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