30,240
 either by the Director of Development Services, which would be a staff

235
00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:33,960
 initiated amendment, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or by the City

236
00:20:33,960 --> 00:20:39,040
 Council. So the amendments that are before you today were initiated by the

237
00:20:39,040 --> 00:20:42,760
 City Council following a series of work sessions as we talked about at our last

238
00:20:42,760 --> 00:20:47,240
 meeting here. So your role in this process is to hold the first of two

239
00:20:47,240 --> 00:20:52,280
 public hearings that are required by code and review the proposed amendments

240
00:20:52,280 --> 00:20:54,960
 in accordance with the criteria for approval and then make a recommendation

241
00:20:54,960 --> 00:21:01,760
 to Council who will hold the second of two public hearings on this item. So as I

242
00:21:01,760 --> 00:21:05,040
 mentioned there there were a series of Council work sessions and policy

243
00:21:05,040 --> 00:21:09,840
 discussions that led to this. Those started back in September of 2018 when

244
00:21:09,840 --> 00:21:14,000
 the Council initially requested a work session to review and discuss the city's

245
00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:19,280
 gas well setback requirements and how Denton compared to other DFW cities. At

246
00:21:19,280 --> 00:21:22,880
 that time Dr. Banks from our environmental services department

247
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:27,280
 presented that information to them as well as information about the Fort Worth

248
00:21:27,280 --> 00:21:33,560
 gas well study that was kind of the the basis for where we are today. In July of

249
00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:37,720
 this this year Council requested a second work session to continue that

250
00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:43,000
 discussion. At that time there was also discussion of whether a Denton specific

251
00:21:43,000 --> 00:21:45,800
 study should be done to look at the emissions in our area and try to

252
00:21:45,800 --> 00:21:50,740
 determine a specific setback. Council opted not to go that route but they did

253
00:21:50,740 --> 00:21:55,720
 at that time provide direction for staff to begin working on code amendments to

254
00:21:55,720 --> 00:22:01,240
 increase our reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet. So those first two

255
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:04,160
 development services was really not involved in those were led by the

256
00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:07,320
 environmental services side of things looking at the scientific background of

257
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:11,120
 this but once they provided that direction for the code amendment it then

258
00:22:11,120 --> 00:22:14,480
 fell to our department to begin drafting those in conjunction with our legal

259
00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:20,320
 department. Haley can I interrupt real fast? I apologize. The decision not to have a

260
00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:25,000
 Denton specific study is that a vote or is that just general consensus in a work

261
00:22:25,000 --> 00:22:29,360
 session or is that would they take a vote on that? No it was just part of a

262
00:22:29,360 --> 00:22:32,320
 work session discussion so it was kind of an informal vote if you will where

263
00:22:32,320 --> 00:22:35,560
 the mayor you know asked for a show of hands on who was interested in that

264
00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:39,840
 particular topic. Dr. Banks provided them with a cost analysis at that point in

265
00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:43,800
 time that should be available in the presentation if you were to look back at

266
00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:47,080
 that date and I think just based on the timing that it would take to do such a

267
00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:51,760
 study and the cost of it they chose not to move forward with that. Was there a

268
00:22:51,760 --> 00:22:58,800
 general consensus across the council for that or was it split? I believe it was

269
00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:04,560
 split. I know there wasn't a majority in favor of it but I'm not sure what that

270
00:23:04,560 --> 00:23:13,680
 specific was. So the result of that was then a subsequent work session led by

271
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,360
 development services where we brought forward some proposed text language

272
00:23:17,360 --> 00:23:22,280
 that would increase the reverse setback to 500 feet as they requested. At that

273
00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:25,960
 time we also discussed variance options and the potential creation of

274
00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:29,400
 non-conformities and got council direction on how to move forward with

275
00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:33,920
 that. So that's that's what we'll be looking at today and if you remember at

276
00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,800
 the last meeting we brought forward those are initial drafts. There have been a

277
00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:39,920
 couple of changes based on what we talked about in our October work session

278
00:23:39,920 --> 00:23:47,040
 but we will get into the specifics of those a little bit later. Mr. Beck. So back

279
00:23:47,040 --> 00:23:56,880
 to the second bullet, during council did what I mean I guess I can review the

280
00:23:56,880 --> 00:24:01,920
 agenda for myself so if you could just give a maybe a really simple overview of

281
00:24:01,920 --> 00:24:05,720
 what sort of materials were presented to council in terms of the rationale for

282
00:24:05,720 --> 00:24:11,720
 for those kinds of distances that they that led them to that 500 foot decision

283
00:24:11,720 --> 00:24:17,640
 direction? There were council had mentioned in various forms of requests

284
00:24:17,640 --> 00:24:21,120
 through emails and things like that to staff different setback options that

285
00:24:21,120 --> 00:24:26,360
 ranged from you know 300 feet based on the fire code up to 1200 feet I believe

286
00:24:26,360 --> 00:24:30,760
 based on flower mound. So staff brought forward data related to how all of those

287
00:24:30,760 --> 00:24:35,320
 you know what what that land use effect would look like on those and in the end

288
00:24:35,320 --> 00:24:40,440
 the only the only scientific study that's been conducted in this area within the

289
00:24:40,440 --> 00:24:44,760
 Barnett Shale was that Fort Worth study that Dr. Banks summarized for them and

290
00:24:44,760 --> 00:24:49,200
 they used that as the basis for this rationale rather than doing a Denton

291
00:24:49,200 --> 00:24:58,040
 specific air quality study. So again just to make sure we're all starting off on

292
00:24:58,040 --> 00:25:02,480
 the same page here we do have really three different types of setbacks in the

293
00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:07,240
 DDC but two two very broad categories the first being those applicable to

294
00:25:07,240 --> 00:25:11,140
 gas well sites that are developing so that's type one here on the left those

295
00:25:11,140 --> 00:25:14,880
 are the setbacks measured from the pad site when it develops out to the the

296
00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:19,160
 structures and protected uses type two is the reverse setback which is what

297
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:22,600
 we're looking at today and that is measured from those structures towards

298
00:25:22,600 --> 00:25:27,320
 the pad site when the protected use is the developing entity and then the code

299
00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:30,280
 currently also has what's called a minimum setback and that is kind of a

300
00:25:30,280 --> 00:25:33,240
 subset of the gas well setback because it's what an operator can seek a

301
00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:38,520
 reduction down to through various variance processes and before we jump

302
00:25:38,520 --> 00:25:41,760
 into the text of the code amendment at the last work session there was a

303
00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:45,960
 request for information from legal regarding takings so I've got a few

304
00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:53,040
 slides on that that I'll let Cynthia present. I think she's gonna do it from

305
00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:59,760
 here Haley if you just drive the slides. I will drive this bus. Just presenting a

306
00:25:59,760 --> 00:26:06,060
 very general overview of the takings and the issue related to increasing the gas

307
00:26:06,060 --> 00:26:12,520
 well setbacks like the United States Constitution states that governments are

308
00:26:12,520 --> 00:26:19,520
 prohibited from taking property without just compensation in a in a typical

309
00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:24,000
 taking scenario it's an eminent domain of condemnation action where we're

310
00:26:24,000 --> 00:26:32,720
 purchasing land for a roadway or other expansion. In that case we're actually

311
00:26:32,720 --> 00:26:37,160
 filing if we can't come to an agreement we're actually filing suit in court to

312
00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:47,080
 obtain the property. In this case where you'd have a local regulation that could

313
00:26:47,080 --> 00:26:53,920
 be somehow interfering with a person's right to use their property it's could

314
00:26:53,920 --> 00:26:59,400
 be considered a regulatory taking. That type of taking occurs when the

315
00:26:59,400 --> 00:27:05,680
 regulation destroys the value of the private property. There have been several big

316
00:27:05,680 --> 00:27:11,120
 US Supreme Court cases on that that have given us guidance on how to

317
00:27:11,120 --> 00:27:16,440
 analyze those cases. In that case the property owner would be filing a lawsuit

318
00:27:16,440 --> 00:27:26,440
 against the city so it's a we would be the defendant in that matter. So in 2015

319
00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:32,360
 there was a discussion about increasing the reverse setbacks to 500 feet and

320
00:27:32,360 --> 00:27:37,760
 there was a lot of concern and comments from the real estate

321
00:27:37,760 --> 00:27:43,320
 community and landowners and it was this this argument the takings claim that was

322
00:27:43,320 --> 00:27:48,520
 brought up and that's why the setback was not one of the reasons why the setback

323
00:27:48,520 --> 00:28:00,920
 was not increased to 500 feet. The 2015 ordinance also had a thousand foot

324
00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:07,600
 setbacks for for pad sites that that was actually reduced in that ordinance from

325
00:28:07,600 --> 00:28:19,000
 1,200 feet due to legislators testimony and the the 250 foot setback for existing

326
00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:30,040
 pad sites was was retained in that 2015 amendment. So in order for this the city

327
00:28:30,040 --> 00:28:35,880
 to or any local government to defend a takings claim we would have to convince

328
00:28:35,880 --> 00:28:41,480
 a court that we are doing it to protect the public health safety and welfare of

329
00:28:41,480 --> 00:28:50,680
 the community or to obey the nuisance and a nuisance is really a it's a legal

330
00:28:50,680 --> 00:28:54,600
 term it has meaning to it so it'd be a judge declaring that a certain use is a

331
00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:59,800
 nuisance it wouldn't be the city saying on our own that it was a nuisance

332
00:28:59,800 --> 00:29:09,800
 activity. So we must we must the city must prove that that the gas wells

333
00:29:09,800 --> 00:29:14,760
 present a public health safety and welfare issue to increase that setback

334
00:29:14,760 --> 00:29:21,360
 that's the general consensus and in order to do that we would have to have a

335
00:29:21,360 --> 00:29:28,880
 scientific evidence that the setback should be increased and in a a takings

336
00:29:28,880 --> 00:29:33,320
 lawsuit it would really be a battle of the experts it would be the city's

337
00:29:33,320 --> 00:29:39,520
 expert against the the operators expert or other parties that are involved in it

338
00:29:39,520 --> 00:29:48,640
 to to convince a court that what's what side is right so it'd really be science

339
00:29:48,640 --> 00:29:57,480
 that would win win in this case and just to note the the TCEQ and the Railroad

340
00:29:57,480 --> 00:30:03,560
 Commission well they won't accept a study that was a commission by the state

341
00:30:03,560 --> 00:30:10,400
 with regard to the gas well setbacks. Commissioner Beck. Can I follow up on that

342
00:30:10,400 --> 00:30:15,480
 point real quick though if they what what are the implications of not

343
00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:21,400
 accepting a study from the Railroad Commission or the TCEQ in terms of our

344
00:30:21,400 --> 00:30:32,760
 legal obligations? They not accepting a study means what to the the procedures

345
00:30:32,760 --> 00:30:40,840
 of any claim in a takings claim? Well the state does that would have some weight

346
00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:49,640
 with whether or not the state recognized the study with regard to any any lawsuit

347
00:30:49,640 --> 00:30:57,200
 or the support of the setback increase. And courts never override the REC? I

348
00:30:57,200 --> 00:31:03,600
 can't predict that but that I generally that's the consensus is they would have

349
00:31:03,600 --> 00:31:06,560
 to accept the study.

350
00:31:06,560 --> 00:31:17,680
 Jerry, you're not going to the mic well if you want to pick up or Cynthia can

351
00:31:17,680 --> 00:31:30,360
 speak. So even it even if we even if we prevail in a lawsuit we still have may

352
00:31:30,360 --> 00:31:37,840
 have to pay if the setback is not deemed reasonable. So these are all things that

353
00:31:37,840 --> 00:31:45,600
 the city has considered in the past when reviewing this very issue with regard

354
00:31:45,600 --> 00:31:51,920
 to takings claims and as Mr. Drake has mentioned there is there's state

355
00:31:51,920 --> 00:32:01,280
 preemption with regard to what we can regulate for gas wells. So following up

356
00:32:01,280 --> 00:32:06,320
 on that point if I might the there's a number as you said there's a

357
00:32:06,320 --> 00:32:10,760
 there's a number of rationale for when something is a nuisance or noxious use

358
00:32:10,760 --> 00:32:17,120
 and that we can regulate and so and and I understand that HB 40 pretty much

359
00:32:17,120 --> 00:32:25,400
 mandates and controls things let's globally say below the ground but left

360
00:32:25,400 --> 00:32:30,440
 nebulous or even in our purview the things above the ground especially not

361
00:32:30,440 --> 00:32:33,760
 the gas wells themselves but the things around the gas wells the other

362
00:32:33,760 --> 00:32:42,600
 developments that we'd be talking about. So my I guess my question is to in in

363
00:32:42,600 --> 00:32:47,120
 in this regard and yes it's it's making a judgment call that you'll probably push

364
00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:54,520
 back and say well we're not going to make that judgment call but in in cases

365
00:32:54,520 --> 00:33:00,640
 where there are potential takings it's incumbent upon the the the person who

366
00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:06,880
 thinks there's a taking to to address that so out of X thousand instances

367
00:33:06,880 --> 00:33:09,920
 where there was a potential takings how many people actually sue their

368
00:33:09,920 --> 00:33:14,880
 municipality under these kinds of conditions or at least start procedures

369
00:33:14,880 --> 00:33:20,440
 whether or not they complete them and then to another extent how how often are

370
00:33:20,440 --> 00:33:25,660
 they successful implying that the municipality made a bad judgment call by

371
00:33:25,660 --> 00:33:31,060
 even let's just take the RC and the TCEQ's judgment or whatever the court

372
00:33:31,060 --> 00:33:38,920
 uses in that case so it seems like there's being a risk assessment that is

373
00:33:38,920 --> 00:33:46,600
 extremely risk averse for for lawsuits that that I guess I'm asking how warranted

374
00:33:46,600 --> 00:33:52,040
 is that risk assessment? Well to answer your first question you want to know how

375
00:33:52,040 --> 00:33:56,320
 many lawsuits there were? I mean I can't answer that and how successful they were

376
00:33:56,320 --> 00:34:03,880
 I can't answer that but Mr. Drake since you are are the city's litigator would

377
00:34:03,880 --> 00:34:06,680
 you mind responding?

378
00:34:06,680 --> 00:34:18,160
 We haven't seen very many inverse condemnations cases I have seen one that

379
00:34:18,160 --> 00:34:23,960
 involves power lines on body break and that that turned into a case where we

380
00:34:23,960 --> 00:34:29,040
 counterclaimed it settled with the homeowners to acquire additional right

381
00:34:29,040 --> 00:34:37,640
 away in that circumstance but as far as preemption is concerned you know I don't

382
00:34:37,640 --> 00:34:45,000
 really wanted to assess risk in the context of an open session but I do

383
00:34:45,000 --> 00:34:52,440
 think that in general most cities are aware of those areas where there is a

384
00:34:52,440 --> 00:34:57,400
 preemption argument and are going to be very circumspect about it and are going

385
00:34:57,400 --> 00:35:05,760
 to try to avoid an issue where preemption is is likely or in the case

386
00:35:05,760 --> 00:35:15,120
 of House Bill 40 stated explicitly because that's that's a situation where

387
00:35:15,120 --> 00:35:21,720
 it leaves you very vulnerable where the legislature has already stated that a

388
00:35:21,720 --> 00:35:28,880
 certain situation is is preempted to go into it anyway is a very difficult

389
00:35:28,880 --> 00:35:35,160
 situation to defend. So if I might follow up the these particular cases that were

390
00:35:35,160 --> 00:35:40,600
 being asked by council to review are reverse setbacks they're on surrounding

391
00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:47,920
 development so even you know taking the the notion that HB 40 is is splits

392
00:35:47,920 --> 00:35:55,280
 creaking through the code and demanding behavior that isn't really germane to the

393
00:35:55,280 --> 00:36:02,000
 surrounding development is it? Well I therefore the risks are different. HB 40

394
00:36:02,000 --> 00:36:08,440
 is one flavor of of preemption yet you have to understand that in Texas the

395
00:36:08,440 --> 00:36:11,960
 rights of the mineral owner are superior to the rights of the surface owner and

396
00:36:11,960 --> 00:36:18,600
 that that that's well established in Texas law and so yes there there are

397
00:36:18,600 --> 00:36:25,400
 ways to fashion arguments around that but you know again I I don't know that

398
00:36:25,400 --> 00:36:31,560
 this particular arena is a correct discussion for arguments to be made or

399
00:36:31,560 --> 00:36:37,440
 strategies and litigation I think the point is that we wanted to make sure

400
00:36:37,440 --> 00:36:42,320
 that we impressed upon the public in the Planning and Zoning Commission in

401
00:36:42,320 --> 00:36:49,640
 particular that that that this isn't an easy or easily dismissed issue it's an

402
00:36:49,640 --> 00:36:56,760
 issue that is it is is fraught with danger it's an issue where the state has

403
00:36:56,760 --> 00:37:04,600
 spoken on it they have declared that that at least in many areas that that

404
00:37:04,600 --> 00:37:10,440
 there is definitely preemption against local municipal regulation and it's an

405
00:37:10,440 --> 00:37:18,280
 area where the state has long held that the rights of mineral owners are superior

406
00:37:18,280 --> 00:37:23,840
 those of service owners we just have to try to steer a course that that protects

407
00:37:23,840 --> 00:37:31,480
 the citizens as much as we possibly can I guess I'm good at the same question

408
00:37:31,480 --> 00:37:37,680
 though and I'm not asking to do a private session comment here so you can

409
00:37:37,680 --> 00:37:42,560
 redirect that obviously but we're discussing reverse setbacks and and the

410
00:37:42,560 --> 00:37:47,720
 mineral rights would be the mineral rights for the property in development

411
00:37:47,720 --> 00:37:55,280
 not not the gas well property well and they're separate is we're discussing

412
00:37:55,280 --> 00:37:59,200
 development around the gas well we're not talking about regulating the gas

413
00:37:59,200 --> 00:38:02,440
 wells or the gas production facilities right we're talking about that the

414
00:38:02,440 --> 00:38:10,200
 development potentially around those kinds of uses mm-hmm so I keep and a lot

415
00:38:10,200 --> 00:38:14,760
 of the points that I've seen in the last slide are seemed to be related to the

416
00:38:14,760 --> 00:38:19,320
 gas wells themselves and I'm trying to get a clear picture on how what's what's

417
00:38:19,320 --> 00:38:23,680
 why why are we discussing the gas wells if we're discussing what's around the

418
00:38:23,680 --> 00:38:31,280
 gas wells I think the whole purpose for the reverse setback is recognizing that

419
00:38:31,280 --> 00:38:36,800
 there are studies that support the strong possibly help adverse health

420
00:38:36,800 --> 00:38:41,440
 effects to people who are surrounding gas wells particularly for what we've

421
00:38:41,440 --> 00:38:48,120
 defined as protected uses and and the point of having the reverse setbacks is

422
00:38:48,120 --> 00:38:55,280
 to make sure that those uses are are protected against those impacts and with

423
00:38:55,280 --> 00:39:00,120
 the Fort Worth study there is at least some support for that that we can rely

424
00:39:00,120 --> 00:39:06,680
 upon and incite as evidence the and I guess the the question is if there is

425
00:39:06,680 --> 00:39:13,040
 something that shows a different where is that evidence and you know we would

426
00:39:13,040 --> 00:39:16,440
 need to be able to cite to that

427
00:39:16,440 --> 00:39:25,320
 - Charles thank you chair are there past court cases that were reviewed from

428
00:39:25,320 --> 00:39:31,920
 other cities that led to the points that were just made Cynthia or Jerry I well I

429
00:39:31,920 --> 00:39:37,200
 think that to a certain extent Denton's kind of in a leadership role among Texas

430
00:39:37,200 --> 00:39:42,680
 cities and in in challenging many of these regulations but there are other

431
00:39:42,680 --> 00:39:53,720
 cases in other states that have gone after gas well regulations that you

432
00:39:53,720 --> 00:39:58,160
 reviewed when you brought up these points is that right okay the slides are

433
00:39:58,160 --> 00:40:04,520
 general general takings law established by the the US Supreme Court so that's

434
00:40:04,520 --> 00:40:10,400
 the analysis that that we would use or we have used mr. Drake can I ask you one

435
00:40:10,400 --> 00:40:20,440
 question please it's actually two questions I lied are you able to

436
00:40:20,440 --> 00:40:25,760
 disclose or estimate the amount the city spent and then settled with the case on

437
00:40:25,760 --> 00:40:31,480
 Bonnie Bray I don't remember was it what it's not posted for that that's not a

438
00:40:31,480 --> 00:40:37,440
 posted item I hesitate to even go into that you know if it's if it's not a

439
00:40:37,440 --> 00:40:42,560
 posted topic I was just using that as an example of one case that involved the

440
00:40:42,560 --> 00:40:46,600
 claim of a taking that we defended I understand was it insignificant the

441
00:40:46,600 --> 00:40:50,280
 money allocated to city litigation and then the settlement of that land I just

442
00:40:50,280 --> 00:40:53,440
 don't remember it's been years since I've looked at it I know that I worked

443
00:40:53,440 --> 00:40:57,440
 out for a while we referred it out once we realized that there was a desire to

444
00:40:57,440 --> 00:41:01,960
 acquire additional right away for the future and then do you remember an

445
00:41:01,960 --> 00:41:06,880
 estimate how much land we were talking about here was it acres no no very small

446
00:41:06,880 --> 00:41:11,920
 very small a lot of work okay thanks

447
00:41:11,920 --> 00:41:22,160
 Haley back to you all right so if there's nothing else on that topic we can

448
00:41:22,160 --> 00:41:27,080
 jump into what the public hearing will be tonight so again the request before

449
00:41:27,080 --> 00:41:31,480
 you would be to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed

450
00:41:31,480 --> 00:41:35,280
 amendments to subchapters one six and eight of the DC related to these

451
00:41:35,280 --> 00:41:40,000
 increasing reverse setbacks and associated procedures and definitions

452
00:41:40,000 --> 00:41:45,080
 there are really four major topics of changes that are occurring in the code

453
00:41:45,080 --> 00:41:51,040
 so we'll go through each one of those in detail and just as a reminder it was in

454
00:41:51,040 --> 00:41:54,400
 your backup but the code does have five criteria for approval for a code

455
00:41:54,400 --> 00:41:57,560
 amendment whether it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and other city

456
00:41:57,560 --> 00:42:02,640
 policies rather it conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the municipal

457
00:42:02,640 --> 00:42:07,280
 code of ordinances if it's necessary to address a community need or respond to a

458
00:42:07,280 --> 00:42:10,840
 substantial change in conditions or policy and rather it's consistent with

459
00:42:10,840 --> 00:42:17,440
 the general purpose and intent of the DDC so the first of the the major topics

460
00:42:17,440 --> 00:42:20,440
 for this change would be the increase in reverse setbacks themselves so this

461
00:42:20,440 --> 00:42:24,420
 slide is just showing you our current conditions today all of the reverse

462
00:42:24,420 --> 00:42:29,960
 setbacks are at 250 feet no matter the scenario regarding zoning or the the

463
00:42:29,960 --> 00:42:34,400
 status of the gas well site and this is what that would look like if we make

464
00:42:34,400 --> 00:42:38,280
 this change so reverse setbacks across the board per council direction would be

465
00:42:38,280 --> 00:42:43,000
 increased to 500 feet and with that there is a need to introduce then a new

466
00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:47,000
 setback category in the same way we have a minimum setback today for the operator

467
00:42:47,000 --> 00:42:51,760
 to seek a reduction the same would have to be or would need to be offered to the

468
00:42:51,760 --> 00:42:55,000
 developers because of those takings claim concerns that they could then get a

469
00:42:55,000 --> 00:43:00,920
 reduction down as low as 250 feet. Mr. Beck. So Haley when I reviewed some of

470
00:43:00,920 --> 00:43:04,680
 these materials that you presented before and went through the code I was a

471
00:43:04,680 --> 00:43:09,440
 little confused by one item and that's the 250 itself and and you can help me

472
00:43:09,440 --> 00:43:15,240
 clarify this it looked like the there was actually a minimum 300 foot distance

473
00:43:15,240 --> 00:43:20,760
 for fire code operational distances between structures for just getting in

474
00:43:20,760 --> 00:43:26,720
 and taking care of an emergency how is that 300 foot not superseding this 250

475
00:43:26,720 --> 00:43:31,520
 how can they both exist? Let me go back to this diagram and maybe that would help

476
00:43:31,520 --> 00:43:36,120
 with that so the 300 foot from the fire code is taken from a different point the

477
00:43:36,120 --> 00:43:39,160
 reverse setbacks and setbacks are measured from the perimeter of the pad

478
00:43:39,160 --> 00:43:43,160
 site whatever that's established to be on a gas well plat or gas well site plan

479
00:43:43,160 --> 00:43:47,360
 the 300 foot per the fire code is measured from equipments that contain

480
00:43:47,360 --> 00:43:51,320
 flammable liquids and gases and typically within a pad site there's well

481
00:43:51,320 --> 00:43:54,760
 more than 50 feet of space in between well heads or equipment and the edge of

482
00:43:54,760 --> 00:43:59,560
 that pad so in most cases the 300 actually falls within the radius of the

483
00:43:59,560 --> 00:44:05,200
 250 foot but both of those measurements do come into play for a protected use and

484
00:44:05,200 --> 00:44:09,840
 then similarly the for residential development at least the 250 is measured

485
00:44:09,840 --> 00:44:14,580
 for a new subdivision to the residential lot lines whereas the fire code

486
00:44:14,580 --> 00:44:19,280
 measurement is structured to equipment so again they typically don't have any

487
00:44:19,280 --> 00:44:23,080
 conflict within one another it just ends up being the lot line can go at the

488
00:44:23,080 --> 00:44:26,960
 boundary of the 250 structures can't encroach within that 300 so both

489
00:44:26,960 --> 00:44:29,760
 measurements are taken when we're looking at a residential subdivision or

490
00:44:29,760 --> 00:44:36,240
 other protected use and this the fire code that we're using for for the 350 is

491
00:44:36,240 --> 00:44:40,320
 that ours is that the states what's the source of the fire that's from the

492
00:44:40,320 --> 00:44:51,240
 international fire code okay you're welcome so again just a caption of what

493
00:44:51,240 --> 00:44:53,680
 that would look like in the code if you look through the red line you'll see

494
00:44:53,680 --> 00:44:56,640
 it's it's a much more spacious thing it's not the summary table but those are

495
00:44:56,640 --> 00:45:01,160
 the same numbers that are in the drafts that were given to you associated with

496
00:45:01,160 --> 00:45:03,920
 that we then have to introduce a definition for what a minimum reverse

497
00:45:03,920 --> 00:45:07,480
 setback would be so that would be the minimum distance that a protected use or

498
00:45:07,480 --> 00:45:11,240
 residential lot has to be separated by the surface owner from an approved

499
00:45:11,240 --> 00:45:16,480
 drilling and production site and then the reverse setback measurement is then

500
00:45:16,480 --> 00:45:20,480
 amended to strike the word minimum previously there was no relief for the

501
00:45:20,480 --> 00:45:24,200
 250 foot reverse setback now that that setback is increased and we're

502
00:45:24,200 --> 00:45:28,800
 introducing a minimum that word needed to be struck for consistency and to

503
00:45:28,800 --> 00:45:33,880
 reduce conflict there but they're the same number the minimum reverse setback

504
00:45:33,880 --> 00:45:39,400
 and the setback are the same the minimum would be 250 under the scenario the

505
00:45:39,400 --> 00:45:45,160
 reverse would be 500 perfect thank you and then the other change within the

506
00:45:45,160 --> 00:45:49,760
 setback portion of the code itself would be to the measurements currently the

507
00:45:49,760 --> 00:45:53,800
 code says that the measurements for this are taken from the closest exterior

508
00:45:53,800 --> 00:45:57,720
 point of a proposed structure to be occupied by a protected use in a

509
00:45:57,720 --> 00:46:00,560
 straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects to the

510
00:46:00,560 --> 00:46:04,280
 closest boundary designated for the site or for a proposed residential

511
00:46:04,280 --> 00:46:07,640
 subdivision like I mentioned previously that setback would be measured from any

512
00:46:07,640 --> 00:46:12,880
 undeveloped residential lot boundary to the closest boundary of the site we went

513
00:46:12,880 --> 00:46:15,780
 over this briefly last time I showed you the example of McKenna Park with the

514
00:46:15,780 --> 00:46:20,360
 increase in reverse setback roughly 40% of that particular park will fall within

515
00:46:20,360 --> 00:46:24,520
 the setback so we wanted to clean this section up a bit to provide guidance to

516
00:46:24,520 --> 00:46:29,480
 our parks department and future park dedications as to how that measurements

517
00:46:29,480 --> 00:46:33,320
 taken when there's not an occupiable structure so the language that we have

518
00:46:33,320 --> 00:46:36,960
 proposed is that for the purpose of setback measurements at a public park

519
00:46:36,960 --> 00:46:39,960
 measurements would be taken from any improvement such as a building

520
00:46:39,960 --> 00:46:46,720
 playground equipment pool splash pad a permanent ball field or a pavilion and

521
00:46:46,720 --> 00:46:50,720
 it would not include flat work such as sidewalks or parking areas so just to

522
00:46:50,720 --> 00:46:54,760
 again give a little bit of guidance to our parks department if they were to

523
00:46:54,760 --> 00:46:58,440
 ever seek to add new improvements at McKenna Parker if we had another park

524
00:46:58,440 --> 00:47:04,280
 that happened to to fall into this scenario the second of our major topics

525
00:47:04,280 --> 00:47:08,280
 would be nonconformities we went over this at the previous work session I

526
00:47:08,280 --> 00:47:12,640
 showed you the numbers of where we were at just doing a quick GIS analysis of

527
00:47:12,640 --> 00:47:16,360
 what structures there are it was approximately 900 or so non

528
00:47:16,360 --> 00:47:21,480
 conformities that would fall within this 500 foot setback if it were increased and

529
00:47:21,480 --> 00:47:27,160
 if you recall at the time when this went to council they directed staff to find a

530
00:47:27,160 --> 00:47:31,600
 way to prevent the creation of non conformities so we we pulled language

531
00:47:31,600 --> 00:47:36,040
 that's similar to what was put in the new DDC for single-family uses to

532
00:47:36,040 --> 00:47:40,080
 prevent any of those from becoming nonconforming so that's what what this

533
00:47:40,080 --> 00:47:44,200
 would look like was that we would have to introduce language in the code saying

534
00:47:44,200 --> 00:47:47,440
 that reverse setbacks as introduced by this ordinance shall not cause existing

535
00:47:47,440 --> 00:47:51,760
 legally established protected uses or lots to become nonconforming and then we

536
00:47:51,760 --> 00:47:55,120
 further defined that legally established would be extended to any project that's

537
00:47:55,120 --> 00:47:58,720
 under review today so applications that we currently have in the queue for

538
00:47:58,720 --> 00:48:04,240
 preliminary and final plats the issue with this language is that we would then

539
00:48:04,240 --> 00:48:10,160
 be creating unique classifications of nonconformities so and structure or home

540
00:48:10,160 --> 00:48:14,560
 that's existing today and nonconforming to the 250 foot setback wouldn't enjoy

541
00:48:14,560 --> 00:48:18,440
 the same protection they would remain nonconforming and as the codes written

542
00:48:18,440 --> 00:48:23,120
 today that would mean that if their home was destroyed by more than 50% they

543
00:48:23,120 --> 00:48:28,480
 could not rebuild that structure so we wanted to avoid that separation of

544
00:48:28,480 --> 00:48:31,520
 creating different classes of nonconformities this also wouldn't help

545
00:48:31,520 --> 00:48:34,820
 anything that's nonconforming to other city regulations so we would have

546
00:48:34,820 --> 00:48:38,120
 sections of the city that could rebuild if a disaster occurred and sections that

547
00:48:38,120 --> 00:48:43,760
 couldn't so to avoid that bifurcation we worked with our legal department and

548
00:48:43,760 --> 00:48:49,000
 actually found language from the 2002 DDC that could help the situation so in

549
00:48:49,000 --> 00:48:53,040
 lieu of option one for nonconformity staff is recommending that you can

550
00:48:53,040 --> 00:48:57,320
 consider option two which is would be introduced into a different section of

551
00:48:57,320 --> 00:49:01,560
 subchapter one and it would provide that a nonconforming structure that's been

552
00:49:01,560 --> 00:49:05,400
 damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 50% of the gross floor area

553
00:49:05,400 --> 00:49:09,600
 shall not be rebuilt or occupied except upon action of the Board of Adjustment

554
00:49:09,600 --> 00:49:14,600
 so our 02 code actually allowed this I can't think of a single instance when it

555
00:49:14,600 --> 00:49:18,560
 was utilized but it did have that option for a nonconformity to rebuild if it

556
00:49:18,560 --> 00:49:22,160
 were destroyed so we would just recommend adding that language back into

557
00:49:22,160 --> 00:49:27,320
 the code it would apply citywide and any nonconforming structure use could could

558
00:49:27,320 --> 00:49:31,840
 have the same option to go to ZBA and seek a the ability to rebuild in the

559
00:49:31,840 --> 00:49:36,920
 event of destruction by fire, tornado, whatever that might be. Commissioner Bec.

560
00:49:36,920 --> 00:49:43,520
 So I noticed that there's no there's no minimum setback distance or minimum

561
00:49:43,520 --> 00:49:49,200
 there's no numbers in this new language versus the the option 3a the

562
00:49:49,200 --> 00:49:57,200
 multi-standard version and so I was curious why the minimum wasn't specified

563
00:49:57,200 --> 00:50:03,200
 to guide the ZBA when they're trying to do that. The minimum would fall

564
00:50:03,200 --> 00:50:06,080
 back to this definition which is the minimum that it could be reduced to

565
00:50:06,080 --> 00:50:10,960
 after relief or variance is granted so it would go back to the 250 foot minimum

566
00:50:10,960 --> 00:50:21,680
 reverse setback that's proposed. So in this situation if someone has I'm just

567
00:50:21,680 --> 00:50:27,200
 trying to add clarity if someone is currently within 500 feet but greater

568
00:50:27,200 --> 00:50:32,800
 than 250 feet and their house burns down they would have to go to ZBA to get a

569
00:50:32,800 --> 00:50:38,520
 permit to rebuild. Correct if this increase were approved. And if they are

570
00:50:38,520 --> 00:50:47,800
 under 250 feet they have no ability to rebuild. This could allow ZBA that option

571
00:50:47,800 --> 00:50:52,760
 I believe. Well the answer is it's in conflict with that. Yeah. I'm not sure

572
00:50:52,760 --> 00:50:56,040
 where they would land on that. It doesn't again it doesn't specify to his

573
00:50:56,040 --> 00:51:00,880
 point but I think they would be in the same situation they are today where

574
00:51:00,880 --> 00:51:04,360
 they're they're out of compliance so they could request that of ZBA. ZBA may

575
00:51:04,360 --> 00:51:08,920
 not be able to approve it. Okay. It's it's neither neither one of these options

576
00:51:08,920 --> 00:51:13,800
 is so unclear. Neither option one or option two provides a homeowner within

577
00:51:13,800 --> 00:51:21,520
 250 feet of a gas well who gets hit by a tornado to rebuild. That's my

578
00:51:21,520 --> 00:51:24,640
 understanding with the definition of minimum reverse setback as it's drafted.

579
00:51:24,640 --> 00:51:28,520
 Yeah unless we were to modify it some way where this would would apply to all

580
00:51:28,520 --> 00:51:35,800
 nonconformities as a result of whether it be under the new or the old. And then

581
00:51:35,800 --> 00:51:40,080
 that is the case today with with the nonconform with anything nonconforming

582
00:51:40,080 --> 00:51:43,080
 to the 250 and there are and I believe in the neighborhood of 300 of those.

583
00:51:43,080 --> 00:51:47,880
 What's the number of current structures within 250 feet of a gas well? I don't

584
00:51:47,880 --> 00:51:51,280
 have it handy at this point it's in the neighborhood of 300 single family

585
00:51:51,280 --> 00:51:56,960
 structures. It might be rhetorical question but the city is okay generally

586
00:51:56,960 --> 00:52:01,580
 speaking with 300 property owners in our city not being able to rebuild what they

587
00:52:01,580 --> 00:52:06,280
 currently are occupying in the event of a disaster. That is the nature of

588
00:52:06,280 --> 00:52:14,960
 nonconformities unfortunately that the goal. Well I understand the nature of nonconformities that exist but this is an

589
00:52:14,960 --> 00:52:20,280
 opportunity right now it's not passed. The the proposed dialogue being presented

590
00:52:20,280 --> 00:52:26,600
 as an option thereby restricts 300 or whatever that number is. I understand the

591
00:52:26,600 --> 00:52:30,920
 essence of nonconformities. What I'm curious about is there is there not a

592
00:52:30,920 --> 00:52:37,760
 methodology to protect 300 citizens of their property that they already have?

593
00:52:37,760 --> 00:52:42,320
 And maybe that's it. There could be to Richard's point you know this this is

594
00:52:42,320 --> 00:52:46,040
 proposed draft language we could potentially craft something that would

595
00:52:46,040 --> 00:52:49,280
 speak specifically to that to allow the minimum reverse setback to not apply in

596
00:52:49,280 --> 00:52:54,120
 these instances but that's not the situation today. The hesitation that is

597
00:52:54,120 --> 00:53:00,960
 having different nonconformity districts or? I think you got to look at almost kind

598
00:53:00,960 --> 00:53:05,200
 of step back going back to the old deep this language was in the old DDC so the

599
00:53:05,200 --> 00:53:11,280
 the original reverse setback was part of that old DDC so this option would have

600
00:53:11,280 --> 00:53:15,320
 been availed to those nonconforming there wasn't a separation of only this

601
00:53:15,320 --> 00:53:19,640
 nonconforming structure can apply for that. What didn't care this language did

602
00:53:19,640 --> 00:53:24,520
 not carry over into the new code. So the way this is structured really I don't

603
00:53:24,520 --> 00:53:31,200
 think would differentiate between the two unless we state stated that it did.

604
00:53:31,200 --> 00:53:36,760
 Well if it's going before ZBA this might be thinking way out of the box but why

605
00:53:36,760 --> 00:53:42,360
 not allow any nonconformities to go back to ZBA? No this one she just said

606
00:53:42,360 --> 00:53:46,320
 refers back to the reverse minimum setback at 250 feet. And that's my

607
00:53:46,320 --> 00:53:49,680
 initial thought on that because of the way that language is crafted it may be

608
00:53:49,680 --> 00:53:53,460
 that we need to reconsider the language in the minimum reverse setback

609
00:53:53,460 --> 00:53:58,560
 definition so that it allows for this option. As it's crafted today I think

610
00:53:58,560 --> 00:54:02,920
 they're in conflict. I agree I believe they're also in conflict and I would be

611
00:54:02,920 --> 00:54:06,320
 a proponent of looking at language that if we're if they don't have it by right

612
00:54:06,320 --> 00:54:09,360
 to rebuild if we're already taking that away from them and require them to go

613
00:54:09,360 --> 00:54:13,140
 before a board to rebuild the exact same house that they've been living in for 50

614
00:54:13,140 --> 00:54:17,000
 years then I think it would be appropriate I'm interested the other

615
00:54:17,000 --> 00:54:20,720
 commissioner's thoughts that we'd not have the reverse minimum setback for

616
00:54:20,720 --> 00:54:25,140
 nonconformities so that ZBA can actually say you've been here 60 years you can

617
00:54:25,140 --> 00:54:29,480
 rebuild at your own peril studies show you shouldn't we'd have disclosures

618
00:54:29,480 --> 00:54:35,160
 against that but the idea that by no mechanism if you live within 250 feet of

619
00:54:35,160 --> 00:54:42,200
 a well you couldn't rebuild is trying to process through that. And that is

620
00:54:42,200 --> 00:54:45,160
 possible that we I think the exemption would need to come in that definition

621
00:54:45,160 --> 00:54:51,760
 that we looked at previously so that the language in subchapter one applies

622
00:54:51,760 --> 00:54:56,300
 universally across the code to all nonconformities because the scope of that

623
00:54:56,300 --> 00:54:59,880
 change would affect every nonconformity in the city for any regulation currently

624
00:54:59,880 --> 00:55:03,520
 even if you just encroach in your your side yard setback and your house gets

625
00:55:03,520 --> 00:55:08,120
 blown away you couldn't rebuild with the way the code is written so that that

626
00:55:08,120 --> 00:55:11,360
 would be a universal exception I would think the specific exemption would need

627
00:55:11,360 --> 00:55:16,040
 to come in this definition language so we can work with with legal on that if

628
00:55:16,040 --> 00:55:20,840
 that's the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you

629
00:55:20,840 --> 00:55:26,720
 know when when we crafted the new DDC we put in there that no single not single

630
00:55:26,720 --> 00:55:31,280
 family but no residential would become nonconforming with the changes made in

631
00:55:31,280 --> 00:55:38,920
 the DDC correct? Correct. That's the main concern I think is if

632
00:55:38,920 --> 00:55:46,160
 somebody's living within this they can't rebuild their home is there any way to

633
00:55:46,160 --> 00:55:54,400
 make that part of this change to where a resident should? That was the intent of

634
00:55:54,400 --> 00:56:04,360
 this language option one was to extend that same the same type of exemption but

635
00:56:04,360 --> 00:56:09,040
 that would not again it wouldn't benefit anyone who is nonconforming to the 250

636
00:56:09,040 --> 00:56:14,720
 today. It doesn't because this actually mentions a residential lot that that's

637
00:56:14,720 --> 00:56:23,080
 not what we did in the DDC we we made it in a state a an existing residence not

638
00:56:23,080 --> 00:56:30,380
 not this. The lot component comes in because the setback is measured to the lot line so there

639
00:56:30,380 --> 00:56:34,680
 would be many lots that are in platting today that could in theory be a plotted

640
00:56:34,680 --> 00:56:38,780
 lot that could never be built upon if that if the language didn't include the

641
00:56:38,780 --> 00:56:45,320
 lot distinction. No and I understand that I don't like this option at all yeah

642
00:56:45,320 --> 00:56:49,000
 that's not what I'm that's not what I'm saying I think that's yeah that opens up

643
00:56:49,000 --> 00:56:56,200
 all kinds of issues. What I'm saying is is there a way to exempt residential

644
00:56:56,200 --> 00:57:07,680
 existing residential homes like we did with the new DDC what may more broadly

645
00:57:07,680 --> 00:57:11,680
 speaking to Commissioner Ellis's point what's we're obviously not gonna write

646
00:57:11,680 --> 00:57:18,200
 new code tonight on the fly to provide a suggestion to City Council so to the

647
00:57:18,200 --> 00:57:23,720
 extent this conversation is is in a matter of voting no to this and then

648
00:57:23,720 --> 00:57:28,000
 this still gets presented to Council as is or what's the actual procedure for

649
00:57:28,000 --> 00:57:32,280
 the Commission to speak in to issues that we might have for that to be then

650
00:57:32,280 --> 00:57:40,800
 recrafted by legal can you tell me about the policy the process of improving the

651
00:57:40,800 --> 00:57:46,040
 work so if you were to say make a motion to approve with certain changes and

652
00:57:46,040 --> 00:57:49,200
 again we don't have to have the specific language you could provide staff

653
00:57:49,200 --> 00:57:54,160
 direction to work with legal to craft language that accomplishes X goal prior

654
00:57:54,160 --> 00:57:58,260
 to City Council and then that's that would move forward to Council with us

655
00:57:58,260 --> 00:58:02,720
 crafting those changes in the meantime to satisfy your desire or the

656
00:58:02,720 --> 00:58:06,280
 Commission could vote to postpone this and bring it and request that we bring

657
00:58:06,280 --> 00:58:09,440
 those changes back to you all before proceeding to City Council for your

658
00:58:09,440 --> 00:58:14,640
 review okay thank you Mr. Cole so you know last work

659
00:58:14,640 --> 00:58:19,960
 session the example you use was my house because I'm within 250 feet of a gas well

660
00:58:19,960 --> 00:58:25,720
 house bill 1952 well I'm not gonna be able to rebuild that I have a 70 year

661
00:58:25,720 --> 00:58:31,440
 old hay barn that I'm about to have to rebuild I'm not gonna be able to build

662
00:58:31,440 --> 00:58:37,120
 that either I'm on an agriculture operation you know what you're doing is

663
00:58:37,120 --> 00:58:43,320
 depriving me of a place to live and place to you know put my hay and

664
00:58:43,320 --> 00:58:48,880
 livestock and it's just my I mean it shouldn't be as simple as if you're

665
00:58:48,880 --> 00:58:54,560
 conforming before you're conforming after I mean I appreciate the work y'all

666
00:58:54,560 --> 00:59:01,280
 did to bridge that gap but it's a mile wide still I mean it's it's and I don't

667
00:59:01,280 --> 00:59:06,920
 want my fate before the ZBA no offense I don't it shouldn't be up it shouldn't be

668
00:59:06,920 --> 00:59:11,160
 that it shouldn't be any I mean think about the mindset of someone whose house

669
00:59:11,160 --> 00:59:15,840
 just got taken out with a twister think about what's going on in your life you're

670
00:59:15,840 --> 00:59:19,120
 having to deal with the insurance company where you're gonna live

671
00:59:19,120 --> 00:59:25,920
 everything and then now you got to go deal with didn't this is I mean this

672
00:59:25,920 --> 00:59:33,680
 right this one thing here is just unacceptable I mean you know I'm sorry

673
00:59:33,680 --> 00:59:39,720
 I'm getting but this is personal I mean so I won't be able to build a barn here

674
00:59:39,720 --> 00:59:46,860
 in another year or two I mean right the the agricultural uses on your property

675
00:59:46,860 --> 00:59:51,600
 wouldn't be protected uses under the gas well ordinance so those could continue

676
00:59:51,600 --> 00:59:55,600
 the residential structure would be the protected use what about the structure

677
00:59:55,600 --> 01:00:03,320
 to store the you know bounty of the land you know the hay or whatever and the

678
01:00:03,320 --> 01:00:08,040
 livestock can you build that get the agri any agricultural operation is not

679
01:00:08,040 --> 01:00:12,760
 protected use but not the house but least I'll have a barn that stay in the

680
01:00:12,760 --> 01:00:18,280
 bar yeah put a mattress out there right thank you

681
01:00:18,280 --> 01:00:22,640
 Commissioner back so so one of our problems that's germane here is how do

682
01:00:22,640 --> 01:00:29,560
 you protect people but then not break code where the city can ever make a

683
01:00:29,560 --> 01:00:34,040
 change so if you grandfather every single change in all the time then the

684
01:00:34,040 --> 01:00:39,080
 city can ever do anything they have to stick with you know 1850s dentin and and

685
01:00:39,080 --> 01:00:43,840
 I know I'm exaggerating a little bit but to the to the to the extent that you

686
01:00:43,840 --> 01:00:49,400
 can't you you need to give the city some mechanism to to change the

687
01:00:49,400 --> 01:00:52,920
 configuration of the city

688
01:00:52,920 --> 01:00:59,960
 Mr. Anderson is there a way this could I mean I agree with Jason on this because

689
01:00:59,960 --> 01:01:02,680
 you got all these citizens out there that have lived here for years the house

690
01:01:02,680 --> 01:01:06,280
 comes the tornado comes through and destroys it you're gonna be out they're

691
01:01:06,280 --> 01:01:09,160
 gonna be dealing with the insurance you're gonna be doing adjusters you know

692
01:01:09,160 --> 01:01:13,620
 then the board says you can't build then they got to find out somewhere else to

693
01:01:13,620 --> 01:01:17,280
 live I mean that's just too much put on but I mean it's kind of hard to change

694
01:01:17,280 --> 01:01:21,280
 the rules during the middle of a ballgame so I look at it I mean they've

695
01:01:21,280 --> 01:01:25,880
 lived there if there's like chair I mean like the Commissioner said if there's a

696
01:01:25,880 --> 01:01:29,040
 way we could put in there that if they're already an existing established

697
01:01:29,040 --> 01:01:33,920
 residents there that they're included they can rebuild I wouldn't have a

698
01:01:33,920 --> 01:01:38,120
 problem with then I mean but it's just all these houses that something

699
01:01:38,120 --> 01:01:41,960
 unfortunate did happen you know kid loved it you know mom left it was

700
01:01:41,960 --> 01:01:45,280
 cooking dinner left the gas light on boom the house blows up you know our

701
01:01:45,280 --> 01:01:48,600
 tornado comes through wipes out five houses now we have a 500-foot setback

702
01:01:48,600 --> 01:01:52,280
 you got a neighborhood with a half a street that you can't be built back on

703
01:01:52,280 --> 01:01:57,400
 now that that neighborhood is gonna look stupid I mean that's just my two cents I

704
01:01:57,400 --> 01:02:03,960
 apologize so I think since everyone's made a point here what I'd like to do is

705
01:02:03,960 --> 01:02:07,480
 continue the presentation we're gonna hear this again public and I think it

706
01:02:07,480 --> 01:02:11,640
 would be most appropriate to finish this dialogue after we hear public testimony

707
01:02:11,640 --> 01:02:17,680
 and then we can look to find a vote in chambers if I think that's why agreeable

708
01:02:17,680 --> 01:02:21,320
 to progress this conversation so hey let me turn back over to you oh yeah I just

709
01:02:21,320 --> 01:02:24,000
 wanted to make one point there could be that option three the option three would

710
01:02:24,000 --> 01:02:30,040
 be removing the Board of Adjustment language and we're just be automatic

711
01:02:30,040 --> 01:02:34,160
 again that could be something you could suggest to to counsel great thank you

712
01:02:34,160 --> 01:02:44,560
 for that insight all right so topic three of the four main topics within this

713
01:02:44,560 --> 01:02:50,280
 change is variance options so there there are two types of variances that

714
01:02:50,280 --> 01:02:53,920
 have been added into the code that would be applicable to a new protected

715
01:02:53,920 --> 01:02:59,560
 use developing in proximity to a gas well the first would be the language

716
01:02:59,560 --> 01:03:04,880
 that's been added to the permit requirement section of the gas well

717
01:03:04,880 --> 01:03:08,480
 ordinance it references the procedures for protected use and residential lots

718
01:03:08,480 --> 01:03:12,000
 so this one is really just kind of a placeholder for when you get to the

719
01:03:12,000 --> 01:03:15,560
 option of I want to get a permit what do I do this tells you where to go to find

720
01:03:15,560 --> 01:03:20,040
 those variance options if you're non-conforming then the first of those

721
01:03:20,040 --> 01:03:24,520
 options when you get to that section would be the the option to go to ZBA

722
01:03:24,520 --> 01:03:29,680
 through the standard hardship variance process so this language has been added

723
01:03:29,680 --> 01:03:36,960
 that in deciding request by a property owner or developer for a or a for a

724
01:03:36,960 --> 01:03:42,000
 residential lot the ZBA would have the standard hardship variance criteria to

725
01:03:42,000 --> 01:03:46,280
 rely upon which we looked at last time I believe I've got those in here if we

726
01:03:46,280 --> 01:03:50,600
 need to look at them and in addition we would add three new criteria so that

727
01:03:50,600 --> 01:03:54,120
 would be the reasonable use of the surface of the subject property by the

728
01:03:54,120 --> 01:03:58,440
 owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs or subdivision

729
01:03:58,440 --> 01:04:02,320
 layouts so have they considered other options within the code to design their

730
01:04:02,320 --> 01:04:06,160
 site that would get them to the same lot yield as this would if they got the

731
01:04:06,160 --> 01:04:09,880
 variance and then the compatibility of the proposed development with any

732
01:04:09,880 --> 01:04:14,840
 existing gas well development plat or site plan so most of the city's gas well

733
01:04:14,840 --> 01:04:18,480
 sites have either a platter site plan that stipulates things like access to

734
01:04:18,480 --> 01:04:22,120
 the site so we would need to be cognizant of whether this development is

735
01:04:22,120 --> 01:04:26,240
 encroaching on the developer or the gas well operators ability to get to their

736
01:04:26,240 --> 01:04:32,240
 site and these are those standard hardship criteria that would also apply

737
01:04:32,240 --> 01:04:37,760
 so if ZBA received a request from a developer to again reduce the setback

738
01:04:37,760 --> 01:04:43,360
 from 500 down to anything as low as 250 ZBA would have to find that the request

739
01:04:43,360 --> 01:04:46,640
 meets all of these criteria in addition to those three that are specific to this

740
01:04:46,640 --> 01:04:54,040
 situation the second type of relief that's offered is not going to the ZBA

741
01:04:54,040 --> 01:04:58,240
 it's it's modeling a procedure that's offered to operators today where if you

742
01:04:58,240 --> 01:05:02,960
 meet certain criteria staff can approve a reduction in setback in this instance

743
01:05:02,960 --> 01:05:06,640
 staff could not reduce that setback to as low as 250 it would only get down to

744
01:05:06,640 --> 01:05:14,080
 375 feet and to to meet these criteria the developer would have to show that

745
01:05:14,080 --> 01:05:19,360
 over 50% of their site is encumbered by the reverse setback and then if that is

746
01:05:19,360 --> 01:05:23,240
 the case they would additionally have to apply these alternative site design

747
01:05:23,240 --> 01:05:27,400
 standards to their site so for a residential subdivision we relied upon

748
01:05:27,400 --> 01:05:30,960
 our cluster development standards so that's an existing procedure in sub

749
01:05:30,960 --> 01:05:35,560
 chapter 8 that allows lot sizes to be reduced setbacks to be reduced to

750
01:05:35,560 --> 01:05:39,800
 cluster the lots in an area of the property to keep another portion open so

751
01:05:39,800 --> 01:05:43,960
 that would would have to be applied in this instance we do however request

752
01:05:43,960 --> 01:05:47,800
 recommend that the requirement for a plan development zoning be waived in

753
01:05:47,800 --> 01:05:51,680
 this instance so that they don't in addition to redesigning their site have

754
01:05:51,680 --> 01:05:55,600
 to go through the zoning process and that the five acre minimum be waived

755
01:05:55,600 --> 01:06:00,240
 because many residential subdivisions may come in and be under a five acre total

756
01:06:00,240 --> 01:06:05,400
 size and then the second option for any other protected use so churches schools

757
01:06:05,400 --> 01:06:09,300
 hospitals anything else on the list that's not a residential subdivision

758
01:06:09,300 --> 01:06:13,840
 there are some adjustments that staff could approve to maximum building height

759
01:06:13,840 --> 01:06:17,440
 and maximum building coverage to be increased by as much as 20% to allow

760
01:06:17,440 --> 01:06:22,240
 additional development on site and then the minimum unit size and minimum number

761
01:06:22,240 --> 01:06:25,840
 of parking spaces could be reduced by as much as 20% in those instances to allow

762
01:06:25,840 --> 01:06:33,240
 them to have more developable area on the site Mr. Beck so I think that's a

763
01:06:33,240 --> 01:06:39,120
 really great idea do we apply that sort of increased height and other sort of

764
01:06:39,120 --> 01:06:44,280
 administrative variances to other noxious uses they're currently the code

765
01:06:44,280 --> 01:06:48,160
 offers what's called a minor modification to any development and that

766
01:06:48,160 --> 01:06:52,360
 gets all of these building height setbacks various things like that can be

767
01:06:52,360 --> 01:06:57,400
 modified by as much as 10% without having to go to the ZBA this is simply

768
01:06:57,400 --> 01:07:00,640
 an instance again to help with those those takings claims for sites like we

769
01:07:00,640 --> 01:07:03,920
 looked at the last meeting where the church had 90 something percent of their

770
01:07:03,920 --> 01:07:08,560
 site encumbered by this this would just be that option to say staff has the

771
01:07:08,560 --> 01:07:12,440
 ability to give you a little bit more if it works great we can go this route if

772
01:07:12,440 --> 01:07:16,000
 it doesn't you can still go to ZBA to seek that variance to those

773
01:07:16,000 --> 01:07:21,440
 requirements to to try to develop your site so other similar things are 10% and

774
01:07:21,440 --> 01:07:29,720
 this is 20% okay thank you all right anything else on this one and then

775
01:07:29,720 --> 01:07:33,480
 finally the the fourth kind of change that's made is the change to sub

776
01:07:33,480 --> 01:07:37,560
 chapter 8 that was referenced in the item caption tonight and this is a

777
01:07:37,560 --> 01:07:41,400
 really simple change just to enable that last variance option that we looked at

778
01:07:41,400 --> 01:07:46,040
 the cluster subdivision standards again as they apply citywide today require

779
01:07:46,040 --> 01:07:49,960
 you to rezone to plan development and require that you have a minimum of five

780
01:07:49,960 --> 01:07:56,480
 acres to qualify so just for the sake of gas well reverse setbacks only we would

781
01:07:56,480 --> 01:08:00,040
 strike those two requirements so the applicability section would strike the

782
01:08:00,040 --> 01:08:07,040
 five acre parcel size and then the the standards would would then wave that PD

783
01:08:07,040 --> 01:08:10,520
 zoning requirement to make the process a little bit easier for those sites that

784
01:08:10,520 --> 01:08:16,960
 are overly encumbered by the gas well setback and then again I just wanted to

785
01:08:16,960 --> 01:08:20,800
 run through there are five criteria for approval for a code amendment with

786
01:08:20,800 --> 01:08:25,160
 regard to consistency with the comprehensive plan there are comp plan

787
01:08:25,160 --> 01:08:28,840
 as it stands today does recognize that sensitive and protected uses are

788
01:08:28,840 --> 01:08:33,080
 inherently incompatible with industrial uses such as gas wells there's no

789
01:08:33,080 --> 01:08:36,880
 specific setback distance prescribed but this does fall within the parameters of

790
01:08:36,880 --> 01:08:41,700
 that incompatibility concern that's identified rather the amendments

791
01:08:41,700 --> 01:08:45,120
 conflict with any other provision of the DDC or the municipal code of ordinances

792
01:08:45,120 --> 01:08:50,080
 for the most part none of this creates a conflict if you were to pursue option

793
01:08:50,080 --> 01:08:54,200
 one of the nonconformities that would create again those different subsets of

794
01:08:54,200 --> 01:09:00,200
 nonconformities that could create a conflict with other codes as it stands

795
01:09:00,200 --> 01:09:05,240
 today because others don't have that same option to not be nonconforming and

796
01:09:05,240 --> 01:09:09,160
 then the third criteria is rather the amendment is necessary to address a

797
01:09:09,160 --> 01:09:12,980
 demonstrated community need the council through that series of work sessions

798
01:09:12,980 --> 01:09:16,240
 that we discussed requested this amendment be brought forward due to

799
01:09:16,240 --> 01:09:19,800
 their concerns about community health and safety as well as other nuisance

800
01:09:19,800 --> 01:09:23,960
 concerns from gas wells such as noise lighting truck truck traffic dust

801
01:09:23,960 --> 01:09:28,320
 vibrations and they did find that a 500 foot reverse setback would be more

802
01:09:28,320 --> 01:09:31,680
 protective based on the results of that Fort Worth air quality study that we

803
01:09:31,680 --> 01:09:37,880
 discussed the fourth criteria is rather it is necessary to respond to a

804
01:09:37,880 --> 01:09:41,400
 substantial change in conditions or policy there's been no change in

805
01:09:41,400 --> 01:09:44,800
 conditions or policy other than we have a different council today than we did in

806
01:09:44,800 --> 01:09:49,680
 2015 and 2015 they found that 250 feet was sufficient for reverse setback our

807
01:09:49,680 --> 01:09:54,320
 council today has identified additional nuisance and health concerns that they

808
01:09:54,320 --> 01:09:59,480
 feel merits the need for this increase and then the fifth criteria is whether

809
01:09:59,480 --> 01:10:03,560
 it's consistent with the general purpose and intent of the DDC the overall

810
01:10:03,560 --> 01:10:07,760
 intent statements if you look in the DDC are primarily to protect public health

811
01:10:07,760 --> 01:10:13,960
 and safety so again those concerns would would fall within the realm of that

812
01:10:13,960 --> 01:10:17,920
 notification was published in the newspaper and online you had passed out

813
01:10:17,920 --> 01:10:22,160
 to you four different written responses that have been received to date those

814
01:10:22,160 --> 01:10:27,680
 were all opposed to this change for various reasons and staff again as was

815
01:10:27,680 --> 01:10:32,520
 stated in your backup is recommending approval of as it was presented at this

816
01:10:32,520 --> 01:10:37,640
 meeting option two for the sub chapter one amendments that would be the ability

817
01:10:37,640 --> 01:10:41,840
 to go to ZBA and then the changes as provided in sub chapter six and sub

818
01:10:41,840 --> 01:10:46,480
 chapter eight hey can you clarify we there is four points that you walk

819
01:10:46,480 --> 01:10:49,680
 through but there's only three bullets here right two of those fell within sub

820
01:10:49,680 --> 01:10:56,680
 chapter six and happy to stand for any questions you may have so I do have a

821
01:10:56,680 --> 01:11:03,920
 question submitted by we got this before the meeting by Mark and Linda Cole I

822
01:11:03,920 --> 01:11:10,080
 wouldn't assume they provided an interesting diagram on their page two

823
01:11:10,080 --> 01:11:15,200
 and I just wanted to see if the situation we talked about earlier would

824
01:11:15,200 --> 01:11:20,840
 apply to their situation in which it does seem like we would basically making

825
01:11:20,840 --> 01:11:30,960
 be making their property useless is this something that would fall under the ZBA

826
01:11:30,960 --> 01:11:36,600
 variance that we talked about or is this diagram that I'm looking at actually

827
01:11:36,600 --> 01:11:40,600
 true that it looks like there's a home I don't know what direction this is but

828
01:11:40,600 --> 01:11:43,760
 I'm gonna say it's on the south part of the property I believe that's on the

829
01:11:43,760 --> 01:11:46,960
 north side of gem crystals of the home is on the south end of the property and

830
01:11:46,960 --> 01:11:52,840
 then are they in their interpretation correct that they cannot build anything

831
01:11:52,840 --> 01:11:56,480
 on this property I did not attempt to verify where they took their

832
01:11:56,480 --> 01:12:00,720
 measurements from there's no scale or anything on that image in general it

833
01:12:00,720 --> 01:12:05,020
 appears roughly correct I think they may have been just drawing a point in the

834
01:12:05,020 --> 01:12:08,840
 middle of the pad site extending it out so those radii may go even further when

835
01:12:08,840 --> 01:12:12,520
 you take them from the edge of the pad that instance would be similar to the

836
01:12:12,520 --> 01:12:16,920
 church we looked at at the last meeting where I think it's safe to say over 50%

837
01:12:16,920 --> 01:12:20,260
 of their site would be encumbered by the reverse setback so they could qualify

838
01:12:20,260 --> 01:12:25,160
 for those administrative waivers that would only get them to a 375 foot radius

839
01:12:25,160 --> 01:12:29,140
 that may or may not work depending on what they were trying to rebuild so they

840
01:12:29,140 --> 01:12:33,440
 could then go to ZBA to get the setback reduced to the 250 that it's at today

841
01:12:33,440 --> 01:12:38,800
 okay perfect thank you for that clarification any other questions for

842
01:12:38,800 --> 01:12:45,880
 Haley on this item okay great so that actually was part of our public hearing

843
01:12:45,880 --> 01:12:52,200
 those item 5f so we're done with that item but if we're skipping back to page

844
01:12:52,200 --> 01:12:57,080
 one of our work session we're going into clarification of agenda items listed on

845
01:12:57,080 --> 01:13:04,960
 the meeting and I think Richard has some updates for items 4a 4b but Richard can

846
01:13:04,960 --> 01:13:10,960
 you clarify any other items no I mean other than other than 4a and 4b those

847
01:13:10,960 --> 01:13:16,720
 applications have been withdrawn we just received a notification from the from

848
01:13:16,720 --> 01:13:20,480
 the property owner that he is withdrawn those two preliminary plat applications

849
01:13:20,480 --> 01:13:27,080
 what it is really they brought on a new engineer redesigning the project

850
01:13:27,080 --> 01:13:32,640
 unfortunately with the with the confines of House Bill 3167 it really needs to

851
01:13:32,640 --> 01:13:37,720
 just start over as a new as a new project so that's why we initially were

852
01:13:37,720 --> 01:13:41,880
 taking these as a denial but instead of taking them as a denial he just chose to

853
01:13:41,880 --> 01:13:45,320
 withdraw the application as as we talked through that with him yesterday so those

854
01:13:45,320 --> 01:13:48,480
 items will not be heard

855
01:13:48,480 --> 01:13:59,120
 and I think item force excuse me item four season be looking for a postponement

856
01:13:59,120 --> 01:14:06,320
 they are allowed up to 30 days but then next the calendar doesn't allow for a

857
01:14:06,320 --> 01:14:10,800
 meeting a month from now be past 30 days so we'd move them to the November 20th

858
01:14:10,800 --> 01:14:14,880
 meeting we can't push them to the December 11th meeting because it's past

859
01:14:14,880 --> 01:14:21,080
 30 days that moves us yes thank you are we taking a vote to postpone that then

860
01:14:21,080 --> 01:14:26,360
 is that what we're doing yeah we'll take a vote and public so that moves us to

861
01:14:26,360 --> 01:14:30,980
 item 2 consideration of minutes is there any edits or updates needed for the

862
01:14:30,980 --> 01:14:42,880
 October 16th minutes great next is items 3 this consent agenda with this many

863
01:14:42,880 --> 01:14:47,240
 what I'd like to do is just if there's any questions about a particular item we

864
01:14:47,240 --> 01:14:51,640
 just ask that individual be called up do you have the questions about night I'm

865
01:14:51,640 --> 01:14:59,160
 mr. Beck yes thank you chair I had this is 99% because I wasn't a commissioner

866
01:14:59,160 --> 01:15:03,920
 before when this was going through so I just had a question I believe it's Haley

867
01:15:03,920 --> 01:15:16,000
 which item 3a sorry and and that was I was this is the the development near the

868
01:15:16,000 --> 01:15:22,480
 swap fair on Gisley near the encore station

869
01:15:22,480 --> 01:15:34,600
 it's so how how I'm just I'm a little unclear from the from the language

870
01:15:34,600 --> 01:15:38,160
 instruction I was just asking for clarification how how closer they do to

871
01:15:38,160 --> 01:15:44,240
 them the encore actual facilities and and and the electrical right of ways and

872
01:15:44,240 --> 01:15:46,920
 things like that for the for particularly just mostly for those

873
01:15:46,920 --> 01:15:52,840
 close plots so there are I believe multiple substations in the area that

874
01:15:52,840 --> 01:15:58,400
 they would be abutting in the southern part of the property I believe this is

875
01:15:58,400 --> 01:16:02,760
 a substation today as well as one of these lots down here so they would you

876
01:16:02,760 --> 01:16:08,320
 know these homes would be you know backing up to that facility with regard

877
01:16:08,320 --> 01:16:11,120
 to the transmissions lines that cross the property these dashed lines

878
01:16:11,120 --> 01:16:15,800
 represent the boundaries of the easement that's required for those lines I

879
01:16:15,800 --> 01:16:24,040
 believe it's a 75 feet total width for the National Electric Safety Code so

880
01:16:24,040 --> 01:16:30,120
 those lots are staying outside of that 75 foot total width of easement there

881
01:16:30,120 --> 01:16:40,200
 I'm not sure if you had any other specific question and so now I think I'm

882
01:16:40,200 --> 01:16:44,640
 good thank you chair thank you thanks Haley is there any other questions on

883
01:16:44,640 --> 01:16:52,440
 items can mr. Ellis I do on on B which I think is still Haley it's still Haley

884
01:16:52,440 --> 01:17:02,320
 yes okay so from what my recollection this is this is off points out and it's

885
01:17:02,320 --> 01:17:08,360
 a multifamily right that will have the shared access to this site there is the

886
01:17:08,360 --> 01:17:14,400
 area that's kind of great out here at the bottom is the palladium multifamily

887
01:17:14,400 --> 01:17:18,200
 development that's under construction this particular property is being

888
01:17:18,200 --> 01:17:22,440
 subdivided for commercial development but there is a additional multifamily

889
01:17:22,440 --> 01:17:26,280
 here to the east of them that would share this access easement in this area

890
01:17:26,280 --> 01:17:30,960
 so the way the only access to this is going to be through that them is that

891
01:17:30,960 --> 01:17:34,680
 correct no there is frontage here on Sherman and here in the loop so they'll

892
01:17:34,680 --> 01:17:40,400
 be extending and they're just sharing that just as a alternative option for

893
01:17:40,400 --> 01:17:48,200
 the multifamily very good thank you thank you again Haley any other questions

894
01:17:48,200 --> 01:17:57,720
 on the consent okay moving on to items for individual consideration just to

895
01:17:57,720 --> 01:18:04,480
 remind you item 4a and 4b have been formally withdrawn item 4c is seeking a

896
01:18:04,480 --> 01:18:10,160
 30-day request which will move it to the November 20th PMZ meeting I will take a

897
01:18:10,160 --> 01:18:15,560
 vote and chambers for that next item of business is item 5a it's just for

898
01:18:15,560 --> 01:18:20,920
 clarification on C do you want staff do you want to take the vote on the do you

899
01:18:20,920 --> 01:18:23,720
 want us to go full through a full presentation on that item or do you want

900
01:18:23,720 --> 01:18:30,040
 to consider a the postponement prior to just given the number of items on the

901
01:18:30,040 --> 01:18:38,680
 agenda it's it's really up to Tricia also have thoughts we're talking about

902
01:18:38,680 --> 01:18:43,880
 the one we're postponing yeah well I mean a question on it but do you think

903
01:18:43,880 --> 01:18:46,560
 things are going to change because of their postponement so would it be a

904
01:18:46,560 --> 01:18:51,040
 waste of time to discuss it it would come back as exact same item on on if it

905
01:18:51,040 --> 01:18:54,520
 is postponed the exact same item would come back on and we definitely get a

906
01:18:54,520 --> 01:18:59,480
 presentation that night yeah so by show of hands you know does anyone have

907
01:18:59,480 --> 01:19:02,760
 issued our commissioner I did have a question it's sort of related to

908
01:19:02,760 --> 01:19:08,840
 Commissioner Ellis's question I'm just unclear what if we're if we are simply

909
01:19:08,840 --> 01:19:14,960
 moving this exact item later with no changes so they're in the next whatever

910
01:19:14,960 --> 01:19:18,920
 two weeks there could be no changes to the proposal is that correct that is

911
01:19:18,920 --> 01:19:24,760
 correct okay thank you so I went show of hands are we okay postponing the actual

912
01:19:24,760 --> 01:19:29,060
 presentation as well this evening okay Richard we will not say presentation

913
01:19:29,060 --> 01:19:35,240
 we'll just move straight to a vote on item 4c so that moves us to their public

914
01:19:35,240 --> 01:19:41,000
 hearings first one is item 5a which is presented by Haley

915
01:19:41,000 --> 01:19:55,920
 this is a request for a replant of a property located along Teasley Lane so

916
01:19:55,920 --> 01:20:01,440
 it is currently one lot today with frontage here on Teasley the intent is

917
01:20:01,440 --> 01:20:05,160
 to subdivide this into three lots for commercial development there's a believe

918
01:20:05,160 --> 01:20:08,680
 a daycare under construction on the northernmost lot so the southern two

919
01:20:08,680 --> 01:20:13,840
 lots would simply be left for later commercial development happy to answer

920
01:20:13,840 --> 01:20:18,040
 any questions you may all have about the specifics of the plot

921
01:20:18,760 --> 01:20:26,320
 mr. Beck so in just Google mapping and looking through things there is sort of

922
01:20:26,320 --> 01:20:31,160
 I'm gonna use the wrong word here and you substitute the correct word there's

923
01:20:31,160 --> 01:20:38,160
 sort of a riparian tree buffer between the school where the wording is and the

924
01:20:38,160 --> 01:20:44,140
 banks in the upper corner of this this figure so that's that would all be going

925
01:20:44,140 --> 01:20:51,160
 away if we develop these three lots from the preservation plans I've seen for

926
01:20:51,160 --> 01:20:54,400
 their trees there aren't a lot of trees on the northern end of this particular

927
01:20:54,400 --> 01:20:58,880
 property those may be on the the lots immediately north of there or perhaps on

928
01:20:58,880 --> 01:21:03,040
 the school site itself I believe they have a couple of large trees the daycare

929
01:21:03,040 --> 01:21:06,920
 is preserving here on their westernmost perimeter and then the bulk of the trees

930
01:21:06,920 --> 01:21:09,480
 on this side are actually located down here at the southern end around the

931
01:21:09,480 --> 01:21:13,880
 existing detention facility and they have not presented plans to show what

932
01:21:13,880 --> 01:21:18,060
 the specifics of tree preservation would be there each lot would need to do a

933
01:21:18,060 --> 01:21:22,880
 tree preservation plan and survey when it comes in for development so that

934
01:21:22,880 --> 01:21:25,520
 would be determined at that time they would have to meet the minimum 30%

935
01:21:25,520 --> 01:21:42,080
 preservation of the code thank you okay next is item 5b z 19 - 9a perfect and

936
01:21:42,080 --> 01:21:48,880
 with item 5b Cindy please here to present 5c as well the zoning and SUP

937
01:21:48,880 --> 01:21:56,880
 case I'm going to combine the B and C into one presentation you'll still have

938
01:21:56,880 --> 01:22:01,040
 to take separate votes on each item but since they both concern the same site I

939
01:22:01,040 --> 01:22:04,160
 thought it would be easier

940
01:22:12,800 --> 01:22:25,000
 okay this is our request to rezone approximately 2.430 acres from rural

941
01:22:25,000 --> 01:22:32,400
 residential to mixed-use neighborhood and 0.838 acres from residential six are

942
01:22:32,400 --> 01:22:39,800
 six to mixed-use neighborhood the companion to this is s 19 0 0 1 1 a

943
01:22:39,800 --> 01:22:45,320
 request for a specific use permit to protect to permit an electric

944
01:22:45,320 --> 01:22:51,280
 substation on the site as you can see the 3.27 acre site is located on the

945
01:22:51,280 --> 01:22:56,080
 north side of blag approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of blag

946
01:22:56,080 --> 01:23:02,480
 and gisling and you'll note that the site is surrounded on two sides by a

947
01:23:02,480 --> 01:23:09,560
 small electrical substation here and then a larger DME substation located

948
01:23:09,560 --> 01:23:16,720
 here the walker tract that is a preliminary plot that you are looking at

949
01:23:16,720 --> 01:23:24,440
 tonight that Haley presented is located right here this shows the current zoning

950
01:23:24,440 --> 01:23:29,200
 map and you can see that the site is surrounded by rural residential to the

951
01:23:29,200 --> 01:23:35,800
 south and then our six and public facility and rural residential again on

952
01:23:35,800 --> 01:23:42,760
 the east west and north side if this is approved this is the proposed zoning map

953
01:23:42,760 --> 01:23:52,480
 as it will look with the requested MN we have in our code general criteria for

954
01:23:52,480 --> 01:23:58,040
 approval of all applications which I went into detail in your backup I am

955
01:23:58,040 --> 01:24:03,760
 just showing you the criteria for the general the site complies with all of

956
01:24:03,760 --> 01:24:09,440
 these I'm going to go into more detail with the criteria for approval of a

957
01:24:09,440 --> 01:24:18,320
 zoning case which is in 272 D number one the dent in plan 2030 the site is

958
01:24:18,320 --> 01:24:23,280
 designated as moderate residential excuse me moderate density residential

959
01:24:23,280 --> 01:24:27,240
 it's intended for residential neighborhoods with a density between 4

960
01:24:27,240 --> 01:24:34,080
 and 12 acre dwelling units per acre and it applies to transition areas between

961
01:24:34,080 --> 01:24:39,400
 established single family neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas and

962
01:24:39,400 --> 01:24:43,960
 this is that this is where this applies this is actually a transition area

963
01:24:43,960 --> 01:24:51,200
 between the US 380 University corridor and then black road and the low

964
01:24:51,200 --> 01:24:57,920
 residential areas to the south criteria number two is that it's consistent with

965
01:24:57,920 --> 01:25:02,440
 relevant small area plans well there is no small area plan in existence for this

966
01:25:02,440 --> 01:25:07,440
 site right now number three is consistent with the purpose statement of

967
01:25:07,440 --> 01:25:11,520
 the proposed zoning district the purpose of the MN district is to provide

968
01:25:11,520 --> 01:25:15,760
 compatibility between high intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential

969
01:25:15,760 --> 01:25:20,680
 areas the MN district in this location satisfies this locational requirement

970
01:25:20,680 --> 01:25:25,120
 it will be located between the lower intensity are our district to the south

971
01:25:25,120 --> 01:25:31,880
 and the US 380 quarter to the north the substation is permitted in the MN zoning

972
01:25:31,880 --> 01:25:37,360
 district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the use specific

973
01:25:37,360 --> 01:25:44,240
 standards in section 5 3 7 a the applicant actually this is the least

974
01:25:44,240 --> 01:25:48,840
 intensive zoning district that electric substations are permitted in so the that

975
01:25:48,840 --> 01:25:53,720
 is the reason the applicant is requesting this particular district

976
01:25:53,720 --> 01:25:58,720
 criteria for there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant

977
01:25:58,720 --> 01:26:03,120
 a zoning change well there are there have not been any significant changes in

978
01:26:03,120 --> 01:26:08,800
 the area as I noted previously there is a residential preliminary plat for the

979
01:26:08,800 --> 01:26:13,200
 site located to the northwest and west of the subject site that is on the agenda

980
01:26:13,200 --> 01:26:18,480
 tonight electric substation is not a permitted use in the current rr and r6

981
01:26:18,480 --> 01:26:23,160
 zoning districts as noted previously the purpose of this request is to rezone the

982
01:26:23,160 --> 01:26:27,840
 site to the least intensive district that permits electric substations upon

983
01:26:27,840 --> 01:26:33,720
 approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted

984
01:26:33,720 --> 01:26:38,040
 by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly

985
01:26:38,040 --> 01:26:46,560
 adverse impacts to the surrounding areas electric substations are have a real low

986
01:26:46,560 --> 01:26:55,800
 intensive impact on areas with regards to the streets there very little impact

987
01:26:55,800 --> 01:26:59,200
 on the infrastructure the employees will visit the site a few times a month to

988
01:26:59,200 --> 01:27:04,560
 perform maintenance or security checks black road is designated as the two lane

989
01:27:04,560 --> 01:27:10,240
 collector with a right of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will

990
01:27:10,240 --> 01:27:17,320
 be dedicated when the site plats with regards to water and wastewater water

991
01:27:17,320 --> 01:27:21,760
 and wastewater is not available to the site however the use does not require

992
01:27:21,760 --> 01:27:26,440
 access to water and wastewater so no extension of public utilities will be

993
01:27:26,440 --> 01:27:32,160
 required for this particular use with regards to parks the proposed use of the

994
01:27:32,160 --> 01:27:36,720
 site is a non-habitable electric substation and proximity to parks is not

995
01:27:36,720 --> 01:27:44,720
 applicable to this use with regards to schools excuse me the proposed use of the

996
01:27:44,720 --> 01:27:48,480
 site is a non-habitable electric substation and isn't expected to

997
01:27:48,480 --> 01:27:53,800
 generate a student population with fire stations the subject property is located

998
01:27:53,800 --> 01:27:58,680
 approximately 3.2 miles from fire station number 2 within the eight minute or less

999
01:27:58,680 --> 01:28:05,320
 response time boundary staff recommends approval of this rezoning request as it

1000
01:28:05,320 --> 01:28:11,400
 complies with the criteria in section 2.4.5 e of the Denton development code

1001
01:28:11,400 --> 01:28:19,600
 and 2.7.2 D of the DDC for approval of a zoning change going to move forward now

1002
01:28:19,600 --> 01:28:26,120
 to the SUP and again here's the general criteria for all applications which as I

1003
01:28:26,120 --> 01:28:32,160
 note in the backup this does comply with here is a copy of this the concept plan

1004
01:28:32,160 --> 01:28:37,720
 that was provided Black Road is located here you can see here is the substation

1005
01:28:37,720 --> 01:28:42,280
 itself it's going to be surrounded by a masonry wall on all four sides around

1006
01:28:42,280 --> 01:28:48,240
 the perimeter the landscape plan indicates that the site will comply with

1007
01:28:48,240 --> 01:28:55,200
 the required landscape buffers that are in section 2.7 I'm sorry I don't have

1008
01:28:55,200 --> 01:29:04,240
 that the requirements for electric substations there is a 10-foot buffer

1009
01:29:04,240 --> 01:29:09,560
 along the front on the street because per that section the street is considered

1010
01:29:09,560 --> 01:29:20,840
 to be a buffer the criteria for approval of an SUP a the specific use is proposed

1011
01:29:20,840 --> 01:29:26,520
 is compatible with the surrounding area there are two other electrical

1012
01:29:26,520 --> 01:29:32,640
 substations in the area one is located directly adjacent to the site which was

1013
01:29:32,640 --> 01:29:38,520
 developed prior to the annexation of the site into the city and then there is one

1014
01:29:38,520 --> 01:29:47,360
 north and northwest of the site which is the DME substation that was approved in

1015
01:29:47,360 --> 01:29:56,040
 2015 the specific use proposed has minimal impacts on the future development

1016
01:29:56,040 --> 01:30:02,360
 of the area the price I noted reason previously there is a proposal for

1017
01:30:02,360 --> 01:30:09,080
 single-family residential subdivision to the north and east of the site if you

1018
01:30:09,080 --> 01:30:13,840
 looking at the plot of the preliminary plot that will is before you this month

1019
01:30:13,840 --> 01:30:19,080
 today you'll see that this area right here is not proposed for development and

1020
01:30:19,080 --> 01:30:23,880
 is actually an HOA lot there will be no single-family homes that would be

1021
01:30:23,880 --> 01:30:33,240
 directly adjacent to this site the sites to the south are large lot ranch and

1022
01:30:33,240 --> 01:30:41,120
 agricultural sites there is we did receive one response that is opposed to

1023
01:30:41,120 --> 01:30:44,280
 this from one of these sites and I'll show you where it is later on in my

1024
01:30:44,280 --> 01:30:50,920
 presentation I've but it really shouldn't affect any of these particular

1025
01:30:50,920 --> 01:30:57,160
 properties either due to the low impact of the site it's not like we're going

1026
01:30:57,160 --> 01:31:03,720
 to have a lot of people visiting the area to workers coming to the electric

1027
01:31:03,720 --> 01:31:13,320
 substation see the specific use proposed meets all the standards of the DDC and

1028
01:31:13,320 --> 01:31:19,520
 all other applicable city I'm sorry my mouth isn't working are all other

1029
01:31:19,520 --> 01:31:24,720
 applicable city codes this transformer does meet all of the applicable city

1030
01:31:24,720 --> 01:31:29,920
 codes as noted in the backup for of your staff report and it meets all other

1031
01:31:29,920 --> 01:31:36,600
 requirements as well any impacts associated with access traffic emergency

1032
01:31:36,600 --> 01:31:42,120
 services utilities parking refuse areas noise glare and odor have been

1033
01:31:42,120 --> 01:31:45,880
 adequately mitigated the site should have very little impact on the

1034
01:31:45,880 --> 01:31:49,560
 infrastructure in the area as previously noted does not require water

1035
01:31:49,560 --> 01:31:54,000
 wastewater or solid waste services and there is no order or noise associated

1036
01:31:54,000 --> 01:31:59,120
 with this proposed use the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan

1037
01:31:59,120 --> 01:32:03,920
 and any other adopted plans the subject site has a future land use designation of

1038
01:32:03,920 --> 01:32:07,960
 moderate density residential which applies to transition areas between

1039
01:32:07,960 --> 01:32:11,240
 established single-family neighborhoods and higher density residential or

1040
01:32:11,240 --> 01:32:19,080
 commercial areas as I pointed out earlier in my presentation and the site

1041
01:32:19,080 --> 01:32:25,320
 the use adversely affects the health safety and welfare of the inhabitants of

1042
01:32:25,320 --> 01:32:29,720
 this area and the city of Denton this use complies with all applicable

1043
01:32:29,720 --> 01:32:34,640
 requirements it will not adversely affect the residents located in the

1044
01:32:34,640 --> 01:32:39,040
 area or in the city in fact it will help them in making sure that there is

1045
01:32:39,040 --> 01:32:47,080
 electrical service provided for all property owners and residents we sent

1046
01:32:47,080 --> 01:32:53,240
 out notification to property owners within 200 and 500 feet of the site we

1047
01:32:53,240 --> 01:32:58,400
 received one response in opposition located here and this was only in

1048
01:32:58,400 --> 01:33:07,600
 opposition to the zoning case I it represents five percent of the total

1049
01:33:07,600 --> 01:33:12,800
 land area within the 200 foot buffer and the applicant did not hold a

1050
01:33:12,800 --> 01:33:19,920
 neighborhood meeting so you kind of up to you briefly it seems like recently we

1051
01:33:19,920 --> 01:33:26,160
 also had a zoning SGP case and if I recall correctly citizens were only

1052
01:33:26,160 --> 01:33:34,440
 responding to one of them yes is that issue being maybe it's not an issue but

1053
01:33:34,440 --> 01:33:40,280
 it seems as though when there is two things happen same property citizens

1054
01:33:40,280 --> 01:33:45,400
 don't know to duly express their opinions they are getting two different

1055
01:33:45,400 --> 01:33:51,560
 notifications they are I my my thought is that they think if they send in the

1056
01:33:51,560 --> 01:33:57,640
 one notice that that takes care of it is what I'm thinking I can't say for sure

1057
01:33:57,640 --> 01:34:03,880
 but that's that is what I know if I were not in this profession I would think the

1058
01:34:03,880 --> 01:34:07,880
 same thing that one notice would take care of it I certainly am not one to

1059
01:34:07,880 --> 01:34:12,160
 add to anyone's workload intentionally but I wonder if there's a opportunity

1060
01:34:12,160 --> 01:34:16,080
 that if we get if this property owner we got it in is to a quick phone call or

1061
01:34:16,080 --> 01:34:23,160
 email and say what is your opinion on the another item and instead of us

1062
01:34:23,160 --> 01:34:26,920
 because obviously our assumptions we can't tie to the SGP case because we

1063
01:34:26,920 --> 01:34:30,560
 don't know so I wonder if there's an opportunity just to ensure that

1064
01:34:30,560 --> 01:34:38,160
 communications being made definitely Mr. Beck thank you chair is there a

1065
01:34:38,160 --> 01:34:46,640
 mechanism where we can put more than one item on the same notification I know we

1066
01:34:46,640 --> 01:34:52,220
 have a work session item coming back I think in December to talk about

1067
01:34:52,220 --> 01:34:58,320
 notifications within the ETJ and I'd like to probably also talk about this as

1068
01:34:58,320 --> 01:35:03,840
 to if we have two zoning action items going to the on the same agenda like

1069
01:35:03,840 --> 01:35:08,920
 this whether or not we do a dual notice I would just need to talk to legal about

1070
01:35:08,920 --> 01:35:14,200
 that one thing that's different in this DDC whether whether we have to do two

1071
01:35:14,200 --> 01:35:18,680
 different notices I just need to confirm that if it's okay to add them on to one

1072
01:35:18,680 --> 01:35:24,320
 one thing to note though under the new DDC once an SGP is approved it goes on

1073
01:35:24,320 --> 01:35:30,080
 the zoning map with the demarcation of SGP in the past we did not do that so

1074
01:35:30,080 --> 01:35:34,140
 whether or not we can just do that as one notice we'll provide we'll bring

1075
01:35:34,140 --> 01:35:37,900
 that information back great for that work session that'd be helpful thank you

1076
01:35:37,900 --> 01:35:45,480
 Richard and staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the

1077
01:35:45,480 --> 01:35:53,240
 criteria in section 245 E and section 252 D of the DDC that concludes my

1078
01:35:53,240 --> 01:36:01,360
 presentation any questions for Cindy and just city mentioned this I just want to

1079
01:36:01,360 --> 01:36:05,640
 reiterate this evening we'll hear one presentation and then we'll take two

1080
01:36:05,640 --> 01:36:09,600
 separate votes correct the zoning vote has to pass in order for the SGP to be

1081
01:36:09,600 --> 01:36:13,440
 applied to exactly if the zoning doesn't pass then you don't need to consider the

1082
01:36:13,440 --> 01:36:20,640
 SGP Christian thank you chair and then real quick with a motion on the SGP it's

1083
01:36:20,640 --> 01:36:24,920
 assumed that the site plan and landscape plan presented are part of the approval

1084
01:36:24,920 --> 01:36:28,840
 right or do you need to make that part of the motion it's part of the ordinance

1085
01:36:28,840 --> 01:36:32,740
 okay thank you and just for clarification there will be two votes

1086
01:36:32,740 --> 01:36:39,120
 regardless since the SGP has been agenda eyes agenda eyes put yeah put on the

1087
01:36:39,120 --> 01:36:46,600
 agenda making of words here there will be two votes but it'll be separate thank

1088
01:36:46,600 --> 01:36:57,480
 you Cindy sure next up is Ramaguita for items 5d and 5e updates to our DDC

1089
01:37:08,120 --> 01:37:16,520
 thank you chair members a commission this item is development code amendment for a

1090
01:37:16,520 --> 01:37:23,020
 specific section of the code as it relates to the rezonings with overlay

1091
01:37:23,020 --> 01:37:28,480
 condition properties so for those that are new some of the commissioners when a

1092
01:37:28,480 --> 01:37:33,320
 property is rezoned sometimes the commission ultimately the council

1093
01:37:33,320 --> 01:37:39,240
 approves it with a condition for example if it's a residential subdivision they

1094
01:37:39,240 --> 01:37:44,240
 can condition the number of unit dwell units per acre or they'll add certain

1095
01:37:44,240 --> 01:37:49,960
 conditions related to landscaping whatever it may be those are what we

1096
01:37:49,960 --> 01:37:57,120
 call zoning's with overlay conditions and in 2000 2019 and this year in April

1097
01:37:57,120 --> 01:38:02,560
 when the development code update was approved those properties transitioned

1098
01:38:02,560 --> 01:38:07,800
 to plan developments primarily because they they're not able to transition to a

1099
01:38:07,800 --> 01:38:11,340
 zoning district because they've got those conditions so if you look at a

1100
01:38:11,340 --> 01:38:16,480
 zoning district one versus the other because that one has conditions it

1101
01:38:16,480 --> 01:38:21,320
 doesn't equal the same as the other zoning district that it shares so in

1102
01:38:21,320 --> 01:38:27,760
 essence we've given it a PD designation and therefore those PDs that were

1103
01:38:27,760 --> 01:38:33,160
 calling rezoning's with overlays with overlay conditions has a provision under

1104
01:38:33,160 --> 01:38:40,520
 section 1.7.8 and here it illustrates what it basically says and I will get

1105
01:38:40,520 --> 01:38:44,360
 into the text in a couple slides but properties rezoned with overlay

1106
01:38:44,360 --> 01:38:50,320
 conditions are governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning that

1107
01:38:50,320 --> 01:38:57,920
 it governs what that means is if you look at that that means that we apply

1108
01:38:57,920 --> 01:39:06,060
 the 2002 regulations and standards that's how we read it however later this

1109
01:39:06,060 --> 01:39:11,480
 year in September the City Council approved the zoning map with a zoning

1110
01:39:11,480 --> 01:39:15,520
 train a district transition chart which is shown here and I apologize it's not

1111
01:39:15,520 --> 01:39:21,520
 very easy to read but I've got basically a summary of what that chart indicates

1112
01:39:21,520 --> 01:39:27,080
 for these PDs these rezoning's with overly conditions and it states that all

1113
01:39:27,080 --> 01:39:33,040
 remaining zoning districts I'm sorry all remaining zoning regulations and design

1114
01:39:33,040 --> 01:39:40,640
 standards that are not under our condition or whatnot fall under the 2019

1115
01:39:40,640 --> 01:39:46,440
 development code so there's a conflict between what's in the code section 1.7.8

1116
01:39:46,440 --> 01:39:53,280
 and what is in the transition chart that dictates where or what development code

1117
01:39:53,280 --> 01:40:01,200
 applies in these particular properties that have rezoning's with overlays we've

1118
01:40:01,200 --> 01:40:06,560
 got about 45 of these properties in the city that were approved by council

1119
01:40:06,560 --> 01:40:12,760
 recommended by some by this Commission that have conditions and again those

1120
01:40:12,760 --> 01:40:18,440
 transitioned into a PD what we're calling PDs of course not all of them

1121
01:40:18,440 --> 01:40:23,520
 have developed and we want to make sure that we apply the right code in this

1122
01:40:23,520 --> 01:40:27,680
 case obviously we've got a conflict and what we are recommending staff is

1123
01:40:27,680 --> 01:40:34,840
 recommending that we amend section 1.7.8 to be consistent with the

1124
01:40:34,840 --> 01:40:40,640
 transition chart so the language that you see here is right from the code with

1125
01:40:40,640 --> 01:40:47,600
 some changes again 1.7.8 what we're saying is and I'll read it so that we

1126
01:40:47,600 --> 01:40:51,840
 have a general understanding any property that was rezoned with overlay

1127
01:40:51,840 --> 01:40:56,840
 conditions under the prior regulation shall be designated as a PD on the

1128
01:40:56,840 --> 01:41:00,640
 official zoning map and shall be governed by the conditions remember

1129
01:41:00,640 --> 01:41:06,180
 those conditions that council approved will still apply unauthorizing the

1130
01:41:06,180 --> 01:41:13,000
 rezoning all remaining zoning regulations and design standards that are

1131
01:41:13,000 --> 01:41:18,600
 not included in that ordinance shall be governed by the 2019 the today's

1132
01:41:18,600 --> 01:41:23,040
 development code and that's all that we're asking to do with this code

1133
01:41:23,040 --> 01:41:27,600
 amendment it is a city initiated zoning I'm sorry city initiated code amendment

1134
01:41:27,600 --> 01:41:35,160
 to fix that conflict and be consistent in how we apply for these 45 properties

1135
01:41:35,160 --> 01:41:39,760
 that's that's the purpose of this work session I'm sorry this public hearing

1136
01:41:39,760 --> 01:41:45,600
 item that will be later considered by y'all that concludes my presentation

1137
01:41:45,600 --> 01:41:50,840
 Sanford any questions I got a question sir hopefully I can word this correctly

1138
01:41:50,840 --> 01:41:56,160
 if someone came to us two years ago and was approved for a PD with three

1139
01:41:56,160 --> 01:42:01,500
 conditions but I'm rezoning sorry to cut you off sure rezoning and it had

1140
01:42:01,500 --> 01:42:06,000
 overlay three overlay conditions density or whatever else we put on it but they

1141
01:42:06,000 --> 01:42:10,480
 didn't ask for any more conditions because in the 2002 DDC they didn't

1142
01:42:10,480 --> 01:42:17,560
 need it now we have this updated 2019 DDC which might actually those three

1143
01:42:17,560 --> 01:42:21,000
 conditions that they had overlay on those stay correct but all the other

1144
01:42:21,000 --> 01:42:27,800
 ones that changed might cause friction with the development that was approved

1145
01:42:27,800 --> 01:42:32,920
 in 02 because they wouldn't have known to ask for the new conditions that have

1146
01:42:32,920 --> 01:42:40,040
 been placed on by the 2019 so I'm wondering can you help me walk through

1147
01:42:40,040 --> 01:42:45,000
 sure so in those situations in staff's opinion it would be there's an

1148
01:42:45,000 --> 01:42:50,280
 opportunity to amend that PD or that ordinance and if there is something that

1149
01:42:50,280 --> 01:42:55,120
 they need to add or change they can certainly bring it up through this that

1150
01:42:55,120 --> 01:42:58,800
 second actually that last sentence here proposed changes to such properties to

1151
01:42:58,800 --> 01:43:03,480
 follow will follow that PD amendment process so it would it would require

1152
01:43:03,480 --> 01:43:12,240
 them if they need to amend or have it I guess a different requirement they can

1153
01:43:12,240 --> 01:43:18,120
 add that to their PD if that's what they need the amendment process for plan

1154
01:43:18,120 --> 01:43:23,720
 developments is that through city staff it it goes through the planning zoning

1155
01:43:23,720 --> 01:43:27,720
 Commission City Council so it requires a dual public hearing it's a zoning item

1156
01:43:27,720 --> 01:43:37,360
 so it has to go through that process and again we're just talking about zoning

1157
01:43:37,360 --> 01:43:43,520
 items if there's if there's a design standard that they did not they can't

1158
01:43:43,520 --> 01:43:48,320
 meet under 2019 there is obviously flexibility built in to the new the

1159
01:43:48,320 --> 01:43:51,960
 development code but again there's there's always options for amending the

1160
01:43:51,960 --> 01:44:03,640
 PD if that's the case okay any other questions on item 5d great thanks Ron I

1161
01:44:03,640 --> 01:44:07,160
 think you're the next one 5e yes sir

1162
01:44:14,000 --> 01:44:19,000
 so this code amendment is also a city initiated code amendment and it relates

1163
01:44:19,000 --> 01:44:26,240
 to the development criteria manuals that we just heard earlier similarly in April

1164
01:44:26,240 --> 01:44:32,360
 of this year the development code update was done and as part of that update

1165
01:44:32,360 --> 01:44:39,280
 provisions related to criteria manuals were either revised deleted or updated

1166
01:44:39,280 --> 01:44:45,560
 ultimately what we found out was the process in which to create and also

1167
01:44:45,560 --> 01:44:52,120
 update criteria manuals was altered and we need to fix that in order to continue

1168
01:44:52,120 --> 01:44:55,880
 with what we're trying to do with those criteria managed that we heard earlier

1169
01:44:55,880 --> 01:45:03,240
 and so it is a an opportunity for us to clarify basically the authority of the

1170
01:45:03,240 --> 01:45:08,600
 criteria manuals and also to restart re-establish that process of creating and

1171
01:45:08,600 --> 01:45:14,040
 updating the criteria manuals and those are insane and those will be part of

1172
01:45:14,040 --> 01:45:21,800
 section one three point four as well as 211 now a one three point four exists and

1173
01:45:21,800 --> 01:45:25,320
 again we're just going to be adding some wording there to help clarify the

1174
01:45:25,320 --> 01:45:31,880
 authority of criteria manuals section 211 is actually a new section that we'll be

1175
01:45:31,880 --> 01:45:36,960
 adding in essence what we did was we looked at the previous code basically

1176
01:45:36,960 --> 01:45:42,880
 copied and we're inserting it back into the 2019 development code so this is the

1177
01:45:42,880 --> 01:45:48,920
 first section one three four B and again adding where we have underlined is

1178
01:45:48,920 --> 01:45:55,240
 adding those wording again section 211 is the reference in this section we're

1179
01:45:55,240 --> 01:45:59,760
 also adding and updating our list of criteria manuals so really just

1180
01:45:59,760 --> 01:46:05,280
 clarification when it comes to section 211 which is the establishment of the

1181
01:46:05,280 --> 01:46:09,920
 process I didn't put it all in my PowerPoint presentation you do have a

1182
01:46:09,920 --> 01:46:14,960
 copy of what's proposed in the AIS essentially there's gonna be a purpose

1183
01:46:14,960 --> 01:46:19,920
 minimum standards and responsibility and the meat of what we're trying to get to

1184
01:46:19,920 --> 01:46:24,560
 is this procedure there's the initial approval or creation of criteria manuals

1185
01:46:24,560 --> 01:46:29,880
 as you can see here it requires two public hearings as far as updates

1186
01:46:29,880 --> 01:46:33,520
 administrative updates that only requires a work session with the

1187
01:46:33,520 --> 01:46:39,040
 planning zoning Commission and then having public comments followed by City

1188
01:46:39,040 --> 01:46:43,400
 Council public hearing which they will consider it and approve it by ordinance

1189
01:46:43,400 --> 01:46:49,120
 we also have a section for legislative updates and then the last item on the

1190
01:46:49,120 --> 01:46:58,720
 section is an approval criteria again this is a city initiated code amendment

1191
01:46:58,720 --> 01:47:06,600
 to establish that process which we hope to take to council later this month in

1192
01:47:06,600 --> 01:47:11,320
 time for us to bring forward those criteria manuals which will be again in

1193
01:47:11,320 --> 01:47:17,520
 December of this year so just following that that sequence that ends my

1194
01:47:17,520 --> 01:47:21,160
 presentation be happy to answer any questions

1195
01:47:21,160 --> 01:47:28,400
 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so Ron the only question I had is so we get it

1196
01:47:28,400 --> 01:47:34,000
 in a work session prior to the 30-day public review and then it states that

1197
01:47:34,000 --> 01:47:37,680
 staff would try to address concerns that come through that 30-day review then it

1198
01:47:37,680 --> 01:47:42,280
 goes to council for a vote if changes are made to that because of public

1199
01:47:42,280 --> 01:47:48,480
 comment you know we never see that again and so I'm just trying to run through

1200
01:47:48,480 --> 01:47:54,640
 we we can we can you know if we get it in a work session and we throw back to

1201
01:47:54,640 --> 01:47:59,960
 you things suggestions and things that we don't like and then it goes to public

1202
01:47:59,960 --> 01:48:03,700
 and there's more comments that are addressed then we don't really know

1203
01:48:03,700 --> 01:48:08,520
 what's necessarily going to council so I and maybe it doesn't even need a

1204
01:48:08,520 --> 01:48:13,200
 recommendation by us anyway I guess I'm just I'm just I'm trying to work through

1205
01:48:13,200 --> 01:48:19,460
 how you came up with that process I think what well we normally would do in

1206
01:48:19,460 --> 01:48:25,220
 that situation is it's like any other Commission and in this case this

1207
01:48:25,220 --> 01:48:31,360
 wouldn't require a formal recommendation but we certainly again as you did this

1208
01:48:31,360 --> 01:48:37,480
 afternoon we'd like to hear from you as far as comments and input and by this by

1209
01:48:37,480 --> 01:48:41,840
 this Commission having his work session it's it's a little bit of a formal you

1210
01:48:41,840 --> 01:48:45,960
 know submission of comments but certainly there are opportunities for

1211
01:48:45,960 --> 01:48:51,200
 everyone anyone to submit comments the idea there was to just provide the

1212
01:48:51,200 --> 01:48:57,480
 council with input and not a recommendation okay and if there is you

1213
01:48:57,480 --> 01:49:02,400
 know more certainly we can pass it along if and when we do get comments from you

1214
01:49:02,400 --> 01:49:04,880
 okay so when you bring it to council for a vote it's really going to be brought

1215
01:49:04,880 --> 01:49:10,200
 as a staff initiation not really a P&Z recommended correct correct but we will

1216
01:49:10,200 --> 01:49:13,760
 make sure to add we've been you know to add any comments that you provide during

1217
01:49:13,760 --> 01:49:19,160
 the work session okay understood thank you I don't see any other questions all

1218
01:49:19,160 --> 01:49:26,080
 right thanks Ron we've already covered 5f previously so with that our agenda is

1219
01:49:26,080 --> 01:49:35,160
 completed we will I'll close the work session meeting at 354 we'll reconvene

1220
01:49:35,160 --> 01:49:45,360
 in Council chambers at 630 good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the

1221
01:49:45,360 --> 01:49:51,360
 planning and zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday November 6 2019 seeing

1222
01:49:51,360 --> 01:49:56,880
 that we do have a quorum I will open the meeting at 631 the first item of

1223
01:49:56,880 --> 01:50:05,520
 business is to stand if able and provide a Pledge of Allegiance

1224
01:50:26,880 --> 01:50:35,480
 next item of business is to consider the approval of the planet zoning minutes

1225
01:50:35,480 --> 01:50:52,280
 from October 16th mr. Anderson you want a motion for approval yes motion to we

1226
01:50:52,280 --> 01:50:56,520
 have a first for approval mr. Cole second we have a first and second for

1227
01:50:56,520 --> 01:51:02,920
 approval any discussion seeing that I'll call for a vote on the board

1228
01:51:25,480 --> 01:51:35,600
 keys verbally okay motion carries five zero with one recuse next item of

1229
01:51:35,600 --> 01:51:45,400
 business is the consent agenda Christian Ellis we have a first for approval

1230
01:51:45,400 --> 01:51:51,200
 Christian Pernetta the second we have a first and a second for approval of the

1231
01:51:51,200 --> 01:51:58,640
 consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

1232
01:51:58,640 --> 01:52:09,280
 motion carries six zero next item of business is items for individual

1233
01:52:09,280 --> 01:52:19,080
 consideration item 4a PP 19 - 0 0 3 2 as well as item 4b PP 19 - 0 0 3 3 have

1234
01:52:19,080 --> 01:52:23,640
 been withdrawn from this evening's consideration item 4c is requesting a

1235
01:52:23,640 --> 01:52:28,720
 30-day postponement which would within the 30 days the next meeting would be

1236
01:52:28,720 --> 01:52:34,200
 November 20th the chair would ask for a motion to postpone to the date certain

1237
01:52:34,200 --> 01:52:39,560
 of November 20th commissioner Ellis to a date certain November 20th meeting we

1238
01:52:39,560 --> 01:52:44,040
 have first for the postponement and Christian Pernetta second motion we have

1239
01:52:44,040 --> 01:52:48,240
 first and a second postpone item 4c to a date certain November 20th any

1240
01:52:48,240 --> 01:52:53,160
 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

1241
01:52:53,160 --> 01:53:06,600
 motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5a fr 19 - 0 0 2 0 I

1242
01:53:06,600 --> 01:53:11,360
 will open the public hearing invite Haley for presentation

1243
01:53:18,240 --> 01:53:26,440
 good evening Haley with the planning division this is a replat of lot 6r 1

1244
01:53:26,440 --> 01:53:33,400
 6r 2 and 6r 3 block a of the Teasley Commons edition the property is located

1245
01:53:33,400 --> 01:53:36,120
 along Teasley Lane with frontage here on the east side of it it's approximately

1246
01:53:36,120 --> 01:53:41,040
 two and a half acres in size and they are subdividing one lot into three for

1247
01:53:41,040 --> 01:53:46,720
 future commercial development I'm happy to stand for any questions I did not see

1248
01:53:46,720 --> 01:53:49,960
 thank you Haley for the presentation this is a public hearing anyone wishing

1249
01:53:49,960 --> 01:53:54,000
 to speak on this item they certainly do so

1250
01:53:54,000 --> 01:53:59,480
 seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn the dais for discussion

1251
01:53:59,480 --> 01:54:07,640
 or motion Christian Pernetta we have a first for approval commissioner Ellis

1252
01:54:07,640 --> 01:54:13,240
 second we have first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I

1253
01:54:13,240 --> 01:54:28,240
 call for a vote on the board motion carries five one next item of business

1254
01:54:28,240 --> 01:54:36,040
 is item 5b z 19 - 0 0 9a and I will open the public hearing invites Cindy

1255
01:54:36,040 --> 01:54:49,160
 presentation thank you Sharon for the record I'm Cindy Jackson with the

1256
01:54:49,160 --> 01:54:56,360
 development services department I'm bringing for you z 19 - 0 0 9 and s 19

1257
01:54:56,360 --> 01:55:03,280
 - 0 0 1 1 I am going to make the presentation for these items together as

1258
01:55:03,280 --> 01:55:12,600
 they're both on the same lot however you will vote separately on them z 19 - 0 0

1259
01:55:12,600 --> 01:55:17,800
 9 is a request to rezone approximately 2.43 acres from rural residential to

1260
01:55:17,800 --> 01:55:22,360
 mixed-use neighborhood and to rezone approximately eight point eight three

1261
01:55:22,360 --> 01:55:28,360
 eight acres from residential six to mixed-use neighborhood s 19 11 is a

1262
01:55:28,360 --> 01:55:33,160
 request for a specific use permit permit a substation my first the first part of

1263
01:55:33,160 --> 01:55:40,400
 my presentation will be towards z 19 - 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 the three point two seven

1264
01:55:40,400 --> 01:55:45,240
 acre property is located on the north side of Black Road approximately four

1265
01:55:45,240 --> 01:55:51,120
 hundred and thirty feet east of the intersection of Black Road and gisling

1266
01:55:51,120 --> 01:55:56,320
 here you see the current zoning map and you can see the site is surrounded by

1267
01:55:56,320 --> 01:56:02,080
 rural residential public facility and our six residential six if this is

1268
01:56:02,080 --> 01:56:10,280
 approved this will be the zoning map showing the site as MN we have general

1269
01:56:10,280 --> 01:56:16,040
 criteria for all applications that was covered in detail in your app in your

1270
01:56:16,040 --> 01:56:22,560
 backup these are the criteria I'm going to move forward now to the criteria for

1271
01:56:22,560 --> 01:56:30,320
 approval of a zoning case in section 272 D these are the criteria and I'm going

1272
01:56:30,320 --> 01:56:35,320
 to go through them one by one the first one is that the site must comply with

1273
01:56:35,320 --> 01:56:39,240
 the future land that request must comply with the future land use designation the

1274
01:56:39,240 --> 01:56:43,760
 site is designated moderate density residential this is intended for

1275
01:56:43,760 --> 01:56:47,440
 residential neighborhoods with a density between four and twelve dwelling units

1276
01:56:47,440 --> 01:56:52,440
 per acre and it applies to transition areas between established single family

1277
01:56:52,440 --> 01:56:56,040
 neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas that can accommodate

1278
01:56:56,040 --> 01:57:01,320
 greater density or adjacent key corridors as you can see the site is

1279
01:57:01,320 --> 01:57:08,520
 actually located between a low residential more rural area and US 3a

1280
01:57:08,520 --> 01:57:17,560
 University which is it's going to be more commercial and a bit more intense

1281
01:57:17,560 --> 01:57:25,920
 with its uses in the future criteria - it's consistent with relevant small

1282
01:57:25,920 --> 01:57:31,320
 area plans there are no small area plans for this location criteria three it's

1283
01:57:31,320 --> 01:57:35,360
 consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district the purpose

1284
01:57:35,360 --> 01:57:39,480
 of the MN district is to provide compatibility between high intensity

1285
01:57:39,480 --> 01:57:45,280
 mixed-use areas and adjacent residential areas the MN district in this location

1286
01:57:45,280 --> 01:57:49,000
 satisfies the locational requirement as it will be located between the lower

1287
01:57:49,000 --> 01:57:54,320
 intensity rural residential zoning district to the south and the US 380

1288
01:57:54,320 --> 01:57:58,880
 corridor to the north the proposed substation is a permitted use in the MN

1289
01:57:58,880 --> 01:58:03,200
 zoning district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the

1290
01:58:03,200 --> 01:58:12,080
 specific standards in section 537 a criteria for there have been or will be

1291
01:58:12,080 --> 01:58:16,800
 significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change there have not

1292
01:58:16,800 --> 01:58:21,840
 been significant changes in the area however a residential preliminary plat

1293
01:58:21,840 --> 01:58:27,040
 for the site located to the northwest and west of the subject site was

1294
01:58:27,040 --> 01:58:36,200
 approved tonight on the consent agenda it's PP 19 - 0 0 0 4b for the Walker

1295
01:58:36,200 --> 01:58:43,960
 track the site is zoned rr and r6 electric substations are put is a

1296
01:58:43,960 --> 01:58:48,800
 permitted use in the rr district but is not a permitted use in the current r6

1297
01:58:48,800 --> 01:58:53,000
 zoning district the purpose of this request is to rezone the site to the

1298
01:58:53,000 --> 01:58:56,800
 least intensive zoning district that permits electric substations with the

1299
01:58:56,800 --> 01:59:02,480
 approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted

1300
01:59:02,480 --> 01:59:06,880
 by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse

1301
01:59:06,880 --> 01:59:12,680
 effects for number one the streets the proposed electric substation will have

1302
01:59:12,680 --> 01:59:18,000
 very little impact on the street system in the in the area employees will visit

1303
01:59:18,000 --> 01:59:24,000
 the site once or twice a month just to perform maintenance and do security

1304
01:59:24,000 --> 01:59:29,080
 checks and black road is designated as a two-lane collector street with a right

1305
01:59:29,080 --> 01:59:34,760
 of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will be dedicated when

1306
01:59:34,760 --> 01:59:42,040
 this site plats water and wastewater public water and wastewater services are

1307
01:59:42,040 --> 01:59:46,320
 not available to the site however the use does not require water and

1308
01:59:46,320 --> 01:59:51,680
 wastewater services so no extensions of utilities will be required to support

1309
01:59:51,680 --> 01:59:57,600
 the development parks the use of the site is a non habitable electric

1310
01:59:57,600 --> 02:00:04,000
 substation proximity to parks is not applicable to this use and the same with

1311
02:00:04,000 --> 02:00:08,720
 schools the proposed use is non habitable and as such it's not expected

1312
02:00:08,720 --> 02:00:13,740
 to generate a student population that would affect the schools fire stations

1313
02:00:13,740 --> 02:00:17,280
 the subject property is located approximately 3.2 miles from fire

1314
02:00:17,280 --> 02:00:23,960
 station number two within the eight minute or less response time boundary we

1315
02:00:23,960 --> 02:00:30,520
 set up notifications for this this site within 200 and 500 feet we did receive

1316
02:00:30,520 --> 02:00:36,280
 actually we received two notices I gave one to you earlier it's for the one I

1317
02:00:36,280 --> 02:00:40,680
 gave to you earlier was for tonight was for the SUP however I talked to the

1318
02:00:40,680 --> 02:00:43,480
 gentleman he's here tonight and he said he is actually against the zoning as

1319
02:00:43,480 --> 02:00:48,760
 well the second one is active is located within the ETJ and it's this

1320
02:00:48,760 --> 02:00:54,280
 property right here the property you see in red is located in the city and it is

1321
02:00:54,280 --> 02:01:02,160
 represents 5% of the land area within the 500 foot boundary a neighborhood

1322
02:01:02,160 --> 02:01:07,320
 meeting was not held for this staff recommends approval of the request as it

1323
02:01:07,320 --> 02:01:12,560
 complies with the criteria in section 2 4 5 e of the Denton Development Code for

1324
02:01:12,560 --> 02:01:18,200
 approval of all applications as well as section 272 D of the DDC for approval of

1325
02:01:18,200 --> 02:01:27,560
 a zoning change we'll move on now to the SUP s 19 - 0 0 1 1 and this is a request

1326
02:01:27,560 --> 02:01:31,880
 for a specific use permit to permit an electric substation in the same location

1327
02:01:31,880 --> 02:01:38,320
 as I just highlighted on the north side of black there are you specific criteria

1328
02:01:38,320 --> 02:01:45,880
 for electric substations in table 5.2 a the table of permitted uses in the DDC

1329
02:01:45,880 --> 02:01:53,920
 if the following criteria in section 5 3 7 a is not satisfied a specific use

1330
02:01:53,920 --> 02:02:00,080
 permit will be necessary to in order to use the site for a substation the first

1331
02:02:00,080 --> 02:02:03,960
 criteria is the use of the property is associated with a City Council approved

1332
02:02:03,960 --> 02:02:08,800
 capital improvements plan or other City approved master plan and this is not

1333
02:02:08,800 --> 02:02:15,640
 part of a CIP plan number 2 is a public hearing was held at City Hall for the

1334
02:02:15,640 --> 02:02:19,680
 selection of the site public hearing was to include written notice of the public

1335
02:02:19,680 --> 02:02:24,080
 hearing to property owners within 200 feet and physical addresses within 500

1336
02:02:24,080 --> 02:02:28,600
 feet at least 12 days prior to the public hearing a sign advertising the

1337
02:02:28,600 --> 02:02:32,120
 public hearing was posted on or adjacent to the property for at least 12 days

1338
02:02:32,120 --> 02:02:36,520
 prior and the proposed screening wall location and design were reviewed and

1339
02:02:36,520 --> 02:02:43,760
 approved by the City Council this this was not part of the this site either

1340
02:02:43,760 --> 02:02:48,840
 because it wasn't part of the CIP plan which all of these number two applies to

1341
02:02:48,840 --> 02:02:54,720
 the CIP plan a neighborhood meeting was held at least 15 days prior to the

1342
02:02:54,720 --> 02:02:58,960
 public hearing at City Council for the acquisition of the site this is not City

1343
02:02:58,960 --> 02:03:03,120
 owned so a public hearing was not held for this reason the applicant is coming

1344
02:03:03,120 --> 02:03:09,100
 before you with a request for a specific use permit the general criteria for

1345
02:03:09,100 --> 02:03:14,520
 approval for all applications applies to this and I went through it detailed

1346
02:03:14,520 --> 02:03:21,400
 analysis of it in your backup I just have the list here I'm going to show you

1347
02:03:21,400 --> 02:03:27,440
 the concept plan for the site Black Road is located right here this is the

1348
02:03:27,440 --> 02:03:33,360
 substation itself and it will have a masonry wall around the perimeter of the

1349
02:03:33,360 --> 02:03:39,200
 site along with landscaping here's a landscape plan which shows landscaping

1350
02:03:39,200 --> 02:03:44,120
 that is required specific for a specific use permit not a specific use permit an

1351
02:03:44,120 --> 02:03:49,360
 electric substation and the site complies with those requirements that are

1352
02:03:49,360 --> 02:03:59,160
 in subchapter 7 we also have SUP criteria for approval in section 252 D the

1353
02:03:59,160 --> 02:04:04,160
 specific use proposed is compatible with the surrounding area the site is

1354
02:04:04,160 --> 02:04:08,080
 compatible with the surrounding area given that there are already electric

1355
02:04:08,080 --> 02:04:13,360
 substations located to the directly to the west and to the north and northwest

1356
02:04:13,360 --> 02:04:19,400
 of the site you can see them on the aerial photo right here there is there

1357
02:04:19,400 --> 02:04:27,880
 are rural properties to the south and to the north and east is is the Walker

1358
02:04:27,880 --> 02:04:34,380
 track which preliminary plot was just approved last tonight the specific use

1359
02:04:34,380 --> 02:04:39,440
 proposed has minimal impacts on future development in the area the property to

1360
02:04:39,440 --> 02:04:43,000
 the northeast and east of the site is undeveloped and is expected to develop

1361
02:04:43,000 --> 02:04:47,120
 it's a single-family subdivision per the design standards for electric

1362
02:04:47,120 --> 02:04:54,040
 substations and 7 13 7 amazingly screen masonry screening wall with a 20-foot

1363
02:04:54,040 --> 02:04:57,720
 clearance zone is required around substations with an additional landscape

1364
02:04:57,720 --> 02:05:04,120
 buffer next to the clearance zone excuse me and I do want to point out that per

1365
02:05:04,120 --> 02:05:08,480
 the preliminary plot for the Walker track this this site is adjacent to a

1366
02:05:08,480 --> 02:05:15,560
 large HOA HOA lot and there are not going to be any residences adjacent to

1367
02:05:15,560 --> 02:05:23,280
 this in the Walker track the specific use proposed meets as proposed meets all

1368
02:05:23,280 --> 02:05:28,000
 other standards of the DDC and all applicable city codes the proposed

1369
02:05:28,000 --> 02:05:32,880
 electric transformer meets all these applicable requirements any impacts

1370
02:05:32,880 --> 02:05:37,880
 associated with access traffic emergency services utilities parking refuse area

1371
02:05:37,880 --> 02:05:44,280
 noise glaring odor have been adequately mitigated this proposed sub station will

1372
02:05:44,280 --> 02:05:47,840
 have very little impact on the infrastructure in the area as previously

1373
02:05:47,840 --> 02:05:51,920
 noted the site does not require water wastewater or solid waste services

1374
02:05:51,920 --> 02:05:57,560
 there's no odor or noise associated with this proposed use the use is in

1375
02:05:57,560 --> 02:06:02,080
 conformance with the comprehensive plan in any adopted plans the subject site

1376
02:06:02,080 --> 02:06:05,800
 has a future land use designation of moderate density residential which

1377
02:06:05,800 --> 02:06:09,240
 applies to transition areas between the established single-family neighborhoods

1378
02:06:09,240 --> 02:06:12,760
 and higher density residential and commercial areas as I previously

1379
02:06:12,760 --> 02:06:18,120
 explained as previously noted the area serves as a transition between the rural

1380
02:06:18,120 --> 02:06:24,840
 residential areas to the south and the US 380 quarter to the north the use

1381
02:06:24,840 --> 02:06:30,000
 adversely impacts the health safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the area

1382
02:06:30,000 --> 02:06:34,720
 the use complies with all applicable requirements and consequently will not

1383
02:06:34,720 --> 02:06:41,760
 adversely affect residents located in the area and in the city again

1384
02:06:41,760 --> 02:06:50,120
 notification was sent out for this request we received two responses in

1385
02:06:50,120 --> 02:06:57,560
 opposition here you can see the area that is an opposition that I handed out

1386
02:06:57,560 --> 02:07:04,840
 earlier tonight which is in the ETJ and then here is the opposition that was in

1387
02:07:04,840 --> 02:07:11,600
 your packet which represents 5% of the land area within 200 feet staff

1388
02:07:11,600 --> 02:07:16,600
 recommends approval of this request as it complies with the criteria section 245

1389
02:07:16,600 --> 02:07:23,560
 E and section 252 D of the Denton Development Code and that concludes my

1390
02:07:23,560 --> 02:07:27,560
 presentation the applicant is here thank you very much for your presentation

1391
02:07:27,560 --> 02:07:33,920
 Cindy I just wanted to update the record that the public hearing for item 5 BZ 19

1392
02:07:33,920 --> 02:07:39,120
 has been open and I will officially open item 5 CS 19 the public hearing open for

1393
02:07:39,120 --> 02:07:43,000
 that item as well during this time it is a public hearing so I don't wish to speak

1394
02:07:43,000 --> 02:07:47,840
 may certainly do so we can converse and discuss about both items but for the

1395
02:07:47,840 --> 02:07:52,280
 Commission will take them separately zoning first then the SUP Cindy I don't

1396
02:07:52,280 --> 02:07:56,960
 see any questions for you this time okay thank you as I mentioned this is a

1397
02:07:56,960 --> 02:08:02,600
 public hearing for both items if you like speaking you can come on down well

1398
02:08:02,600 --> 02:08:08,920
 I it needs to come down to the mic I apologize and when you get here if you

1399
02:08:08,920 --> 02:08:14,360
 just state your name and address for the record I mean certainly sorry my name is

1400
02:08:14,360 --> 02:08:18,040
 Jacqueline Bella and I live directly across from where you guys are trying to

1401
02:08:18,040 --> 02:08:22,760
 build or where it's trying to be built but I don't understand as for opposition

1402
02:08:22,760 --> 02:08:29,160
 only receiving two because myself and my husband we've opposed it we dropped it

1403
02:08:29,160 --> 02:08:35,280
 off at the location I have copies of the opposition that was sent out or dropped

1404
02:08:35,280 --> 02:08:40,440
 off and so I don't understand how there was only like one or two oppositions did

1405
02:08:40,440 --> 02:08:44,800
 did you and do you and your husband represent the same property yes so we

1406
02:08:44,800 --> 02:08:49,220
 highlighted property in opposition not necessarily individuals in opposition

1407
02:08:49,220 --> 02:08:56,040
 okay no but then we'd have within that 200 foot boundary we'd have our house

1408
02:08:56,040 --> 02:09:01,840
 our neighbor would be three people three residents I can ask Cindy what

1409
02:09:01,840 --> 02:09:07,680
 responses you received did you receive three different resident opposition

1410
02:09:07,680 --> 02:09:13,560
 you know you've got in your hands what I received I have I didn't receive

1411
02:09:13,560 --> 02:09:18,880
 anything else I have it on the log to where I signed that day dropping off

1412
02:09:18,880 --> 02:09:32,560
 here's my so it only includes one house for one house from the impression we

1413
02:09:32,560 --> 02:09:37,720
 received we received one property and then one ECJ property okay because we

1414
02:09:37,720 --> 02:09:41,800
 have two houses on our property and my mother-in-law lives in one of them too so

1415
02:09:41,800 --> 02:09:45,680
 does her vote count as well we can certainly receive the opposition stated

1416
02:09:45,680 --> 02:09:48,920
 this evening and then if there's any formal updates we can make going to

1417
02:09:48,920 --> 02:09:54,300
 council yes ultimately the the opposition percentage wouldn't apply

1418
02:09:54,300 --> 02:09:59,160
 from a supermature that the opposition is primarily used to see if we need a

1419
02:09:59,160 --> 02:10:03,520
 supermajority for a vote at council so we can certainly hear the opposition

1420
02:10:03,520 --> 02:10:08,240
 tonight and then if that threshold of five percent that you saw this evening

1421
02:10:08,240 --> 02:10:14,560
 goes to 20% it forces a supermajority at City Council

1422
02:10:14,560 --> 02:10:32,200
 then my other concern it can I continue absolutely sorry this is new to me I've

1423
02:10:32,200 --> 02:10:36,080
 never done this so sorry so currently right now you'll see when you saw the

1424
02:10:36,080 --> 02:10:41,280
 above the aerial view our property would be this is how it looks like whenever

1425
02:10:41,280 --> 02:10:47,000
 you're at our facility I mean walk out our side over to work yeah can we pull

1426
02:10:47,000 --> 02:10:52,440
 up a map and then ma'am would be helpful is that felt right next to you if you

1427
02:10:52,440 --> 02:10:56,160
 just put this picture okay and it'll okay we'll broadcast that everyone

1428
02:10:56,160 --> 02:11:05,040
 watching and then before we turn the eye of the sky on ma'am can you point

1429
02:11:05,040 --> 02:11:10,960
 generally on this map so you see where the yellow is our property is right

1430
02:11:10,960 --> 02:11:16,960
 across the streets so what what their entrance is on there so you see the

1431
02:11:16,960 --> 02:11:20,680
 didn't like right here this is a substation that's supposedly was

1432
02:11:20,680 --> 02:11:24,160
 supposed to be removed within two years because we bought the property and then

1433
02:11:24,160 --> 02:11:27,240
 we were told that within two years didn't electric would be removing the

1434
02:11:27,240 --> 02:11:33,200
 substation and so whenever we walk outside our door this is what we see so

1435
02:11:33,200 --> 02:11:37,080
 that's why I kind of just don't really understand why we would need pretty much

1436
02:11:37,080 --> 02:11:43,000
 three substations in the same area and the road I mean it's you know brings an

1437
02:11:43,000 --> 02:11:47,320
 issue of drainage you know with whenever we're bringing in if you're gonna bring

1438
02:11:47,320 --> 02:11:52,680
 in another substation and then also with you're saying the landscaping it's great

1439
02:11:52,680 --> 02:11:55,920
 for everybody else but when it's directly across from our street you'll

1440
02:11:55,920 --> 02:12:00,880
 see that you know it's the driveway I mean you'll see it's just the entryways

1441
02:12:00,880 --> 02:12:14,440
 so for example that's their gate for one of the substations next to it like

1442
02:12:14,440 --> 02:12:19,240
 directly behind it so if a gate like that is being in front of our house it

1443
02:12:19,240 --> 02:12:24,920
 really doesn't mean it's you know it'd be hard to sell later our property value

1444
02:12:24,920 --> 02:12:29,960
 and just kind of decreases and if we would have known ahead of time about the

1445
02:12:29,960 --> 02:12:34,600
 substation because especially having three of them we were told that the

1446
02:12:34,600 --> 02:12:39,440
 other one was going to be removed it just adds concern for our value of our

1447
02:12:39,440 --> 02:12:44,960
 house drainage and you know I know everyone's saying yeah there's no

1448
02:12:44,960 --> 02:12:50,120
 conclusive evidence or whatever about health and safety but I don't I mean

1449
02:12:50,120 --> 02:12:55,640
 honestly would you want to put your kids there you know we have kids and stuff

1450
02:12:55,640 --> 02:13:01,120
 that you know just doesn't sit well with me on that part and just I don't

1451
02:13:01,120 --> 02:13:06,080
 understand why we'd have to have for Denton Electric and Encore to have two

1452
02:13:06,080 --> 02:13:12,360
 so you know separate substations this picture is off Gisling correct and then

1453
02:13:12,360 --> 02:13:15,760
 your property there's there's two properties directly across the street is

1454
02:13:15,760 --> 02:13:21,400
 yours on the west or the east of those two houses my mine's directly south of

1455
02:13:21,400 --> 02:13:27,080
 it so I have two I have two houses on my property and then here I'll show you

1456
02:13:27,080 --> 02:13:29,280
 another

1457
02:13:29,280 --> 02:13:49,360
 so it just kind of gives a sight for sore eyes so when you're walking out and

1458
02:13:49,360 --> 02:13:53,320
 you're hoping that they're going to remove it now you're we're here to see

1459
02:13:53,320 --> 02:13:57,400
 if we can approve another substation it just kind of adds for concern on top of

1460
02:13:57,400 --> 02:14:02,960
 how much you know if you have two substations how are you you know what's

1461
02:14:02,960 --> 02:14:07,600
 you know really 100% can you guarantee me that's not going to affect someone's

1462
02:14:07,600 --> 02:14:11,440
 health or a kid's health later in life sure we do have a question for you

1463
02:14:11,440 --> 02:14:20,440
 mr. Pernetta your property it was the area that's immediately below the correct

1464
02:14:20,440 --> 02:14:26,080
 where your where the driveways would be or the entry to this facility and the

1465
02:14:26,080 --> 02:14:29,440
 second was you've mentioned a few times that you were under the impression that

1466
02:14:29,440 --> 02:14:35,160
 the substation would be moving the old substation where did that communication

1467
02:14:35,160 --> 02:14:39,920
 come whenever we're purchasing the house they were telling us and the city or

1468
02:14:39,920 --> 02:14:46,880
 from the realtor from the realtor and from the owner the owner because it's no

1469
02:14:46,880 --> 02:14:51,000
 longer on but it did kick on last year in the wintertime and I'm telling you

1470
02:14:51,000 --> 02:14:54,520
 can feel it I was kind of I was worried about it at first I was like do you feel

1471
02:14:54,520 --> 02:15:00,200
 that you could feel this when you can feel yourself vibrating and I just I

1472
02:15:00,200 --> 02:15:03,740
 didn't sit well with me and so usually I mean we only probably felt it maybe two

1473
02:15:03,740 --> 02:15:08,360
 nights last summer last winter but other than that haven't seen it kick on the

1474
02:15:08,360 --> 02:15:14,120
 old substation this one that's right here but you could feel it when they

1475
02:15:14,120 --> 02:15:21,040
 kicked it on well I appreciate you coming to give us some context to the

1476
02:15:21,040 --> 02:15:27,120
 situation Cindy can I ask you a quick question are both substations active is

1477
02:15:27,120 --> 02:15:31,640
 there plans to shut either or any of those down to the knowledge that you

1478
02:15:31,640 --> 02:15:38,840
 have during staff review the DAT review I had heard that the older substation

1479
02:15:38,840 --> 02:15:44,640
 could possibly be removed but I had that's all I've heard okay as the old

1480
02:15:44,640 --> 02:15:47,520
 substation the one in the south of the north is the smaller one of the larger

1481
02:15:47,520 --> 02:15:52,840
 actually the old substation is right next to the subject site right here this

1482
02:15:52,840 --> 02:15:57,600
 is the one that was developed when we annex the property okay so there is a

1483
02:15:57,600 --> 02:16:03,160
 potential for that one to shut down and be replaced or well I don't know if it's

1484
02:16:03,160 --> 02:16:07,880
 going to be replaced is there is a potential for it to be shut down but

1485
02:16:07,880 --> 02:16:12,400
 that's all I've heard great I appreciate that I mean how does this affect I mean

1486
02:16:12,400 --> 02:16:16,400
 if you approve of it how does it affect the roads and the traffic traffic there

1487
02:16:16,400 --> 02:16:19,480
 because it's some pretty narrow road and the entryways if you're bringing in some

1488
02:16:19,480 --> 02:16:24,160
 big trucks to build and I just have a lot of concerns of the drainage issues

1489
02:16:24,160 --> 02:16:29,920
 that's going to impact our you know our properties as well so it has to go

1490
02:16:29,920 --> 02:16:33,400
 through a platting process apart from this in which drainage infrastructure

1491
02:16:33,400 --> 02:16:37,300
 streets traffic that all has to be addressed okay in order for them to get

1492
02:16:37,300 --> 02:16:41,320
 clearance to build whatever they're building so I can't speak to it now

1493
02:16:41,320 --> 02:16:44,480
 except that it wouldn't get built unless it meets all city requirements okay

1494
02:16:44,480 --> 02:16:47,480
 thank you thank you

1495
02:16:50,240 --> 02:16:55,080
 this is a public hearing if you wish to speak to me certainly use them if you

1496
02:16:55,080 --> 02:17:01,160
 just state your name and address you'll have four minutes to speak hello my name

1497
02:17:01,160 --> 02:17:11,160
 is Gary Castro and I reside at 3796 black road one second here I'm if you're

1498
02:17:11,160 --> 02:17:27,240
 looking at the map the panhandle and West Texas is my property first I want

1499
02:17:27,240 --> 02:17:32,000
 to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee we moved I moved

1500
02:17:32,000 --> 02:17:39,040
 to my family to the this property 30 years ago we don't get for 30 years next

1501
02:17:39,040 --> 02:17:45,160
 month and we are within the 200 feet and I'm confident that this council will

1502
02:17:45,160 --> 02:17:50,040
 represent the city of Denton and its residents interest as it relates to the

1503
02:17:50,040 --> 02:17:55,520
 substrate substation expansion more specifically consider my interest in the

1504
02:17:55,520 --> 02:18:02,160
 other residents that reside close by and who speak and address you I'm opposed to

1505
02:18:02,160 --> 02:18:08,200
 this request for the following reasons there's there's health reasons that was

1506
02:18:08,200 --> 02:18:11,640
 mentioned just a few moments ago additionally I'm just going to bring to

1507
02:18:11,640 --> 02:18:14,280
 your attention because I'm not really sure the process and how you'll deal

1508
02:18:14,280 --> 02:18:18,080
 with some of these these issues so I'm just going to state some of the concerns

1509
02:18:18,080 --> 02:18:22,760
 I know I only have four minutes so additional traffic will make the this

1510
02:18:22,760 --> 02:18:26,320
 road even more dangerous than it already is with the steep drop-offs on the side

1511
02:18:26,320 --> 02:18:32,040
 of the road some three feet deep with no curb and within six inches of the edge

1512
02:18:32,040 --> 02:18:36,160
 of the asphalt it was a dark road for the first several years of me living at

1513
02:18:36,160 --> 02:18:40,040
 this address and there have been no improvements to the water runoff

1514
02:18:40,040 --> 02:18:44,040
 drainage gullies to date and it's my understanding that that's accounting it's

1515
02:18:44,040 --> 02:18:48,840
 maintained by the county not the city it's part of the ETJ or something that

1516
02:18:48,840 --> 02:18:56,840
 fact previous expansion plans with the most recent expansion building the new

1517
02:18:56,840 --> 02:19:02,080
 substation was completed within the last couple of years we were informed that

1518
02:19:02,080 --> 02:19:05,760
 the existing smaller substation which is now being expanded was going away as

1519
02:19:05,760 --> 02:19:12,680
 was stated and that was explained to me by the city landscaping has been

1520
02:19:12,680 --> 02:19:16,760
 addressed but I think that we need to have some input we're the ones that pay

1521
02:19:16,760 --> 02:19:24,240
 the taxes there and we have to look at the substation every day I think that

1522
02:19:24,240 --> 02:19:29,200
 you know if this is inevitable you know then I'm going to speak to some of the

1523
02:19:29,200 --> 02:19:32,920
 things that I think need to be considered before it's proved again the

1524
02:19:32,920 --> 02:19:37,680
 landscaping a privacy wall or barrier not just on one side of the property but

1525
02:19:37,680 --> 02:19:43,960
 even across the street consider looking at the tax rate the appraised value

1526
02:19:43,960 --> 02:19:48,760
 rates that's being addressed consider providing city services which we don't

1527
02:19:48,760 --> 02:19:57,880
 have we don't have water and sewage the water runoff erosion when the plant that

1528
02:19:57,880 --> 02:20:03,920
 was built that they pointed out earlier within the last two years I've had about

1529
02:20:03,920 --> 02:20:09,800
 between $7500 and $10,000 worth of water runoff erosion protection that I had put

1530
02:20:09,800 --> 02:20:14,560
 on my property I think these are reasonable requests that need to be

1531
02:20:14,560 --> 02:20:18,600
 considered for the consequences the long-term consequences that the

1532
02:20:18,600 --> 02:20:23,440
 residents close by will have no option but to live with if it's improved so

1533
02:20:23,440 --> 02:20:28,680
 thank you very much for your consideration are there any questions or

1534
02:20:28,680 --> 02:20:34,440
 mr. Beck you said you spoke to someone in the city you remember who you talked

1535
02:20:34,440 --> 02:20:39,560
 to it was prior to them building it's gonna be 34 years ago I can look in

1536
02:20:39,560 --> 02:20:44,520
 files and see if I have anything that I can recover but I don't recall they they

1537
02:20:44,520 --> 02:20:50,360
 I mean we did speak to them I mean did you call city offices did you come into

1538
02:20:50,360 --> 02:20:54,320
 the city itself I mean do you remember the context of who you spoke with and

1539
02:20:54,320 --> 02:20:59,000
 no this is the only reason I'm engaged now is because the past we didn't we

1540
02:20:59,000 --> 02:21:04,200
 didn't even oppose and I can't recall what the circumstances were thank you

1541
02:21:04,200 --> 02:21:11,960
 yeah but if it helps I can look and see but I'm sure the city has a record of if

1542
02:21:11,960 --> 02:21:18,120
 there's if it's in writing you think or somebody should at least be able to

1543
02:21:18,120 --> 02:21:22,620
 because if we did find it then I would think that there'd be an option to have

1544
02:21:22,620 --> 02:21:31,360
 somebody research that in terms of plans or what was presented but that's for

1545
02:21:31,360 --> 02:21:39,940
 that consideration thank you sir I speak sir they just state your name and

1546
02:21:39,940 --> 02:21:45,600
 address for the record we have four minutes my name is Carlos Gonzales and I

1547
02:21:45,600 --> 02:21:52,800
 recite on 37 survey black it will be south of the substation that they try

1548
02:21:52,800 --> 02:22:01,080
 to build and my only concern about it is health issues because so far we haven't

1549
02:22:01,080 --> 02:22:07,280
 get any information about the risk of living too close to substation I mean

1550
02:22:07,280 --> 02:22:14,840
 other than they gonna say that there's nothing to prove that is cause cancer or

1551
02:22:14,840 --> 02:22:21,200
 anything many health issues but we're really not sure about it so that's that

1552
02:22:21,200 --> 02:22:27,840
 will be my only concern health issues for my family and I mean being like

1553
02:22:27,840 --> 02:22:37,440
 within 200 feet I guess so that that's all I would like to know thank you thank

1554
02:22:37,440 --> 02:22:40,760
 you

1555
02:22:41,680 --> 02:22:47,980
 this is a public hearing and you want to speak may certainly do so need to state

1556
02:22:47,980 --> 02:22:53,000
 your name and address yes Brian Saturday with half associates 3803 Parkwood

1557
02:22:53,000 --> 02:22:57,960
 Boulevard Frisco Texas sweet 800 under the applicant yes or representing the

1558
02:22:57,960 --> 02:23:03,360
 applicant encore one of the encore representatives with me as well happy to

1559
02:23:03,360 --> 02:23:08,560
 address any of the questions that y'all may have and also highlight some

1560
02:23:08,560 --> 02:23:12,000
 questions that have been raised by the public yeah if you want to start with

1561
02:23:12,000 --> 02:23:15,880
 answers to the questions and then we'll see if the question has any additional

1562
02:23:15,880 --> 02:23:20,640
 yep and my name is Seth Samson I'm representing encore electric right away

1563
02:23:20,640 --> 02:23:25,480
 sighting specialists our address is 115 West 7th Street Fort Worth Texas and

1564
02:23:25,480 --> 02:23:31,800
 saying I'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have for us so just

1565
02:23:31,800 --> 02:23:34,040
 off the top of my head the ones that have been brought up there's been

1566
02:23:34,040 --> 02:23:40,000
 drainage traffic and health can you speak to those three those three

1567
02:23:40,000 --> 02:23:45,280
 concerns sure and I'll let Brian speak towards the drainage he's an engineer

1568
02:23:45,280 --> 02:23:49,600
 I'm not but I'm just to address kind of the reason for this substation is

1569
02:23:49,600 --> 02:23:55,400
 essentially the the two substations that are currently serving this area are maxed

1570
02:23:55,400 --> 02:24:00,000
 out there at about 113 percent over capacity the reason for this location

1571
02:24:00,000 --> 02:24:06,560
 would be to bring higher reliability and for any type of storm or that whatever

1572
02:24:06,560 --> 02:24:10,600
 that may be the added residential growth that everyone in North Texas is seeing

1573
02:24:10,600 --> 02:24:14,880
 certainly Denton is also seen so that's the reason for the substation would be

1574
02:24:14,880 --> 02:24:21,560
 the the load in this area is growing so substantially substantially and as far

1575
02:24:21,560 --> 02:24:28,960
 as the the health concern concern so the they mentioned EMF's the I don't know

1576
02:24:28,960 --> 02:24:32,200
 how much you guys have looked at a substation but essentially a substation

1577
02:24:32,200 --> 02:24:36,760
 doesn't create any additional power that everything that's there is in the

1578
02:24:36,760 --> 02:24:41,840
 transmission line already it's already been in the area substation essentially

1579
02:24:41,840 --> 02:24:47,040
 takes the high voltage current from the transmission line it steps it down

1580
02:24:47,040 --> 02:24:52,080
 multiple times to put it into a safe state that we can then shoot off to

1581
02:24:52,080 --> 02:24:57,640
 distribution and using your homes and neighborhoods so it's not it's not like

1582
02:24:57,640 --> 02:25:01,040
 a power plant or anything like that it's not generating electricity it's taking

1583
02:25:01,040 --> 02:25:05,200
 it from the transmission lines and pushing it out to other residents so

1584
02:25:05,200 --> 02:25:13,240
 it's there's no additional creation of electricity essentially you mentioned

1585
02:25:13,240 --> 02:25:17,600
 drainage I'll let Brian comment on that what was the third one there's three

1586
02:25:17,600 --> 02:25:22,600
 there's traffic oh traffic sure yeah okay yeah and I'll let Brian speak

1587
02:25:22,600 --> 02:25:27,880
 towards that on as far as the construction wise but once once substation

1588
02:25:27,880 --> 02:25:33,040
 is built we generally have maybe one to two trips a month so it's generally just

1589
02:25:33,040 --> 02:25:37,960
 general maintenance make sure everything looks good security wise and make sure

1590
02:25:37,960 --> 02:25:42,400
 all the equipment still functioning well but yeah trip wise it's it doesn't it

1591
02:25:42,400 --> 02:25:48,080
 doesn't generate trips and out of curiosity the woman spoke about a wall

1592
02:25:48,080 --> 02:25:53,240
 wall wall sound I think it was kind of how you said it what what would be that

1593
02:25:53,240 --> 02:26:00,080
 sure so without getting into the DME site I'm not going to comment on another

1594
02:26:00,080 --> 02:26:05,280
 site as far as it's not ours but sometimes I've heard that you know that

1595
02:26:05,280 --> 02:26:10,480
 could be the generators that is old that's an old substation and any of our

1596
02:26:10,480 --> 02:26:14,080
 new substations that we've built we haven't got those complaints from

1597
02:26:14,080 --> 02:26:17,440
 residents just because the technologies so much different I'm not sure when that

1598
02:26:17,440 --> 02:26:22,480
 DME site was built but we really haven't heard any feedback from residents and

1599
02:26:22,480 --> 02:26:28,840
 substations that we've built really for a long I mean like you'd have to go long

1600
02:26:28,840 --> 02:26:35,920
 ways back to that type of technology and secondly it's encore's standard that at

1601
02:26:35,920 --> 02:26:41,040
 the wall as far as noise you measure at the wall it'd be at no more than 55

1602
02:26:41,040 --> 02:26:46,440
 decibels in comparison 55 decibels is the equivalent of a inside voice

1603
02:26:46,440 --> 02:26:52,500
 conversation so it it's not something that we've heard a lot of feedback from

1604
02:26:52,500 --> 02:27:00,520
 residents so that's kind of where we stand on the noise okay thank you to to

1605
02:27:00,520 --> 02:27:05,460
 address the the drainage concerns you know as part of the the continuing

1606
02:27:05,460 --> 02:27:10,680
 process for this project you know we will be going through after SUP phase

1607
02:27:10,680 --> 02:27:14,640
 would move into full site plan and engineering and follow all the

1608
02:27:14,640 --> 02:27:19,240
 appropriate city standards manuals drainage analysis and construction

1609
02:27:19,240 --> 02:27:24,160
 documents that will all be addressed I do understand his concern the the

1610
02:27:24,160 --> 02:27:28,360
 drainage is a difficult site there's there's a culvert under black so we'll

1611
02:27:28,360 --> 02:27:31,680
 make sure and take appropriate consideration provide necessary

1612
02:27:31,680 --> 02:27:36,960
 detention if that's warranted by drainage analysis and take that into

1613
02:27:36,960 --> 02:27:41,960
 consideration on the traffic side Seth mentioned that during operation of the

1614
02:27:41,960 --> 02:27:45,840
 station there's very little traffic on the construction side you do have

1615
02:27:45,840 --> 02:27:52,000
 significant traffic coming in building the station but encore has a good list

1616
02:27:52,000 --> 02:27:57,840
 of approved contractors that are reputable experienced in building this

1617
02:27:57,840 --> 02:28:02,440
 kind of facility understanding exactly what encore needs and they do you know

1618
02:28:02,440 --> 02:28:07,760
 obviously work with cities inspectors on you know keeping traffic control as

1619
02:28:07,760 --> 02:28:13,320
 necessary keeping the street clean of mud debris anything washing out on the

1620
02:28:13,320 --> 02:28:18,880
 drive keeping the SWIP in place up to good standards so I know your your

1621
02:28:18,880 --> 02:28:24,200
 inspectors will be on them for that and they'll comply what's the general

1622
02:28:24,200 --> 02:28:30,760
 timeline for a substation build out the the main grading operation I think takes

1623
02:28:30,760 --> 02:28:37,880
 about six weeks after that for the equipment maybe another six to eight

1624
02:28:37,880 --> 02:28:43,720
 weeks bringing in some of the larger pieces you know encore does have

1625
02:28:43,720 --> 02:28:49,320
 logistics teams that that make sure you know everything can move into the site

1626
02:28:49,320 --> 02:28:54,480
 as necessary to bring in the control center or some of the larger pieces and

1627
02:28:54,480 --> 02:28:58,600
 there's already there's already been work done in the area you know with the

1628
02:28:58,600 --> 02:29:03,200
 other substations and the transmission line so you know encore is experienced in

1629
02:29:03,200 --> 02:29:08,400
 working with that and following all rules that will be required okay thank

1630
02:29:08,400 --> 02:29:11,280
 you very much yes sir I'm gonna ask Richard real fast

1631
02:29:11,280 --> 02:29:21,360
 commissioner to add a status to the substations if you look at sort of

1632
02:29:21,360 --> 02:29:26,680
 northwest of the site that's being considered that's the city's Arco

1633
02:29:26,680 --> 02:29:32,920
 substation that was recently constructed the to the south of that that substation

1634
02:29:32,920 --> 02:29:37,960
 interestingly enough is two parcels part one a small northern piece is the city

1635
02:29:37,960 --> 02:29:44,840
 of Denton the southern part and then the property to the west is TNPR Texas

1636
02:29:44,840 --> 02:29:48,760
 municipal power that station has already that substation has already been

1637
02:29:48,760 --> 02:29:53,280
 de-energized and so the intent was once the Arco substation was up and going

1638
02:29:53,280 --> 02:29:57,320
 they would de-energize that which has occurred and then that equipment would

1639
02:29:57,320 --> 02:30:04,000
 be removed is there a timeline in that removal that I don't have I don't see

1640
02:30:04,000 --> 02:30:09,160
 other questions for you thank you being here this is a public hearing anyone

1641
02:30:09,160 --> 02:30:12,600
 wishing to speak may certainly do so

1642
02:30:12,600 --> 02:30:21,560
 seeing none I'll close the public hearing for both 5b and 5c and then turn

1643
02:30:21,560 --> 02:30:27,480
 today as for discussion or a motion we'll take in terms of a motion we will

1644
02:30:27,480 --> 02:30:35,880
 take 5b first and independent of the other item kirsten pernetta

1645
02:30:35,880 --> 02:30:42,720
 just wanted to clarify for the residents around that what's proposed for the for

1646
02:30:42,720 --> 02:30:47,720
 the zoning what we are voting on today is simply the zoning and the SCP the

1647
02:30:47,720 --> 02:30:49,960
 concerns that they have about drainage and everything like that would be

1648
02:30:49,960 --> 02:30:56,280
 something that they could address at a later time so typically that wouldn't be

1649
02:30:56,280 --> 02:30:59,960
 a public hearing but there'd be an opportunity to review and speak into but

1650
02:30:59,960 --> 02:31:06,560
 during the plotting period it's just many technical specs okay the plot would

1651
02:31:06,560 --> 02:31:09,800
 be brought back in front of his body

1652
02:31:17,360 --> 02:31:24,000
 so I appreciate the residents coming out I had a friend or have a friend that

1653
02:31:24,000 --> 02:31:27,200
 lives on Black Road actually on Beatty Bend I think it's called to the west of

1654
02:31:27,200 --> 02:31:32,560
 the island so I'll throw with that area and I know that it's not the greatest of

1655
02:31:32,560 --> 02:31:36,560
 roads I'd love to see that improved or at least wind a little bit especially when

1656
02:31:36,560 --> 02:31:41,480
 two cars are going next to each other can be precarious but I do see the need

1657
02:31:41,480 --> 02:31:46,080
 and and getting the substation taken care of I would highly encourage the

1658
02:31:46,080 --> 02:31:52,720
 city to get on that's been de-energized whoever needs to be addressed let's

1659
02:31:52,720 --> 02:31:58,200
 clear that out that's crazy in my opinion to still have a de-energized

1660
02:31:58,200 --> 02:32:02,960
 substation just sitting there as a plight but considering that this is a

1661
02:32:02,960 --> 02:32:08,800
 need and there's it seems like a plausible location I'm going to move to

1662
02:32:08,800 --> 02:32:16,240
 approve the item understanding that drainage traffic landscaping all those

1663
02:32:16,240 --> 02:32:20,000
 will come back to a plot and must be up to state standards for this to move

1664
02:32:20,000 --> 02:32:24,520
 forward but I'm glad to hear that the noise isn't an issue and the health

1665
02:32:24,520 --> 02:32:30,720
 shouldn't be a concern as far as I understand it so with that I move to

1666
02:32:30,720 --> 02:32:39,800
 approve item 5B. I will second yeah I think it's necessary infrastructure I

1667
02:32:39,800 --> 02:32:44,560
 think concerns have been addressed with with the newer technology concur

1668
02:32:44,560 --> 02:32:49,520
 absolutely that we need to get on the de-energized substation that's there but

1669
02:32:49,520 --> 02:32:56,000
 yeah I will second to it. If I can add just for Encore specifically from the

1670
02:32:56,000 --> 02:33:01,360
 pictures shown the the DME site or whoever owns the northwestern site looks

1671
02:33:01,360 --> 02:33:05,360
 like has a nice brick facade out front and the gate and I don't know the plans

1672
02:33:05,360 --> 02:33:10,880
 are but maybe it'd be nice to have a visual barrier in front of the

1673
02:33:10,880 --> 02:33:14,680
 substation I don't know what Encore's policies are but having some sort of

1674
02:33:14,680 --> 02:33:23,120
 visual barrier might be helpful. We intend to meet City of Denton's screening

1675
02:33:23,120 --> 02:33:27,400
 requirements. Denton's actually unique as far as cities go that you guys actually

1676
02:33:27,400 --> 02:33:34,520
 have a specific substation designation and ordinances surrounding that a lot

1677
02:33:34,520 --> 02:33:39,720
 of a lot of cities don't have that so those ordinances we we intend to comply

1678
02:33:39,720 --> 02:33:45,720
 with and as far as landscaping and screen wall the the the screen wall

1679
02:33:45,720 --> 02:33:50,240
 there's a lot of different options for what that can look like as well so yeah

1680
02:33:50,240 --> 02:33:56,520
 we intend to meet you guys on this. Great. Thank you. We do have a first and second

1681
02:33:56,520 --> 02:34:06,080
 on the item. Is there any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board.

1682
02:34:06,080 --> 02:34:17,520
 Motion carries 6-0 that moves us to our next item 5-C it's the SGP attached to

1683
02:34:17,520 --> 02:34:24,120
 this zoning case and the chair will again entertain a new discussion and/or a

1684
02:34:24,120 --> 02:34:30,480
 motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first

1685
02:34:30,480 --> 02:34:35,200
 and a second for approval is there any discussion on the item? Seeing none I'll

1686
02:34:35,200 --> 02:34:37,960
 call for a vote on the board.

1687
02:34:41,720 --> 02:34:52,600
 Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5-D DCA 19-0015. I will open the

1688
02:34:52,600 --> 02:34:57,000
 public hearing and call Ron McGuida for a presentation.

1689
02:35:09,640 --> 02:35:14,400
 Just real quick just trying to find a presentation here.

1690
02:35:14,400 --> 02:35:27,960
 Thank you chair members of Commission Ron McGuida with Development Services

1691
02:35:27,960 --> 02:35:32,800
 principal planner brought forward to you for consideration this evening is a city

1692
02:35:32,800 --> 02:35:39,780
 initiated code amendment regarding rezonings with overlay conditions to way

1693
02:35:39,780 --> 02:35:45,760
 of background the Denton Development Code 2009 update was adopted in April of

1694
02:35:45,760 --> 02:35:54,400
 this year with that adoption the creation of section 178 was inserted it

1695
02:35:54,400 --> 02:35:59,800
 again pertains to properties rezone with overlay conditions as it is stated it is

1696
02:35:59,800 --> 02:36:04,360
 governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning and that is

1697
02:36:04,360 --> 02:36:11,440
 interpreted as the 2002 DDC following this in September of this year there was

1698
02:36:11,440 --> 02:36:16,200
 an adoption of the zoning map and with that a zoning district transition chart

1699
02:36:16,200 --> 02:36:21,640
 in that chart it refers to again these properties that are zoned with conditions

1700
02:36:21,640 --> 02:36:26,360
 it states that all remaining zoning regulations and standards are governed by

1701
02:36:26,360 --> 02:36:35,960
 the 2019 Development Code so to clarify and to correct this conflict staff is

1702
02:36:35,960 --> 02:36:40,760
 requesting that there be a city initiated code amendment again amending

1703
02:36:40,760 --> 02:36:47,360
 section 1.7.8 we know that there are 45 properties that are zoned this way or

1704
02:36:47,360 --> 02:36:52,200
 that are now considered PDs so in order to address them as they move forward

1705
02:36:52,200 --> 02:36:56,360
 with development we want to make sure that we apply the appropriate development

1706
02:36:56,360 --> 02:37:04,920
 code and what staff is proposing is that those properties be under the 2019

1707
02:37:04,920 --> 02:37:09,840
 Development Code now those conditions that were approved with the rezoning will

1708
02:37:09,840 --> 02:37:16,800
 still be governing however anything that is not under those conditions the

1709
02:37:16,800 --> 02:37:21,900
 underlying zoning would would prevail or govern and again what we're saying is

1710
02:37:21,900 --> 02:37:30,040
 the be the 2019 Development Code that is really it it is a city initiated code

1711
02:37:30,040 --> 02:37:35,320
 amendment to provide that clarification that concludes my presentation I'll be

1712
02:37:35,320 --> 02:37:39,400
 happy to send for any questions thank you for the presentation I don't see any

1713
02:37:39,400 --> 02:37:43,720
 questions this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item may

1714
02:37:43,720 --> 02:37:49,880
 certainly do so seeing none I'll close the public hearing and certain to the

1715
02:37:49,880 --> 02:37:54,120
 days for discussion or motion Commissioner Pernetta motion to approve

1716
02:37:54,120 --> 02:37:59,400
 we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first

1717
02:37:59,400 --> 02:38:03,880
 and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for

1718
02:38:03,880 --> 02:38:06,360
 vote on the board

1719
02:38:15,640 --> 02:38:23,160
 motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5 E DCA 19 - 0 0 1 9 I

1720
02:38:23,160 --> 02:38:33,880
 will open the public hearing and invite Ron back to present thank you chair

1721
02:38:33,880 --> 02:38:40,840
 again Ronnie gave development services this is a second code city as an

1722
02:38:40,840 --> 02:38:45,560
 initiated code amendments regarding development criteria manuals as we

1723
02:38:45,560 --> 02:38:49,520
 heard during the work session we had a presentation regarding our criteria

1724
02:38:49,520 --> 02:38:54,240
 manuals and how we're creating to and we're also updating five existing

1725
02:38:54,240 --> 02:39:00,000
 criteria manuals just way background we again with the 2019 Development Code

1726
02:39:00,000 --> 02:39:07,320
 adopted an update and in doing so we looked at in provisions related to

1727
02:39:07,320 --> 02:39:11,800
 criteria manuals we revised we also updated but we also deleted some

1728
02:39:11,800 --> 02:39:16,400
 provisions related to criteria manuals what we found out was that the process

1729
02:39:16,400 --> 02:39:20,560
 in order to create and update criteria mountains was removed so what we're

1730
02:39:20,560 --> 02:39:24,520
 asking as part of this city initiated code amendment is to bring back of that

1731
02:39:24,520 --> 02:39:32,000
 process as part of this request again just to clarify the authority for

1732
02:39:32,000 --> 02:39:35,440
 criteria manuals we want to make sure that we include that but really is to

1733
02:39:35,440 --> 02:39:39,520
 establish reestablish that process in which we create and update criteria

1734
02:39:39,520 --> 02:39:45,520
 manuals we're looking to amend sections one three four as well as establish

1735
02:39:45,520 --> 02:39:52,720
 sections two eleven section two eleven this first part here as you can see by

1736
02:39:52,720 --> 02:39:59,440
 the slide anything that's underlying and highlighted is being added to the to

1737
02:39:59,440 --> 02:40:05,960
 the provision or to the requirement we want to make sure that we fully clarify

1738
02:40:05,960 --> 02:40:10,040
 that the criteria manuals are approved by ordinance and that they are

1739
02:40:10,040 --> 02:40:15,040
 established under section 211 which is one that we are adding and also we want

1740
02:40:15,040 --> 02:40:19,800
 to add and update this list of criteria manuals that we have here so that it'll

1741
02:40:19,800 --> 02:40:25,920
 be consistent with what we have being proposed the other section which we are

1742
02:40:25,920 --> 02:40:31,040
 re-establishing this as part of the procedure element or a procedure chapter

1743
02:40:31,040 --> 02:40:37,920
 under sub chapter 2 is to add this section it will contain a purpose minimum

1744
02:40:37,920 --> 02:40:42,640
 standards and responsibility and really the the key to this amendment is the

1745
02:40:42,640 --> 02:40:48,480
 procedure in which initial approvals or creations of criteria manual will require

1746
02:40:48,480 --> 02:40:52,620
 a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission as well as City

1747
02:40:52,620 --> 02:40:58,960
 Council the updates rather will just have a work session required for the

1748
02:40:58,960 --> 02:41:03,920
 update of the criteria manuals there will be opportunities for public input

1749
02:41:03,920 --> 02:41:09,400
 throughout the process and following that update or an public input process a

1750
02:41:09,400 --> 02:41:14,480
 City Council public hearing will be held to approve those updates so again there's

1751
02:41:14,480 --> 02:41:20,360
 ample opportunities for input and opportunities to provide comments in in

1752
02:41:20,360 --> 02:41:25,000
 addition with the procedure there is a legislative update section and then

1753
02:41:25,000 --> 02:41:30,120
 lastly an approval criteria in which the Planning Zoning Commission and City

1754
02:41:30,120 --> 02:41:36,000
 Council can use in order to consider the new creations of criteria manuals as

1755
02:41:36,000 --> 02:41:41,600
 well as the updates that concludes my presentation again this is a city

1756
02:41:41,600 --> 02:41:46,840
 initiated code amendment to provide authority under the criteria manuals as

1757
02:41:46,840 --> 02:41:53,240
 well as to establish the process in which we create and update our annual

1758
02:41:53,240 --> 02:41:58,840
 updates that is for criteria manuals with that I'll stand for any questions

1759
02:41:58,840 --> 02:42:03,440
 Ron thanks for presentation I don't see any questions at this time this is a

1760
02:42:03,440 --> 02:42:08,320
 public hearing anyone wishing to speak about our ordinances may you certainly do

1761
02:42:08,320 --> 02:42:13,600
 so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a

1762
02:42:13,600 --> 02:42:20,120
 motion of discussion or discussion and a motion Commissioner Beck motion to

1763
02:42:20,120 --> 02:42:24,560
 approve we have a first Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a

1764
02:42:24,560 --> 02:42:28,480
 second for approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the

1765
02:42:28,480 --> 02:42:30,680
 board

1766
02:42:30,680 --> 02:42:46,480
 motion carries 6-0 the next time to business is item 5 F DCA 19 - 0 0 0 9

1767
02:42:46,480 --> 02:42:52,240
 looking at the subchapters 1 6 and 8 of the DDC I'll open the public hearing and

1768
02:42:52,240 --> 02:42:55,800
 invite Haley for presentation

1769
02:42:55,800 --> 02:43:13,440
 all right good evening Haley's Gursky with development services so the item

1770
02:43:13,440 --> 02:43:18,360
 before you is a request for code amendments related to the gas well

1771
02:43:18,360 --> 02:43:22,080
 ordinance specifically for reverse setbacks before we dive into that I

1772
02:43:22,080 --> 02:43:25,380
 just wanted to go through some of the background information that we discussed

1773
02:43:25,380 --> 02:43:30,800
 at work session for the public so the the first thing I wanted to cover is the

1774
02:43:30,800 --> 02:43:35,560
 code amendment procedure and our new development code it does outline a very

1775
02:43:35,560 --> 02:43:39,880
 specific dual public hearing process for code amendments and allows for three

1776
02:43:39,880 --> 02:43:43,840
 entities to initiate those either the director of development services which

1777
02:43:43,840 --> 02:43:48,660
 would be a staff initiated amendment such as we just saw from Ron either the

1778
02:43:48,660 --> 02:43:51,360
 planning and zoning Commission or the City Council could also initiate those

1779
02:43:51,360 --> 02:43:56,000
 requests this particular request was initiated by the City Council following

1780
02:43:56,000 --> 02:43:59,920
 a series of work sessions and so your role in this is to hold the first of

1781
02:43:59,920 --> 02:44:03,420
 those two public hearings and make a recommendation to council regarding the

1782
02:44:03,420 --> 02:44:08,440
 proposed amendments the background that I referenced with a series of work

1783
02:44:08,440 --> 02:44:14,040
 sessions started in September of 2018 at that time council first requested a work

1784
02:44:14,040 --> 02:44:18,280
 session to discuss Denton setback policies and how that relates to other

1785
02:44:18,280 --> 02:44:23,360
 area cities and look at what increasing those setbacks and reverse setbacks

1786
02:44:23,360 --> 02:44:28,540
 would be that was followed up in July of this year with further discussion of how

1787
02:44:28,540 --> 02:44:32,440
 Denton compares to other cities and a closer look at some of the setbacks and

1788
02:44:32,440 --> 02:44:36,480
 the potential for air quality studies within the city at that time the only

1789
02:44:36,480 --> 02:44:40,520
 consensus that the council reached was to move forward with increasing Denton's

1790
02:44:40,520 --> 02:44:45,240
 reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet so staff was directed to begin

1791
02:44:45,240 --> 02:44:50,720
 revising our ordinance to in that direction development services really

1792
02:44:50,720 --> 02:44:55,760
 became a part of the process at that point in time so in August we again went

1793
02:44:55,760 --> 02:44:58,580
 back for a third work session with the draft amendments that council had

1794
02:44:58,580 --> 02:45:03,240
 requested to implement that increase set reverse setback and at that time we also

1795
02:45:03,240 --> 02:45:06,080
 brought forward other concerns that we had such as the potential need for a

1796
02:45:06,080 --> 02:45:09,500
 variance processes and the potential creation of nonconformities if the

1797
02:45:09,500 --> 02:45:14,400
 reverse setback were increased council provided direction at that time to try

1798
02:45:14,400 --> 02:45:18,520
 to draft language that would prevent the creation of those nonconformities and to

1799
02:45:18,520 --> 02:45:22,480
 pursue a combination of variance options that would allow reductions of that 500

1800
02:45:22,480 --> 02:45:27,320
 foot down to as low as 250 the final work session was with with this

1801
02:45:27,320 --> 02:45:33,040
 Commission on October 16th and that is what led us to where we are today so

1802
02:45:33,040 --> 02:45:37,080
 before I get into the what's changing I just wanted to go over again the types

1803
02:45:37,080 --> 02:45:41,200
 of setbacks that are in the code to narrow down what we're looking at there

1804
02:45:41,200 --> 02:45:44,520
 are two primary types the drilling and production site setback and the reverse

1805
02:45:44,520 --> 02:45:48,160
 setback the drilling and production site setback is what is applicable to the

1806
02:45:48,160 --> 02:45:51,200
 gas well side itself it's measured from the pad site boundaries to the

1807
02:45:51,200 --> 02:45:56,760
 surrounding uses or lot lines the reverse setback is essentially the

1808
02:45:56,760 --> 02:45:59,880
 opposite of that it's the setback that applies to the developing protected use

1809
02:45:59,880 --> 02:46:03,800
 and it's measured from that structure or residential lot line to the boundaries

1810
02:46:03,800 --> 02:46:08,280
 of that pad site the code currently does have a third type the minimum setback is

1811
02:46:08,280 --> 02:46:12,240
 a basically a subset of a drilling and production site setback so it's what

1812
02:46:12,240 --> 02:46:18,920
 that number can be reduced to after a variance or other relief is provided so

1813
02:46:18,920 --> 02:46:23,000
 bringing us to the the public hearing component of tonight the request before

1814
02:46:23,000 --> 02:46:26,760
 you are amendments to sub chapters 1 6 & 8 to implement those changes that

1815
02:46:26,760 --> 02:46:31,160
 council has provided direction on related to reverse setbacks definitions

1816
02:46:31,160 --> 02:46:37,000
 and procedures there I've kind of broken this down into four primary topics that

1817
02:46:37,000 --> 02:46:40,420
 we'll talk about the the reverse setbacks and associated definitions and

1818
02:46:40,420 --> 02:46:45,280
 measurements the nonconformity provisions that I referenced earlier the

1819
02:46:45,280 --> 02:46:48,400
 variance and relief options and then some changes to our subdivision

1820
02:46:48,400 --> 02:46:54,620
 standards that would be needed if the variance options are considered again as

1821
02:46:54,620 --> 02:46:57,320
 I mentioned there are criteria for approval for a code amendment that the

1822
02:46:57,320 --> 02:47:01,400
 DDC requires we look at there there are five of those the first being

1823
02:47:01,400 --> 02:47:05,480
 consistency with comprehensive plan and other policies the second whether there

1824
02:47:05,480 --> 02:47:08,720
 are any conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the code of ordinances

1825
02:47:08,720 --> 02:47:13,560
 third whether there is a demonstrated community need fourth the whether it is

1826
02:47:13,560 --> 02:47:17,440
 in response to a substantial change in condition or policy and then finally

1827
02:47:17,440 --> 02:47:20,920
 whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC so we'll look at each

1828
02:47:20,920 --> 02:47:25,760
 of those in turn once we go through the changes the first of those topics as I

1829
02:47:25,760 --> 02:47:29,120
 mentioned were the setback requirements themselves this is just a look at what

1830
02:47:29,120 --> 02:47:32,600
 we have in the code today drilling and production site setbacks range from a

1831
02:47:32,600 --> 02:47:36,120
 thousand to two hundred and fifty feet depending on the scenario minimum

1832
02:47:36,120 --> 02:47:40,200
 setbacks are five hundred to two hundred and fifty for drilling and production

1833
02:47:40,200 --> 02:47:43,560
 sites and reverse setbacks are currently two hundred and fifty feet in all

1834
02:47:43,560 --> 02:47:49,160
 situations what this would look like with councils recommended change would

1835
02:47:49,160 --> 02:47:52,640
 be that reverse setbacks are all increased to five hundred feet and then

1836
02:47:52,640 --> 02:47:57,360
 we would introduce a new type of setback similar to how the gas well operator has

1837
02:47:57,360 --> 02:48:01,560
 a minimum setback that they can seek relief down to there would now be a

1838
02:48:01,560 --> 02:48:05,240
 reverse minimum setback of two hundred and fifty feet for protected uses that

1839
02:48:05,240 --> 02:48:11,400
 seek a variance or waiver so we needed to introduce definitions for the the

1840
02:48:11,400 --> 02:48:15,800
 minimum reverse setback into the code so that's being added into sub chapter six

1841
02:48:15,800 --> 02:48:19,920
 that definition for a minimum reverse setback would be the minimum distance

1842
02:48:19,920 --> 02:48:23,840
 that a protected use a residential lot must be separated by a surface owner

1843
02:48:23,840 --> 02:48:27,600
 from a an approved drilling and production site or from a gas well within

1844
02:48:27,600 --> 02:48:32,080
 such site after administrative relief or other variance is granted to reduce the

1845
02:48:32,080 --> 02:48:36,080
 reverse setback requirement the reverse setback definition would then be slightly

1846
02:48:36,080 --> 02:48:39,320
 modified to strike the word minimum since there's now a variance option to

1847
02:48:39,320 --> 02:48:45,640
 reduce that and then finally with regard to setbacks the other consideration is

1848
02:48:45,640 --> 02:48:50,320
 measurement with in in the code previously there wasn't a need to

1849
02:48:50,320 --> 02:48:53,840
 necessarily consider how the measurements were taken for things such

1850
02:48:53,840 --> 02:48:57,760
 as parks because there wasn't a lot of overlap between gas well sites and parks

1851
02:48:57,760 --> 02:49:02,400
 what we found now with this increase is that McKenna Park in particular would be

1852
02:49:02,400 --> 02:49:07,380
 highly affected by this increase reverse setback it would be over 40% within that

1853
02:49:07,380 --> 02:49:10,680
 500 foot radius from the pad site so that could affect them if they seek to

1854
02:49:10,680 --> 02:49:14,680
 add additional improvements at that park in the future so whereas the code

1855
02:49:14,680 --> 02:49:18,160
 currently points to measuring from the closest point of a structure to be

1856
02:49:18,160 --> 02:49:23,300
 occupied by a protected use or from a residential lot line we would propose

1857
02:49:23,300 --> 02:49:27,200
 amending that to specify occupied or utilized by a protected use and then

1858
02:49:27,200 --> 02:49:31,320
 further clarify that for parks the setback measurement would be taken from

1859
02:49:31,320 --> 02:49:36,920
 improvement such as buildings playground equipment pools splash pads and then any

1860
02:49:36,920 --> 02:49:40,280
 permanent ball fields or courts or pavilions and it would not include flat

1861
02:49:40,280 --> 02:49:46,560
 work such as parking sidewalks and trails moving on then to our second

1862
02:49:46,560 --> 02:49:51,320
 topic which is nonconformities based on the information that was provided to

1863
02:49:51,320 --> 02:49:55,120
 council during that series of work sessions they requested that staff look

1864
02:49:55,120 --> 02:50:00,640
 at ways to reduce the creation of nonconformities so at that time this

1865
02:50:00,640 --> 02:50:04,980
 language was crafted and brought forward to council it would be added to sub

1866
02:50:04,980 --> 02:50:10,200
 chapter one of the DDC and it would essentially add a new section for non

1867
02:50:10,200 --> 02:50:13,640
 conformities for the applicability of gas well reverse setbacks that would

1868
02:50:13,640 --> 02:50:20,040
 allow reverse setbacks as increased by this ordinance to not cause any existing

1869
02:50:20,040 --> 02:50:23,800
 legally established protected use or residential lot to become nonconforming

1870
02:50:23,800 --> 02:50:27,640
 such existing legally established protected uses or lots would be deemed

1871
02:50:27,640 --> 02:50:32,360
 lawful as lawful site features lots or structures provided that the use is not

1872
02:50:32,360 --> 02:50:37,160
 closer than 250 feet from the pad site so that is essentially saying that this

1873
02:50:37,160 --> 02:50:41,580
 would not assist anything that is nonconforming to the 250 feet today would

1874
02:50:41,580 --> 02:50:45,800
 remain nonconforming it would not be benefited by this clause would further

1875
02:50:45,800 --> 02:50:49,520
 clarify that legally established would mean any protected use structure site

1876
02:50:49,520 --> 02:50:55,160
 feature or lot that is lawfully existing today or any that is a part of a project

1877
02:50:55,160 --> 02:50:59,120
 under sub chapter 245 of the local government code which would allow for

1878
02:50:59,120 --> 02:51:03,000
 projects that are in the queue right now going through preliminary and final

1879
02:51:03,000 --> 02:51:08,720
 plotting to not be deemed nonconforming and then it further specified that no

1880
02:51:08,720 --> 02:51:11,520
 additional improvements would be permitted that would decrease the

1881
02:51:11,520 --> 02:51:17,040
 existing setback you'll notice in red it says say that our legal staff does not

1882
02:51:17,040 --> 02:51:22,360
 recommend this provision so there is an option to for the nonconformities that

1883
02:51:22,360 --> 02:51:26,640
 we're introducing the rationale for not recommending this being that we would

1884
02:51:26,640 --> 02:51:29,640
 then have subsets of nonconformities across the city where certain

1885
02:51:29,640 --> 02:51:35,160
 nonconforming uses that fall between 250 feet and 500 feet wouldn't be

1886
02:51:35,160 --> 02:51:38,080
 nonconforming they'd be protected and be able to rebuild if something were to

1887
02:51:38,080 --> 02:51:42,760
 happen whereas other structures such as those that are nonconforming today to the

1888
02:51:42,760 --> 02:51:46,200
 250 or a structure that's nonconforming to any other provision of the Denton

1889
02:51:46,200 --> 02:51:49,960
 Development Code would not be eligible to rebuild if it were destroyed by more

1890
02:51:49,960 --> 02:51:55,920
 than 50 percent so that that inequality is what we're striving to not create

1891
02:51:55,920 --> 02:52:01,520
 therefore option two that staff is recommending be considered for for how

1892
02:52:01,520 --> 02:52:06,720
 to address nonconformities as council requested would be adding the following

1893
02:52:06,720 --> 02:52:11,520
 language to the nonconforming structure portion of the code and that would be to

1894
02:52:11,520 --> 02:52:14,400
 amend it to say that nonconforming structures that have been damaged or

1895
02:52:14,400 --> 02:52:18,360
 destroyed by fire or other natural causes or accidents to the extent of

1896
02:52:18,360 --> 02:52:22,800
 more than 50% of the gross floor area should not be rebuilt or occupied except

1897
02:52:22,800 --> 02:52:26,200
 upon action by the Board of Adjustment to permit the reconstruction and occupancy

1898
02:52:26,200 --> 02:52:29,760
 and then the action by the Board of Adjustment would have due regard for the

1899
02:52:29,760 --> 02:52:33,680
 property rights of the persons affected and be considered in regard to public

1900
02:52:33,680 --> 02:52:38,040
 welfare character of the area such as the structure conservation preservation

1901
02:52:38,040 --> 02:52:42,880
 and protection of property so this is actually language that was in the 2002

1902
02:52:42,880 --> 02:52:45,720
 development code that allowed nonconforming structures to be rebuilt

1903
02:52:45,720 --> 02:52:48,840
 by action of the Board of Adjustment this language was removed with the

1904
02:52:48,840 --> 02:52:53,040
 adoption of the 2019 code to be more stringent and simply say that if you're

1905
02:52:53,040 --> 02:52:57,780
 destroyed by more than 50 percent you cannot rebuild so by adding this

1906
02:52:57,780 --> 02:53:02,240
 language back in we would extend the protection not only to those that are

1907
02:53:02,240 --> 02:53:06,240
 affected by the reverse setback but to any nonconforming structure citywide to

1908
02:53:06,240 --> 02:53:11,000
 give them the option to go to ZBA to try to rebuild based on the discussion at

1909
02:53:11,000 --> 02:53:15,080
 work session I know there was there was some concern because of the addition of

1910
02:53:15,080 --> 02:53:19,320
 that minimum reverse setback definition that even those nonconforming today to

1911
02:53:19,320 --> 02:53:23,880
 the 250 may not be eligible to rebuild so we would recommend clarifying that by

1912
02:53:23,880 --> 02:53:28,840
 adding language in subchapter 6 for minimum reverse setbacks to simply make

1913
02:53:28,840 --> 02:53:32,320
 that not applicable so we could say something similar to what I've got here

1914
02:53:32,320 --> 02:53:35,360
 that minimum reverse setbacks do not apply to structures or lots that are

1915
02:53:35,360 --> 02:53:40,240
 nonconforming to the reverse setback so that would capture that subset that you

1916
02:53:40,240 --> 02:53:44,920
 all were concerned about for those that are nonconforming today so that the

1917
02:53:44,920 --> 02:53:49,480
 minimum reverse setback wouldn't apply ZBA could therefore potentially approve

1918
02:53:49,480 --> 02:53:54,780
 requests to rebuild if you are within that 250 foot radius that's just one

1919
02:53:54,780 --> 02:53:57,760
 option we can certainly look at other things if you all have additional

1920
02:53:57,760 --> 02:54:01,200
 concerns or or want us to go a different direction but I wanted to provide that

1921
02:54:01,200 --> 02:54:08,020
 as as one possible solution to what we discussed at the work session the moving

1922
02:54:08,020 --> 02:54:14,200
 on then to the third of our topics which are variances so the gas well ordinance

1923
02:54:14,200 --> 02:54:19,000
 today offers operators of a gas well site three different means to to seek a

1924
02:54:19,000 --> 02:54:23,920
 variance or waiver from the setbacks so that same option we thought should be

1925
02:54:23,920 --> 02:54:28,240
 reasonably extended to developers or owners of protected uses to allow them

1926
02:54:28,240 --> 02:54:32,280
 to seek some relief if they're if they're affected by the reverse setback

1927
02:54:32,280 --> 02:54:36,720
 so this language that you see on the screen here is simply adding in a

1928
02:54:36,720 --> 02:54:40,360
 statement in the permitting requirement procedures of the gas well ordinance

1929
02:54:40,360 --> 02:54:44,160
 that says if you don't meet the setback requirements here's where you go in the

1930
02:54:44,160 --> 02:54:47,760
 code to find out what your relief options are so this is simply kind of

1931
02:54:47,760 --> 02:54:52,520
 that placeholder and directional piece the actual variance option language

1932
02:54:52,520 --> 02:54:57,280
 would then be divided into two separate two separate options the first would be

1933
02:54:57,280 --> 02:55:01,840
 introducing the standard hardship variance process for protected uses so

1934
02:55:01,840 --> 02:55:05,760
 any operator surface owner or affected property owner could then seek a

1935
02:55:05,760 --> 02:55:11,200
 variance through this procedure ZBA does have standard criteria for approval of a

1936
02:55:11,200 --> 02:55:14,200
 variance that are stipulated in state law those would remain the same and would

1937
02:55:14,200 --> 02:55:18,000
 apply in these instances in addition to that though we would also introduce

1938
02:55:18,000 --> 02:55:21,960
 three specific criteria that would just apply to protected uses seeking a

1939
02:55:21,960 --> 02:55:25,800
 variance and that would be reasonable use of the surface of the subject

1940
02:55:25,800 --> 02:55:30,160
 property by the owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs

1941
02:55:30,160 --> 02:55:34,240
 or subdivision layouts so has the developer looked at all possible options

1942
02:55:34,240 --> 02:55:39,080
 to try to use utilize the property before seeking the variance and then

1943
02:55:39,080 --> 02:55:43,800
 finally whether it's compatible with approved gas well site plans or plats so

1944
02:55:43,800 --> 02:55:49,480
 ensuring access to gas well sites isn't cut off as an example there just for

1945
02:55:49,480 --> 02:55:52,440
 reference these are the standard hardship criteria that ZBA would also

1946
02:55:52,440 --> 02:55:56,360
 have to consider it's worth noting that any variance request to ZBA does require

1947
02:55:56,360 --> 02:56:01,000
 a super majority vote six out of seven so it's not necessarily an easy process

1948
02:56:01,000 --> 02:56:07,240
 to go through the second option is also modeled after a an existing option that

1949
02:56:07,240 --> 02:56:11,600
 operators have that is if they meet certain criteria they can get a waiver

1950
02:56:11,600 --> 02:56:16,320
 granted by staff not to the full minimum setback but to half of the difference

1951
02:56:16,320 --> 02:56:20,320
 between their requirement and the minimum so in this case that would be

1952
02:56:20,320 --> 02:56:26,000
 down to 375 feet if we split the difference between 500 and 250 so this

1953
02:56:26,000 --> 02:56:29,960
 option well would stipulate that the director could grant administrative

1954
02:56:29,960 --> 02:56:33,520
 relief from the reverse setback requirements upon application of the

1955
02:56:33,520 --> 02:56:38,120
 owner of the protected use or lot where they have one utilized all of the

1956
02:56:38,120 --> 02:56:42,480
 applicable options for alternative site designs so for a residential subdivision

1957
02:56:42,480 --> 02:56:45,960
 that would mean that they have utilized our cluster subdivision standards to try

1958
02:56:45,960 --> 02:56:50,400
 to maximize the potential of their site before seeking a waiver and then for any

1959
02:56:50,400 --> 02:56:55,280
 other protected use that would mean that they have applied essentially enhanced

1960
02:56:55,280 --> 02:57:00,280
 minor modifications so the code allows for staff to approve deviations of up to

1961
02:57:00,280 --> 02:57:04,680
 10% on almost all of our zoning criteria this would extend that to 20% for

1962
02:57:04,680 --> 02:57:08,840
 building height building coverage and then for minimum unit size and minimum

1963
02:57:08,840 --> 02:57:12,280
 parking requirements those could be reduced by up to 20% through this

1964
02:57:12,280 --> 02:57:17,200
 procedure the second criteria they would have to meet is that their site is 50% or

1965
02:57:17,200 --> 02:57:21,160
 more encumbered by the reverse setback so it would only be very specific

1966
02:57:21,160 --> 02:57:27,080
 instances where staff could utilize this to lower the setback as low as 375 and

1967
02:57:27,080 --> 02:57:33,040
 then finally along the avenue of the variance procedure by seeking to apply

1968
02:57:33,040 --> 02:57:36,140
 the cluster subdivision option for residential development through that

1969
02:57:36,140 --> 02:57:42,240
 administrative relief procedure we did see a need to to adjust the applicability

1970
02:57:42,240 --> 02:57:45,880
 of cluster subdivisions because citywide if you seek to do a cluster you have to

1971
02:57:45,880 --> 02:57:50,040
 have a minimum parcel size of five acres there would be many sites affected by

1972
02:57:50,040 --> 02:57:53,000
 gas well reverse setbacks that may be under that so we wanted to strike that

1973
02:57:53,000 --> 02:57:58,660
 requirement in these particular instances and then also citywide if you

1974
02:57:58,660 --> 02:58:02,600
 do clustering you're required to rezone your sites to a plan development so for

1975
02:58:02,600 --> 02:58:05,960
 these instances where they're overly encumbered by more than 50% we would

1976
02:58:05,960 --> 02:58:12,200
 also strike that requirement so getting back to those criteria for approval the

1977
02:58:12,200 --> 02:58:16,000
 first being consistency with the comp plan and other policies our

1978
02:58:16,000 --> 02:58:19,920
 comprehensive plan does just has a section on gas wells and it describes how

1979
02:58:19,920 --> 02:58:23,960
 protected and sensitive land uses are generally incompatible with industrial

1980
02:58:23,960 --> 02:58:28,800
 developments such as gas well sites the comp plan does not prescribe any

1981
02:58:28,800 --> 02:58:32,480
 specific setback or separation distance but it does have that language so this

1982
02:58:32,480 --> 02:58:36,840
 would be consistent with that policy that we want to you know reduce the

1983
02:58:36,840 --> 02:58:41,920
 incompatibilities thereby providing greater separation the second criteria is

1984
02:58:41,920 --> 02:58:44,560
 that it doesn't conflict with other provisions of the DDC or code of

1985
02:58:44,560 --> 02:58:48,720
 ordinances the language proposed in subchapter 6 and 8 wouldn't have any

1986
02:58:48,720 --> 02:58:53,200
 conflicts that we identified the the first option that we looked at for

1987
02:58:53,200 --> 02:58:57,080
 nonconformities that would create those inconsistencies between types of

1988
02:58:57,080 --> 02:59:01,680
 nonconformities citywide would be potentially inconsistent and in

1989
02:59:01,680 --> 02:59:05,760
 conflict with other parts of the code so we recommend against that particular

1990
02:59:05,760 --> 02:59:11,240
 option for that reason third whether it is necessary to address a demonstrated

1991
02:59:11,240 --> 02:59:15,160
 community need when the council brought this request forward they identified

1992
02:59:15,160 --> 02:59:18,200
 that there were concerns regarding community health and safety as well as

1993
02:59:18,200 --> 02:59:23,800
 other compatibility and nuisance issues noise lighting traffic vibrations and

1994
02:59:23,800 --> 02:59:28,040
 similar nuisances and they felt that the 500 foot reverse setback would be more

1995
02:59:28,040 --> 02:59:32,360
 protective than our existing 250 foot setback and that decision was based upon

1996
02:59:32,360 --> 02:59:36,920
 the results of a Fort Worth air quality study that we discussed at work session

1997
02:59:36,920 --> 02:59:41,020
 the fourth criteria is whether it's necessary to respond to substantial

1998
02:59:41,020 --> 02:59:45,200
 change in conditions or policy there have not been condition or policy changes

1999
02:59:45,200 --> 02:59:49,280
 other than that the council of today feels differently than the council of

2000
02:59:49,280 --> 02:59:53,600
 2015 as to what is an adequate and protective reverse setback and then

2001
02:59:53,600 --> 02:59:57,320
 finally whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC these

2002
02:59:57,320 --> 03:00:00,480
 amendments are consistent with the purpose statements in the DDC which

2003
03:00:00,480 --> 03:00:04,640
 includes encouraging appropriate use of land promoting general health safety and

2004
03:00:04,640 --> 03:00:08,880
 welfare of the city's inhabitants and implementing the goals of the comp plan

2005
03:00:08,880 --> 03:00:12,720
 notification was provided in the newspaper and on the city's website in

2006
03:00:12,720 --> 03:00:16,880
 October and we did receive four written responses in opposition to this request

2007
03:00:16,880 --> 03:00:21,920
 passed out at the work session staff is recommending approval specifically of

2008
03:00:21,920 --> 03:00:25,620
 option two that we looked at for subchapter one and then the changes in

2009
03:00:25,620 --> 03:00:30,600
 subchapter six and eight as provided in your backup the next step for this would

2010
03:00:30,600 --> 03:00:35,160
 be a public hearing at City Council it has been tenet noticed for November 19th

2011
03:00:35,160 --> 03:00:39,840
 at this time and I'm happy to stand for any questions Haley thanks for the

2012
03:00:39,840 --> 03:00:43,560
 presentation we do have one question for you Commissioner Beck yeah Haley thank

2013
03:00:43,560 --> 03:00:52,960
 you doesn't option be also create variability in the code by freeing up

2014
03:00:52,960 --> 03:01:00,840
 other nuisances to potentially have exceptions to go to ZBA so both option a

2015
03:01:00,840 --> 03:01:08,120
 and option B both create multiple standards in the code option a is a

2016
03:01:08,120 --> 03:01:12,160
 concern because of the distinction being made between different non-conformities

2017
03:01:12,160 --> 03:01:16,120
 option B would apply to any non-conforming structure I should say

2018
03:01:16,120 --> 03:01:20,600
 citywide so yes it could allow for something non-conforming to another

2019
03:01:20,600 --> 03:01:23,560
 standard in the code to seek a variance but it would put everyone through the

2020
03:01:23,560 --> 03:01:29,560
 same somewhat rigorous process of going to ZBA and making their case for that so

2021
03:01:29,560 --> 03:01:33,620
 it still equalizes the playing field citywide in terms of how non-conformities

2022
03:01:33,620 --> 03:01:40,240
 are treated but we'd be a change to all nuisances everywhere potentially but at

2023
03:01:40,240 --> 03:01:44,480
 the same time not necessarily because that same provisions been in the DDC

2024
03:01:44,480 --> 03:01:48,880
 since 2002 it was only removed as of October 1st with the adoption of the

2025
03:01:48,880 --> 03:01:54,760
 2019 code in my time with the city I've not seen that provision used so unless

2026
03:01:54,760 --> 03:01:58,520
 some disaster were to strike a large portion of dent and I don't know that we

2027
03:01:58,520 --> 03:02:03,520
 would see that widely utilized but it it wouldn't be a change from where we've

2028
03:02:03,520 --> 03:02:11,600
 been over the past decade at least. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair.

2029
03:02:11,600 --> 03:02:18,560
 Haley why do we use the measurement from the pad site to what we're measuring do

2030
03:02:18,560 --> 03:02:23,240
 you know why we do I'm assuming all pad sites are not created equal right so

2031
03:02:23,240 --> 03:02:27,760
 correct they do vary in size but at the same time equipment locations vary

2032
03:02:27,760 --> 03:02:31,520
 within pad sites so for for example you could have a site with multiple wells

2033
03:02:31,520 --> 03:02:34,560
 that are spread throughout the site and then you would have to take measurements

2034
03:02:34,560 --> 03:02:37,800
 from each of those well heads if we were measuring from the well head as Fort

2035
03:02:37,800 --> 03:02:41,520
 Worth does this provides one uniform measurement radius simply from the

2036
03:02:41,520 --> 03:02:45,900
 typically the fence line or the the gravel edge of the pad site boundary so

2037
03:02:45,900 --> 03:02:49,720
 it just creates an easier measurement tool because everyone's measuring from

2038
03:02:49,720 --> 03:02:56,040
 the same perimeter not from different well head locations within a site that

2039
03:02:56,040 --> 03:03:02,040
 makes sense but aren't you getting varied measurements though depending on

2040
03:03:02,040 --> 03:03:08,120
 the pad site size in terms of the the area encompassed by that radius yes it

2041
03:03:08,120 --> 03:03:12,680
 would it would vary depending on pad site size they're typically one one acre

2042
03:03:12,680 --> 03:03:16,520
 or more the code allows them to go up to I believe five to seven acres in some

2043
03:03:16,520 --> 03:03:21,600
 instances for very large sites that demonstrate certain criteria so the

2044
03:03:21,600 --> 03:03:24,920
 radius itself is different but it creates consistency within how that's

2045
03:03:24,920 --> 03:03:31,160
 measured for say surrounding developments Commissioner Beck yes thank

2046
03:03:31,160 --> 03:03:34,920
 you chair so that brings a book I have a maybe a similar question to

2047
03:03:34,920 --> 03:03:39,280
 Commissioner Ellis and that is if if we're measuring from the pad site for

2048
03:03:39,280 --> 03:03:43,680
 sort of ease of language and consistency but the pad site itself is made up of

2049
03:03:43,680 --> 03:03:52,520
 anywhere from 1 to n wells whatever is allowed by code then we have a any given

2050
03:03:52,520 --> 03:04:00,480
 pad site would have a variable amount of potential exposure risk whatever the

2051
03:04:00,480 --> 03:04:04,440
 associated characteristics of the pad site are would vary greatly from pad

2052
03:04:04,440 --> 03:04:10,720
 site to pad site depending on the exact nature of the pad site it could but with

2053
03:04:10,720 --> 03:04:13,960
 the measurement being taken from the boundary of the pad site if the setback

2054
03:04:13,960 --> 03:04:17,520
 are established at 500 feet you would have a minimum of 500 feet between the

2055
03:04:17,520 --> 03:04:20,720
 structure and the edge of the site whereas if you measure from well head

2056
03:04:20,720 --> 03:04:25,760
 one house you know a 500 foot measurement from this well head may

2057
03:04:25,760 --> 03:04:29,560
 affect certain parts of a lot may not affect other parts of a lot it creates a

2058
03:04:29,560 --> 03:04:33,760
 lot of inconsistency in measurement whereas measuring from the fence line or

2059
03:04:33,760 --> 03:04:37,560
 the boundary of the site creates that minimum that everyone is at least 500

2060
03:04:37,560 --> 03:04:41,720
 feet away from the equipment and I see the the advantages to that but that's a

2061
03:04:41,720 --> 03:04:46,920
 pairwise approach and there's not necessarily the same characteristics and

2062
03:04:46,920 --> 03:04:53,000
 features of a multi site pad site that there are to a single pad site or even a

2063
03:04:53,000 --> 03:05:01,240
 small number of well heads and so the risk and exposure of the air quality

2064
03:05:01,240 --> 03:05:05,520
 mitigation all those kinds of things will vary depending on the composition

2065
03:05:05,520 --> 03:05:09,240
 of the pad site itself and so even though yes the language would be simpler

2066
03:05:09,240 --> 03:05:13,640
 if you went from well head to well head or sorry from from the pad site boundary

2067
03:05:13,640 --> 03:05:22,440
 those pad sites are still different your risk would be different for a different

2068
03:05:22,440 --> 03:05:27,680
 composition pad site potentially but in terms of measuring and locating lot lines

2069
03:05:27,680 --> 03:05:31,880
 for developing subdivision it creates the greatest consistency and is more

2070
03:05:31,880 --> 03:05:35,920
 protective generally because equipment is located interior to the site and not

2071
03:05:35,920 --> 03:05:39,200
 directly on the boundaries of it in most cases at least the well heads are

2072
03:05:39,200 --> 03:05:42,320
 typically in the middle of the site so it does create a wider separation

2073
03:05:42,320 --> 03:05:46,080
 distance than say Fort Worth where they measure from well head to site because

2074
03:05:46,080 --> 03:05:50,160
 you have that additional the buffer of the the operational space within the pad

2075
03:05:50,160 --> 03:05:55,640
 side around there so on average when we compare Fort Worth 600 feet from a well

2076
03:05:55,640 --> 03:06:03,720
 head is more like a 450 to 470 foot measurement from the pad site boundary so

2077
03:06:03,720 --> 03:06:09,360
 our rounding that up to 500 for measurement sake is more protective by

2078
03:06:09,360 --> 03:06:13,440
 up to at least a hundred feet than what Fort Worth has measuring from equipment

2079
03:06:13,440 --> 03:06:17,880
 Haley can you pull the example I think you had on slide yeah I don't know that

2080
03:06:17,880 --> 03:06:26,020
 has a at least to give a visual of the location of the equipment yeah and this

2081
03:06:26,020 --> 03:06:31,720
 is just you know boxes on a page if you will but you know a site that has three

2082
03:06:31,720 --> 03:06:36,600
 wells on it there there's typically 50 to 100 feet of space for maneuverability

2083
03:06:36,600 --> 03:06:40,840
 around that measuring from the well head if that 500 foot radius came out would be

2084
03:06:40,840 --> 03:06:45,360
 somewhere in the middle of this rather than when you measure from the perimeter

2085
03:06:45,360 --> 03:06:49,360
 you get the benefit of that additional space sort of my last follow-up to that

2086
03:06:49,360 --> 03:06:57,760
 sort of is are the characteristics of two or more well heads the same is it is it

2087
03:06:57,760 --> 03:07:02,120
 composite or is it pairwise so the the implication of looking at a pad site in

2088
03:07:02,120 --> 03:07:06,440
 general is pairwise but and saying that there's no composite behavior there's no

2089
03:07:06,440 --> 03:07:10,720
 gestalt there's no additive behavior from multiple well heads multiple

2090
03:07:10,720 --> 03:07:18,000
 equipment multiple pumps whatever is is that true do we know that I don't have

2091
03:07:18,000 --> 03:07:21,360
 any knowledge as to what the cumulative effect of multiple well heads on a site

2092
03:07:21,360 --> 03:07:28,480
 would be in terms of of air quality or other nuisances I I can speak to at

2093
03:07:28,480 --> 03:07:32,360
 least that Council's rationale for this was based on Fort Worth study where the

2094
03:07:32,360 --> 03:07:37,520
 600 foot was found to be an adequate setback from a well head we modified that

2095
03:07:37,520 --> 03:07:40,160
 simply based on our measurement techniques as we've discussed because

2096
03:07:40,160 --> 03:07:44,000
 ours are generally more conservative and result in a larger amount of space

2097
03:07:44,000 --> 03:07:47,840
 between the well head itself and the home but the cumulative effects of

2098
03:07:47,840 --> 03:07:51,480
 pollution from the all the equipment and well heads on the site I can't speak to

2099
03:07:51,480 --> 03:07:54,880
 okay thank you we have a couple more questions so I'm gonna hop into a fast

2100
03:07:54,880 --> 03:07:59,360
 question for that for clarification when we look at setbacks do we also measure

2101
03:07:59,360 --> 03:08:03,740
 the output of each well if it's active or fully producing or halfway producing

2102
03:08:03,740 --> 03:08:07,640
 to come up with any variable distance and no the setbacks the same across the

2103
03:08:07,640 --> 03:08:10,960
 board regardless regardless of the status of a site so even if a well is

2104
03:08:10,960 --> 03:08:14,480
 closed in and not producing anything we would require the same setback distance

2105
03:08:14,480 --> 03:08:21,100
 Christian for that and I guess I want to kind of piggyback off what Commissioner

2106
03:08:21,100 --> 03:08:27,560
 Beck said so and I and I understand his concern if we had that square pad site

2107
03:08:27,560 --> 03:08:31,600
 right there and it had you know one well in the middle of it you know the

2108
03:08:31,600 --> 03:08:35,440
 potential danger in terms of pollution everything would be significantly less

2109
03:08:35,440 --> 03:08:41,760
 than if that pad site had six wells on it right and I guess the question is

2110
03:08:41,760 --> 03:08:49,920
 right now we are making an assessment that's based on simply a number and that

2111
03:08:49,920 --> 03:08:56,000
 number is in a seemingly arbitrary sense drafted from some other cities

2112
03:08:56,000 --> 03:09:02,760
 guidelines what I'm not hearing right now it is that it is anything that says

2113
03:09:02,760 --> 03:09:08,880
 that we are in any way measuring you know the output of that and basically the

2114
03:09:08,880 --> 03:09:14,200
 the the effect that pollution particulates that kind of thing from

2115
03:09:14,200 --> 03:09:18,400
 there is going to happen I mean are we do we have any mechanism that would

2116
03:09:18,400 --> 03:09:25,560
 complement that 500 in terms of making sure that the danger posed by what's

2117
03:09:25,560 --> 03:09:31,720
 within that 500 feet is stronger or weaker than any other pad site does that

2118
03:09:31,720 --> 03:09:37,080
 make question make sense I think so so the city does have inspections and air

2119
03:09:37,080 --> 03:09:41,000
 monitoring that's done for all pad sites on a variable basis depending on how

2120
03:09:41,000 --> 03:09:46,520
 close they are to protected uses and any time a release or an emission is found

2121
03:09:46,520 --> 03:09:51,280
 even if it doesn't trigger a threshold set by the state for for a release is

2122
03:09:51,280 --> 03:09:57,520
 still reported to the operator and rectified in terms of does that pair

2123
03:09:57,520 --> 03:10:02,080
 with you know setbacks increasing or decreasing from a pad site that no it

2124
03:10:02,080 --> 03:10:06,720
 doesn't at this point the setbacks are across the board for all sites

2125
03:10:06,720 --> 03:10:09,920
 regardless of size and character measured from the perimeter of that site

2126
03:10:09,920 --> 03:10:16,960
 outwards in a radius all the way around and they're just generally treated the

2127
03:10:16,960 --> 03:10:22,920
 same across the board I I don't know that we have the tools to go the

2128
03:10:22,920 --> 03:10:25,640
 direction that you're referring to without the city trying to conduct its

2129
03:10:25,640 --> 03:10:29,960
 own air emission study which council did consider and chose not to move forward

2130
03:10:29,960 --> 03:10:37,520
 with at this time and I guess that was gonna be my next question because you

2131
03:10:37,520 --> 03:10:46,280
 know as other people have mentioned you know with a stringent criteria and

2132
03:10:46,280 --> 03:10:54,400
 actual plan and basically things that are enforceable you know it 1000 feet

2133
03:10:54,400 --> 03:10:59,840
 500 feet is all is all kind of different right in terms of the effect of people

2134
03:10:59,840 --> 03:11:06,440
 around it one thing that I don't see in this and I apologize I missed the work

2135
03:11:06,440 --> 03:11:11,840
 session today that I don't see in this set of slides that we had I guess a

2136
03:11:11,840 --> 03:11:18,040
 couple of weeks ago was there was a slide that discussed the impact of 500

2137
03:11:18,040 --> 03:11:23,920
 feet versus a thousand versus I think 1200 and and what the range would be in

2138
03:11:23,920 --> 03:11:30,560
 terms of affected properties and and I guess I'll kind of toss this out to you

2139
03:11:30,560 --> 03:11:34,280
 know Richard I don't know if you'd be the one to answer this I believe

2140
03:11:34,280 --> 03:11:37,680
 Commissioner Beck had a question last time where we talked about what our

2141
03:11:37,680 --> 03:11:42,840
 liability was in terms of you know arbitrarily picking a distance when I

2142
03:11:42,840 --> 03:11:47,320
 was looking at that slide one of the things that I noticed was that in

2143
03:11:47,320 --> 03:11:51,000
 theory if we went to a thousand feet which would seem to be you know

2144
03:11:51,000 --> 03:11:57,200
 significantly more severe than the 500 looking at looking at the slide and in

2145
03:11:57,200 --> 03:12:00,520
 terms of the impact that it had on the properties when I when I look at Denton

2146
03:12:00,520 --> 03:12:05,820
 proper there was there were no impacted properties right at Platts and when I

2147
03:12:05,820 --> 03:12:09,600
 looked at most of what's developed in Denton we didn't see that now going to a

2148
03:12:09,600 --> 03:12:14,720
 thousand feet we would see a significant number of impacted you know properties

2149
03:12:14,720 --> 03:12:22,200
 that that are non-developed right now to our to our south and west I guess one of

2150
03:12:22,200 --> 03:12:25,920
 the things that that concerns me is right now whether it's 500 feet or a

2151
03:12:25,920 --> 03:12:33,680
 thousand feet it seems like we would be negligent by not taking the maximum for

2152
03:12:33,680 --> 03:12:38,060
 undeveloped properties because we know that people in the city are not going to

2153
03:12:38,060 --> 03:12:42,200
 get new wells we know that they're not going to be significantly more impacted

2154
03:12:42,200 --> 03:12:45,920
 but the decision that we make are going to be making are going to be impacting

2155
03:12:45,920 --> 03:12:53,840
 future residents of Denton right and I guess my concern on this one is if we

2156
03:12:53,840 --> 03:13:00,000
 pass a 500 as opposed to a thousand the people who live in town right now are

2157
03:13:00,000 --> 03:13:04,280
 already there nothing's really going to happen with them but I want to figure

2158
03:13:04,280 --> 03:13:08,920
 out what we can do to make sure that we're providing safety for future Denton

2159
03:13:08,920 --> 03:13:15,900
 citizens to come does that make sense to do I know that there's a and we can

2160
03:13:15,900 --> 03:13:18,520
 probably you know I'll defer to ever because I know there's people waiting

2161
03:13:18,520 --> 03:13:21,440
 but we'll I'll ask some other questions on that I'm sorry I'll go ahead to that

2162
03:13:21,440 --> 03:13:26,480
 I'm going to ramble sorry. Commissioner Anderson well as of now we haven't had

2163
03:13:26,480 --> 03:13:33,200
 any case studies in medical issues come across about any issues medical issues

2164
03:13:33,200 --> 03:13:38,520
 about being 250 feet correct not certainly not in Denton there haven't

2165
03:13:38,520 --> 03:13:43,200
 been any studies of that nature of any reports that I'm aware of there are

2166
03:13:43,200 --> 03:13:46,920
 studies from other other states in other areas that that indicate there may be

2167
03:13:46,920 --> 03:13:51,640
 potential health ramifications from it but there's nothing definitive for this

2168
03:13:51,640 --> 03:13:56,360
 area that I'm aware of so why would we now just decide to try to make it five

2169
03:13:56,360 --> 03:13:59,960
 hundred feet or a thousand feet when we haven't had any issues I mean I have no

2170
03:13:59,960 --> 03:14:04,800
 problem doing it on future developments you know future wells and stuff like

2171
03:14:04,800 --> 03:14:09,400
 this you know to add the language in there but for existing I think like I

2172
03:14:09,400 --> 03:14:12,360
 said earlier you know you're trying to change rules of the ballgame during the

2173
03:14:12,360 --> 03:14:17,360
 game and I think that's going to affect several people but I mean if we could do

2174
03:14:17,360 --> 03:14:21,080
 this to future developments I'd have no problem with that but existing properties

2175
03:14:21,080 --> 03:14:30,600
 I think that's kind of an issue that's my question back so to get a Commissioner

2176
03:14:30,600 --> 03:14:37,520
 Anderson's question do we feel that studies that have been done at different

2177
03:14:37,520 --> 03:14:41,920
 deposits in the Barnett shale at different deposits at any national gas

2178
03:14:41,920 --> 03:14:47,720
 field across the country are somehow substantially inferior or worse than

2179
03:14:47,720 --> 03:14:54,560
 studies that would be performed here in Denton itself certainly not an expert on

2180
03:14:54,560 --> 03:14:58,520
 the matter my understanding from from staff and from conversations that have

2181
03:14:58,520 --> 03:15:02,680
 been had with the TCEQ is that the Barnett shale is simply a different

2182
03:15:02,680 --> 03:15:06,200
 geology than other basins in say Colorado or Pennsylvania or elsewhere

2183
03:15:06,200 --> 03:15:12,080
 where natural gas production occurs so speaking to what what air pollutants and

2184
03:15:12,080 --> 03:15:16,320
 health effects may occur there could be radically different here but my

2185
03:15:16,320 --> 03:15:20,160
 understanding is that the TCEQ hasn't felt the need to commission studies for

2186
03:15:20,160 --> 03:15:25,600
 the Barnett shale and and they wouldn't necessarily support or accept those

2187
03:15:25,600 --> 03:15:29,200
 studies if they were conducted by an entity other than themselves and no

2188
03:15:29,200 --> 03:15:33,280
 other studies have been conducted in the Barnett shale I actually happen to know

2189
03:15:33,280 --> 03:15:37,280
 that's not true but they could have been done they have not been done in Denton

2190
03:15:37,280 --> 03:15:42,160
 is what I'm trying to say Denton Denton has not commissioned such a study and

2191
03:15:42,160 --> 03:15:46,360
 council chose not to at this time I'm gonna interrupt real fast Haley and I

2192
03:15:46,360 --> 03:15:51,200
 think we have to have to consider a couple things here one I don't know if I

2193
03:15:51,200 --> 03:15:55,360
 would necessarily say was an arbitrary number I think when council looked at

2194
03:15:55,360 --> 03:15:58,280
 this they looked at a variety of measurements I think they looked it was

2195
03:15:58,280 --> 03:16:01,120
 five hundred a thousand fifteen hundred and there were two things that they

2196
03:16:01,120 --> 03:16:05,760
 really looked at one the risk associated with inverse condemnation I think that

2197
03:16:05,760 --> 03:16:10,000
 we talked about that that earlier taste part of the work session and what was

2198
03:16:10,000 --> 03:16:14,680
 decided upon was looking at that looking at increasing it at 500 feet and then

2199
03:16:14,680 --> 03:16:18,880
 using that Fort Worth study to rely upon as support if we were to be challenged

2200
03:16:18,880 --> 03:16:22,520
 and that was really that was really the policy direction that came from council

2201
03:16:22,520 --> 03:16:26,240
 and so it wasn't really whether there was additional they did not want to

2202
03:16:26,240 --> 03:16:30,480
 commission a study specific to Denton and so that was really the impetus for

2203
03:16:30,480 --> 03:16:35,080
 for this amendment it wasn't to to bring additional studies debate additional

2204
03:16:35,080 --> 03:16:39,000
 studies it was this initial this was the initial direction that we got from from

2205
03:16:39,000 --> 03:16:43,080
 council not to say it can't change in six months or in a year in two months

2206
03:16:43,080 --> 03:16:47,760
 but this is what again we were tasked with bringing forward

2207
03:16:47,760 --> 03:16:55,240
 anything else question for that and real quick I do want to you know this is one

2208
03:16:55,240 --> 03:17:00,160
 of the things where I would like to hope that before we make a decision we could

2209
03:17:00,160 --> 03:17:04,080
 possibly postpone until we hear further scientific evidence because because one

2210
03:17:04,080 --> 03:17:08,080
 of the things that you know that like Commissioner Anderson bought up was the

2211
03:17:08,080 --> 03:17:12,240
 idea of 250 feet do we know that that's dangerous do we know that it's not

2212
03:17:12,240 --> 03:17:18,320
 dangerous we had a you know kind of conversation over dinner earlier we were

2213
03:17:18,320 --> 03:17:21,800
 talking about smoking and you know we know the surgeon general report didn't

2214
03:17:21,800 --> 03:17:25,520
 come out until the 60s and we all now accept the smoking you know causes

2215
03:17:25,520 --> 03:17:29,840
 cancer now people smoked for hundreds and hundreds of years before but nobody

2216
03:17:29,840 --> 03:17:33,080
 ever figured out that it caused cancer because they died by being killed by

2217
03:17:33,080 --> 03:17:38,120
 bears and stuff right before they could die slowly of cancer but now we know

2218
03:17:38,120 --> 03:17:42,600
 that this is you know that this is the case you know we don't know what the

2219
03:17:42,600 --> 03:17:47,480
 number is right now in terms of how close to a well is dangerous but one of

2220
03:17:47,480 --> 03:17:51,280
 the things that I also want to stress is that we haven't been fracking in dentin

2221
03:17:51,280 --> 03:17:57,640
 free you know for a terribly long time you know if we haven't had studies that

2222
03:17:57,640 --> 03:18:02,280
 show specifically what the danger zone is it's going to be because it takes a

2223
03:18:02,280 --> 03:18:06,760
 long time for statistics to be put together in studies to be to produce you

2224
03:18:06,760 --> 03:18:12,280
 know good data you know we don't know exactly how many kids have asthma now

2225
03:18:12,280 --> 03:18:15,920
 compared to would have otherwise we don't know how many people have cancer

2226
03:18:15,920 --> 03:18:20,760
 now compared to how you know how many there would have been otherwise but we

2227
03:18:20,760 --> 03:18:24,680
 do know that these things are pollution and pollution is bad and it makes people

2228
03:18:24,680 --> 03:18:29,880
 sick so I kind of hope that you know we kind of start leaning towards the idea

2229
03:18:29,880 --> 03:18:34,840
 that being farther away from a pollutant it is better than bringing one closer to

2230
03:18:34,840 --> 03:18:41,240
 us that's all I want to say thank you I'm gonna ask legal to provide insight

2231
03:18:41,240 --> 03:18:45,520
 mr. chair I just I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions that were

2232
03:18:45,520 --> 03:18:53,500
 raised this evening with regard to reasonableness of the proposed 500-foot

2233
03:18:53,500 --> 03:18:59,240
 setback it is based on the Fort Worth study so it would not be considered

2234
03:18:59,240 --> 03:19:06,960
 arbitrary there is some basis for it and coming up with a different amount would

2235
03:19:06,960 --> 03:19:13,080
 be you know additional support or study with regard to to come up with a

2236
03:19:13,080 --> 03:19:18,920
 different number and as as mr. Kanoni said the direction of the council was

2237
03:19:18,920 --> 03:19:29,280
 excuse me a 500-foot reverse setback thank you I don't see other questions

2238
03:19:29,280 --> 03:19:35,880
 besides this Haley did the City Council ever get to a cost of a study was there

2239
03:19:35,880 --> 03:19:41,400
 a cost analysis done on a study that would be approved by TCQ leave it was at

2240
03:19:41,400 --> 03:19:45,760
 the July work session I would have to go back and look I believe at that time

2241
03:19:45,760 --> 03:19:50,440
 dr. Banks presented them with rough estimates just based on the the company

2242
03:19:50,440 --> 03:19:54,280
 that currently helps us with our gas well air monitoring and I believe it

2243
03:19:54,280 --> 03:19:58,360
 was in the range of 1 to 2 million depending on the scope of the study for

2244
03:19:58,360 --> 03:20:02,040
 example Fort Worth study simply looked at their 600-foot setback and said is

2245
03:20:02,040 --> 03:20:06,320
 this generally protective and that study would be on the lower end of that price

2246
03:20:06,320 --> 03:20:11,840
 range whereas a study trying to identify just without a number in mind what is a

2247
03:20:11,840 --> 03:20:16,520
 safe setback would be a much more extensive lengthy and costly study on

2248
03:20:16,520 --> 03:20:20,720
 the higher end of the spectrum I appreciate that I don't see any other

2249
03:20:20,720 --> 03:20:24,840
 questions so thank you for that this is a public hearing I do have several cards

2250
03:20:24,840 --> 03:20:28,560
 here we'll start with these but if you didn't fill out a card and still want to

2251
03:20:28,560 --> 03:20:32,720
 speak we certainly will welcome that opportunity the first card I have is for

2252
03:20:32,720 --> 03:20:38,240
 Michael Hinnan and if you could just state your name and address for the

2253
03:20:38,240 --> 03:20:44,400
 record you'll have four minutes to speak thank you commissioners Michael Hennan

2254
03:20:44,400 --> 03:20:51,520
 724 Thomas Street in Denton I live across the street from McKenna Park and within a

2255
03:20:51,520 --> 03:20:58,480
 thousand feet of the gas wells that are at Scripture and Bonnie Bray so I'm

2256
03:20:58,480 --> 03:21:08,440
 familiar with the the sites and their impact on the area when the City Council

2257
03:21:08,440 --> 03:21:15,520
 enacted the ordinance back in 2015 in the resolution preceding its its

2258
03:21:15,520 --> 03:21:22,440
 ordinance it found that significant and compelling environmental and land use

2259
03:21:22,440 --> 03:21:28,460
 compatibility concerns are associated with gas wells and it found that the

2260
03:21:28,460 --> 03:21:34,480
 potentially harmful effects of gas wells and their impacts and the production of

2261
03:21:34,480 --> 03:21:40,160
 gas fall most heavily upon the neighborhoods and properties that are

2262
03:21:40,160 --> 03:21:44,160
 adjacent to those gas wells and that's why we're here discussing this tonight

2263
03:21:44,160 --> 03:21:53,640
 and I'm here in opposition to this item because I believe that the 500 feet is

2264
03:21:53,640 --> 03:22:00,120
 not a sufficient protective zone for the health and safety of the residents of

2265
03:22:00,120 --> 03:22:07,240
 Denton the studies that I think that have been referred to and have been many

2266
03:22:07,240 --> 03:22:11,120
 of which I think have been forwarded to City Council members and perhaps some of

2267
03:22:11,120 --> 03:22:16,360
 you have seen dr. Zachariah Hildebrand for example who spoke here in Denton

2268
03:22:16,360 --> 03:22:23,720
 back in September referenced 11 studies from various areas that dealt with the

2269
03:22:23,720 --> 03:22:29,560
 health impacts of people who sometimes live only within a mile of a production

2270
03:22:29,560 --> 03:22:36,840
 site and still have significant statistical impacts on respiratory

2271
03:22:36,840 --> 03:22:46,960
 issues on issues concerning pregnancy and on the unborn and often we know that

2272
03:22:46,960 --> 03:22:56,120
 these gas wells do leak we know that the infrastructure that supplies the gas the

2273
03:22:56,120 --> 03:23:01,200
 pipes the various compressors all the items that are on these wells they do

2274
03:23:01,200 --> 03:23:08,240
 leak we've seen the studies and we've seen the pictures of these gas wells

2275
03:23:08,240 --> 03:23:14,800
 that are taken by infrared equipment that show a lot of escaping hydrocarbons from

2276
03:23:14,800 --> 03:23:20,040
 these sites so that they do have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods they

2277
03:23:20,040 --> 03:23:24,480
 have impacts on the soil because these things that go into the air come out of

2278
03:23:24,480 --> 03:23:31,120
 the air in the rain and impact the soil as well as the general environment of

2279
03:23:31,120 --> 03:23:35,000
 the areas near the neighborhoods I think we should follow in this case the

2280
03:23:35,000 --> 03:23:42,600
 precautionary principle and err on the side of caution when we put an

2281
03:23:42,600 --> 03:23:49,080
 industrial use when we allow neighborhoods to approach an industrial

2282
03:23:49,080 --> 03:23:55,920
 use as dangerous as a gas well we know they explode we know they leak and we

2283
03:23:55,920 --> 03:24:02,520
 know that they can cause impacts on our soil and our air the this proposal I do

2284
03:24:02,520 --> 03:24:08,760
 believe does not adequately address those issues certainly 500 feet is better

2285
03:24:08,760 --> 03:24:16,000
 than 200 feet 250 feet but it is still not adequate in my opinion to protect

2286
03:24:16,000 --> 03:24:30,240
 our citizens the I think but what we need to do is step back and say what is

2287
03:24:30,240 --> 03:24:36,040
 our responsibility here and that is to protect our citizens we should not allow

2288
03:24:36,040 --> 03:24:41,520
 developers to get close as we're talking about to these gas wells I know that

2289
03:24:41,520 --> 03:24:46,020
 there's some concern about whether or not this would be a taking of property

2290
03:24:46,020 --> 03:24:51,440
 rights I believe that the property rights the taking was done by drilling

2291
03:24:51,440 --> 03:24:56,160
 the gas well there in the first place if somebody has affected the ability of the

2292
03:24:56,160 --> 03:25:00,800
 use of that property it was the people who drilled the well I appreciate you

2293
03:25:00,800 --> 03:25:05,440
 being here I have one question I did not listen to dr. Hildebrandt study but for

2294
03:25:05,440 --> 03:25:08,360
 several people reference it what was the number that he concluded was a safe

2295
03:25:08,360 --> 03:25:14,000
 distance well he I think looks at at least between 1,500 and 2,000 feet

2296
03:25:14,000 --> 03:25:22,180
 that's what he concluded that's my recollection okay thank you next card we

2297
03:25:22,180 --> 03:25:25,440
 have is Jody is Mert

2298
03:25:25,440 --> 03:25:32,720
 if you just state your name and address you might want to need to pull the mic

2299
03:25:32,720 --> 03:25:40,120
 down but you have four minutes I'm definitely pulling the mic down Jody is

2300
03:25:40,120 --> 03:25:49,680
 Mert 819 Anna Street and so I am in opposition to this for similar reasons

2301
03:25:49,680 --> 03:25:57,600
 because I think the 500 is inadequate the 500 feet is inadequate so part of

2302
03:25:57,600 --> 03:26:03,680
 the Denton Development Code and the purpose the first thing that's listed is

2303
03:26:03,680 --> 03:26:11,080
 to promote the health safety and general welfare of the city's inhabitants

2304
03:26:11,080 --> 03:26:17,320
 that's that's the first thing that's listed in the Development Code as far as

2305
03:26:17,320 --> 03:26:22,080
 the mission statement is concerned and from what I'm hearing from the

2306
03:26:22,080 --> 03:26:27,200
 presentation is that we didn't really look at recent studies because dr.

2307
03:26:27,200 --> 03:26:31,920
 Hildebrand I know that's been mentioned before he provided a lot more recent

2308
03:26:31,920 --> 03:26:38,880
 studies than 2011 even cancer clusters in certain areas due to due to fracking

2309
03:26:38,880 --> 03:26:43,600
 operations due to well operations so we're starting to see that come out

2310
03:26:43,600 --> 03:26:48,560
 we're starting to see data for this now it's been long enough to where we're

2311
03:26:48,560 --> 03:26:54,200
 we're actually starting to see some of the impacts so I definitely would hope

2312
03:26:54,200 --> 03:26:58,840
 that you guys would postpone your vote until further research can be done I

2313
03:26:58,840 --> 03:27:04,120
 think 500 is great start I want to applaud the city for considering this

2314
03:27:04,120 --> 03:27:09,280
 and I think this is a discussion that we absolutely have to have I just think

2315
03:27:09,280 --> 03:27:16,520
 the scope of what city staff was asked to do was not broad enough I think that

2316
03:27:16,520 --> 03:27:23,560
 we need to have a broader scope as far as what is looked at we need more robust

2317
03:27:23,560 --> 03:27:27,920
 protection for citizens who will be near well operations I'd like to also talk

2318
03:27:27,920 --> 03:27:36,160
 about soil impact because dr. Hildebrand had mentioned that heavy

2319
03:27:36,160 --> 03:27:42,760
 metals are found in the soil near well operations abandoned well operations

2320
03:27:42,760 --> 03:27:47,920
 active well operations and so soil testing is something that's new but heavy

2321
03:27:47,920 --> 03:27:53,080
 metals radioactive materials so I think especially with protected uses like

2322
03:27:53,080 --> 03:27:59,320
 parks and schools and playgrounds you know children you know and most of us

2323
03:27:59,320 --> 03:28:02,440
 probably hear our parents and I know one of the first things my daughter does

2324
03:28:02,440 --> 03:28:06,400
 when she goes to a playground it's a very intimate relationship she wants to

2325
03:28:06,400 --> 03:28:11,120
 get in the sand she wants to search for insects you know when she was little she

2326
03:28:11,120 --> 03:28:16,160
 would put things in her mouth rocks and we're letting our kids play on

2327
03:28:16,160 --> 03:28:22,600
 playgrounds that you know like McKenna Park for example that's you know within

2328
03:28:22,600 --> 03:28:28,540
 this zone that's unsafe and you know when we figured out that Eureka Park was

2329
03:28:28,540 --> 03:28:32,640
 covered with Carson Carson engines we tore it down and we built a new park

2330
03:28:32,640 --> 03:28:39,880
 because we wanted as a community to protect our kids I think that we should

2331
03:28:39,880 --> 03:28:45,800
 do the same here we should postpone the vote we should have a broader scope we

2332
03:28:45,800 --> 03:28:51,680
 should look at the more recent studies we should not have protected uses like

2333
03:28:51,680 --> 03:28:59,320
 schools and playgrounds within 500 feet of well operations because when you

2334
03:28:59,320 --> 03:29:04,560
 think about it 500 feet and maybe it sounds like a large long distance if you

2335
03:29:04,560 --> 03:29:09,440
 are if you've ever run on a track before it's a hundred meter dash it's a little

2336
03:29:09,440 --> 03:29:17,760
 bit longer than a hundred meter dash or if you play golf it's a nine iron it's

2337
03:29:17,760 --> 03:29:25,080
 it's not a very long distance and so I would like to encourage us to perhaps

2338
03:29:25,080 --> 03:29:33,320
 look at extending the distance thank you very much I do not see any questions

2339
03:29:33,320 --> 03:29:42,640
 appreciate you being here though next card I have is for Ed soft and if you

2340
03:29:42,640 --> 03:29:52,680
 just state your name and address for the record my name is Ed so I live at 1620

2341
03:29:52,680 --> 03:29:59,040
 Victoria Drive here in Denton of tear about 32 years I had had a prepared

2342
03:29:59,040 --> 03:30:02,720
 statement which I've sent to you and I'm going to not read that unless I have

2343
03:30:02,720 --> 03:30:10,440
 time because I want to comment on some things that have been said here if you

2344
03:30:10,440 --> 03:30:19,080
 don't mind the whole process that has brought us to this point was terribly

2345
03:30:19,080 --> 03:30:25,680
 flawed and I say this because dr. Hildenbrand published an article with

2346
03:30:25,680 --> 03:30:32,160
 dr. Shug in the Dallas Morning News in November of 2018 I sent that to City

2347
03:30:32,160 --> 03:30:36,080
 Council because it was already in the pipeline that that's revision was going

2348
03:30:36,080 --> 03:30:43,160
 to happen I sent it to council I sent it to staff innumerable times please this

2349
03:30:43,160 --> 03:30:47,640
 man is a good resource he's local he knows what's going on around here have

2350
03:30:47,640 --> 03:30:57,840
 him come in and speak no response no result no outside expertise other than

2351
03:30:57,840 --> 03:31:05,000
 an outdated 2011 air study from Fort Worth if you haven't read that study read

2352
03:31:05,000 --> 03:31:11,840
 it read the executive summary and read the conclusion and see how comfortable

2353
03:31:11,840 --> 03:31:21,720
 you feel with the efficacy of that study I inquired to staff thinking hey there

2354
03:31:21,720 --> 03:31:26,520
 are great concerns in the community about the health impacts of this possible

2355
03:31:26,520 --> 03:31:31,800
 500 foot reverse setback do the developers know about these concerns

2356
03:31:31,800 --> 03:31:37,920
 staff has met with developers are they discussing this with them are they

2357
03:31:37,920 --> 03:31:42,080
 giving the developers a chance to say wow I didn't realize that let's see what

2358
03:31:42,080 --> 03:31:48,980
 else we can do no I don't know because again I never got a reply I never got an

2359
03:31:48,980 --> 03:31:55,360
 answer after repeated questions regarding to the developers know how the

2360
03:31:55,360 --> 03:32:01,640
 folks feel about this I never got an answer staff has given the impression

2361
03:32:01,640 --> 03:32:10,920
 that the only valid study is that 2011 Fort Worth air study well as you know

2362
03:32:10,920 --> 03:32:19,320
 and I appreciate your patience with me I sent you four more studies today one of

2363
03:32:19,320 --> 03:32:27,400
 those studies actually used the TCE queues own air monitors to come up with

2364
03:32:27,400 --> 03:32:33,320
 its conclusions about the impact of gas well drilling on ozone production and as

2365
03:32:33,320 --> 03:32:39,600
 I think I mentioned to you ozone is bad it exacerbates childhood asthma ruins

2366
03:32:39,600 --> 03:32:47,240
 people's lungs but that was only one I sent you three more and I hope you will

2367
03:32:47,240 --> 03:32:53,920
 look at those because the city hasn't responsibilities on your shoulders

2368
03:32:53,920 --> 03:33:06,120
 because the city did not do due diligence so with time left if you don't

2369
03:33:06,120 --> 03:33:15,000
 mind I will read my statement most if not all of the 13 pad sites and 51 gas

2370
03:33:15,000 --> 03:33:20,280
 wells on the 6,000 acres of the proposed coal hunter ranch development are low

2371
03:33:20,280 --> 03:33:25,640
 priority this is also true for pad sites and wells on many other yet to be

2372
03:33:25,640 --> 03:33:32,920
 developed tracks in Denton these low priority wells will become at least

2373
03:33:32,920 --> 03:33:38,040
 moderate priority with a new residential and commercial development and these

2374
03:33:38,040 --> 03:33:43,040
 former low priority wells may have plat language that allows the drilling and

2375
03:33:43,040 --> 03:33:47,240
 fracking of more wells and the refracting of existing wells on those pad

2376
03:33:47,240 --> 03:33:53,320
 sites we must know what which pad sites those are because of what has already

2377
03:33:53,320 --> 03:33:58,200
 happened in Denton we cannot forget the horrible experiences suffered by the

2378
03:33:58,200 --> 03:34:03,000
 residents of the vintage neighborhood constant noise and lights cracked house

2379
03:34:03,000 --> 03:34:08,160
 foundations the air filled with choking silica dust the stench of toxic chemicals

2380
03:34:08,160 --> 03:34:12,840
 and exhaust fumes and frightened children with nosebleeds headaches and

2381
03:34:12,840 --> 03:34:17,500
 asthma attacks an expectant mother who lived in the neighborhood came before

2382
03:34:17,500 --> 03:34:23,400
 counsel stood right here and asked what's going to happen to my baby we know

2383
03:34:23,400 --> 03:34:28,000
 now that proximity to gas well operations at distances of more than 500

2384
03:34:28,000 --> 03:34:34,880
 feet poses grave health risks to both the expectant mother and her unborn child

2385
03:34:34,880 --> 03:34:41,600
 this raises some questions which have to be answered before we move forward can

2386
03:34:41,600 --> 03:34:47,320
 the city assure expectant mothers that a 500 foot reverse setback or God forbid a

2387
03:34:47,320 --> 03:34:52,560
 250 foot variance is safe for them and their infants can the city assure

2388
03:34:52,560 --> 03:34:58,040
 residents that continuous air monitoring of wells is unnecessary to protect the

2389
03:34:58,040 --> 03:35:01,560
 health and safety of people living and working and playing and raising a family

2390
03:35:01,560 --> 03:35:07,520
 500 feet from existing wells and pad sites can the city assure residents that

2391
03:35:07,520 --> 03:35:13,160
 it is safe to live within 500 feet of a reef racking operation it boils down to

2392
03:35:13,160 --> 03:35:18,680
 this are you willing to take the chance that new Denton neighborhoods have to

2393
03:35:18,680 --> 03:35:24,080
 experience the same nightmare as the vintage neighborhood because the one

2394
03:35:24,080 --> 03:35:30,480
 thing we do know absolutely is that the closer we live to well operations the

2395
03:35:30,480 --> 03:35:36,240
 greater the hazards to our health and safety whether it's in Colorado Texas or

2396
03:35:36,240 --> 03:35:41,800
 Timbuktu it's been almost six years since that expectant mother stood here

2397
03:35:41,800 --> 03:35:46,920
 and asked her question I hope you'll agree that it's time to do what is right

2398
03:35:46,920 --> 03:35:51,040
 so that future mothers won't have to stand here and ask what's going to

2399
03:35:51,040 --> 03:35:58,040
 happen to their children you all can make it right by voting to postpone the

2400
03:35:58,040 --> 03:36:03,160
 adoption of this current ordinance revision please there are simply too

2401
03:36:03,160 --> 03:36:07,000
 many unanswered questions thank you very much thank you we do have questions

2402
03:36:07,000 --> 03:36:11,600
 Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. self I because we've been in session most

2403
03:36:11,600 --> 03:36:15,960
 of the day I haven't necessarily had a chance to read all those studies are

2404
03:36:15,960 --> 03:36:21,920
 those peer-reviewed studies accepted by other scientists three of them are and

2405
03:36:21,920 --> 03:36:32,080
 the fourth one which is a journalists summary of another paper if one goes to

2406
03:36:32,080 --> 03:36:38,000
 the references referenced in that article they will find that those sources

2407
03:36:38,000 --> 03:36:49,360
 are all peer-reviewed thank you Krister pernetta yes mr. so yeah you mentioned

2408
03:36:49,360 --> 03:36:53,640
 the other the request for a postponement and that's come up a couple of times and

2409
03:36:53,640 --> 03:36:57,560
 and I guess I have a couple of questions and you may not have the answer this

2410
03:36:57,560 --> 03:37:03,080
 is because I'm asking you right now you know as mr. can only mentioned this came

2411
03:37:03,080 --> 03:37:13,320
 back due to basically a political shift in our City Council right and because of

2412
03:37:13,320 --> 03:37:17,720
 that we know that any action taken by council may not necessarily be based on

2413
03:37:17,720 --> 03:37:28,520
 science but rather on political whim if my fear is this we have 250 feet right

2414
03:37:28,520 --> 03:37:33,640
 now we have a momentum to get 500 which is still not great but better than it

2415
03:37:33,640 --> 03:37:42,880
 was I have a fear that you know if we postpone and wait for 1,000 by the time

2416
03:37:42,880 --> 03:37:47,560
 it comes back to council we may not get a vote and wind up stuck with a 250 so

2417
03:37:47,560 --> 03:37:52,560
 my question though is when we're discussing a postponement to ensure

2418
03:37:52,560 --> 03:37:58,600
 that we get more data to make a decision what kind of timeline are we looking at

2419
03:37:58,600 --> 03:38:03,800
 here because I would be reluctant to push for a postponement if I didn't feel

2420
03:38:03,800 --> 03:38:09,080
 like we could have something come back within 60 days you know what I mean

2421
03:38:09,080 --> 03:38:16,960
 because what we're in November now 60 days puts us puts us at January we know

2422
03:38:16,960 --> 03:38:21,200
 people are going to start filing to run for City Council in February and you

2423
03:38:21,200 --> 03:38:27,960
 know I'm worried about that but but I'm guessing you know the oil and you know

2424
03:38:27,960 --> 03:38:32,320
 the drilling awareness group has some experts that they'd like to bring in

2425
03:38:32,320 --> 03:38:38,240
 some data they'd like to have considered can you give us an idea of what a

2426
03:38:38,240 --> 03:38:42,720
 postponement would look like and what we would be bringing back and how soon we

2427
03:38:42,720 --> 03:38:46,160
 would be able to do something actionable on that I obviously don't know how

2428
03:38:46,160 --> 03:38:52,840
 postponement would work because I would that's it's up to staff obviously to set

2429
03:38:52,840 --> 03:39:02,120
 a realistic time frame for any further discussions okay and that's as far as

2430
03:39:02,120 --> 03:39:09,360
 dent and dag helping out as we tried to do before yeah we're ready at moments

2431
03:39:09,360 --> 03:39:19,000
 notice to get whomever the city wants to talk to so as far as I'm concerned it's

2432
03:39:19,000 --> 03:39:29,120
 up in some ways to you folks to set a timeline that you feel is is workable

2433
03:39:29,120 --> 03:39:36,000
 and to work that out with staff I mean it's not hard it's it's not hard to to

2434
03:39:36,000 --> 03:39:42,440
 research this stuff as you know and there's no reason why within a

2435
03:39:42,440 --> 03:39:48,040
 reasonable amount of time there cannot be a meaningful dialogue that takes

2436
03:39:48,040 --> 03:39:54,120
 into account those questions that I asked in my statement because those

2437
03:39:54,120 --> 03:39:59,920
 questions have to be answered and I don't know what else to say in that

2438
03:39:59,920 --> 03:40:05,920
 regard and I guess my question would then go to staff I mean what would a

2439
03:40:05,920 --> 03:40:10,120
 turnaround like that be if they were to if we were to bring in some peer review

2440
03:40:10,120 --> 03:40:17,000
 studies and you know some people to testify before council on you know what

2441
03:40:17,000 --> 03:40:21,720
 the impact of a 500 number versus what else would be I just want to make sure

2442
03:40:21,720 --> 03:40:26,960
 that we the decision that we're making is you know as close to founded on recent

2443
03:40:26,960 --> 03:40:33,760
 information as possible again I think it certainly if there were to be a

2444
03:40:33,760 --> 03:40:38,720
 postponement and a request for additional studies or analysis I would I would have

2445
03:40:38,720 --> 03:40:43,040
 to take that to City Council for for consideration and recommendation again

2446
03:40:43,040 --> 03:40:48,440
 this this was an amendment that was brought on by that a request by council

2447
03:40:48,440 --> 03:40:54,960
 right initiated by them I do know at I was going to mention it it's part of the

2448
03:40:54,960 --> 03:41:01,200
 the matrix I do know at next week's work session they will have a discussion on

2449
03:41:01,200 --> 03:41:05,280
 whether or not they want to consider I think there's four or five items that

2450
03:41:05,280 --> 03:41:09,560
 that mr. So's group had brought up for consideration whether or not council

2451
03:41:09,560 --> 03:41:13,840
 decides to move forward with that again that's ultimately up to that that body

2452
03:41:13,840 --> 03:41:18,800
 as a whole that wouldn't preclude them from making changes or if this were to

2453
03:41:18,800 --> 03:41:23,560
 proceed to then come back two months later or three months later or shorter

2454
03:41:23,560 --> 03:41:27,280
 or longer with an additional amendment there's no limitation on on a city

2455
03:41:27,280 --> 03:41:31,560
 initiated amendment that's driven by City Council

2456
03:41:31,560 --> 03:41:39,200
 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. soap is always for sharing your

2457
03:41:39,200 --> 03:41:44,640
 insight you know my concern here with postponement is it's taken us a year to

2458
03:41:44,640 --> 03:41:51,040
 get where we are right now and I what I'm not understanding and help me here

2459
03:41:51,040 --> 03:41:57,640
 is why we would think this amendment isn't for the protection and welfare of

2460
03:41:57,640 --> 03:42:03,160
 the citizens I'm not saying it's a fix-all but it's better than where we're

2461
03:42:03,160 --> 03:42:11,120
 at now and it doesn't preclude future amendments to this ordinance so I'm at

2462
03:42:11,120 --> 03:42:16,320
 the moment uncomfortable with postponing because like I said this got brought up

2463
03:42:16,320 --> 03:42:32,120
 in September of 18 this is November of 19 so I'll let you speak to that I I have

2464
03:42:32,120 --> 03:42:43,840
 a problem with with it because science tells us that beyond doubt 500 feet is

2465
03:42:43,840 --> 03:42:51,960
 too close and if one does go with 500 feet though one must have continuous air

2466
03:42:51,960 --> 03:43:01,520
 monitoring of the wells that are within 500 feet of new homes how can I say

2467
03:43:01,520 --> 03:43:12,680
 they're wrong I can't and mr. Hennan mentioned the precautionary principle

2468
03:43:13,880 --> 03:43:20,600
 we take precautions every day we put on seat belts when we get in our car not

2469
03:43:20,600 --> 03:43:24,680
 because we're sure we're gonna have an auto crash because we might or we could

2470
03:43:24,680 --> 03:43:31,800
 we get home insurance not because we know our house is gonna catch fire but

2471
03:43:31,800 --> 03:43:38,280
 just in case it does you follow my drift we go to the doctor when we feel great

2472
03:43:38,280 --> 03:43:43,920
 because we want to make sure we're not getting sick that cut same kind of thing

2473
03:43:43,920 --> 03:43:48,460
 needs to be instituted in how the city thinks about things like this that have

2474
03:43:48,460 --> 03:43:55,360
 such drastic possibilities for horrible impacts on the public health and was

2475
03:43:55,360 --> 03:44:04,760
 mentioned about cigarettes you know how long did it take science knew long ago

2476
03:44:04,760 --> 03:44:09,900
 just like science knew long ago about global warming and what is it gonna

2477
03:44:09,900 --> 03:44:14,560
 take we're gonna sit until it's right there till we've got the bodies to count

2478
03:44:14,560 --> 03:44:22,400
 till we've got the cancer clusters that we have to we have to think like that

2479
03:44:22,400 --> 03:44:29,120
 because things are not getting better when we have this wait-and-see attitude

2480
03:44:29,120 --> 03:44:35,600
 so I see absolutely no reason for especially what I said about sitting

2481
03:44:35,600 --> 03:44:40,960
 down with the developers and explaining this to them and see if the consensus

2482
03:44:40,960 --> 03:44:47,560
 can be reached with a either monitoring systems if it's if it's a lesser

2483
03:44:47,560 --> 03:44:53,640
 distance or even working out ways in certain situations I mean god there's

2484
03:44:53,640 --> 03:44:59,800
 great example right there with multiple wells on one pad yeah that group should

2485
03:44:59,800 --> 03:45:02,920
 require a different setback difference because there's more wells there's more

2486
03:45:02,920 --> 03:45:08,280
 pollutants it's that simple but at any rate that's what my take on that and I

2487
03:45:08,280 --> 03:45:12,200
 understand that but you you're comfortable with postponing it to an

2488
03:45:12,200 --> 03:45:18,720
 indefinite period of time no not indefinite better quicker by at least

2489
03:45:18,720 --> 03:45:23,120
 increasing it double from what it is currently I don't know I just want the

2490
03:45:23,120 --> 03:45:26,960
 dialogue because the dialogue has not happened because the resources have not

2491
03:45:26,960 --> 03:45:35,280
 been studied it's the net focus of this is entirely too narrow for the for the

2492
03:45:35,280 --> 03:45:38,960
 for the for the for what we're dealing with right but why do you think the

2493
03:45:38,960 --> 03:45:44,520
 dialogue is cut off if this if this were to be recommended City Council and

2494
03:45:44,520 --> 03:45:47,720
 ultimately approved by City Council why do you think the dialogue would be cut

2495
03:45:47,720 --> 03:45:52,600
 off from other concerns that for the same reasons that it's taken us so long

2496
03:45:52,600 --> 03:46:03,640
 to get here politics vested interests you name it so I mean we I I'm looking

2497
03:46:03,640 --> 03:46:09,040
 at it a at it realistically because in my 30 years here I've seen how the

2498
03:46:09,040 --> 03:46:17,240
 system can work Eureka the IPM plan that the that the city parks have and I've

2499
03:46:17,240 --> 03:46:22,240
 seen how it doesn't work to the point that we had to pass a fracking ban you

2500
03:46:22,240 --> 03:46:24,240
 know

2501
03:46:24,240 --> 03:46:32,000
 Christian back yes thank you chair so in the discussion that you brought up and

2502
03:46:32,000 --> 03:46:36,280
 counselor printed brought up they had the analogy to smoking maybe that's an

2503
03:46:36,280 --> 03:46:42,760
 appropriate analogy in more ways than you suspect we all have the 90 year old

2504
03:46:42,760 --> 03:46:48,920
 grandma who's been smoking 10 packs a day and is 90 so mate but what she does

2505
03:46:48,920 --> 03:46:56,200
 is go to the doctor regularly and all the time so maybe the appropriate

2506
03:46:56,200 --> 03:47:01,680
 responses to follow maybe what counselor pernetta and counselor Ellis are

2507
03:47:01,680 --> 03:47:08,360
 suggesting and and that is except a partial increase because we're unaware

2508
03:47:08,360 --> 03:47:12,440
 of the risks but then measure more so I guess maybe this is more of a question

2509
03:47:12,440 --> 03:47:18,880
 to Richard and that is can we go can we make the recommendation to accept but

2510
03:47:18,880 --> 03:47:27,240
 then encourage City Council to go to say you know something much more frequent

2511
03:47:27,240 --> 03:47:34,720
 monthly bi-weekly continuous monitoring in order to mitigate risks then you

2512
03:47:34,720 --> 03:47:40,040
 could have the smaller setbacks especially if you didn't have if there

2513
03:47:40,040 --> 03:47:43,080
 was no proof of release if there's no VOCs if there's none of the health

2514
03:47:43,080 --> 03:47:48,240
 issues because we have proof then it would be entirely appropriate to have

2515
03:47:48,240 --> 03:47:54,900
 less a shorter setback distance and then we mitigate some of these qualms that

2516
03:47:54,900 --> 03:47:58,480
 some of us here have at the dais

2517
03:47:58,480 --> 03:48:09,440
 I just want to make sure understand so you're asking whether or not as part of

2518
03:48:09,440 --> 03:48:13,440
 the recommendation is if it is at 500 could could there essentially be an add-on

2519
03:48:13,440 --> 03:48:16,640
 that there be additional monitoring that's conducted by the city yeah

2520
03:48:16,640 --> 03:48:19,600
 regardless of the distance regardless of the distance can we make the

2521
03:48:19,600 --> 03:48:24,260
 recommendation regardless of the distance that we go to as near practical

2522
03:48:24,260 --> 03:48:30,080
 continuous monitoring as possible yeah I mean I don't know that that would

2523
03:48:30,080 --> 03:48:34,280
 necessarily be a land development regulation I do know we have our own

2524
03:48:34,280 --> 03:48:39,180
 inspection that we do on a you know that I think I had forwarded that modern

2525
03:48:39,180 --> 03:48:44,600
 geosciences handles but it could be a suggestion that we could certainly pass

2526
03:48:44,600 --> 03:48:49,600
 on or be made as part of the the recommendation to counsel if I remember

2527
03:48:49,600 --> 03:48:57,480
 correctly that that the report is that even for a short distance those short

2528
03:48:57,480 --> 03:49:01,160
 distance setbacks those are only monitored twice a year and that for

2529
03:49:01,160 --> 03:49:05,160
 anything longer than that they're at best monitored once a year and sometimes

2530
03:49:05,160 --> 03:49:09,920
 every other year so I think again we don't go we're not going to send our

2531
03:49:09,920 --> 03:49:13,520
 90 year old grandma to the doctor every other year if she's smoking two packs a

2532
03:49:13,520 --> 03:49:20,800
 day so perhaps regardless of what people feel about individual distances I would

2533
03:49:20,800 --> 03:49:25,560
 like to encourage us to put some thought into increasing the frequency of

2534
03:49:25,560 --> 03:49:29,360
 recommending to council that we increase the frequency of monitoring and as I

2535
03:49:29,360 --> 03:49:33,680
 understand our code now it is already incumbent upon the operator to pay for

2536
03:49:33,680 --> 03:49:37,800
 inspections so I don't see how that would change or have any impact on the

2537
03:49:37,800 --> 03:49:46,720
 city's bottom line yeah I think there's unless sort of a two-fold because I know

2538
03:49:46,720 --> 03:49:51,040
 there's there's testing that's required by TCEQ that we're sort of preempted I

2539
03:49:51,040 --> 03:49:59,520
 think these are our inspections that we do in addition to but if I understand

2540
03:49:59,520 --> 03:50:05,400
 the question it's whether or not the the Planning and Zoning Commission can make

2541
03:50:05,400 --> 03:50:09,400
 a recommendation to the council that they amend the gas well ordinance with

2542
03:50:09,400 --> 03:50:14,840
 regard to the air quality monitoring is that your question yes or at least

2543
03:50:14,840 --> 03:50:24,840
 that's part of it yes it's it seems to be outside of the the gas well ordinance

2544
03:50:24,840 --> 03:50:30,800
 but as mr. Kanoni said something that could be passed along as part of the

2545
03:50:30,800 --> 03:50:37,600
 discussion of this ordinance just to clarify the air monitoring policy that

2546
03:50:37,600 --> 03:50:41,720
 council has with modern Geoscience is not derived from the code that's an

2547
03:50:41,720 --> 03:50:47,400
 additional policy that they adopted so it could be part of that perhaps the the

2548
03:50:47,400 --> 03:50:51,240
 operator payment for inspections is a requirement in the code but those are

2549
03:50:51,240 --> 03:50:55,520
 the inspections that city staff is able to conduct for the the surface elements

2550
03:50:55,520 --> 03:50:59,120
 that are allowed under House Bill 40 so that is a separate totally separate

2551
03:50:59,120 --> 03:51:05,720
 from the air quality monitoring that the council has a separate policy for but

2552
03:51:05,720 --> 03:51:09,480
 since you bring that up it's it's our standards and our service standards that

2553
03:51:09,480 --> 03:51:13,120
 they're monitoring and that it's our scope of work that they're following

2554
03:51:13,120 --> 03:51:17,760
 when when they do an investigation is that correct correct that was a policy

2555
03:51:17,760 --> 03:51:21,440
 adopted by council so if it's our scope of work we can set our scope of work or

2556
03:51:21,440 --> 03:51:26,200
 rather we can recommend to council to alter the scope of work council could

2557
03:51:26,200 --> 03:51:29,640
 potentially do that it's to Richard's point simply not a part of the gas well

2558
03:51:29,640 --> 03:51:32,600
 ordinance so it wouldn't necessarily be part of the language in an ordinance

2559
03:51:32,600 --> 03:51:36,000
 that were to go to council but it could be a recommendation that's passed along

2560
03:51:36,000 --> 03:51:40,520
 to them from this interject I think the response is it wouldn't be part of

2561
03:51:40,520 --> 03:51:43,760
 recommendation but it could be a suggestion to move to council but I

2562
03:51:43,760 --> 03:51:48,800
 want to make sure we stay to germane to the topic of the setback that we're

2563
03:51:48,800 --> 03:51:55,160
 looking at the ordinances and the sub chapters identified tonight I actually

2564
03:51:55,160 --> 03:52:09,720
 had a question for mr. self if I may I think Mr. Ellis was asking this question

2565
03:52:09,720 --> 03:52:14,520
 I was maybe asking a little more directly and maybe even more frankly we

2566
03:52:14,520 --> 03:52:19,040
 have an opportunity tonight to change it to 500 there's you and several others

2567
03:52:19,040 --> 03:52:23,320
 I've had a peak one a postponement I'm trying to understand the rationale if

2568
03:52:23,320 --> 03:52:27,960
 while developers are knocking at our doors we can put a stopgap measure in

2569
03:52:27,960 --> 03:52:33,400
 place I'm trying to stand the rationale to go ahead and postpone and leave the

2570
03:52:33,400 --> 03:52:40,040
 door open for 250 foot reverse setbacks for 30 days 60 days and provide an

2571
03:52:40,040 --> 03:52:45,040
 opportunity for a myriad of developers to come in and get plans under the 250

2572
03:52:45,040 --> 03:52:50,720
 where tonight although might not be the thousand feet seeking I don't I'm trying

2573
03:52:50,720 --> 03:52:55,280
 to understand why the advocacy for a postponement is is what you suggested

2574
03:52:55,280 --> 03:53:00,160
 and others have suggested rather than we support the move we don't think it's

2575
03:53:00,160 --> 03:53:04,800
 adequate there needs to be more done can you help me understand that rationale

2576
03:53:04,800 --> 03:53:12,120
 well I don't know about the myriads of developers I mean I I know what's on the

2577
03:53:12,120 --> 03:53:18,680
 horizon yeah I would the only way that I would feel comfortable and I guess you

2578
03:53:18,680 --> 03:53:27,880
 would feel comfortable too with this is if you did pass this 500 rather than

2579
03:53:27,880 --> 03:53:31,960
 postpone it if you really have fears of developers coming in and taking

2580
03:53:31,960 --> 03:53:38,120
 advantage of the 250 foot reverse setback as it stands now and you feel

2581
03:53:38,120 --> 03:53:44,560
 that you will alleviate that worry by promoting them are passing the proposed

2582
03:53:44,560 --> 03:53:52,960
 500 that at least you put some conditions with it and those conditions

2583
03:53:52,960 --> 03:54:00,480
 some have already been mentioned air monitoring continuous air monitoring

2584
03:54:00,760 --> 03:54:17,040
 soil testing drawing a blank air monitoring soil testing pardon me no

2585
03:54:17,040 --> 03:54:21,680
 thank you yeah adding the compressor stations line compressor stations to the

2586
03:54:21,680 --> 03:54:27,960
 to the ordinance which are not in there at all and I think I sent you those

2587
03:54:27,960 --> 03:54:34,800
 those points in an email earlier but I that's the only way that I would feel

2588
03:54:34,800 --> 03:54:42,400
 comfortable knowing that you would provide the groundwork for actually

2589
03:54:42,400 --> 03:54:49,720
 strengthening the protections whether it with the 500 foot reverse setback which

2590
03:54:49,720 --> 03:54:58,080
 I hope we all realize has has great health hazard potential and implications

2591
03:54:58,080 --> 03:55:04,280
 okay I appreciate the clarification yeah thank you make sense your what you said

2592
03:55:04,280 --> 03:55:09,920
 I understand okay your perspective thank you thanks that's the last card I have

2593
03:55:09,920 --> 03:55:12,700
 for individuals wanting to speak I have some white cards I'll read into the

2594
03:55:12,700 --> 03:55:17,460
 record and then anyone who still wants to speak they certainly do so the first

2595
03:55:17,460 --> 03:55:21,800
 card I have is from Larry Beck I'm gonna read and to record the notation on the

2596
03:55:21,800 --> 03:55:24,360
 card it says outside of what the Commission raised in the work session

2597
03:55:24,360 --> 03:55:28,320
 today about language that fails to protect non-conforming residencies in

2598
03:55:28,320 --> 03:55:33,000
 the proposed expanded reverse setbacks these amendments also fail to acknowledge

2599
03:55:33,000 --> 03:55:36,680
 the current science that shows setbacks less than 1,000 feet raised serious

2600
03:55:36,680 --> 03:55:41,400
 health and safety risk for protected uses in close proximity and fails to

2601
03:55:41,400 --> 03:55:45,440
 address the need to provide sufficient air monitors that can alert neighbors

2602
03:55:45,440 --> 03:55:50,960
 when the toxic emission levels exceed recommended thresholds the next card I

2603
03:55:50,960 --> 03:55:57,640
 have is Kim McGibbon and she is an opposition not wishing to speak she has

2604
03:55:57,640 --> 03:56:03,560
 a note here and I'll do my best to read the handwriting it says please postpone I

2605
03:56:03,560 --> 03:56:13,120
 want more consensus about the science behind needed setbacks what do

2606
03:56:13,120 --> 03:56:20,800
 firefighters have to say distances need to be a minimum of 500 feet and a

2607
03:56:20,800 --> 03:56:28,640
 thousand feet and the last card I have is Carol and so Carol and so she is an

2608
03:56:28,640 --> 03:56:32,920
 opposition not wishing to speak but noted here please postpone until further

2609
03:56:32,920 --> 03:56:37,120
 health studies are done

2610
03:56:39,080 --> 03:56:45,120
 you absolutely can if you just come down and if you just stage your name and

2611
03:56:45,120 --> 03:56:52,840
 address for the record Carol so 16 20 Victoria I have one other condition that

2612
03:56:52,840 --> 03:56:58,280
 you might want to consider and we've talked about it a lot in our group that

2613
03:56:58,280 --> 03:57:03,120
 the people in the vintage were surprised and they didn't know that this was going

2614
03:57:03,120 --> 03:57:09,200
 to happen to them and we talked about disclosure and we would like the

2615
03:57:09,200 --> 03:57:13,760
 homeowners to know ahead of time that they're buying a house that may or may

2616
03:57:13,760 --> 03:57:18,080
 not have well behind it or that something might happen there might be

2617
03:57:18,080 --> 03:57:26,320
 refract they just don't know so I don't know if that's within your realm or if

2618
03:57:26,320 --> 03:57:30,360
 we wait till City Council to ask for that but I thought I'd throw that in as a

2619
03:57:30,360 --> 03:57:37,040
 condition I appreciate that thank you this is a public hearing anyone was to

2620
03:57:37,040 --> 03:57:44,840
 speak I certainly do so Christopher do you have questions for my question was

2621
03:57:44,840 --> 03:57:52,120
 to Haley or Richard with regard to the disclosure what would our guidelines be

2622
03:57:52,120 --> 03:58:00,680
 in terms of notifying people who are going to buy a rent within near site

2623
03:58:00,680 --> 03:58:05,160
 there are requirements in the code today for disclosure at the time of platting

2624
03:58:05,160 --> 03:58:10,560
 there's believe four different requirements on the plat itself which a

2625
03:58:10,560 --> 03:58:14,040
 homeowner receives a copy of when they purchase a home there is a note and all

2626
03:58:14,040 --> 03:58:17,520
 lots are called out with the distance to the well for lots that are within a

2627
03:58:17,520 --> 03:58:21,600
 thousand feet there is a requirement that the HOA documents indeed

2628
03:58:21,600 --> 03:58:24,540
 restrictions for the neighborhood contain disclosure regarding proximity

2629
03:58:24,540 --> 03:58:28,360
 to a gas well and then there is an additional separate document that gets

2630
03:58:28,360 --> 03:58:31,440
 filed with the county that lists each individual lot so that when a title

2631
03:58:31,440 --> 03:58:34,800
 search is done that document comes back saying this home is within a thousand

2632
03:58:34,800 --> 03:58:38,040
 feet of a gas well new wells could be drilled or added on the site and work

2633
03:58:38,040 --> 03:58:42,000
 over operations could be completed on the site all of that's currently in the

2634
03:58:42,000 --> 03:58:46,200
 code that doesn't necessarily speak to rental properties as you mentioned that

2635
03:58:46,200 --> 03:58:49,040
 is a separate item that I know the committee on citizen engagement has

2636
03:58:49,040 --> 03:58:53,120
 addressed previously and at this time they've not provided staff direction on

2637
03:58:53,120 --> 03:58:56,880
 how to proceed with notifying renters okay but right now regardless of whether

2638
03:58:56,880 --> 03:59:01,320
 we go to whether we're 250 or 500 if they're within a thousand they do get

2639
03:59:01,320 --> 03:59:18,160
 that notification correct sorry were you motioning to speak yes my name is Kevin

2640
03:59:18,160 --> 03:59:24,400
 Bankhead reside at five two two one North O'Connor Boulevard suite 700 Irving

2641
03:59:24,400 --> 03:59:30,200
 Texas seven five oh three nine I'm speaking on behalf of Allegiance Hillview

2642
03:59:30,200 --> 03:59:36,980
 which is a landowner we are adjacent to a two acre pad site one of our neighbors

2643
03:59:36,980 --> 03:59:45,000
 is here the pad site is the razor unit one two and three speaking in opposition

2644
03:59:45,000 --> 03:59:51,600
 to the proposal a little different reason than the anti-fracking crowd has

2645
03:59:51,600 --> 03:59:58,960
 presented though there may be some other studies the one study that is being

2646
03:59:58,960 --> 04:00:08,040
 cited is presenting a demonstrated community need is the Eastern research

2647
04:00:08,040 --> 04:00:17,680
 group study that was done for Fort Worth in 2011 this was a attempt to look at

2648
04:00:17,680 --> 04:00:22,520
 the public health concerns that were raised by the Fort Worth community at

2649
04:00:22,520 --> 04:00:28,320
 the time however that study seems to have been mischaracterized the report

2650
04:00:28,320 --> 04:00:34,720
 itself if read Ed Soph had suggested that everyone read that report I'm not

2651
04:00:34,720 --> 04:00:40,740
 sure who has but the report does not state that a minimum 600 foot setback

2652
04:00:40,740 --> 04:00:50,200
 from the wellhead is required for public health reasons in fact reading from the

2653
04:00:50,200 --> 04:00:56,320
 report the adequacy of setback limits was one of the charges for Eastern

2654
04:00:56,320 --> 04:01:02,480
 research they state taken together monitoring and modeling data provide a

2655
04:01:02,480 --> 04:01:06,640
 basis for assessing the adequacy of the city of Fort Worth setback distances

2656
04:01:06,640 --> 04:01:13,200
 plural the minimum setback distance required is 600 feet though variances

2657
04:01:13,200 --> 04:01:20,240
 can lead to setbacks as low as 200 feet this is also from the wellhead not from

2658
04:01:20,240 --> 04:01:28,360
 the site plan line the critical issue is evaluating the setback distances is the

2659
04:01:28,360 --> 04:01:33,520
 extent to which air quality impacts decrease from distance from the facilities

2660
04:01:33,520 --> 04:01:44,320
 the actual finding from the report was that the concentration was less than the

2661
04:01:44,320 --> 04:01:51,480
 TCEQs short and long-term ESLs at both the 600 foot distance and 200 foot

2662
04:01:51,480 --> 04:01:58,760
 distance so in essence their report actually found that 200 foot distance was

2663
04:01:58,760 --> 04:02:11,400
 below the TCEQs long-term and short-term ESLs level a couple of other points ESL

2664
04:02:11,400 --> 04:02:17,640
 of course is environmental screening levels another couple of points I'd like

2665
04:02:17,640 --> 04:02:24,160
 you to consider in a previous work session presented to you as a PNZ body

2666
04:02:24,160 --> 04:02:31,320
 by city staff it was reported that there was some 265 single-family residences

2667
04:02:31,320 --> 04:02:38,760
 that are currently affected by the 250 foot reverse setback staff I believe

2668
04:02:38,760 --> 04:02:46,120
 identified an additional 750 residences that would be affected by 500 foot

2669
04:02:46,120 --> 04:02:52,680
 reverse setback that's 750 additional residences that would be adversely

2670
04:02:52,680 --> 04:02:59,800
 impacted their marketability their insurability and their financability by

2671
04:02:59,800 --> 04:03:07,640
 an increase in reverse setback I asked and staff did not individually mail

2672
04:03:07,640 --> 04:03:15,880
 notices to any of these 750 residences I would have concern that those residents

2673
04:03:15,880 --> 04:03:21,800
 were not truly informed of the proposed negative impact on their residences by

2674
04:03:21,800 --> 04:03:29,200
 this proposed ordinance and in fact that doesn't appear to be any individual

2675
04:03:29,200 --> 04:03:39,480
 resident here to speak for the Commission one last point briefly one

2676
04:03:39,480 --> 04:03:45,040
 available variance process that's been presented is to go through the ZBA

2677
04:03:45,040 --> 04:03:53,440
 process my understanding is that the ZBA approval requires a six out of seven

2678
04:03:53,440 --> 04:04:00,720
 vote that would mean that only two appointees could deny or block any and

2679
04:04:00,720 --> 04:04:05,160
 all variances that are brought in front of it I do not believe that that's a

2680
04:04:05,160 --> 04:04:11,920
 fair and equitable process those are the points I'd like to present and thank the

2681
04:04:11,920 --> 04:04:17,400
 opportunity to the Commission I appreciate you being here I do not see

2682
04:04:17,400 --> 04:04:23,240
 any questions for you this time right thank you this is a public hearing you

2683
04:04:23,240 --> 04:04:27,040
 want to wish to speak may certainly do so

2684
04:04:27,040 --> 04:04:35,240
 seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais and I think

2685
04:04:35,240 --> 04:04:40,880
 a motion is most appropriate to lead out the discussion and in terms of just the

2686
04:04:40,880 --> 04:04:48,680
 effectiveness of the discussion Mr. Beck thank you chair I'd like to actually

2687
04:04:48,680 --> 04:04:53,160
 make a motion to postpone and and I I've heard the arguments that we say it said

2688
04:04:53,160 --> 04:04:57,920
 here on the dais and I understand that it was sort of bird-in-the-hand kind of

2689
04:04:57,920 --> 04:05:02,960
 idea but most concerning to me is not only the the health effects that we've

2690
04:05:02,960 --> 04:05:08,280
 been discussing but also the ambiguity in the language whether we're

2691
04:05:08,280 --> 04:05:18,400
 considering 3a or 3b options because there there seems to be an issue with

2692
04:05:18,400 --> 04:05:24,600
 how we are going to treat legally non-conforming properties and so from

2693
04:05:24,600 --> 04:05:31,880
 the property perspective that ambiguity continues to exist in these documents

2694
04:05:31,880 --> 04:05:37,200
 regardless of what the actual distance is and then on top of that we're

2695
04:05:37,200 --> 04:05:41,880
 discussing these various health effects distances and then I brought up the

2696
04:05:41,880 --> 04:05:46,720
 concept of whether we're allowed to suggest and propose continuous monitoring

2697
04:05:46,720 --> 04:05:52,680
 all three of those points could be addressed by you know a delay staff

2698
04:05:52,680 --> 04:05:58,880
 input as well as a suggestions to counsel so I'd like to make a motion to

2699
04:05:58,880 --> 04:06:02,800
 postpone while we addressed some of those issues particularly the the ones

2700
04:06:02,800 --> 04:06:09,280
 about the confusion between 3a and 3b and the health effects and just to

2701
04:06:09,280 --> 04:06:15,160
 clarify a question back you're wanting to postpone to a date uncertain I'd be

2702
04:06:15,160 --> 04:06:20,320
 willing to entertain some reasonable near-term date because I think we could

2703
04:06:20,320 --> 04:06:28,240
 resolve most of these within a near term I think we need to be more specific in

2704
04:06:28,240 --> 04:06:36,200
 terms of a date so we have a November 20th meeting the December 11th meeting

2705
04:06:36,200 --> 04:06:52,880
 given the holidays I think that might be tight what's the January meeting 8

2706
04:06:58,240 --> 04:07:15,440
 the 22nd so we have the 8th and the 22nd of January I'm gonna make a motion to

2707
04:07:15,440 --> 04:07:33,680
 postpone till the January 8th meeting yeah there's a multi-part motion I'm

2708
04:07:33,680 --> 04:07:41,160
 making a motion to postpone till January 8th in order to clarify confusion in the

2709
04:07:41,160 --> 04:07:47,320
 language choices between 3 and 3b options investigate and report on

2710
04:07:47,320 --> 04:07:55,480
 continuous monitoring as well as get information from sources regarding

2711
04:07:55,480 --> 04:08:09,680
 appropriate setback distances for health effects from staff we have a motion on

2712
04:08:09,680 --> 04:08:14,240
 the table to postpone to a date certain of January 8th with the conditions just

2713
04:08:14,240 --> 04:08:17,920
 listed can we have a second

2714
04:08:17,920 --> 04:08:27,360
 so Commissioner Parnett I would believe potentially go to council that following

2715
04:08:27,360 --> 04:08:31,800
 week for a work session so we're looking at it would be possibly counseled by

2716
04:08:31,800 --> 04:08:45,720
 January 14. Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I guess I have a question for staff

2717
04:08:45,720 --> 04:08:53,760
 realistically can that be accomplished I mean I understand our two options that

2718
04:08:53,760 --> 04:08:57,280
 are here and staff has made it very clear what option they recommend so I'm

2719
04:08:57,280 --> 04:09:02,520
 not sure what we're clarifying there and the other things are not anything they've

2720
04:09:02,520 --> 04:09:10,000
 been delved into yet so that that just doesn't seem like very much time if I

2721
04:09:10,000 --> 04:09:15,120
 just may add and I kind of hinted to this earlier council next week is is

2722
04:09:15,120 --> 04:09:21,800
 there was a request made from councilmember Armitour on the very four

2723
04:09:21,800 --> 04:09:28,520
 items five items that that the group that was here tonight the notification

2724
04:09:28,520 --> 04:09:32,520
 sent to new new home buyers line compressor safety measures continuous

2725
04:09:32,520 --> 04:09:36,680
 air monitoring within 500 feet implementation of soil testing and whether

2726
04:09:36,680 --> 04:09:41,280
 or not to have dr. Hildenbrandt present the council council will consider

2727
04:09:41,280 --> 04:09:44,840
 whether or not they want to take on any of those items separate and apart from

2728
04:09:44,840 --> 04:09:52,480
 this 500 foot distance and so again this is this was not a staff initiated text

2729
04:09:52,480 --> 04:09:56,600
 amendment this was something that was directed from council and so whether or

2730
04:09:56,600 --> 04:10:01,560
 not I don't know how they're gonna vote on Tuesday some of those items are

2731
04:10:01,560 --> 04:10:07,080
 included in this but it could I could come back on January 8th and tell you I

2732
04:10:07,080 --> 04:10:11,520
 this isn't what council directed us to do they don't want to hear this or

2733
04:10:11,520 --> 04:10:15,960
 council agreed and it's going to take another six or seven I just I can't

2734
04:10:15,960 --> 04:10:23,400
 realistically give that a definitive answer would it Richard be more prudent

2735
04:10:23,400 --> 04:10:34,000
 to motion to a date uncertain and then provide get an update from City Council

2736
04:10:34,000 --> 04:10:39,040
 after their meeting to see if a date certain could be assessed that that

2737
04:10:39,040 --> 04:10:43,120
 quite honestly would probably be that the better choice because then I can add

2738
04:10:43,120 --> 04:10:48,440
 it back on as an item and our at our meeting on the 20th depending what the

2739
04:10:48,440 --> 04:10:54,320
 outcome is on the 12th questioner back would you be amenable to a friendly

2740
04:10:54,320 --> 04:10:59,480
 motion for a date uncertain rather than a date certain of January 8th yes I

2741
04:10:59,480 --> 04:11:04,880
 would actually because the January 8th was just to make it expeditious okay so

2742
04:11:04,880 --> 04:11:08,600
 the new motion on the table is to postpone to a date uncertain with the

2743
04:11:08,600 --> 04:11:14,240
 three conditions that Commissioner Beck outlined if I just may also add if there

2744
04:11:14,240 --> 04:11:19,640
 is a suggestion to change the ordinance above sort of what we're what we've

2745
04:11:19,640 --> 04:11:25,960
 advertised we may have to kind of start this started back over and then go back

2746
04:11:25,960 --> 04:11:30,080
 out to do the notification in accordance with local government code and then

2747
04:11:30,080 --> 04:11:34,400
 re-notice again for City Council so right now it was advertised for tonight

2748
04:11:34,400 --> 04:11:40,560
 and then for City Council on the 19th so it would it would essentially postpone

2749
04:11:40,560 --> 04:11:48,800
 that public hearing on the 19th with City Council on the site so I want you to go

2750
04:11:48,800 --> 04:11:51,920
 ahead and speak but after that we're gonna have to see if there's gonna be a

2751
04:11:51,920 --> 04:11:55,680
 second on this because the discussion should take place after a second if you

2752
04:11:55,680 --> 04:11:59,840
 have something to add to this I'd certainly hear it no I just had a

2753
04:11:59,840 --> 04:12:03,200
 question it was gonna be a question about because this is a public hearing

2754
04:12:03,200 --> 04:12:08,920
 right we would have to re-notice for the postponement that came back to here

2755
04:12:08,920 --> 04:12:17,360
 right so we're looking at what at least 30 days from well that the the public

2756
04:12:17,360 --> 04:12:22,560
 hearing is closed so it would we would essentially bring if the if if it is

2757
04:12:22,560 --> 04:12:28,240
 voted for postponement ultimately depending what council decides next week

2758
04:12:28,240 --> 04:12:33,720
 we could we obviously provide the clarification on an A and B any of the

2759
04:12:33,720 --> 04:12:40,280
 other items if they needed to be added to the code we would essentially have to

2760
04:12:40,280 --> 04:12:46,720
 start it it would be a new notification and essentially new new application if

2761
04:12:46,720 --> 04:12:59,600
 you will we have a first on the on the table is there a second seeing non motion

2762
04:12:59,600 --> 04:13:05,120
 fails the chair will entertain another motion and discussion

2763
04:13:17,720 --> 04:13:23,800
 seeing no movement on the dais or discussion items I'm gonna go ahead and

2764
04:13:23,800 --> 04:13:32,480
 make a motion I move Haley can you bring up the recommendations I want to make

2765
04:13:32,480 --> 04:13:50,400
 sure I state this correctly thank you I move that we approve item 5f as staff

2766
04:13:50,400 --> 04:13:59,160
 recommends changes to sub chapter 6 and a sub chapter 8 and in regard to sub

2767
04:13:59,160 --> 04:14:07,800
 chapter 1 I am in favor of option 2 so that is as long as the language and the

2768
04:14:07,800 --> 04:14:13,940
 intent from the Commission is that individuals at any distance between the

2769
04:14:13,940 --> 04:14:20,600
 setbacks do not have to go to ZBA but have right to rebuild if there was

2770
04:14:20,600 --> 04:14:30,840
 something to happen to their structure cursor back so to that last component of

2771
04:14:30,840 --> 04:14:34,680
 your your motion this is part of the reason I was suggesting that there is

2772
04:14:34,680 --> 04:14:40,160
 needing we need additional clarification because it was difficult for you to come

2773
04:14:40,160 --> 04:14:46,120
 up with that motion because of the ambiguity of some of the presentation

2774
04:14:46,120 --> 04:14:53,040
 that we saw not I understand that I as we talked about in work session the

2775
04:14:53,040 --> 04:14:57,240
 intent of my motion was not to craft the language but to provide the intent of

2776
04:14:57,240 --> 04:15:03,160
 language so that can be crafted before presented to council we have a first on

2777
04:15:03,160 --> 04:15:07,600
 the floor is there a second

2778
04:15:08,840 --> 04:15:16,000
 Commissioner Ellis second we have first and a second Commissioner Pereta few things

2779
04:15:16,000 --> 04:15:21,200
 so just to verify the the recommendation you're making is in the event of a

2780
04:15:21,200 --> 04:15:26,520
 disaster of some kind rather than have to go back to ZBA to get an approval to

2781
04:15:26,520 --> 04:15:30,120
 rebuild on their house that that would be non-conforming they would

2782
04:15:30,120 --> 04:15:34,760
 automatically have the right to rebuild on that same spot right correct okay

2783
04:15:34,760 --> 04:15:42,080
 all right okay I understand that so I guess before we go to the vote I just

2784
04:15:42,080 --> 04:15:47,360
 kind of wanted to discuss a few things this has been a very difficult decision

2785
04:15:47,360 --> 04:15:55,680
 for me because one of the things that keeps coming back into my mind is the

2786
04:15:55,680 --> 04:16:07,200
 notion that it's taken us a long time to get to 500 feet from 250 I am not 100%

2787
04:16:07,200 --> 04:16:12,920
 confident that if we pushed further we could we get anything better and my fear

2788
04:16:12,920 --> 04:16:17,440
 is that rather than having a starting point of 500 feet going forward we

2789
04:16:17,440 --> 04:16:26,200
 would maintain a starting point of 250 feet I was hesitant about the postponement

2790
04:16:26,200 --> 04:16:32,360
 simply because based on the fact that it took forever for us to get here I didn't

2791
04:16:32,360 --> 04:16:37,440
 want to wind that having this be a thing where basically we lose a battle of

2792
04:16:37,440 --> 04:16:41,080
 attrition where it's harder to get people to come out to actually state a

2793
04:16:41,080 --> 04:16:48,880
 case that would be that would be persuasive I believe 500 feet is better

2794
04:16:48,880 --> 04:16:57,160
 than 250 so I'll be voting to send this to council what I what I'd hope you get

2795
04:16:57,160 --> 04:17:02,120
 you guys could do is rally the troops and bring people out to talk to council

2796
04:17:02,120 --> 04:17:05,440
 to see if you know council will be able to you know make a decision that would

2797
04:17:05,440 --> 04:17:11,880
 be more amenable to get us someplace closer to safe based on science and

2798
04:17:11,880 --> 04:17:18,200
 based on on that data I just I worry that we would wind up being stuck here

2799
04:17:18,200 --> 04:17:22,280
 in planning and zoning and never get to that point where y'all could present a

2800
04:17:22,280 --> 04:17:28,320
 present a case so I wanted to say I was asked to clarify my motion

2801
04:17:28,320 --> 04:17:58,200
 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

2802
04:17:58,200 --> 04:18:04,600
 council to craft an amendment language to increase the reverse setback to 500 feet

2803
04:18:04,600 --> 04:18:10,320
 that is what is presented before us that is what they did what they were tasked

2804
04:18:10,320 --> 04:18:17,280
 with it's been a much discussion in several pieces of very concerning

2805
04:18:17,280 --> 04:18:23,600
 relevant information with living near gas wells but that's not what they were

2806
04:18:23,600 --> 04:18:29,720
 tasked to delve into hopefully that will with whatever they're going to be

2807
04:18:29,720 --> 04:18:36,800
 talking about at the next council meeting maybe that will be staff's next task but

2808
04:18:36,800 --> 04:18:42,720
 this task was to increase that setback I don't understand postponing something

2809
04:18:42,720 --> 04:18:49,120
 that makes things better all of this talk has been about care for this is in the

2810
04:18:49,120 --> 04:18:56,160
 city being double the distance away is better than what we currently have

2811
04:18:56,160 --> 04:19:01,760
 sending it into postponement land to where who knows when it's coming back

2812
04:19:01,760 --> 04:19:10,800
 before a vote it is not something that I can support as well this vote does not

2813
04:19:10,800 --> 04:19:16,400
 preclude further discussion and that's what it seems where the disconnect is is

2814
04:19:16,400 --> 04:19:22,800
 if we move forward with this it precludes further discussion of the

2815
04:19:22,800 --> 04:19:28,080
 increasing studies that we're collecting data on that hopefully council will move

2816
04:19:28,080 --> 04:19:36,440
 and we'll make other changes to our gas well regulations so let's go back to the

2817
04:19:36,440 --> 04:19:44,200
 non-conforming we were gonna insert in this so within 250 you can rebuild no

2818
04:19:44,200 --> 04:19:47,760
 matter what and you don't have to go I mean we don't have a process for that I

2819
04:19:47,760 --> 04:19:58,720
 mean yeah yeah might be my motion is to have individuals be able to build back

2820
04:19:58,720 --> 04:20:07,320
 what they had by right if a process needs to be created I can't speak to

2821
04:20:07,320 --> 04:20:14,160
 that but where I am and in terms of the motion is I think it it moves the needle

2822
04:20:14,160 --> 04:20:22,600
 it we have done the obligation of planning and zoning in terms of what

2823
04:20:22,600 --> 04:20:30,360
 we're commissioned to do from the council I have a I take issue with the

2824
04:20:30,360 --> 04:20:34,120
 idea of someone who has already been there who is there before the wells or

2825
04:20:34,120 --> 04:20:37,400
 whoever that timeline happened if something was to happen to their house

2826
04:20:37,400 --> 04:20:42,200
 to then as you mentioned a work session in the midst of everything going on they

2827
04:20:42,200 --> 04:20:46,400
 have to go to ZBA where two boats eliminates the ability from the rebuild

2828
04:20:46,400 --> 04:20:53,340
 and so I'm not really interested in considering solutions that wouldn't

2829
04:20:53,340 --> 04:20:57,200
 allow property owners to maintain the right of what use they've been having for

2830
04:20:57,200 --> 04:21:00,120
 decades and decades

2831
04:21:00,120 --> 04:21:10,320
 pressure back so on that exact point I'm just for clarification of your motion

2832
04:21:10,320 --> 04:21:17,120
 you're you're you're saying no distance metrics at all in your motion just that

2833
04:21:17,120 --> 04:21:25,020
 they would be able to rebuild period is that how I'm understanding that's correct

2834
04:21:25,020 --> 04:21:35,240
 regardless of other DDC codes that may impact potentially

2835
04:21:36,720 --> 04:21:42,360
 question Prada because it's basically what you're what you're introducing as a

2836
04:21:42,360 --> 04:21:46,080
 grandfather class right you had your house something happens to your house

2837
04:21:46,080 --> 04:21:50,480
 you don't lose your house because we have retroactively applied you know a

2838
04:21:50,480 --> 04:21:56,800
 distance to that and I think I think that's reasonably fair because ultimately

2839
04:21:56,800 --> 04:22:02,320
 while we are advancing you know distances and trying to you know create

2840
04:22:02,320 --> 04:22:06,760
 safety for additional people people who already live there have already made their

2841
04:22:06,760 --> 04:22:12,720
 decisions I guess so I guess I'm okay with that but that's I mean right is it

2842
04:22:12,720 --> 04:22:17,080
 was that that was that the question that you had so the the angle that I was

2843
04:22:17,080 --> 04:22:22,360
 angling at was I was concerned well other concerns aside that I talked about

2844
04:22:22,360 --> 04:22:26,400
 earlier but for this particular motion and the reason I asked the DDC question

2845
04:22:26,400 --> 04:22:39,240
 was I we should still hold homeowners liable for other DDC code I worry that

2846
04:22:39,240 --> 04:22:42,920
 the way you stated the motion sort of gives them a get out of jail free card

2847
04:22:42,920 --> 04:22:48,560
 in a way that you didn't intend I mean I feel like we should if this is the kind

2848
04:22:48,560 --> 04:22:52,520
 of motion we're gonna go for and that we could all reach a consensus on then that

2849
04:22:52,520 --> 04:23:03,360
 should somehow be crafted in a way that doesn't give them more rights as it were

2850
04:23:03,360 --> 04:23:08,520
 or more freedoms than they had that this is simply a grandfather replacement

2851
04:23:08,520 --> 04:23:13,200
 which is the intent rather than I mean I'm worried I'm concerned that we're

2852
04:23:13,200 --> 04:23:19,520
 we're increasing their their get out of jail free card miss if you will if I can

2853
04:23:19,520 --> 04:23:25,040
 point that terrible term yeah and I don't think the intention is for someone

2854
04:23:25,040 --> 04:23:28,240
 whose house is burned down to play get out of jail free card I don't know if

2855
04:23:28,240 --> 04:23:33,480
 that's what you're intending to make the accusation that someone in a loss would

2856
04:23:33,480 --> 04:23:39,200
 be doing I'm saying that if someone had a structure or a residence in which they

2857
04:23:39,200 --> 04:23:43,160
 lived in I believe fundamentally they should have the right to build that back

2858
04:23:43,160 --> 04:23:51,200
 I don't I don't think innate and into my motion is suggesting we give them a pass

2859
04:23:51,200 --> 04:23:55,440
 to build anything they want to take a one-story farmhouse and build a hotel

2860
04:23:55,440 --> 04:24:01,520
 I'm suggesting that what they had there would reasonably reconstruct be

2861
04:24:01,520 --> 04:24:05,800
 reconstructed with the same provisions they've had for in the commissioner

2862
04:24:05,800 --> 04:24:19,520
 Cole's case 60 years that's the intent of it. Commissioner Cole. Thank you so

2863
04:24:19,520 --> 04:24:29,480
 when this if if this passes and goes to counsel can counsel change that and I

2864
04:24:29,480 --> 04:24:32,920
 would I would think they have that authority yeah yeah we're the

2865
04:24:32,920 --> 04:24:48,120
 recommending body is this you know my main problem this is the nonconformity

2866
04:24:48,120 --> 04:24:56,040
 and I'm worried that you know this is going to get changed down the road if

2867
04:24:56,040 --> 04:25:05,080
 this passes they'll just maybe take that out of it and then we're back for not

2868
04:25:05,080 --> 04:25:21,200
 you know that's that's my issue you know I just I don't trust the process is what

2869
04:25:21,200 --> 04:25:28,480
 I'm saying. For clarification Commissioner Cole and I know Richard wants to hop in here if the

2870
04:25:28,480 --> 04:25:34,080
 ultimate action tonight was to deny the staff's recommendation it still goes to

2871
04:25:34,080 --> 04:25:38,000
 City Council for them to move forward. Right, right, right. Richard can you add some clarification?

2872
04:25:38,000 --> 04:25:41,840
 Yeah and I just wanted to really speak back to option one and two where

2873
04:25:41,840 --> 04:25:47,760
 option two came from. Option one again that was a request from counsel the

2874
04:25:47,760 --> 04:25:52,240
 concern that created option two was essentially for lack of a better way to

2875
04:25:52,240 --> 04:25:57,680
 you know choosing winners and losers so those that were or were from 250 to 500

2876
04:25:57,680 --> 04:26:04,880
 you were you would be conforming those within the 250 ring sorry you're out of

2877
04:26:04,880 --> 04:26:10,800
 luck and so you're sort of creating two different again winners and losers the

2878
04:26:10,800 --> 04:26:16,640
 intent with option two was to apply it broadly to all non-conforming structures

2879
04:26:16,640 --> 04:26:21,600
 across the city that that's really where that's really where option two came from.

2880
04:26:21,600 --> 04:26:27,480
 Now the recommendation that that's sort of on the table could essentially be a

2881
04:26:27,480 --> 04:26:34,000
 modification of option one that it'd be all within the gas well again that's the

2882
04:26:34,000 --> 04:26:38,720
 concern that legal had the risk is out there again it's it's a council decision

2883
04:26:38,720 --> 04:26:43,840
 or option two could be that it applies to all non-conforming structures City

2884
04:26:43,840 --> 04:26:48,680
 one now that would that would take any other property that's a foul of not just

2885
04:26:48,680 --> 04:26:51,880
 gas well but some other provision of the DDC there's a number of buildings

2886
04:26:51,880 --> 04:26:55,400
 downtown that are that are non-conforming and again but that goes

2887
04:26:55,400 --> 04:26:59,380
 back that that that's a recommendation that that council would have to

2888
04:26:59,380 --> 04:27:05,440
 consider these would be the options that we would we would present to them in two

2889
04:27:05,440 --> 04:27:16,680
 weeks. We have a first and a second for approval with a condition to sub chapter

2890
04:27:16,680 --> 04:27:26,280
 one option two is there any discussion on the item? So before we take to a vote

2891
04:27:26,280 --> 04:27:29,800
 what I haven't mentioned was the respect I have for the individuals here for you

2892
04:27:29,800 --> 04:27:34,520
 coming out and speaking and for what I mostly appreciate is the articulation of

2893
04:27:34,520 --> 04:27:39,360
 studies being done for our edification that we don't have I don't have a lot of

2894
04:27:39,360 --> 04:27:44,200
 time to read and so the summaries that were presented including mr. Beck who

2895
04:27:44,200 --> 04:27:48,400
 stepped out I don't think it's insignificant and I would like to see

2896
04:27:48,400 --> 04:27:52,760
 more studies conducted I believe we're all on the same page maybe not I can't

2897
04:27:52,760 --> 04:27:56,680
 speak for everyone I'm on the same page of more research being done so we can

2898
04:27:56,680 --> 04:28:01,600
 determine this and there's advocacy that can be done so that in two months we

2899
04:28:01,600 --> 04:28:05,320
 kick-start another campaign for council to look at extending that that's not off

2900
04:28:05,320 --> 04:28:10,880
 the table in this discussion so my motion was to solidify the request of

2901
04:28:10,880 --> 04:28:15,920
 council to move it a little bit take take a maybe a perceived small win in

2902
04:28:15,920 --> 04:28:22,020
 this conversation but also obviously I have issue with the nonconformity of the

2903
04:28:22,020 --> 04:28:25,440
 rebuilds that I will certainly be following up with my council member

2904
04:28:25,440 --> 04:28:30,480
 about and ensuring that that hopefully is taken seriously into consideration but

2905
04:28:30,480 --> 04:28:33,880
 that's where I am that's the intent of my motion I appreciate you staying late

2906
04:28:33,880 --> 04:28:38,400
 tonight and having this conversation with us I do have two small kids and I

2907
04:28:38,400 --> 04:28:43,720
 take it seriously with the parks and the city we live in so with that I don't see

2908
04:28:43,720 --> 04:28:47,680
 any other discussion so I'll call for motion on the board our vote on the

2909
04:28:47,680 --> 04:28:49,880
 board

2910
04:28:57,720 --> 04:29:06,920
 motion carries five one the next item for agenda this evening is item six the

2911
04:29:06,920 --> 04:29:13,080
 project matrix and I will turn that over to Richard and just one moment before we

2912
04:29:13,080 --> 04:29:19,160
 get into the matrix I did want to publicly thank mr. Jerry Drake for his

2913
04:29:19,160 --> 04:29:23,280
 service to our Commission he was here longer than I think he wanted to be it

2914
04:29:23,280 --> 04:29:29,600
 seemed but nevertheless I leaned on him almost every meeting so I appreciate

2915
04:29:29,600 --> 04:29:33,360
 personally the council you provided me and running the meeting but also on

2916
04:29:33,360 --> 04:29:37,680
 behalf of the Commission thank you for your tireless hours and your vast

2917
04:29:37,680 --> 04:29:42,520
 knowledge to bring to the table and help guiding our discussions I appreciate it

2918
04:29:42,520 --> 04:29:50,200
 very much with that we can introduce to you finally Cynthia is it Kirk off Kirk

2919
04:29:50,200 --> 04:29:55,200
 off she will be our new legal help on a dais going forward so we welcome you to

2920
04:29:55,200 --> 04:29:59,120
 the Commission and thank you for finally being here I'm glad the Texas bar got

2921
04:29:59,120 --> 04:30:04,600
 that that taken care of with that Richard I'll turn it over to you we start the

2922
04:30:04,600 --> 04:30:09,120
 matrix conversation I'll be brief just wanted to update a couple of the items

2923
04:30:09,120 --> 04:30:13,600
 on there if you see we I was a help how the I think because we cleared that list

2924
04:30:13,600 --> 04:30:17,080
 so much we didn't have to update the status column so we added the status

2925
04:30:17,080 --> 04:30:21,720
 column back in and just wanted to give an update on the city initiated

2926
04:30:21,720 --> 04:30:27,560
 rezoning's we're going to council work session next may actually it's a 19th I

2927
04:30:27,560 --> 04:30:31,840
 think it's been moved today but we're looking to bring that back to P&Z on

2928
04:30:31,840 --> 04:30:37,360
 12/11 regarding the discussion on notification what will be added to that

2929
04:30:37,360 --> 04:30:41,480
 is that dual notice item that we discussed in work session as it relates

2930
04:30:41,480 --> 04:30:47,540
 to zoning and SGP items so we'll also have that on the 12/11 work session what

2931
04:30:47,540 --> 04:30:51,680
 I'm looking to do I have the policies and procedures that is just always kept

2932
04:30:51,680 --> 04:30:57,560
 on I know we've had a discussion as a result of the gas well of what can be and

2933
04:30:57,560 --> 04:31:03,340
 can't be put on work sessions and there's since we do follow the council

2934
04:31:03,340 --> 04:31:08,840
 rules of procedures that's even changed about how they request items beyond work

2935
04:31:08,840 --> 04:31:13,640
 sessions of we're working through and getting how that applies to to P&Z

2936
04:31:13,640 --> 04:31:19,480
 again different from from the policy setters IE council but how that would

2937
04:31:19,480 --> 04:31:25,320
 apply to to this to this commission and so that's what what is intended to to be

2938
04:31:25,320 --> 04:31:31,120
 part of that discussion on 11/20 so we hope to have someone from the manager's

2939
04:31:31,120 --> 04:31:36,880
 office and as well as legal provide some provide some guidance on that in

2940
04:31:36,880 --> 04:31:45,840
 addition I think we can also just like that yeah it was on the policies and

2941
04:31:45,840 --> 04:31:49,080
 procedures have all these notes and you just drop that yeah that was the one I

2942
04:31:49,080 --> 04:31:54,880
 didn't write down it's always the case I'll remember it after as soon as I

2943
04:31:54,880 --> 04:31:58,480
 leave that was it the only other thing I wanted to update on the brush Creek

2944
04:31:58,480 --> 04:32:02,960
 rezoning I can't remember if I updated that last meeting they did withdraw

2945
04:32:02,960 --> 04:32:06,920
 their application so that that has not moved that will not be moving forward

2946
04:32:06,920 --> 04:32:11,720
 and then the the two text amendments clean up at the MN and then the NPC

2947
04:32:11,720 --> 04:32:18,120
 Council did approve those last night 7-0 thank you for the update Mr. Ellis

2948
04:32:18,120 --> 04:32:24,240
 thank you chair Richard can you provide us when you have time with an update to

2949
04:32:24,240 --> 04:32:30,440
 that substation and what it would take for the city to initiate that cleanup or

2950
04:32:30,440 --> 04:32:39,080
 where where it's at in in in removing that yeah and that is the TMP so the

2951
04:32:39,080 --> 04:32:43,760
 substations actually the the Texas Municipal Power Authority or Association

2952
04:32:43,760 --> 04:32:47,840
 so it's not technically the city's equipment but I will reach out to DME

2953
04:32:47,840 --> 04:32:51,840
 and get that get an answer and I'll just provide an update yeah maybe just some

2954
04:32:51,840 --> 04:32:55,760
 kind of update of what's the process the procedure what can what can those people

2955
04:32:55,760 --> 04:33:08,400
 expect thank you crystal what was the count on the NPC but what was it was it

2956
04:33:08,400 --> 04:33:13,400
 unanimous what did you say I believe it was unanimous last night on adding those

2957
04:33:13,400 --> 04:33:19,960
 again it was just a clarification language I have one item it literally

2958
04:33:19,960 --> 04:33:23,600
 affects no one but me and I guess maybe the mayor and Kathy's you could listen

2959
04:33:23,600 --> 04:33:28,800
 to this for some reason on the summary of votes the recuse number doesn't show

2960
04:33:28,800 --> 04:33:35,520
 up up top so tonight we had a recuse and up top it said five zero zero I have no

2961
04:33:35,520 --> 04:33:42,160
 idea if that's a tech issue but I hate to recall a boat wrongly that you know

2962
04:33:42,160 --> 04:33:52,760
 what I'm saying okay okay it gotcha when I almost miscalled it tonight but I saw

2963
04:33:52,760 --> 04:33:58,240
 blue bullet next to whoever's recusing themselves but at the top there's three

2964
04:33:58,240 --> 04:34:02,840
 blocks it always says zero for recuse I'm surprised Mayor Watts doesn't

2965
04:34:02,840 --> 04:34:09,200
 complain about that but I am complaining about it formally thanks for the ears

2966
04:34:09,200 --> 04:34:15,960
 any other discussion tonight for the matrix great with that I will close our

2967
04:34:15,960 --> 04:34:23,000
 meeting at 917 thank you