WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.420
 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the PNZ Commission work

00:00:08.420 --> 00:00:13.240
 session meeting for November 6 2019. Seeing that we do have a quorum I'll

00:00:13.240 --> 00:00:18.520
 open the meeting at 2 0 5. First item of business is to receive a report and hold

00:00:18.520 --> 00:00:21.480
 the discussion over the new administrative criteria manuals and

00:00:21.480 --> 00:00:29.920
 updates to existing criteria manuals and I'll invite Ron McGuida for presentation.

00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:40.560
 Thank You Chair, members of the Commission, good afternoon. Ron McGuida again with

00:00:40.560 --> 00:00:48.960
 development services. Sorry get back to the beginning of the presentation. The

00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:54.160
 purpose of this work session item is really to introduce the work that staff

00:00:54.160 --> 00:00:58.920
 is doing to create some criteria manuals as well as update some existing

00:00:58.920 --> 00:01:04.720
 criteria manuals. But just way of purpose and background we continue to update and

00:01:04.720 --> 00:01:10.320
 improve our development review process by enhancing customer service and

00:01:10.320 --> 00:01:16.000
 enhancing efficiency. By doing so we are making sure that our documents are

00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:19.640
 updated and making sure that we have the documentations that our developers our

00:01:19.640 --> 00:01:24.760
 residents and our property owners need in order to develop here in the city. One

00:01:24.760 --> 00:01:30.040
 of the things that the staff did when we did update our criteria manuals as well

00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:34.320
 as draft our criteria manuals we wanted to make sure that we're streamlining the

00:01:34.320 --> 00:01:43.000
 process that we're removing any work guesswork reducing any inconsistency and

00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:47.240
 then involving the stakeholders as much as possible in the process. So just want

00:01:47.240 --> 00:01:54.040
 to lead that into how we are here today. What we're presenting to you all is a set

00:01:54.040 --> 00:02:01.600
 of two new criteria manuals and also five updates to existing criteria manuals. Now

00:02:01.600 --> 00:02:06.360
 those that are not familiar with criteria manuals the criteria manuals

00:02:06.360 --> 00:02:11.080
 are essentially supportive documents that help administer the

00:02:11.080 --> 00:02:17.000
 Denton Development Code. It is maintained and updated annually and so

00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:22.400
 this is the process. We are at the last part of the year and we're looking at

00:02:22.400 --> 00:02:27.880
 updating our criteria manuals. There are a number of members of staff here present

00:02:27.880 --> 00:02:33.640
 that will provide an overview. There is again a total seven criteria manuals and

00:02:33.640 --> 00:02:39.760
 we'll go through that again in the next few minutes. At the end and towards the

00:02:39.760 --> 00:02:44.520
 middle we will also be discussing a summary of how we are here and where

00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:51.360
 we're going to go and what needs to happen next. Just to give you just a

00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:55.560
 quick update before we get into the presentations we're now currently here

00:02:55.560 --> 00:03:01.120
 obviously on November 6th at a public P&Z work session. This Friday will be a

00:03:01.120 --> 00:03:04.760
 conference that the staff will be presenting these criteria manuals to a

00:03:04.760 --> 00:03:09.840
 group of professional engineers. Following that there will be a work

00:03:09.840 --> 00:03:13.520
 session with City Council sharing the same information that you all are getting

00:03:13.520 --> 00:03:18.640
 today. We'll have a public open house shared sharing the information that we

00:03:18.640 --> 00:03:23.040
 have with the public and hopefully get some good impact, impact input that is.

00:03:23.040 --> 00:03:27.260
 We hope that by November 30th the end of this month we'll have enough

00:03:27.260 --> 00:03:31.040
 information to bring back this item to the Planning Zoning Commission as a

00:03:31.040 --> 00:03:37.080
 public hearing item and those items are just going to be the Administrative

00:03:37.080 --> 00:03:41.720
 Criteria Manual and the ESA Criteria Manual primarily because they are new

00:03:41.720 --> 00:03:45.800
 criteria manuals. Those existing criteria manuals do not require a public hearing

00:03:45.800 --> 00:03:49.800
 they just require a public hearing with the planning I'm sorry with the City

00:03:49.800 --> 00:03:57.440
 Council. Here is the list of criteria manuals that we are working on. Again two

00:03:57.440 --> 00:04:02.760
 new ones are in the top two. I will be facilitating the Administrative

00:04:02.760 --> 00:04:08.560
 Criteria Manual. Deborah Vieira and Christy Upton will be administering the

00:04:08.560 --> 00:04:13.600
 environmental sensitive areas. Now you heard from Christy Upton a couple

00:04:13.600 --> 00:04:18.080
 meetings ago I think was October 16th so she will now be presenting here at this

00:04:18.080 --> 00:04:23.120
 work session again because that presentation was made several or one

00:04:23.120 --> 00:04:28.540
 PNZ meeting ago. Eugene McKinney is here to talk about solid waste and Pritam

00:04:28.540 --> 00:04:33.840
 Deshmukh is going to discuss the rest of the criteria manual as you see here. So

00:04:33.840 --> 00:04:38.660
 with that I'm going to go ahead and start with the Admin Criteria Manual. The

00:04:38.660 --> 00:04:42.960
 Admin Criteria Manual replaces what we often refer to as the Site Design

00:04:42.960 --> 00:04:48.120
 Criteria Manual. It again as mentioned in the introduction the Administrative

00:04:48.120 --> 00:04:51.280
 Criteria Manual assist in the administration of the development code

00:04:51.280 --> 00:04:56.760
 and the development process. It provides information and guidance to our property

00:04:56.760 --> 00:05:01.680
 owners our citizens and our developers in relationship to development. It is a

00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:07.160
 supplemental document and it contains a number of items including a development

00:05:07.160 --> 00:05:12.360
 process guide. You see a little bit of it here which will be included in the

00:05:12.360 --> 00:05:16.480
 Administrative Criteria Manual so if you haven't seen it already it's a helpful

00:05:16.480 --> 00:05:23.320
 page or a helpful PDF that identifies five stages of development review. There

00:05:23.320 --> 00:05:26.840
 are also other approvals and procedures included in the Administrative Criteria

00:05:26.840 --> 00:05:32.300
 Manual as well as appendices and contact information. Those appendices are

00:05:32.300 --> 00:05:37.400
 important because they're primarily what our development community looks for when

00:05:37.400 --> 00:05:42.520
 looking at how to develop here in the city. As you can see starting with number

00:05:42.520 --> 00:05:47.040
 one it's starting off with how do you apply? You know what what do you need to

00:05:47.040 --> 00:05:52.880
 submit through a checklist as well as how to access your project through eTrackit

00:05:52.880 --> 00:05:58.200
 and through Project Docs. It goes into further standards and regulations that

00:05:58.200 --> 00:06:03.000
 again these are not competing with the DDC they're primarily supplementing the

00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:08.760
 DDC and supporting it in ways that is not included in the DDC. So again these

00:06:08.760 --> 00:06:12.440
 standards that you see in the Administrative Criteria Manual are just

00:06:12.440 --> 00:06:17.280
 technical standards that are required for development and as you continue to

00:06:17.280 --> 00:06:21.720
 go down the list you see that there's helpful information again that is used

00:06:21.720 --> 00:06:27.880
 either from an architect or a landscape architect or just in general someone

00:06:27.880 --> 00:06:31.400
 that's developing and trying to put together a site plan. They've got all the

00:06:31.400 --> 00:06:36.240
 information that they need hopefully within the Administrative Criteria Manual.

00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:42.920
 Does anybody have any questions on the Administrative Criteria Manual? Again

00:06:42.920 --> 00:06:48.600
 it's really a how-to instruction document as well as it houses a lot of

00:06:48.600 --> 00:06:52.160
 the supportive materials that our developers and property owners and

00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:59.000
 citizens often look for or look to when proposing development. Commissioner Ellis.

00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:02.920
 Thank you Chair. Ron I did have kind of a specific question as I was reading

00:07:02.920 --> 00:07:06.640
 through this with regard to the certificate of zoning compliance which I

00:07:06.640 --> 00:07:11.760
 know is new. So it says on there applicants may be required to obtain a

00:07:11.760 --> 00:07:16.840
 certificate of zoning compliance at the time of applying for a building permit.

00:07:16.840 --> 00:07:23.160
 So that's not all. So what are some examples of who would be? So some

00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:28.360
 sometimes like all you know all that we know is there's there's a CO currently.

00:07:28.360 --> 00:07:32.800
 We're trying to get away from issuing a CO for everything. So the zoning

00:07:32.800 --> 00:07:38.280
 compliance certificate serves as that a portion of that. For example a parking

00:07:38.280 --> 00:07:41.920
 lot you know somebody wants to develop a parking lot. Well there's not it's not a

00:07:41.920 --> 00:07:46.680
 CO because there's no building to occupy so a certificate of zoning compliance

00:07:46.680 --> 00:07:51.400
 would fall under that category. So just a case-by-case project by project? Correct.

00:07:51.400 --> 00:07:56.220
 We hope to have a zoning compliance certificate for most of our properties.

00:07:56.220 --> 00:08:00.680
 That's that's the goal but there are specifics that specific ones that would

00:08:00.680 --> 00:08:09.400
 require it. Okay well I'm going to introduce Eugene McKinney to talk about

00:08:09.400 --> 00:08:14.680
 solid waste, solid waste criteria manual and he'll provide you with what's being

00:08:14.680 --> 00:08:17.080
 updated.

00:08:17.080 --> 00:08:25.720
 It is a pleasure to to be here this afternoon and to give you all some

00:08:25.720 --> 00:08:32.140
 updates on some things that we're doing in solid waste to update our our site

00:08:32.140 --> 00:08:38.160
 criteria manual. As noted this criteria manual has been updated since 2009. So

00:08:38.160 --> 00:08:42.200
 some things in the industry and our vehicles and things have changed. With

00:08:42.200 --> 00:08:49.640
 that being said we wanted to clarify some edits in there within the language. One

00:08:49.640 --> 00:08:54.680
 of the things that we did put in about solid waste determining the sizes, types

00:08:54.680 --> 00:08:58.760
 of containers but we want to work closer with our business owners and our

00:08:58.760 --> 00:09:02.600
 builders to determine if they're receiving the right kind of container,

00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:07.200
 right type of a container for their business and the business needs. For

00:09:07.200 --> 00:09:12.360
 example you may produce eight yards of debris, garbage, you may only need a

00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:17.520
 container. You may well I'm sorry you may produce eight yards and maybe once a

00:09:17.520 --> 00:09:21.480
 week. Do you pile it all in a yard container or do you get a smaller

00:09:21.480 --> 00:09:24.520
 container or multiple times a week? So we want to create a relationship to make

00:09:24.520 --> 00:09:29.080
 sure that we are getting the right you know right type of container. Traffic and

00:09:29.080 --> 00:09:33.240
 other things matter so we just want to increase that relationship to make sure

00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:37.840
 we're doing right by our customers. We want to widen our enclosures. As the

00:09:37.840 --> 00:09:41.980
 industry has changed our trucks have changed specifications and everything.

00:09:41.980 --> 00:09:46.240
 Our trucks are a little wider to protect against some vital organs. I say organs

00:09:46.240 --> 00:09:50.440
 in arteries our hydraulic lines in particular electric lines. They now run

00:09:50.440 --> 00:09:54.720
 on the outside of the truck for easy repair and they have shields on them. So

00:09:54.720 --> 00:09:58.220
 with those shields with that being said the shields cause the trucks to be just

00:09:58.220 --> 00:10:02.440
 a little wider inches not a whole lot but inches. So by widening our storage

00:10:02.440 --> 00:10:08.560
 our eventments will actually allow us to go in without causing damage to our

00:10:08.560 --> 00:10:14.520
 trucks or property. Also we've asked these eventments to be wider just in

00:10:14.520 --> 00:10:18.960
 case there's storage in the eventments. We've often ran into situations where

00:10:18.960 --> 00:10:22.360
 we'd service a container and there's all type of valuable storage items in the

00:10:22.360 --> 00:10:24.800
 container and it's damaged because there's just not a room enough room

00:10:24.800 --> 00:10:27.880
 inside there. So again creating a relationship we're working with the

00:10:27.880 --> 00:10:31.400
 property owner will rectify a lot of that stuff a lot of those things like

00:10:31.400 --> 00:10:37.120
 that. Our measurements represents the inside wall dimension. I think previously

00:10:37.120 --> 00:10:41.320
 it was outside but if we do inside that'll ensure that we're making we're

00:10:41.320 --> 00:10:45.040
 meeting the right measurements here. I mean you can say for example you say 12

00:10:45.040 --> 00:10:52.240
 12 feet inside or 13 feet inside or that that ensures that we have 12 feet or 13

00:10:52.240 --> 00:10:56.920
 feet of clearance to drive the truck in. Opposed to outside that's 12 feet

00:10:56.920 --> 00:11:00.400
 outside well when you put everything in and the ballads and the gates and

00:11:00.400 --> 00:11:03.960
 everything that might turn into a 10 or 11 feet. So we just want to make sure

00:11:03.960 --> 00:11:07.800
 that we're clearing our language. Something we're looking at as well our

00:11:07.800 --> 00:11:12.760
 dual enclosures we want to increase them from 24 or 5 to 26 feet. Again with the

00:11:12.760 --> 00:11:16.800
 trucks being a little bit larger a little bit wider we need a little more

00:11:16.800 --> 00:11:23.200
 space to get in. In between that each each on the duals each enclosure should

00:11:23.200 --> 00:11:28.680
 be 12 feet 8 inches. That gives us that allows for a 4 inch for 5 inch pillar in

00:11:28.680 --> 00:11:32.920
 the middle to close the gates and to compensate with the increased size or

00:11:32.920 --> 00:11:38.520
 the width of the truck. All our drawings with this to go along with the

00:11:38.520 --> 00:11:42.320
 conversation the drawings have been updated and everything is alphabetically

00:11:42.320 --> 00:11:52.800
 in order. Any questions? No questions. Thank you. Thank you.

00:11:52.800 --> 00:12:04.120
 Good afternoon. Deputy City Engineer. I'll be talking about the

00:12:04.120 --> 00:12:07.640
 remaining manuals and start with the construction guarantee manual. This is

00:12:07.640 --> 00:12:13.560
 the manual that deals with public infrastructure within private

00:12:13.560 --> 00:12:17.400
 development. So if you have a development that has streets and other

00:12:17.400 --> 00:12:22.120
 facilities water waste water drying into it this defines how things will be laid.

00:12:22.120 --> 00:12:28.400
 This manual was updated back in 2002 so it's pretty old it has not been updated.

00:12:28.400 --> 00:12:32.120
 So I'm not going to read through all of these bullet points but the highlights of

00:12:32.120 --> 00:12:36.800
 this is there are a lot of roles and responsibilities that have changed so the

00:12:36.800 --> 00:12:41.280
 organizational structure has changed. We've updated that portion. We've added

00:12:41.280 --> 00:12:47.600
 extra language of what is required in the construction plans. We've added extra

00:12:47.600 --> 00:12:51.440
 information that's needed as part of the construction plans and then we've also

00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:56.400
 tightened some of the things as far as safety is concerned. So traffic control

00:12:56.400 --> 00:13:01.320
 plans and traffic lane closure plans while you're tying into the street water

00:13:01.320 --> 00:13:05.880
 sewer system and stuff like that. So we've elaborated and added a lot more

00:13:05.880 --> 00:13:10.520
 language to make it more understandable easy to read and that's what's entailed

00:13:10.520 --> 00:13:17.200
 in this particular update. Any questions? I'm gonna move on to the next one.

00:13:17.200 --> 00:13:21.760
 Stonewater design criteria manual. This is a much newer manual. This was updated

00:13:21.760 --> 00:13:27.240
 last year. I came here in front of BNZ and presented. What we're doing every

00:13:27.240 --> 00:13:32.600
 year as part of the updates is really making sure that we listen to all the

00:13:32.600 --> 00:13:36.000
 developers to listen to their needs and some of the things you can notice

00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:42.120
 they're included in these changes are more explicit language, more elaboration,

00:13:42.120 --> 00:13:46.960
 more descriptive narrative. At the same time we're adding more materials that

00:13:46.960 --> 00:13:54.320
 are we're able to use. So some of the stuff that is in here, earthen channels

00:13:54.320 --> 00:14:00.160
 are now allowable once we understand what the velocities are and then the main

00:14:00.160 --> 00:14:05.440
 important thing here is the private detention. We no longer require a public

00:14:05.440 --> 00:14:11.080
 drainage easement over private detention and there was a large note that was in

00:14:11.080 --> 00:14:14.960
 every plan that you've probably seen over years. We're trying to take that out.

00:14:14.960 --> 00:14:19.400
 All we need is an operation and maintenance manual and it's an agreement

00:14:19.400 --> 00:14:23.000
 between private properties so we don't need to get involved in some of this. So

00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:28.080
 that's one of the major changes in the Stonewater criteria manual. Yes sir. So I

00:14:28.080 --> 00:14:32.320
 appreciate getting a more explicit language for developers and everyone

00:14:32.320 --> 00:14:36.440
 else to understand. Is there explicit language around the velocity analysis of

00:14:36.440 --> 00:14:41.840
 earthen channels? So that will be part of the analysis that they conduct. They

00:14:41.840 --> 00:14:46.560
 will conduct a hydrology analysis and that defines velocity. So they have

00:14:46.560 --> 00:14:51.480
 existing velocities, existing flow lines and they will go through analysis and

00:14:51.480 --> 00:14:56.920
 say here are the existing velocities and this is how much we're proposing to get.

00:14:56.920 --> 00:15:01.000
 So based on all that analysis we'll determine. So there's no specific one

00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:05.360
 formula fits all. It just depends on the terrain. But there is a certain

00:15:05.360 --> 00:15:12.120
 assessment threshold. Correct. It's not arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. Okay. Any other

00:15:12.120 --> 00:15:18.720
 questions? This I'm gonna skip. We're gonna come back next P&Z and talk about

00:15:18.720 --> 00:15:22.280
 the criteria manual. None of the background information was included in

00:15:22.280 --> 00:15:26.440
 your packet so I'm gonna bring it back and as you see it's very little update

00:15:26.440 --> 00:15:31.480
 but the last manual is the water wastewater criteria manual. And similar

00:15:31.480 --> 00:15:37.720
 concept, similar thing, theme going on here. We have added more materials. We

00:15:37.720 --> 00:15:42.080
 have expanded some of our tables. If you see some of these down here we've added

00:15:42.080 --> 00:15:47.280
 more pipes, pipe types of material that are acceptable, manhole material that

00:15:47.280 --> 00:15:52.720
 are acceptable. We've added some language for protecting our water lines under

00:15:52.720 --> 00:15:58.920
 other utilities and fences and so on and so forth. So yes similar to the previous

00:15:58.920 --> 00:16:04.560
 criteria manual. This is more clean up. This is more we've listened. We've gotten

00:16:04.560 --> 00:16:08.560
 your feedback from most of the contractor developer that are trying to

00:16:08.560 --> 00:16:14.120
 put infrastructure in the ground and we've made it much more easier.

00:16:14.120 --> 00:16:23.480
 For the item where you were simplifying it to the TCEQ guidelines, I mean

00:16:23.480 --> 00:16:28.220
 was our were our guidelines before and I'll admit I haven't read through all the

00:16:28.220 --> 00:16:33.760
 old guidelines. Were they identical to the TCEQ guidelines? I think Jim had a

00:16:33.760 --> 00:16:45.800
 better question. Jim Wilder, Engineering Services. They were at one time. The

00:16:45.800 --> 00:16:50.640
 problem is as TCEQ would update things and the criteria manual would not be

00:16:50.640 --> 00:16:56.640
 updated. It is simply easier to not try to reproduce something that another

00:16:56.640 --> 00:17:02.560
 organization is already updating continuously and just simply refer over

00:17:02.560 --> 00:17:07.440
 to them. We've done that also in the Drainage Criteria Manual with the iSwim

00:17:07.440 --> 00:17:12.840
 standards that NETCOG puts out regarding erosion control for construction

00:17:12.840 --> 00:17:17.180
 projects and similar things. We were just trying to get rid of information that

00:17:17.180 --> 00:17:22.560
 could become outdated because somebody's not updating it. And so for this

00:17:22.560 --> 00:17:30.440
 reference, we have additional guidelines for the city. So we have both of

00:17:30.440 --> 00:17:34.720
 those in this section or we are simply using the TCEQ? We're simply using the

00:17:34.720 --> 00:17:41.080
 TCEQ. The original one copied the TCEQ requirements but again nobody kept up

00:17:41.080 --> 00:17:46.400
 with it and we didn't realize that it wasn't being kept up. So you would read

00:17:46.400 --> 00:17:51.000
 our Drainage Criteria Manual and it would say one thing but the current

00:17:51.000 --> 00:17:59.360
 TCEQ rules said something different. And the TCEQ governs this item. We can't

00:17:59.360 --> 00:18:05.280
 supersede it. So it was a discrepancy that we needed to just clean up and

00:18:05.280 --> 00:18:13.680
 easiest way was just to remove it, refer everybody to TCEQ. Thank you. Thank you. Any other

00:18:13.680 --> 00:18:18.000
 questions? I think we're on the last slide again.

00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:28.320
 So we're just gonna wrap up. Thanks to these folks to presenting, which

00:18:28.320 --> 00:18:32.880
 is really helpful. We will be coming back to the Planning

00:18:32.880 --> 00:18:37.200
 Zoning Commission on December 12th for the Administrative Criteria Manual and

00:18:37.200 --> 00:18:41.520
 the ESA Environmental Sensitive Area Criteria Manual as a public hearing item.

00:18:41.520 --> 00:18:50.080
 Again, as part of that process to get them created. As Preetam indicated, there

00:18:50.080 --> 00:18:53.800
 will be a future work session item on the Transportation Criteria Manual. We

00:18:53.800 --> 00:18:59.040
 will discuss that at that time. But as far as the other criteria manuals, what

00:18:59.040 --> 00:19:03.560
 we hope from this work session is to just receive input and answer any

00:19:03.560 --> 00:19:09.040
 questions that you may have. If there's no other input or questions, they're

00:19:09.040 --> 00:19:14.240
 going to be scheduled to go to the City Council for consideration on December

00:19:14.240 --> 00:19:18.760
 17th. Again, those are the Construction Criteria Manual, the Storm Water, the

00:19:18.760 --> 00:19:24.760
 Wastewater, Water and Wastewater, as well as the Soil Waste Criteria Manual. That

00:19:24.760 --> 00:19:28.040
 concludes our presentation. And again, if there's any other follow-up question, we'd

00:19:28.040 --> 00:19:35.160
 be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ron. Okay. The next item of business this

00:19:35.160 --> 00:19:41.320
 afternoon is item 1B, DCA 19-009, Receive Report and Hold

00:19:41.320 --> 00:19:51.920
 Discussion about subchapter 1 and subchapter 6 and subchapter 8. Looks like

00:19:51.920 --> 00:20:01.960
 Hayley's going to start us off. And if you all are amenable to it, we can go

00:20:01.960 --> 00:20:06.120
 ahead and roll in the public hearing clarification of agenda items into this

00:20:06.120 --> 00:20:13.280
 same discussion if you'd like. Sure. All right. So I wanted to start by giving you

00:20:13.280 --> 00:20:16.840
 all a little background since we do have a new code and some new commissioners on

00:20:16.840 --> 00:20:22.840
 how the code amendment process works. So section 2.7.4 of the DDC

00:20:22.840 --> 00:20:27.440
 specifies that text amendments may only be initiated by three entities. That's

00:20:27.440 --> 00:20:30.240
 either by the Director of Development Services, which would be a staff

00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:33.960
 initiated amendment, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or by the City

00:20:33.960 --> 00:20:39.040
 Council. So the amendments that are before you today were initiated by the

00:20:39.040 --> 00:20:42.760
 City Council following a series of work sessions as we talked about at our last

00:20:42.760 --> 00:20:47.240
 meeting here. So your role in this process is to hold the first of two

00:20:47.240 --> 00:20:52.280
 public hearings that are required by code and review the proposed amendments

00:20:52.280 --> 00:20:54.960
 in accordance with the criteria for approval and then make a recommendation

00:20:54.960 --> 00:21:01.760
 to Council who will hold the second of two public hearings on this item. So as I

00:21:01.760 --> 00:21:05.040
 mentioned there there were a series of Council work sessions and policy

00:21:05.040 --> 00:21:09.840
 discussions that led to this. Those started back in September of 2018 when

00:21:09.840 --> 00:21:14.000
 the Council initially requested a work session to review and discuss the city's

00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:19.280
 gas well setback requirements and how Denton compared to other DFW cities. At

00:21:19.280 --> 00:21:22.880
 that time Dr. Banks from our environmental services department

00:21:22.880 --> 00:21:27.280
 presented that information to them as well as information about the Fort Worth

00:21:27.280 --> 00:21:33.560
 gas well study that was kind of the the basis for where we are today. In July of

00:21:33.560 --> 00:21:37.720
 this this year Council requested a second work session to continue that

00:21:37.720 --> 00:21:43.000
 discussion. At that time there was also discussion of whether a Denton specific

00:21:43.000 --> 00:21:45.800
 study should be done to look at the emissions in our area and try to

00:21:45.800 --> 00:21:50.740
 determine a specific setback. Council opted not to go that route but they did

00:21:50.740 --> 00:21:55.720
 at that time provide direction for staff to begin working on code amendments to

00:21:55.720 --> 00:22:01.240
 increase our reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet. So those first two

00:22:01.240 --> 00:22:04.160
 development services was really not involved in those were led by the

00:22:04.160 --> 00:22:07.320
 environmental services side of things looking at the scientific background of

00:22:07.320 --> 00:22:11.120
 this but once they provided that direction for the code amendment it then

00:22:11.120 --> 00:22:14.480
 fell to our department to begin drafting those in conjunction with our legal

00:22:14.480 --> 00:22:20.320
 department. Haley can I interrupt real fast? I apologize. The decision not to have a

00:22:20.320 --> 00:22:25.000
 Denton specific study is that a vote or is that just general consensus in a work

00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:29.360
 session or is that would they take a vote on that? No it was just part of a

00:22:29.360 --> 00:22:32.320
 work session discussion so it was kind of an informal vote if you will where

00:22:32.320 --> 00:22:35.560
 the mayor you know asked for a show of hands on who was interested in that

00:22:35.560 --> 00:22:39.840
 particular topic. Dr. Banks provided them with a cost analysis at that point in

00:22:39.840 --> 00:22:43.800
 time that should be available in the presentation if you were to look back at

00:22:43.800 --> 00:22:47.080
 that date and I think just based on the timing that it would take to do such a

00:22:47.080 --> 00:22:51.760
 study and the cost of it they chose not to move forward with that. Was there a

00:22:51.760 --> 00:22:58.800
 general consensus across the council for that or was it split? I believe it was

00:22:58.800 --> 00:23:04.560
 split. I know there wasn't a majority in favor of it but I'm not sure what that

00:23:04.560 --> 00:23:13.680
 specific was. So the result of that was then a subsequent work session led by

00:23:13.680 --> 00:23:17.360
 development services where we brought forward some proposed text language

00:23:17.360 --> 00:23:22.280
 that would increase the reverse setback to 500 feet as they requested. At that

00:23:22.280 --> 00:23:25.960
 time we also discussed variance options and the potential creation of

00:23:25.960 --> 00:23:29.400
 non-conformities and got council direction on how to move forward with

00:23:29.400 --> 00:23:33.920
 that. So that's that's what we'll be looking at today and if you remember at

00:23:33.920 --> 00:23:36.800
 the last meeting we brought forward those are initial drafts. There have been a

00:23:36.800 --> 00:23:39.920
 couple of changes based on what we talked about in our October work session

00:23:39.920 --> 00:23:47.040
 but we will get into the specifics of those a little bit later. Mr. Beck. So back

00:23:47.040 --> 00:23:56.880
 to the second bullet, during council did what I mean I guess I can review the

00:23:56.880 --> 00:24:01.920
 agenda for myself so if you could just give a maybe a really simple overview of

00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:05.720
 what sort of materials were presented to council in terms of the rationale for

00:24:05.720 --> 00:24:11.720
 for those kinds of distances that they that led them to that 500 foot decision

00:24:11.720 --> 00:24:17.640
 direction? There were council had mentioned in various forms of requests

00:24:17.640 --> 00:24:21.120
 through emails and things like that to staff different setback options that

00:24:21.120 --> 00:24:26.360
 ranged from you know 300 feet based on the fire code up to 1200 feet I believe

00:24:26.360 --> 00:24:30.760
 based on flower mound. So staff brought forward data related to how all of those

00:24:30.760 --> 00:24:35.320
 you know what what that land use effect would look like on those and in the end

00:24:35.320 --> 00:24:40.440
 the only the only scientific study that's been conducted in this area within the

00:24:40.440 --> 00:24:44.760
 Barnett Shale was that Fort Worth study that Dr. Banks summarized for them and

00:24:44.760 --> 00:24:49.200
 they used that as the basis for this rationale rather than doing a Denton

00:24:49.200 --> 00:24:58.040
 specific air quality study. So again just to make sure we're all starting off on

00:24:58.040 --> 00:25:02.480
 the same page here we do have really three different types of setbacks in the

00:25:02.480 --> 00:25:07.240
 DDC but two two very broad categories the first being those applicable to

00:25:07.240 --> 00:25:11.140
 gas well sites that are developing so that's type one here on the left those

00:25:11.140 --> 00:25:14.880
 are the setbacks measured from the pad site when it develops out to the the

00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:19.160
 structures and protected uses type two is the reverse setback which is what

00:25:19.160 --> 00:25:22.600
 we're looking at today and that is measured from those structures towards

00:25:22.600 --> 00:25:27.320
 the pad site when the protected use is the developing entity and then the code

00:25:27.320 --> 00:25:30.280
 currently also has what's called a minimum setback and that is kind of a

00:25:30.280 --> 00:25:33.240
 subset of the gas well setback because it's what an operator can seek a

00:25:33.240 --> 00:25:38.520
 reduction down to through various variance processes and before we jump

00:25:38.520 --> 00:25:41.760
 into the text of the code amendment at the last work session there was a

00:25:41.760 --> 00:25:45.960
 request for information from legal regarding takings so I've got a few

00:25:45.960 --> 00:25:53.040
 slides on that that I'll let Cynthia present. I think she's gonna do it from

00:25:53.040 --> 00:25:59.760
 here Haley if you just drive the slides. I will drive this bus. Just presenting a

00:25:59.760 --> 00:26:06.060
 very general overview of the takings and the issue related to increasing the gas

00:26:06.060 --> 00:26:12.520
 well setbacks like the United States Constitution states that governments are

00:26:12.520 --> 00:26:19.520
 prohibited from taking property without just compensation in a in a typical

00:26:19.520 --> 00:26:24.000
 taking scenario it's an eminent domain of condemnation action where we're

00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:32.720
 purchasing land for a roadway or other expansion. In that case we're actually

00:26:32.720 --> 00:26:37.160
 filing if we can't come to an agreement we're actually filing suit in court to

00:26:37.160 --> 00:26:47.080
 obtain the property. In this case where you'd have a local regulation that could

00:26:47.080 --> 00:26:53.920
 be somehow interfering with a person's right to use their property it's could

00:26:53.920 --> 00:26:59.400
 be considered a regulatory taking. That type of taking occurs when the

00:26:59.400 --> 00:27:05.680
 regulation destroys the value of the private property. There have been several big

00:27:05.680 --> 00:27:11.120
 US Supreme Court cases on that that have given us guidance on how to

00:27:11.120 --> 00:27:16.440
 analyze those cases. In that case the property owner would be filing a lawsuit

00:27:16.440 --> 00:27:26.440
 against the city so it's a we would be the defendant in that matter. So in 2015

00:27:26.440 --> 00:27:32.360
 there was a discussion about increasing the reverse setbacks to 500 feet and

00:27:32.360 --> 00:27:37.760
 there was a lot of concern and comments from the real estate

00:27:37.760 --> 00:27:43.320
 community and landowners and it was this this argument the takings claim that was

00:27:43.320 --> 00:27:48.520
 brought up and that's why the setback was not one of the reasons why the setback

00:27:48.520 --> 00:28:00.920
 was not increased to 500 feet. The 2015 ordinance also had a thousand foot

00:28:00.920 --> 00:28:07.600
 setbacks for for pad sites that that was actually reduced in that ordinance from

00:28:07.600 --> 00:28:19.000
 1,200 feet due to legislators testimony and the the 250 foot setback for existing

00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:30.040
 pad sites was was retained in that 2015 amendment. So in order for this the city

00:28:30.040 --> 00:28:35.880
 to or any local government to defend a takings claim we would have to convince

00:28:35.880 --> 00:28:41.480
 a court that we are doing it to protect the public health safety and welfare of

00:28:41.480 --> 00:28:50.680
 the community or to obey the nuisance and a nuisance is really a it's a legal

00:28:50.680 --> 00:28:54.600
 term it has meaning to it so it'd be a judge declaring that a certain use is a

00:28:54.600 --> 00:28:59.800
 nuisance it wouldn't be the city saying on our own that it was a nuisance

00:28:59.800 --> 00:29:09.800
 activity. So we must we must the city must prove that that the gas wells

00:29:09.800 --> 00:29:14.760
 present a public health safety and welfare issue to increase that setback

00:29:14.760 --> 00:29:21.360
 that's the general consensus and in order to do that we would have to have a

00:29:21.360 --> 00:29:28.880
 scientific evidence that the setback should be increased and in a a takings

00:29:28.880 --> 00:29:33.320
 lawsuit it would really be a battle of the experts it would be the city's

00:29:33.320 --> 00:29:39.520
 expert against the the operators expert or other parties that are involved in it

00:29:39.520 --> 00:29:48.640
 to to convince a court that what's what side is right so it'd really be science

00:29:48.640 --> 00:29:57.480
 that would win win in this case and just to note the the TCEQ and the Railroad

00:29:57.480 --> 00:30:03.560
 Commission well they won't accept a study that was a commission by the state

00:30:03.560 --> 00:30:10.400
 with regard to the gas well setbacks. Commissioner Beck. Can I follow up on that

00:30:10.400 --> 00:30:15.480
 point real quick though if they what what are the implications of not

00:30:15.480 --> 00:30:21.400
 accepting a study from the Railroad Commission or the TCEQ in terms of our

00:30:21.400 --> 00:30:32.760
 legal obligations? They not accepting a study means what to the the procedures

00:30:32.760 --> 00:30:40.840
 of any claim in a takings claim? Well the state does that would have some weight

00:30:40.840 --> 00:30:49.640
 with whether or not the state recognized the study with regard to any any lawsuit

00:30:49.640 --> 00:30:57.200
 or the support of the setback increase. And courts never override the REC? I

00:30:57.200 --> 00:31:03.600
 can't predict that but that I generally that's the consensus is they would have

00:31:03.600 --> 00:31:06.560
 to accept the study.

00:31:06.560 --> 00:31:17.680
 Jerry, you're not going to the mic well if you want to pick up or Cynthia can

00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:30.360
 speak. So even it even if we even if we prevail in a lawsuit we still have may

00:31:30.360 --> 00:31:37.840
 have to pay if the setback is not deemed reasonable. So these are all things that

00:31:37.840 --> 00:31:45.600
 the city has considered in the past when reviewing this very issue with regard

00:31:45.600 --> 00:31:51.920
 to takings claims and as Mr. Drake has mentioned there is there's state

00:31:51.920 --> 00:32:01.280
 preemption with regard to what we can regulate for gas wells. So following up

00:32:01.280 --> 00:32:06.320
 on that point if I might the there's a number as you said there's a

00:32:06.320 --> 00:32:10.760
 there's a number of rationale for when something is a nuisance or noxious use

00:32:10.760 --> 00:32:17.120
 and that we can regulate and so and and I understand that HB 40 pretty much

00:32:17.120 --> 00:32:25.400
 mandates and controls things let's globally say below the ground but left

00:32:25.400 --> 00:32:30.440
 nebulous or even in our purview the things above the ground especially not

00:32:30.440 --> 00:32:33.760
 the gas wells themselves but the things around the gas wells the other

00:32:33.760 --> 00:32:42.600
 developments that we'd be talking about. So my I guess my question is to in in

00:32:42.600 --> 00:32:47.120
 in this regard and yes it's it's making a judgment call that you'll probably push

00:32:47.120 --> 00:32:54.520
 back and say well we're not going to make that judgment call but in in cases

00:32:54.520 --> 00:33:00.640
 where there are potential takings it's incumbent upon the the the person who

00:33:00.640 --> 00:33:06.880
 thinks there's a taking to to address that so out of X thousand instances

00:33:06.880 --> 00:33:09.920
 where there was a potential takings how many people actually sue their

00:33:09.920 --> 00:33:14.880
 municipality under these kinds of conditions or at least start procedures

00:33:14.880 --> 00:33:20.440
 whether or not they complete them and then to another extent how how often are

00:33:20.440 --> 00:33:25.660
 they successful implying that the municipality made a bad judgment call by

00:33:25.660 --> 00:33:31.060
 even let's just take the RC and the TCEQ's judgment or whatever the court

00:33:31.060 --> 00:33:38.920
 uses in that case so it seems like there's being a risk assessment that is

00:33:38.920 --> 00:33:46.600
 extremely risk averse for for lawsuits that that I guess I'm asking how warranted

00:33:46.600 --> 00:33:52.040
 is that risk assessment? Well to answer your first question you want to know how

00:33:52.040 --> 00:33:56.320
 many lawsuits there were? I mean I can't answer that and how successful they were

00:33:56.320 --> 00:34:03.880
 I can't answer that but Mr. Drake since you are are the city's litigator would

00:34:03.880 --> 00:34:06.680
 you mind responding?

00:34:06.680 --> 00:34:18.160
 We haven't seen very many inverse condemnations cases I have seen one that

00:34:18.160 --> 00:34:23.960
 involves power lines on body break and that that turned into a case where we

00:34:23.960 --> 00:34:29.040
 counterclaimed it settled with the homeowners to acquire additional right

00:34:29.040 --> 00:34:37.640
 away in that circumstance but as far as preemption is concerned you know I don't

00:34:37.640 --> 00:34:45.000
 really wanted to assess risk in the context of an open session but I do

00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:52.440
 think that in general most cities are aware of those areas where there is a

00:34:52.440 --> 00:34:57.400
 preemption argument and are going to be very circumspect about it and are going

00:34:57.400 --> 00:35:05.760
 to try to avoid an issue where preemption is is likely or in the case

00:35:05.760 --> 00:35:15.120
 of House Bill 40 stated explicitly because that's that's a situation where

00:35:15.120 --> 00:35:21.720
 it leaves you very vulnerable where the legislature has already stated that a

00:35:21.720 --> 00:35:28.880
 certain situation is is preempted to go into it anyway is a very difficult

00:35:28.880 --> 00:35:35.160
 situation to defend. So if I might follow up the these particular cases that were

00:35:35.160 --> 00:35:40.600
 being asked by council to review are reverse setbacks they're on surrounding

00:35:40.600 --> 00:35:47.920
 development so even you know taking the the notion that HB 40 is is splits

00:35:47.920 --> 00:35:55.280
 creaking through the code and demanding behavior that isn't really germane to the

00:35:55.280 --> 00:36:02.000
 surrounding development is it? Well I therefore the risks are different. HB 40

00:36:02.000 --> 00:36:08.440
 is one flavor of of preemption yet you have to understand that in Texas the

00:36:08.440 --> 00:36:11.960
 rights of the mineral owner are superior to the rights of the surface owner and

00:36:11.960 --> 00:36:18.600
 that that that's well established in Texas law and so yes there there are

00:36:18.600 --> 00:36:25.400
 ways to fashion arguments around that but you know again I I don't know that

00:36:25.400 --> 00:36:31.560
 this particular arena is a correct discussion for arguments to be made or

00:36:31.560 --> 00:36:37.440
 strategies and litigation I think the point is that we wanted to make sure

00:36:37.440 --> 00:36:42.320
 that we impressed upon the public in the Planning and Zoning Commission in

00:36:42.320 --> 00:36:49.640
 particular that that that this isn't an easy or easily dismissed issue it's an

00:36:49.640 --> 00:36:56.760
 issue that is it is is fraught with danger it's an issue where the state has

00:36:56.760 --> 00:37:04.600
 spoken on it they have declared that that at least in many areas that that

00:37:04.600 --> 00:37:10.440
 there is definitely preemption against local municipal regulation and it's an

00:37:10.440 --> 00:37:18.280
 area where the state has long held that the rights of mineral owners are superior

00:37:18.280 --> 00:37:23.840
 those of service owners we just have to try to steer a course that that protects

00:37:23.840 --> 00:37:31.480
 the citizens as much as we possibly can I guess I'm good at the same question

00:37:31.480 --> 00:37:37.680
 though and I'm not asking to do a private session comment here so you can

00:37:37.680 --> 00:37:42.560
 redirect that obviously but we're discussing reverse setbacks and and the

00:37:42.560 --> 00:37:47.720
 mineral rights would be the mineral rights for the property in development

00:37:47.720 --> 00:37:55.280
 not not the gas well property well and they're separate is we're discussing

00:37:55.280 --> 00:37:59.200
 development around the gas well we're not talking about regulating the gas

00:37:59.200 --> 00:38:02.440
 wells or the gas production facilities right we're talking about that the

00:38:02.440 --> 00:38:10.200
 development potentially around those kinds of uses mm-hmm so I keep and a lot

00:38:10.200 --> 00:38:14.760
 of the points that I've seen in the last slide are seemed to be related to the

00:38:14.760 --> 00:38:19.320
 gas wells themselves and I'm trying to get a clear picture on how what's what's

00:38:19.320 --> 00:38:23.680
 why why are we discussing the gas wells if we're discussing what's around the

00:38:23.680 --> 00:38:31.280
 gas wells I think the whole purpose for the reverse setback is recognizing that

00:38:31.280 --> 00:38:36.800
 there are studies that support the strong possibly help adverse health

00:38:36.800 --> 00:38:41.440
 effects to people who are surrounding gas wells particularly for what we've

00:38:41.440 --> 00:38:48.120
 defined as protected uses and and the point of having the reverse setbacks is

00:38:48.120 --> 00:38:55.280
 to make sure that those uses are are protected against those impacts and with

00:38:55.280 --> 00:39:00.120
 the Fort Worth study there is at least some support for that that we can rely

00:39:00.120 --> 00:39:06.680
 upon and incite as evidence the and I guess the the question is if there is

00:39:06.680 --> 00:39:13.040
 something that shows a different where is that evidence and you know we would

00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:16.440
 need to be able to cite to that

00:39:16.440 --> 00:39:25.320
 - Charles thank you chair are there past court cases that were reviewed from

00:39:25.320 --> 00:39:31.920
 other cities that led to the points that were just made Cynthia or Jerry I well I

00:39:31.920 --> 00:39:37.200
 think that to a certain extent Denton's kind of in a leadership role among Texas

00:39:37.200 --> 00:39:42.680
 cities and in in challenging many of these regulations but there are other

00:39:42.680 --> 00:39:53.720
 cases in other states that have gone after gas well regulations that you

00:39:53.720 --> 00:39:58.160
 reviewed when you brought up these points is that right okay the slides are

00:39:58.160 --> 00:40:04.520
 general general takings law established by the the US Supreme Court so that's

00:40:04.520 --> 00:40:10.400
 the analysis that that we would use or we have used mr. Drake can I ask you one

00:40:10.400 --> 00:40:20.440
 question please it's actually two questions I lied are you able to

00:40:20.440 --> 00:40:25.760
 disclose or estimate the amount the city spent and then settled with the case on

00:40:25.760 --> 00:40:31.480
 Bonnie Bray I don't remember was it what it's not posted for that that's not a

00:40:31.480 --> 00:40:37.440
 posted item I hesitate to even go into that you know if it's if it's not a

00:40:37.440 --> 00:40:42.560
 posted topic I was just using that as an example of one case that involved the

00:40:42.560 --> 00:40:46.600
 claim of a taking that we defended I understand was it insignificant the

00:40:46.600 --> 00:40:50.280
 money allocated to city litigation and then the settlement of that land I just

00:40:50.280 --> 00:40:53.440
 don't remember it's been years since I've looked at it I know that I worked

00:40:53.440 --> 00:40:57.440
 out for a while we referred it out once we realized that there was a desire to

00:40:57.440 --> 00:41:01.960
 acquire additional right away for the future and then do you remember an

00:41:01.960 --> 00:41:06.880
 estimate how much land we were talking about here was it acres no no very small

00:41:06.880 --> 00:41:11.920
 very small a lot of work okay thanks

00:41:11.920 --> 00:41:22.160
 Haley back to you all right so if there's nothing else on that topic we can

00:41:22.160 --> 00:41:27.080
 jump into what the public hearing will be tonight so again the request before

00:41:27.080 --> 00:41:31.480
 you would be to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed

00:41:31.480 --> 00:41:35.280
 amendments to subchapters one six and eight of the DC related to these

00:41:35.280 --> 00:41:40.000
 increasing reverse setbacks and associated procedures and definitions

00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:45.080
 there are really four major topics of changes that are occurring in the code

00:41:45.080 --> 00:41:51.040
 so we'll go through each one of those in detail and just as a reminder it was in

00:41:51.040 --> 00:41:54.400
 your backup but the code does have five criteria for approval for a code

00:41:54.400 --> 00:41:57.560
 amendment whether it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and other city

00:41:57.560 --> 00:42:02.640
 policies rather it conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the municipal

00:42:02.640 --> 00:42:07.280
 code of ordinances if it's necessary to address a community need or respond to a

00:42:07.280 --> 00:42:10.840
 substantial change in conditions or policy and rather it's consistent with

00:42:10.840 --> 00:42:17.440
 the general purpose and intent of the DDC so the first of the the major topics

00:42:17.440 --> 00:42:20.440
 for this change would be the increase in reverse setbacks themselves so this

00:42:20.440 --> 00:42:24.420
 slide is just showing you our current conditions today all of the reverse

00:42:24.420 --> 00:42:29.960
 setbacks are at 250 feet no matter the scenario regarding zoning or the the

00:42:29.960 --> 00:42:34.400
 status of the gas well site and this is what that would look like if we make

00:42:34.400 --> 00:42:38.280
 this change so reverse setbacks across the board per council direction would be

00:42:38.280 --> 00:42:43.000
 increased to 500 feet and with that there is a need to introduce then a new

00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:47.000
 setback category in the same way we have a minimum setback today for the operator

00:42:47.000 --> 00:42:51.760
 to seek a reduction the same would have to be or would need to be offered to the

00:42:51.760 --> 00:42:55.000
 developers because of those takings claim concerns that they could then get a

00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:00.920
 reduction down as low as 250 feet. Mr. Beck. So Haley when I reviewed some of

00:43:00.920 --> 00:43:04.680
 these materials that you presented before and went through the code I was a

00:43:04.680 --> 00:43:09.440
 little confused by one item and that's the 250 itself and and you can help me

00:43:09.440 --> 00:43:15.240
 clarify this it looked like the there was actually a minimum 300 foot distance

00:43:15.240 --> 00:43:20.760
 for fire code operational distances between structures for just getting in

00:43:20.760 --> 00:43:26.720
 and taking care of an emergency how is that 300 foot not superseding this 250

00:43:26.720 --> 00:43:31.520
 how can they both exist? Let me go back to this diagram and maybe that would help

00:43:31.520 --> 00:43:36.120
 with that so the 300 foot from the fire code is taken from a different point the

00:43:36.120 --> 00:43:39.160
 reverse setbacks and setbacks are measured from the perimeter of the pad

00:43:39.160 --> 00:43:43.160
 site whatever that's established to be on a gas well plat or gas well site plan

00:43:43.160 --> 00:43:47.360
 the 300 foot per the fire code is measured from equipments that contain

00:43:47.360 --> 00:43:51.320
 flammable liquids and gases and typically within a pad site there's well

00:43:51.320 --> 00:43:54.760
 more than 50 feet of space in between well heads or equipment and the edge of

00:43:54.760 --> 00:43:59.560
 that pad so in most cases the 300 actually falls within the radius of the

00:43:59.560 --> 00:44:05.200
 250 foot but both of those measurements do come into play for a protected use and

00:44:05.200 --> 00:44:09.840
 then similarly the for residential development at least the 250 is measured

00:44:09.840 --> 00:44:14.580
 for a new subdivision to the residential lot lines whereas the fire code

00:44:14.580 --> 00:44:19.280
 measurement is structured to equipment so again they typically don't have any

00:44:19.280 --> 00:44:23.080
 conflict within one another it just ends up being the lot line can go at the

00:44:23.080 --> 00:44:26.960
 boundary of the 250 structures can't encroach within that 300 so both

00:44:26.960 --> 00:44:29.760
 measurements are taken when we're looking at a residential subdivision or

00:44:29.760 --> 00:44:36.240
 other protected use and this the fire code that we're using for for the 350 is

00:44:36.240 --> 00:44:40.320
 that ours is that the states what's the source of the fire that's from the

00:44:40.320 --> 00:44:51.240
 international fire code okay you're welcome so again just a caption of what

00:44:51.240 --> 00:44:53.680
 that would look like in the code if you look through the red line you'll see

00:44:53.680 --> 00:44:56.640
 it's it's a much more spacious thing it's not the summary table but those are

00:44:56.640 --> 00:45:01.160
 the same numbers that are in the drafts that were given to you associated with

00:45:01.160 --> 00:45:03.920
 that we then have to introduce a definition for what a minimum reverse

00:45:03.920 --> 00:45:07.480
 setback would be so that would be the minimum distance that a protected use or

00:45:07.480 --> 00:45:11.240
 residential lot has to be separated by the surface owner from an approved

00:45:11.240 --> 00:45:16.480
 drilling and production site and then the reverse setback measurement is then

00:45:16.480 --> 00:45:20.480
 amended to strike the word minimum previously there was no relief for the

00:45:20.480 --> 00:45:24.200
 250 foot reverse setback now that that setback is increased and we're

00:45:24.200 --> 00:45:28.800
 introducing a minimum that word needed to be struck for consistency and to

00:45:28.800 --> 00:45:33.880
 reduce conflict there but they're the same number the minimum reverse setback

00:45:33.880 --> 00:45:39.400
 and the setback are the same the minimum would be 250 under the scenario the

00:45:39.400 --> 00:45:45.160
 reverse would be 500 perfect thank you and then the other change within the

00:45:45.160 --> 00:45:49.760
 setback portion of the code itself would be to the measurements currently the

00:45:49.760 --> 00:45:53.800
 code says that the measurements for this are taken from the closest exterior

00:45:53.800 --> 00:45:57.720
 point of a proposed structure to be occupied by a protected use in a

00:45:57.720 --> 00:46:00.560
 straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects to the

00:46:00.560 --> 00:46:04.280
 closest boundary designated for the site or for a proposed residential

00:46:04.280 --> 00:46:07.640
 subdivision like I mentioned previously that setback would be measured from any

00:46:07.640 --> 00:46:12.880
 undeveloped residential lot boundary to the closest boundary of the site we went

00:46:12.880 --> 00:46:15.780
 over this briefly last time I showed you the example of McKenna Park with the

00:46:15.780 --> 00:46:20.360
 increase in reverse setback roughly 40% of that particular park will fall within

00:46:20.360 --> 00:46:24.520
 the setback so we wanted to clean this section up a bit to provide guidance to

00:46:24.520 --> 00:46:29.480
 our parks department and future park dedications as to how that measurements

00:46:29.480 --> 00:46:33.320
 taken when there's not an occupiable structure so the language that we have

00:46:33.320 --> 00:46:36.960
 proposed is that for the purpose of setback measurements at a public park

00:46:36.960 --> 00:46:39.960
 measurements would be taken from any improvement such as a building

00:46:39.960 --> 00:46:46.720
 playground equipment pool splash pad a permanent ball field or a pavilion and

00:46:46.720 --> 00:46:50.720
 it would not include flat work such as sidewalks or parking areas so just to

00:46:50.720 --> 00:46:54.760
 again give a little bit of guidance to our parks department if they were to

00:46:54.760 --> 00:46:58.440
 ever seek to add new improvements at McKenna Parker if we had another park

00:46:58.440 --> 00:47:04.280
 that happened to to fall into this scenario the second of our major topics

00:47:04.280 --> 00:47:08.280
 would be nonconformities we went over this at the previous work session I

00:47:08.280 --> 00:47:12.640
 showed you the numbers of where we were at just doing a quick GIS analysis of

00:47:12.640 --> 00:47:16.360
 what structures there are it was approximately 900 or so non

00:47:16.360 --> 00:47:21.480
 conformities that would fall within this 500 foot setback if it were increased and

00:47:21.480 --> 00:47:27.160
 if you recall at the time when this went to council they directed staff to find a

00:47:27.160 --> 00:47:31.600
 way to prevent the creation of non conformities so we we pulled language

00:47:31.600 --> 00:47:36.040
 that's similar to what was put in the new DDC for single-family uses to

00:47:36.040 --> 00:47:40.080
 prevent any of those from becoming nonconforming so that's what what this

00:47:40.080 --> 00:47:44.200
 would look like was that we would have to introduce language in the code saying

00:47:44.200 --> 00:47:47.440
 that reverse setbacks as introduced by this ordinance shall not cause existing

00:47:47.440 --> 00:47:51.760
 legally established protected uses or lots to become nonconforming and then we

00:47:51.760 --> 00:47:55.120
 further defined that legally established would be extended to any project that's

00:47:55.120 --> 00:47:58.720
 under review today so applications that we currently have in the queue for

00:47:58.720 --> 00:48:04.240
 preliminary and final plats the issue with this language is that we would then

00:48:04.240 --> 00:48:10.160
 be creating unique classifications of nonconformities so and structure or home

00:48:10.160 --> 00:48:14.560
 that's existing today and nonconforming to the 250 foot setback wouldn't enjoy

00:48:14.560 --> 00:48:18.440
 the same protection they would remain nonconforming and as the codes written

00:48:18.440 --> 00:48:23.120
 today that would mean that if their home was destroyed by more than 50% they

00:48:23.120 --> 00:48:28.480
 could not rebuild that structure so we wanted to avoid that separation of

00:48:28.480 --> 00:48:31.520
 creating different classes of nonconformities this also wouldn't help

00:48:31.520 --> 00:48:34.820
 anything that's nonconforming to other city regulations so we would have

00:48:34.820 --> 00:48:38.120
 sections of the city that could rebuild if a disaster occurred and sections that

00:48:38.120 --> 00:48:43.760
 couldn't so to avoid that bifurcation we worked with our legal department and

00:48:43.760 --> 00:48:49.000
 actually found language from the 2002 DDC that could help the situation so in

00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:53.040
 lieu of option one for nonconformity staff is recommending that you can

00:48:53.040 --> 00:48:57.320
 consider option two which is would be introduced into a different section of

00:48:57.320 --> 00:49:01.560
 subchapter one and it would provide that a nonconforming structure that's been

00:49:01.560 --> 00:49:05.400
 damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 50% of the gross floor area

00:49:05.400 --> 00:49:09.600
 shall not be rebuilt or occupied except upon action of the Board of Adjustment

00:49:09.600 --> 00:49:14.600
 so our 02 code actually allowed this I can't think of a single instance when it

00:49:14.600 --> 00:49:18.560
 was utilized but it did have that option for a nonconformity to rebuild if it

00:49:18.560 --> 00:49:22.160
 were destroyed so we would just recommend adding that language back into

00:49:22.160 --> 00:49:27.320
 the code it would apply citywide and any nonconforming structure use could could

00:49:27.320 --> 00:49:31.840
 have the same option to go to ZBA and seek a the ability to rebuild in the

00:49:31.840 --> 00:49:36.920
 event of destruction by fire, tornado, whatever that might be. Commissioner Bec.

00:49:36.920 --> 00:49:43.520
 So I noticed that there's no there's no minimum setback distance or minimum

00:49:43.520 --> 00:49:49.200
 there's no numbers in this new language versus the the option 3a the

00:49:49.200 --> 00:49:57.200
 multi-standard version and so I was curious why the minimum wasn't specified

00:49:57.200 --> 00:50:03.200
 to guide the ZBA when they're trying to do that. The minimum would fall

00:50:03.200 --> 00:50:06.080
 back to this definition which is the minimum that it could be reduced to

00:50:06.080 --> 00:50:10.960
 after relief or variance is granted so it would go back to the 250 foot minimum

00:50:10.960 --> 00:50:21.680
 reverse setback that's proposed. So in this situation if someone has I'm just

00:50:21.680 --> 00:50:27.200
 trying to add clarity if someone is currently within 500 feet but greater

00:50:27.200 --> 00:50:32.800
 than 250 feet and their house burns down they would have to go to ZBA to get a

00:50:32.800 --> 00:50:38.520
 permit to rebuild. Correct if this increase were approved. And if they are

00:50:38.520 --> 00:50:47.800
 under 250 feet they have no ability to rebuild. This could allow ZBA that option

00:50:47.800 --> 00:50:52.760
 I believe. Well the answer is it's in conflict with that. Yeah. I'm not sure

00:50:52.760 --> 00:50:56.040
 where they would land on that. It doesn't again it doesn't specify to his

00:50:56.040 --> 00:51:00.880
 point but I think they would be in the same situation they are today where

00:51:00.880 --> 00:51:04.360
 they're they're out of compliance so they could request that of ZBA. ZBA may

00:51:04.360 --> 00:51:08.920
 not be able to approve it. Okay. It's it's neither neither one of these options

00:51:08.920 --> 00:51:13.800
 is so unclear. Neither option one or option two provides a homeowner within

00:51:13.800 --> 00:51:21.520
 250 feet of a gas well who gets hit by a tornado to rebuild. That's my

00:51:21.520 --> 00:51:24.640
 understanding with the definition of minimum reverse setback as it's drafted.

00:51:24.640 --> 00:51:28.520
 Yeah unless we were to modify it some way where this would would apply to all

00:51:28.520 --> 00:51:35.800
 nonconformities as a result of whether it be under the new or the old. And then

00:51:35.800 --> 00:51:40.080
 that is the case today with with the nonconform with anything nonconforming

00:51:40.080 --> 00:51:43.080
 to the 250 and there are and I believe in the neighborhood of 300 of those.

00:51:43.080 --> 00:51:47.880
 What's the number of current structures within 250 feet of a gas well? I don't

00:51:47.880 --> 00:51:51.280
 have it handy at this point it's in the neighborhood of 300 single family

00:51:51.280 --> 00:51:56.960
 structures. It might be rhetorical question but the city is okay generally

00:51:56.960 --> 00:52:01.580
 speaking with 300 property owners in our city not being able to rebuild what they

00:52:01.580 --> 00:52:06.280
 currently are occupying in the event of a disaster. That is the nature of

00:52:06.280 --> 00:52:14.960
 nonconformities unfortunately that the goal. Well I understand the nature of nonconformities that exist but this is an

00:52:14.960 --> 00:52:20.280
 opportunity right now it's not passed. The the proposed dialogue being presented

00:52:20.280 --> 00:52:26.600
 as an option thereby restricts 300 or whatever that number is. I understand the

00:52:26.600 --> 00:52:30.920
 essence of nonconformities. What I'm curious about is there is there not a

00:52:30.920 --> 00:52:37.760
 methodology to protect 300 citizens of their property that they already have?

00:52:37.760 --> 00:52:42.320
 And maybe that's it. There could be to Richard's point you know this this is

00:52:42.320 --> 00:52:46.040
 proposed draft language we could potentially craft something that would

00:52:46.040 --> 00:52:49.280
 speak specifically to that to allow the minimum reverse setback to not apply in

00:52:49.280 --> 00:52:54.120
 these instances but that's not the situation today. The hesitation that is

00:52:54.120 --> 00:53:00.960
 having different nonconformity districts or? I think you got to look at almost kind

00:53:00.960 --> 00:53:05.200
 of step back going back to the old deep this language was in the old DDC so the

00:53:05.200 --> 00:53:11.280
 the original reverse setback was part of that old DDC so this option would have

00:53:11.280 --> 00:53:15.320
 been availed to those nonconforming there wasn't a separation of only this

00:53:15.320 --> 00:53:19.640
 nonconforming structure can apply for that. What didn't care this language did

00:53:19.640 --> 00:53:24.520
 not carry over into the new code. So the way this is structured really I don't

00:53:24.520 --> 00:53:31.200
 think would differentiate between the two unless we state stated that it did.

00:53:31.200 --> 00:53:36.760
 Well if it's going before ZBA this might be thinking way out of the box but why

00:53:36.760 --> 00:53:42.360
 not allow any nonconformities to go back to ZBA? No this one she just said

00:53:42.360 --> 00:53:46.320
 refers back to the reverse minimum setback at 250 feet. And that's my

00:53:46.320 --> 00:53:49.680
 initial thought on that because of the way that language is crafted it may be

00:53:49.680 --> 00:53:53.460
 that we need to reconsider the language in the minimum reverse setback

00:53:53.460 --> 00:53:58.560
 definition so that it allows for this option. As it's crafted today I think

00:53:58.560 --> 00:54:02.920
 they're in conflict. I agree I believe they're also in conflict and I would be

00:54:02.920 --> 00:54:06.320
 a proponent of looking at language that if we're if they don't have it by right

00:54:06.320 --> 00:54:09.360
 to rebuild if we're already taking that away from them and require them to go

00:54:09.360 --> 00:54:13.140
 before a board to rebuild the exact same house that they've been living in for 50

00:54:13.140 --> 00:54:17.000
 years then I think it would be appropriate I'm interested the other

00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:20.720
 commissioner's thoughts that we'd not have the reverse minimum setback for

00:54:20.720 --> 00:54:25.140
 nonconformities so that ZBA can actually say you've been here 60 years you can

00:54:25.140 --> 00:54:29.480
 rebuild at your own peril studies show you shouldn't we'd have disclosures

00:54:29.480 --> 00:54:35.160
 against that but the idea that by no mechanism if you live within 250 feet of

00:54:35.160 --> 00:54:42.200
 a well you couldn't rebuild is trying to process through that. And that is

00:54:42.200 --> 00:54:45.160
 possible that we I think the exemption would need to come in that definition

00:54:45.160 --> 00:54:51.760
 that we looked at previously so that the language in subchapter one applies

00:54:51.760 --> 00:54:56.300
 universally across the code to all nonconformities because the scope of that

00:54:56.300 --> 00:54:59.880
 change would affect every nonconformity in the city for any regulation currently

00:54:59.880 --> 00:55:03.520
 even if you just encroach in your your side yard setback and your house gets

00:55:03.520 --> 00:55:08.120
 blown away you couldn't rebuild with the way the code is written so that that

00:55:08.120 --> 00:55:11.360
 would be a universal exception I would think the specific exemption would need

00:55:11.360 --> 00:55:16.040
 to come in this definition language so we can work with with legal on that if

00:55:16.040 --> 00:55:20.840
 that's the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you

00:55:20.840 --> 00:55:26.720
 know when when we crafted the new DDC we put in there that no single not single

00:55:26.720 --> 00:55:31.280
 family but no residential would become nonconforming with the changes made in

00:55:31.280 --> 00:55:38.920
 the DDC correct? Correct. That's the main concern I think is if

00:55:38.920 --> 00:55:46.160
 somebody's living within this they can't rebuild their home is there any way to

00:55:46.160 --> 00:55:54.400
 make that part of this change to where a resident should? That was the intent of

00:55:54.400 --> 00:56:04.360
 this language option one was to extend that same the same type of exemption but

00:56:04.360 --> 00:56:09.040
 that would not again it wouldn't benefit anyone who is nonconforming to the 250

00:56:09.040 --> 00:56:14.720
 today. It doesn't because this actually mentions a residential lot that that's

00:56:14.720 --> 00:56:23.080
 not what we did in the DDC we we made it in a state a an existing residence not

00:56:23.080 --> 00:56:30.380
 not this. The lot component comes in because the setback is measured to the lot line so there

00:56:30.380 --> 00:56:34.680
 would be many lots that are in platting today that could in theory be a plotted

00:56:34.680 --> 00:56:38.780
 lot that could never be built upon if that if the language didn't include the

00:56:38.780 --> 00:56:45.320
 lot distinction. No and I understand that I don't like this option at all yeah

00:56:45.320 --> 00:56:49.000
 that's not what I'm that's not what I'm saying I think that's yeah that opens up

00:56:49.000 --> 00:56:56.200
 all kinds of issues. What I'm saying is is there a way to exempt residential

00:56:56.200 --> 00:57:07.680
 existing residential homes like we did with the new DDC what may more broadly

00:57:07.680 --> 00:57:11.680
 speaking to Commissioner Ellis's point what's we're obviously not gonna write

00:57:11.680 --> 00:57:18.200
 new code tonight on the fly to provide a suggestion to City Council so to the

00:57:18.200 --> 00:57:23.720
 extent this conversation is is in a matter of voting no to this and then

00:57:23.720 --> 00:57:28.000
 this still gets presented to Council as is or what's the actual procedure for

00:57:28.000 --> 00:57:32.280
 the Commission to speak in to issues that we might have for that to be then

00:57:32.280 --> 00:57:40.800
 recrafted by legal can you tell me about the policy the process of improving the

00:57:40.800 --> 00:57:46.040
 work so if you were to say make a motion to approve with certain changes and

00:57:46.040 --> 00:57:49.200
 again we don't have to have the specific language you could provide staff

00:57:49.200 --> 00:57:54.160
 direction to work with legal to craft language that accomplishes X goal prior

00:57:54.160 --> 00:57:58.260
 to City Council and then that's that would move forward to Council with us

00:57:58.260 --> 00:58:02.720
 crafting those changes in the meantime to satisfy your desire or the

00:58:02.720 --> 00:58:06.280
 Commission could vote to postpone this and bring it and request that we bring

00:58:06.280 --> 00:58:09.440
 those changes back to you all before proceeding to City Council for your

00:58:09.440 --> 00:58:14.640
 review okay thank you Mr. Cole so you know last work

00:58:14.640 --> 00:58:19.960
 session the example you use was my house because I'm within 250 feet of a gas well

00:58:19.960 --> 00:58:25.720
 house bill 1952 well I'm not gonna be able to rebuild that I have a 70 year

00:58:25.720 --> 00:58:31.440
 old hay barn that I'm about to have to rebuild I'm not gonna be able to build

00:58:31.440 --> 00:58:37.120
 that either I'm on an agriculture operation you know what you're doing is

00:58:37.120 --> 00:58:43.320
 depriving me of a place to live and place to you know put my hay and

00:58:43.320 --> 00:58:48.880
 livestock and it's just my I mean it shouldn't be as simple as if you're

00:58:48.880 --> 00:58:54.560
 conforming before you're conforming after I mean I appreciate the work y'all

00:58:54.560 --> 00:59:01.280
 did to bridge that gap but it's a mile wide still I mean it's it's and I don't

00:59:01.280 --> 00:59:06.920
 want my fate before the ZBA no offense I don't it shouldn't be up it shouldn't be

00:59:06.920 --> 00:59:11.160
 that it shouldn't be any I mean think about the mindset of someone whose house

00:59:11.160 --> 00:59:15.840
 just got taken out with a twister think about what's going on in your life you're

00:59:15.840 --> 00:59:19.120
 having to deal with the insurance company where you're gonna live

00:59:19.120 --> 00:59:25.920
 everything and then now you got to go deal with didn't this is I mean this

00:59:25.920 --> 00:59:33.680
 right this one thing here is just unacceptable I mean you know I'm sorry

00:59:33.680 --> 00:59:39.720
 I'm getting but this is personal I mean so I won't be able to build a barn here

00:59:39.720 --> 00:59:46.860
 in another year or two I mean right the the agricultural uses on your property

00:59:46.860 --> 00:59:51.600
 wouldn't be protected uses under the gas well ordinance so those could continue

00:59:51.600 --> 00:59:55.600
 the residential structure would be the protected use what about the structure

00:59:55.600 --> 01:00:03.320
 to store the you know bounty of the land you know the hay or whatever and the

01:00:03.320 --> 01:00:08.040
 livestock can you build that get the agri any agricultural operation is not

01:00:08.040 --> 01:00:12.760
 protected use but not the house but least I'll have a barn that stay in the

01:00:12.760 --> 01:00:18.280
 bar yeah put a mattress out there right thank you

01:00:18.280 --> 01:00:22.640
 Commissioner back so so one of our problems that's germane here is how do

01:00:22.640 --> 01:00:29.560
 you protect people but then not break code where the city can ever make a

01:00:29.560 --> 01:00:34.040
 change so if you grandfather every single change in all the time then the

01:00:34.040 --> 01:00:39.080
 city can ever do anything they have to stick with you know 1850s dentin and and

01:00:39.080 --> 01:00:43.840
 I know I'm exaggerating a little bit but to the to the to the extent that you

01:00:43.840 --> 01:00:49.400
 can't you you need to give the city some mechanism to to change the

01:00:49.400 --> 01:00:52.920
 configuration of the city

01:00:52.920 --> 01:00:59.960
 Mr. Anderson is there a way this could I mean I agree with Jason on this because

01:00:59.960 --> 01:01:02.680
 you got all these citizens out there that have lived here for years the house

01:01:02.680 --> 01:01:06.280
 comes the tornado comes through and destroys it you're gonna be out they're

01:01:06.280 --> 01:01:09.160
 gonna be dealing with the insurance you're gonna be doing adjusters you know

01:01:09.160 --> 01:01:13.620
 then the board says you can't build then they got to find out somewhere else to

01:01:13.620 --> 01:01:17.280
 live I mean that's just too much put on but I mean it's kind of hard to change

01:01:17.280 --> 01:01:21.280
 the rules during the middle of a ballgame so I look at it I mean they've

01:01:21.280 --> 01:01:25.880
 lived there if there's like chair I mean like the Commissioner said if there's a

01:01:25.880 --> 01:01:29.040
 way we could put in there that if they're already an existing established

01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:33.920
 residents there that they're included they can rebuild I wouldn't have a

01:01:33.920 --> 01:01:38.120
 problem with then I mean but it's just all these houses that something

01:01:38.120 --> 01:01:41.960
 unfortunate did happen you know kid loved it you know mom left it was

01:01:41.960 --> 01:01:45.280
 cooking dinner left the gas light on boom the house blows up you know our

01:01:45.280 --> 01:01:48.600
 tornado comes through wipes out five houses now we have a 500-foot setback

01:01:48.600 --> 01:01:52.280
 you got a neighborhood with a half a street that you can't be built back on

01:01:52.280 --> 01:01:57.400
 now that that neighborhood is gonna look stupid I mean that's just my two cents I

01:01:57.400 --> 01:02:03.960
 apologize so I think since everyone's made a point here what I'd like to do is

01:02:03.960 --> 01:02:07.480
 continue the presentation we're gonna hear this again public and I think it

01:02:07.480 --> 01:02:11.640
 would be most appropriate to finish this dialogue after we hear public testimony

01:02:11.640 --> 01:02:17.680
 and then we can look to find a vote in chambers if I think that's why agreeable

01:02:17.680 --> 01:02:21.320
 to progress this conversation so hey let me turn back over to you oh yeah I just

01:02:21.320 --> 01:02:24.000
 wanted to make one point there could be that option three the option three would

01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:30.040
 be removing the Board of Adjustment language and we're just be automatic

01:02:30.040 --> 01:02:34.160
 again that could be something you could suggest to to counsel great thank you

01:02:34.160 --> 01:02:44.560
 for that insight all right so topic three of the four main topics within this

01:02:44.560 --> 01:02:50.280
 change is variance options so there there are two types of variances that

01:02:50.280 --> 01:02:53.920
 have been added into the code that would be applicable to a new protected

01:02:53.920 --> 01:02:59.560
 use developing in proximity to a gas well the first would be the language

01:02:59.560 --> 01:03:04.880
 that's been added to the permit requirement section of the gas well

01:03:04.880 --> 01:03:08.480
 ordinance it references the procedures for protected use and residential lots

01:03:08.480 --> 01:03:12.000
 so this one is really just kind of a placeholder for when you get to the

01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:15.560
 option of I want to get a permit what do I do this tells you where to go to find

01:03:15.560 --> 01:03:20.040
 those variance options if you're non-conforming then the first of those

01:03:20.040 --> 01:03:24.520
 options when you get to that section would be the the option to go to ZBA

01:03:24.520 --> 01:03:29.680
 through the standard hardship variance process so this language has been added

01:03:29.680 --> 01:03:36.960
 that in deciding request by a property owner or developer for a or a for a

01:03:36.960 --> 01:03:42.000
 residential lot the ZBA would have the standard hardship variance criteria to

01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:46.280
 rely upon which we looked at last time I believe I've got those in here if we

01:03:46.280 --> 01:03:50.600
 need to look at them and in addition we would add three new criteria so that

01:03:50.600 --> 01:03:54.120
 would be the reasonable use of the surface of the subject property by the

01:03:54.120 --> 01:03:58.440
 owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs or subdivision

01:03:58.440 --> 01:04:02.320
 layouts so have they considered other options within the code to design their

01:04:02.320 --> 01:04:06.160
 site that would get them to the same lot yield as this would if they got the

01:04:06.160 --> 01:04:09.880
 variance and then the compatibility of the proposed development with any

01:04:09.880 --> 01:04:14.840
 existing gas well development plat or site plan so most of the city's gas well

01:04:14.840 --> 01:04:18.480
 sites have either a platter site plan that stipulates things like access to

01:04:18.480 --> 01:04:22.120
 the site so we would need to be cognizant of whether this development is

01:04:22.120 --> 01:04:26.240
 encroaching on the developer or the gas well operators ability to get to their

01:04:26.240 --> 01:04:32.240
 site and these are those standard hardship criteria that would also apply

01:04:32.240 --> 01:04:37.760
 so if ZBA received a request from a developer to again reduce the setback

01:04:37.760 --> 01:04:43.360
 from 500 down to anything as low as 250 ZBA would have to find that the request

01:04:43.360 --> 01:04:46.640
 meets all of these criteria in addition to those three that are specific to this

01:04:46.640 --> 01:04:54.040
 situation the second type of relief that's offered is not going to the ZBA

01:04:54.040 --> 01:04:58.240
 it's it's modeling a procedure that's offered to operators today where if you

01:04:58.240 --> 01:05:02.960
 meet certain criteria staff can approve a reduction in setback in this instance

01:05:02.960 --> 01:05:06.640
 staff could not reduce that setback to as low as 250 it would only get down to

01:05:06.640 --> 01:05:14.080
 375 feet and to to meet these criteria the developer would have to show that

01:05:14.080 --> 01:05:19.360
 over 50% of their site is encumbered by the reverse setback and then if that is

01:05:19.360 --> 01:05:23.240
 the case they would additionally have to apply these alternative site design

01:05:23.240 --> 01:05:27.400
 standards to their site so for a residential subdivision we relied upon

01:05:27.400 --> 01:05:30.960
 our cluster development standards so that's an existing procedure in sub

01:05:30.960 --> 01:05:35.560
 chapter 8 that allows lot sizes to be reduced setbacks to be reduced to

01:05:35.560 --> 01:05:39.800
 cluster the lots in an area of the property to keep another portion open so

01:05:39.800 --> 01:05:43.960
 that would would have to be applied in this instance we do however request

01:05:43.960 --> 01:05:47.800
 recommend that the requirement for a plan development zoning be waived in

01:05:47.800 --> 01:05:51.680
 this instance so that they don't in addition to redesigning their site have

01:05:51.680 --> 01:05:55.600
 to go through the zoning process and that the five acre minimum be waived

01:05:55.600 --> 01:06:00.240
 because many residential subdivisions may come in and be under a five acre total

01:06:00.240 --> 01:06:05.400
 size and then the second option for any other protected use so churches schools

01:06:05.400 --> 01:06:09.300
 hospitals anything else on the list that's not a residential subdivision

01:06:09.300 --> 01:06:13.840
 there are some adjustments that staff could approve to maximum building height

01:06:13.840 --> 01:06:17.440
 and maximum building coverage to be increased by as much as 20% to allow

01:06:17.440 --> 01:06:22.240
 additional development on site and then the minimum unit size and minimum number

01:06:22.240 --> 01:06:25.840
 of parking spaces could be reduced by as much as 20% in those instances to allow

01:06:25.840 --> 01:06:33.240
 them to have more developable area on the site Mr. Beck so I think that's a

01:06:33.240 --> 01:06:39.120
 really great idea do we apply that sort of increased height and other sort of

01:06:39.120 --> 01:06:44.280
 administrative variances to other noxious uses they're currently the code

01:06:44.280 --> 01:06:48.160
 offers what's called a minor modification to any development and that

01:06:48.160 --> 01:06:52.360
 gets all of these building height setbacks various things like that can be

01:06:52.360 --> 01:06:57.400
 modified by as much as 10% without having to go to the ZBA this is simply

01:06:57.400 --> 01:07:00.640
 an instance again to help with those those takings claims for sites like we

01:07:00.640 --> 01:07:03.920
 looked at the last meeting where the church had 90 something percent of their

01:07:03.920 --> 01:07:08.560
 site encumbered by this this would just be that option to say staff has the

01:07:08.560 --> 01:07:12.440
 ability to give you a little bit more if it works great we can go this route if

01:07:12.440 --> 01:07:16.000
 it doesn't you can still go to ZBA to seek that variance to those

01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:21.440
 requirements to to try to develop your site so other similar things are 10% and

01:07:21.440 --> 01:07:29.720
 this is 20% okay thank you all right anything else on this one and then

01:07:29.720 --> 01:07:33.480
 finally the the fourth kind of change that's made is the change to sub

01:07:33.480 --> 01:07:37.560
 chapter 8 that was referenced in the item caption tonight and this is a

01:07:37.560 --> 01:07:41.400
 really simple change just to enable that last variance option that we looked at

01:07:41.400 --> 01:07:46.040
 the cluster subdivision standards again as they apply citywide today require

01:07:46.040 --> 01:07:49.960
 you to rezone to plan development and require that you have a minimum of five

01:07:49.960 --> 01:07:56.480
 acres to qualify so just for the sake of gas well reverse setbacks only we would

01:07:56.480 --> 01:08:00.040
 strike those two requirements so the applicability section would strike the

01:08:00.040 --> 01:08:07.040
 five acre parcel size and then the the standards would would then wave that PD

01:08:07.040 --> 01:08:10.520
 zoning requirement to make the process a little bit easier for those sites that

01:08:10.520 --> 01:08:16.960
 are overly encumbered by the gas well setback and then again I just wanted to

01:08:16.960 --> 01:08:20.800
 run through there are five criteria for approval for a code amendment with

01:08:20.800 --> 01:08:25.160
 regard to consistency with the comprehensive plan there are comp plan

01:08:25.160 --> 01:08:28.840
 as it stands today does recognize that sensitive and protected uses are

01:08:28.840 --> 01:08:33.080
 inherently incompatible with industrial uses such as gas wells there's no

01:08:33.080 --> 01:08:36.880
 specific setback distance prescribed but this does fall within the parameters of

01:08:36.880 --> 01:08:41.700
 that incompatibility concern that's identified rather the amendments

01:08:41.700 --> 01:08:45.120
 conflict with any other provision of the DDC or the municipal code of ordinances

01:08:45.120 --> 01:08:50.080
 for the most part none of this creates a conflict if you were to pursue option

01:08:50.080 --> 01:08:54.200
 one of the nonconformities that would create again those different subsets of

01:08:54.200 --> 01:09:00.200
 nonconformities that could create a conflict with other codes as it stands

01:09:00.200 --> 01:09:05.240
 today because others don't have that same option to not be nonconforming and

01:09:05.240 --> 01:09:09.160
 then the third criteria is rather the amendment is necessary to address a

01:09:09.160 --> 01:09:12.980
 demonstrated community need the council through that series of work sessions

01:09:12.980 --> 01:09:16.240
 that we discussed requested this amendment be brought forward due to

01:09:16.240 --> 01:09:19.800
 their concerns about community health and safety as well as other nuisance

01:09:19.800 --> 01:09:23.960
 concerns from gas wells such as noise lighting truck truck traffic dust

01:09:23.960 --> 01:09:28.320
 vibrations and they did find that a 500 foot reverse setback would be more

01:09:28.320 --> 01:09:31.680
 protective based on the results of that Fort Worth air quality study that we

01:09:31.680 --> 01:09:37.880
 discussed the fourth criteria is rather it is necessary to respond to a

01:09:37.880 --> 01:09:41.400
 substantial change in conditions or policy there's been no change in

01:09:41.400 --> 01:09:44.800
 conditions or policy other than we have a different council today than we did in

01:09:44.800 --> 01:09:49.680
 2015 and 2015 they found that 250 feet was sufficient for reverse setback our

01:09:49.680 --> 01:09:54.320
 council today has identified additional nuisance and health concerns that they

01:09:54.320 --> 01:09:59.480
 feel merits the need for this increase and then the fifth criteria is whether

01:09:59.480 --> 01:10:03.560
 it's consistent with the general purpose and intent of the DDC the overall

01:10:03.560 --> 01:10:07.760
 intent statements if you look in the DDC are primarily to protect public health

01:10:07.760 --> 01:10:13.960
 and safety so again those concerns would would fall within the realm of that

01:10:13.960 --> 01:10:17.920
 notification was published in the newspaper and online you had passed out

01:10:17.920 --> 01:10:22.160
 to you four different written responses that have been received to date those

01:10:22.160 --> 01:10:27.680
 were all opposed to this change for various reasons and staff again as was

01:10:27.680 --> 01:10:32.520
 stated in your backup is recommending approval of as it was presented at this

01:10:32.520 --> 01:10:37.640
 meeting option two for the sub chapter one amendments that would be the ability

01:10:37.640 --> 01:10:41.840
 to go to ZBA and then the changes as provided in sub chapter six and sub

01:10:41.840 --> 01:10:46.480
 chapter eight hey can you clarify we there is four points that you walk

01:10:46.480 --> 01:10:49.680
 through but there's only three bullets here right two of those fell within sub

01:10:49.680 --> 01:10:56.680
 chapter six and happy to stand for any questions you may have so I do have a

01:10:56.680 --> 01:11:03.920
 question submitted by we got this before the meeting by Mark and Linda Cole I

01:11:03.920 --> 01:11:10.080
 wouldn't assume they provided an interesting diagram on their page two

01:11:10.080 --> 01:11:15.200
 and I just wanted to see if the situation we talked about earlier would

01:11:15.200 --> 01:11:20.840
 apply to their situation in which it does seem like we would basically making

01:11:20.840 --> 01:11:30.960
 be making their property useless is this something that would fall under the ZBA

01:11:30.960 --> 01:11:36.600
 variance that we talked about or is this diagram that I'm looking at actually

01:11:36.600 --> 01:11:40.600
 true that it looks like there's a home I don't know what direction this is but

01:11:40.600 --> 01:11:43.760
 I'm gonna say it's on the south part of the property I believe that's on the

01:11:43.760 --> 01:11:46.960
 north side of gem crystals of the home is on the south end of the property and

01:11:46.960 --> 01:11:52.840
 then are they in their interpretation correct that they cannot build anything

01:11:52.840 --> 01:11:56.480
 on this property I did not attempt to verify where they took their

01:11:56.480 --> 01:12:00.720
 measurements from there's no scale or anything on that image in general it

01:12:00.720 --> 01:12:05.020
 appears roughly correct I think they may have been just drawing a point in the

01:12:05.020 --> 01:12:08.840
 middle of the pad site extending it out so those radii may go even further when

01:12:08.840 --> 01:12:12.520
 you take them from the edge of the pad that instance would be similar to the

01:12:12.520 --> 01:12:16.920
 church we looked at at the last meeting where I think it's safe to say over 50%

01:12:16.920 --> 01:12:20.260
 of their site would be encumbered by the reverse setback so they could qualify

01:12:20.260 --> 01:12:25.160
 for those administrative waivers that would only get them to a 375 foot radius

01:12:25.160 --> 01:12:29.140
 that may or may not work depending on what they were trying to rebuild so they

01:12:29.140 --> 01:12:33.440
 could then go to ZBA to get the setback reduced to the 250 that it's at today

01:12:33.440 --> 01:12:38.800
 okay perfect thank you for that clarification any other questions for

01:12:38.800 --> 01:12:45.880
 Haley on this item okay great so that actually was part of our public hearing

01:12:45.880 --> 01:12:52.200
 those item 5f so we're done with that item but if we're skipping back to page

01:12:52.200 --> 01:12:57.080
 one of our work session we're going into clarification of agenda items listed on

01:12:57.080 --> 01:13:04.960
 the meeting and I think Richard has some updates for items 4a 4b but Richard can

01:13:04.960 --> 01:13:10.960
 you clarify any other items no I mean other than other than 4a and 4b those

01:13:10.960 --> 01:13:16.720
 applications have been withdrawn we just received a notification from the from

01:13:16.720 --> 01:13:20.480
 the property owner that he is withdrawn those two preliminary plat applications

01:13:20.480 --> 01:13:27.080
 what it is really they brought on a new engineer redesigning the project

01:13:27.080 --> 01:13:32.640
 unfortunately with the with the confines of House Bill 3167 it really needs to

01:13:32.640 --> 01:13:37.720
 just start over as a new as a new project so that's why we initially were

01:13:37.720 --> 01:13:41.880
 taking these as a denial but instead of taking them as a denial he just chose to

01:13:41.880 --> 01:13:45.320
 withdraw the application as as we talked through that with him yesterday so those

01:13:45.320 --> 01:13:48.480
 items will not be heard

01:13:48.480 --> 01:13:59.120
 and I think item force excuse me item four season be looking for a postponement

01:13:59.120 --> 01:14:06.320
 they are allowed up to 30 days but then next the calendar doesn't allow for a

01:14:06.320 --> 01:14:10.800
 meeting a month from now be past 30 days so we'd move them to the November 20th

01:14:10.800 --> 01:14:14.880
 meeting we can't push them to the December 11th meeting because it's past

01:14:14.880 --> 01:14:21.080
 30 days that moves us yes thank you are we taking a vote to postpone that then

01:14:21.080 --> 01:14:26.360
 is that what we're doing yeah we'll take a vote and public so that moves us to

01:14:26.360 --> 01:14:30.980
 item 2 consideration of minutes is there any edits or updates needed for the

01:14:30.980 --> 01:14:42.880
 October 16th minutes great next is items 3 this consent agenda with this many

01:14:42.880 --> 01:14:47.240
 what I'd like to do is just if there's any questions about a particular item we

01:14:47.240 --> 01:14:51.640
 just ask that individual be called up do you have the questions about night I'm

01:14:51.640 --> 01:14:59.160
 mr. Beck yes thank you chair I had this is 99% because I wasn't a commissioner

01:14:59.160 --> 01:15:03.920
 before when this was going through so I just had a question I believe it's Haley

01:15:03.920 --> 01:15:16.000
 which item 3a sorry and and that was I was this is the the development near the

01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:22.480
 swap fair on Gisley near the encore station

01:15:22.480 --> 01:15:34.600
 it's so how how I'm just I'm a little unclear from the from the language

01:15:34.600 --> 01:15:38.160
 instruction I was just asking for clarification how how closer they do to

01:15:38.160 --> 01:15:44.240
 them the encore actual facilities and and and the electrical right of ways and

01:15:44.240 --> 01:15:46.920
 things like that for the for particularly just mostly for those

01:15:46.920 --> 01:15:52.840
 close plots so there are I believe multiple substations in the area that

01:15:52.840 --> 01:15:58.400
 they would be abutting in the southern part of the property I believe this is

01:15:58.400 --> 01:16:02.760
 a substation today as well as one of these lots down here so they would you

01:16:02.760 --> 01:16:08.320
 know these homes would be you know backing up to that facility with regard

01:16:08.320 --> 01:16:11.120
 to the transmissions lines that cross the property these dashed lines

01:16:11.120 --> 01:16:15.800
 represent the boundaries of the easement that's required for those lines I

01:16:15.800 --> 01:16:24.040
 believe it's a 75 feet total width for the National Electric Safety Code so

01:16:24.040 --> 01:16:30.120
 those lots are staying outside of that 75 foot total width of easement there

01:16:30.120 --> 01:16:40.200
 I'm not sure if you had any other specific question and so now I think I'm

01:16:40.200 --> 01:16:44.640
 good thank you chair thank you thanks Haley is there any other questions on

01:16:44.640 --> 01:16:52.440
 items can mr. Ellis I do on on B which I think is still Haley it's still Haley

01:16:52.440 --> 01:17:02.320
 yes okay so from what my recollection this is this is off points out and it's

01:17:02.320 --> 01:17:08.360
 a multifamily right that will have the shared access to this site there is the

01:17:08.360 --> 01:17:14.400
 area that's kind of great out here at the bottom is the palladium multifamily

01:17:14.400 --> 01:17:18.200
 development that's under construction this particular property is being

01:17:18.200 --> 01:17:22.440
 subdivided for commercial development but there is a additional multifamily

01:17:22.440 --> 01:17:26.280
 here to the east of them that would share this access easement in this area

01:17:26.280 --> 01:17:30.960
 so the way the only access to this is going to be through that them is that

01:17:30.960 --> 01:17:34.680
 correct no there is frontage here on Sherman and here in the loop so they'll

01:17:34.680 --> 01:17:40.400
 be extending and they're just sharing that just as a alternative option for

01:17:40.400 --> 01:17:48.200
 the multifamily very good thank you thank you again Haley any other questions

01:17:48.200 --> 01:17:57.720
 on the consent okay moving on to items for individual consideration just to

01:17:57.720 --> 01:18:04.480
 remind you item 4a and 4b have been formally withdrawn item 4c is seeking a

01:18:04.480 --> 01:18:10.160
 30-day request which will move it to the November 20th PMZ meeting I will take a

01:18:10.160 --> 01:18:15.560
 vote and chambers for that next item of business is item 5a it's just for

01:18:15.560 --> 01:18:20.920
 clarification on C do you want staff do you want to take the vote on the do you

01:18:20.920 --> 01:18:23.720
 want us to go full through a full presentation on that item or do you want

01:18:23.720 --> 01:18:30.040
 to consider a the postponement prior to just given the number of items on the

01:18:30.040 --> 01:18:38.680
 agenda it's it's really up to Tricia also have thoughts we're talking about

01:18:38.680 --> 01:18:43.880
 the one we're postponing yeah well I mean a question on it but do you think

01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:46.560
 things are going to change because of their postponement so would it be a

01:18:46.560 --> 01:18:51.040
 waste of time to discuss it it would come back as exact same item on on if it

01:18:51.040 --> 01:18:54.520
 is postponed the exact same item would come back on and we definitely get a

01:18:54.520 --> 01:18:59.480
 presentation that night yeah so by show of hands you know does anyone have

01:18:59.480 --> 01:19:02.760
 issued our commissioner I did have a question it's sort of related to

01:19:02.760 --> 01:19:08.840
 Commissioner Ellis's question I'm just unclear what if we're if we are simply

01:19:08.840 --> 01:19:14.960
 moving this exact item later with no changes so they're in the next whatever

01:19:14.960 --> 01:19:18.920
 two weeks there could be no changes to the proposal is that correct that is

01:19:18.920 --> 01:19:24.760
 correct okay thank you so I went show of hands are we okay postponing the actual

01:19:24.760 --> 01:19:29.060
 presentation as well this evening okay Richard we will not say presentation

01:19:29.060 --> 01:19:35.240
 we'll just move straight to a vote on item 4c so that moves us to their public

01:19:35.240 --> 01:19:41.000
 hearings first one is item 5a which is presented by Haley

01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:55.920
 this is a request for a replant of a property located along Teasley Lane so

01:19:55.920 --> 01:20:01.440
 it is currently one lot today with frontage here on Teasley the intent is

01:20:01.440 --> 01:20:05.160
 to subdivide this into three lots for commercial development there's a believe

01:20:05.160 --> 01:20:08.680
 a daycare under construction on the northernmost lot so the southern two

01:20:08.680 --> 01:20:13.840
 lots would simply be left for later commercial development happy to answer

01:20:13.840 --> 01:20:18.040
 any questions you may all have about the specifics of the plot

01:20:18.760 --> 01:20:26.320
 mr. Beck so in just Google mapping and looking through things there is sort of

01:20:26.320 --> 01:20:31.160
 I'm gonna use the wrong word here and you substitute the correct word there's

01:20:31.160 --> 01:20:38.160
 sort of a riparian tree buffer between the school where the wording is and the

01:20:38.160 --> 01:20:44.140
 banks in the upper corner of this this figure so that's that would all be going

01:20:44.140 --> 01:20:51.160
 away if we develop these three lots from the preservation plans I've seen for

01:20:51.160 --> 01:20:54.400
 their trees there aren't a lot of trees on the northern end of this particular

01:20:54.400 --> 01:20:58.880
 property those may be on the the lots immediately north of there or perhaps on

01:20:58.880 --> 01:21:03.040
 the school site itself I believe they have a couple of large trees the daycare

01:21:03.040 --> 01:21:06.920
 is preserving here on their westernmost perimeter and then the bulk of the trees

01:21:06.920 --> 01:21:09.480
 on this side are actually located down here at the southern end around the

01:21:09.480 --> 01:21:13.880
 existing detention facility and they have not presented plans to show what

01:21:13.880 --> 01:21:18.060
 the specifics of tree preservation would be there each lot would need to do a

01:21:18.060 --> 01:21:22.880
 tree preservation plan and survey when it comes in for development so that

01:21:22.880 --> 01:21:25.520
 would be determined at that time they would have to meet the minimum 30%

01:21:25.520 --> 01:21:42.080
 preservation of the code thank you okay next is item 5b z 19 - 9a perfect and

01:21:42.080 --> 01:21:48.880
 with item 5b Cindy please here to present 5c as well the zoning and SUP

01:21:48.880 --> 01:21:56.880
 case I'm going to combine the B and C into one presentation you'll still have

01:21:56.880 --> 01:22:01.040
 to take separate votes on each item but since they both concern the same site I

01:22:01.040 --> 01:22:04.160
 thought it would be easier

01:22:12.800 --> 01:22:25.000
 okay this is our request to rezone approximately 2.430 acres from rural

01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:32.400
 residential to mixed-use neighborhood and 0.838 acres from residential six are

01:22:32.400 --> 01:22:39.800
 six to mixed-use neighborhood the companion to this is s 19 0 0 1 1 a

01:22:39.800 --> 01:22:45.320
 request for a specific use permit to protect to permit an electric

01:22:45.320 --> 01:22:51.280
 substation on the site as you can see the 3.27 acre site is located on the

01:22:51.280 --> 01:22:56.080
 north side of blag approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of blag

01:22:56.080 --> 01:23:02.480
 and gisling and you'll note that the site is surrounded on two sides by a

01:23:02.480 --> 01:23:09.560
 small electrical substation here and then a larger DME substation located

01:23:09.560 --> 01:23:16.720
 here the walker tract that is a preliminary plot that you are looking at

01:23:16.720 --> 01:23:24.440
 tonight that Haley presented is located right here this shows the current zoning

01:23:24.440 --> 01:23:29.200
 map and you can see that the site is surrounded by rural residential to the

01:23:29.200 --> 01:23:35.800
 south and then our six and public facility and rural residential again on

01:23:35.800 --> 01:23:42.760
 the east west and north side if this is approved this is the proposed zoning map

01:23:42.760 --> 01:23:52.480
 as it will look with the requested MN we have in our code general criteria for

01:23:52.480 --> 01:23:58.040
 approval of all applications which I went into detail in your backup I am

01:23:58.040 --> 01:24:03.760
 just showing you the criteria for the general the site complies with all of

01:24:03.760 --> 01:24:09.440
 these I'm going to go into more detail with the criteria for approval of a

01:24:09.440 --> 01:24:18.320
 zoning case which is in 272 D number one the dent in plan 2030 the site is

01:24:18.320 --> 01:24:23.280
 designated as moderate residential excuse me moderate density residential

01:24:23.280 --> 01:24:27.240
 it's intended for residential neighborhoods with a density between 4

01:24:27.240 --> 01:24:34.080
 and 12 acre dwelling units per acre and it applies to transition areas between

01:24:34.080 --> 01:24:39.400
 established single family neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas and

01:24:39.400 --> 01:24:43.960
 this is that this is where this applies this is actually a transition area

01:24:43.960 --> 01:24:51.200
 between the US 380 University corridor and then black road and the low

01:24:51.200 --> 01:24:57.920
 residential areas to the south criteria number two is that it's consistent with

01:24:57.920 --> 01:25:02.440
 relevant small area plans well there is no small area plan in existence for this

01:25:02.440 --> 01:25:07.440
 site right now number three is consistent with the purpose statement of

01:25:07.440 --> 01:25:11.520
 the proposed zoning district the purpose of the MN district is to provide

01:25:11.520 --> 01:25:15.760
 compatibility between high intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential

01:25:15.760 --> 01:25:20.680
 areas the MN district in this location satisfies this locational requirement

01:25:20.680 --> 01:25:25.120
 it will be located between the lower intensity are our district to the south

01:25:25.120 --> 01:25:31.880
 and the US 380 quarter to the north the substation is permitted in the MN zoning

01:25:31.880 --> 01:25:37.360
 district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the use specific

01:25:37.360 --> 01:25:44.240
 standards in section 5 3 7 a the applicant actually this is the least

01:25:44.240 --> 01:25:48.840
 intensive zoning district that electric substations are permitted in so the that

01:25:48.840 --> 01:25:53.720
 is the reason the applicant is requesting this particular district

01:25:53.720 --> 01:25:58.720
 criteria for there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant

01:25:58.720 --> 01:26:03.120
 a zoning change well there are there have not been any significant changes in

01:26:03.120 --> 01:26:08.800
 the area as I noted previously there is a residential preliminary plat for the

01:26:08.800 --> 01:26:13.200
 site located to the northwest and west of the subject site that is on the agenda

01:26:13.200 --> 01:26:18.480
 tonight electric substation is not a permitted use in the current rr and r6

01:26:18.480 --> 01:26:23.160
 zoning districts as noted previously the purpose of this request is to rezone the

01:26:23.160 --> 01:26:27.840
 site to the least intensive district that permits electric substations upon

01:26:27.840 --> 01:26:33.720
 approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted

01:26:33.720 --> 01:26:38.040
 by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly

01:26:38.040 --> 01:26:46.560
 adverse impacts to the surrounding areas electric substations are have a real low

01:26:46.560 --> 01:26:55.800
 intensive impact on areas with regards to the streets there very little impact

01:26:55.800 --> 01:26:59.200
 on the infrastructure the employees will visit the site a few times a month to

01:26:59.200 --> 01:27:04.560
 perform maintenance or security checks black road is designated as the two lane

01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:10.240
 collector with a right of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will

01:27:10.240 --> 01:27:17.320
 be dedicated when the site plats with regards to water and wastewater water

01:27:17.320 --> 01:27:21.760
 and wastewater is not available to the site however the use does not require

01:27:21.760 --> 01:27:26.440
 access to water and wastewater so no extension of public utilities will be

01:27:26.440 --> 01:27:32.160
 required for this particular use with regards to parks the proposed use of the

01:27:32.160 --> 01:27:36.720
 site is a non-habitable electric substation and proximity to parks is not

01:27:36.720 --> 01:27:44.720
 applicable to this use with regards to schools excuse me the proposed use of the

01:27:44.720 --> 01:27:48.480
 site is a non-habitable electric substation and isn't expected to

01:27:48.480 --> 01:27:53.800
 generate a student population with fire stations the subject property is located

01:27:53.800 --> 01:27:58.680
 approximately 3.2 miles from fire station number 2 within the eight minute or less

01:27:58.680 --> 01:28:05.320
 response time boundary staff recommends approval of this rezoning request as it

01:28:05.320 --> 01:28:11.400
 complies with the criteria in section 2.4.5 e of the Denton development code

01:28:11.400 --> 01:28:19.600
 and 2.7.2 D of the DDC for approval of a zoning change going to move forward now

01:28:19.600 --> 01:28:26.120
 to the SUP and again here's the general criteria for all applications which as I

01:28:26.120 --> 01:28:32.160
 note in the backup this does comply with here is a copy of this the concept plan

01:28:32.160 --> 01:28:37.720
 that was provided Black Road is located here you can see here is the substation

01:28:37.720 --> 01:28:42.280
 itself it's going to be surrounded by a masonry wall on all four sides around

01:28:42.280 --> 01:28:48.240
 the perimeter the landscape plan indicates that the site will comply with

01:28:48.240 --> 01:28:55.200
 the required landscape buffers that are in section 2.7 I'm sorry I don't have

01:28:55.200 --> 01:29:04.240
 that the requirements for electric substations there is a 10-foot buffer

01:29:04.240 --> 01:29:09.560
 along the front on the street because per that section the street is considered

01:29:09.560 --> 01:29:20.840
 to be a buffer the criteria for approval of an SUP a the specific use is proposed

01:29:20.840 --> 01:29:26.520
 is compatible with the surrounding area there are two other electrical

01:29:26.520 --> 01:29:32.640
 substations in the area one is located directly adjacent to the site which was

01:29:32.640 --> 01:29:38.520
 developed prior to the annexation of the site into the city and then there is one

01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:47.360
 north and northwest of the site which is the DME substation that was approved in

01:29:47.360 --> 01:29:56.040
 2015 the specific use proposed has minimal impacts on the future development

01:29:56.040 --> 01:30:02.360
 of the area the price I noted reason previously there is a proposal for

01:30:02.360 --> 01:30:09.080
 single-family residential subdivision to the north and east of the site if you

01:30:09.080 --> 01:30:13.840
 looking at the plot of the preliminary plot that will is before you this month

01:30:13.840 --> 01:30:19.080
 today you'll see that this area right here is not proposed for development and

01:30:19.080 --> 01:30:23.880
 is actually an HOA lot there will be no single-family homes that would be

01:30:23.880 --> 01:30:33.240
 directly adjacent to this site the sites to the south are large lot ranch and

01:30:33.240 --> 01:30:41.120
 agricultural sites there is we did receive one response that is opposed to

01:30:41.120 --> 01:30:44.280
 this from one of these sites and I'll show you where it is later on in my

01:30:44.280 --> 01:30:50.920
 presentation I've but it really shouldn't affect any of these particular

01:30:50.920 --> 01:30:57.160
 properties either due to the low impact of the site it's not like we're going

01:30:57.160 --> 01:31:03.720
 to have a lot of people visiting the area to workers coming to the electric

01:31:03.720 --> 01:31:13.320
 substation see the specific use proposed meets all the standards of the DDC and

01:31:13.320 --> 01:31:19.520
 all other applicable city I'm sorry my mouth isn't working are all other

01:31:19.520 --> 01:31:24.720
 applicable city codes this transformer does meet all of the applicable city

01:31:24.720 --> 01:31:29.920
 codes as noted in the backup for of your staff report and it meets all other

01:31:29.920 --> 01:31:36.600
 requirements as well any impacts associated with access traffic emergency

01:31:36.600 --> 01:31:42.120
 services utilities parking refuse areas noise glare and odor have been

01:31:42.120 --> 01:31:45.880
 adequately mitigated the site should have very little impact on the

01:31:45.880 --> 01:31:49.560
 infrastructure in the area as previously noted does not require water

01:31:49.560 --> 01:31:54.000
 wastewater or solid waste services and there is no order or noise associated

01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:59.120
 with this proposed use the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan

01:31:59.120 --> 01:32:03.920
 and any other adopted plans the subject site has a future land use designation of

01:32:03.920 --> 01:32:07.960
 moderate density residential which applies to transition areas between

01:32:07.960 --> 01:32:11.240
 established single-family neighborhoods and higher density residential or

01:32:11.240 --> 01:32:19.080
 commercial areas as I pointed out earlier in my presentation and the site

01:32:19.080 --> 01:32:25.320
 the use adversely affects the health safety and welfare of the inhabitants of

01:32:25.320 --> 01:32:29.720
 this area and the city of Denton this use complies with all applicable

01:32:29.720 --> 01:32:34.640
 requirements it will not adversely affect the residents located in the

01:32:34.640 --> 01:32:39.040
 area or in the city in fact it will help them in making sure that there is

01:32:39.040 --> 01:32:47.080
 electrical service provided for all property owners and residents we sent

01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:53.240
 out notification to property owners within 200 and 500 feet of the site we

01:32:53.240 --> 01:32:58.400
 received one response in opposition located here and this was only in

01:32:58.400 --> 01:33:07.600
 opposition to the zoning case I it represents five percent of the total

01:33:07.600 --> 01:33:12.800
 land area within the 200 foot buffer and the applicant did not hold a

01:33:12.800 --> 01:33:19.920
 neighborhood meeting so you kind of up to you briefly it seems like recently we

01:33:19.920 --> 01:33:26.160
 also had a zoning SGP case and if I recall correctly citizens were only

01:33:26.160 --> 01:33:34.440
 responding to one of them yes is that issue being maybe it's not an issue but

01:33:34.440 --> 01:33:40.280
 it seems as though when there is two things happen same property citizens

01:33:40.280 --> 01:33:45.400
 don't know to duly express their opinions they are getting two different

01:33:45.400 --> 01:33:51.560
 notifications they are I my my thought is that they think if they send in the

01:33:51.560 --> 01:33:57.640
 one notice that that takes care of it is what I'm thinking I can't say for sure

01:33:57.640 --> 01:34:03.880
 but that's that is what I know if I were not in this profession I would think the

01:34:03.880 --> 01:34:07.880
 same thing that one notice would take care of it I certainly am not one to

01:34:07.880 --> 01:34:12.160
 add to anyone's workload intentionally but I wonder if there's a opportunity

01:34:12.160 --> 01:34:16.080
 that if we get if this property owner we got it in is to a quick phone call or

01:34:16.080 --> 01:34:23.160
 email and say what is your opinion on the another item and instead of us

01:34:23.160 --> 01:34:26.920
 because obviously our assumptions we can't tie to the SGP case because we

01:34:26.920 --> 01:34:30.560
 don't know so I wonder if there's an opportunity just to ensure that

01:34:30.560 --> 01:34:38.160
 communications being made definitely Mr. Beck thank you chair is there a

01:34:38.160 --> 01:34:46.640
 mechanism where we can put more than one item on the same notification I know we

01:34:46.640 --> 01:34:52.220
 have a work session item coming back I think in December to talk about

01:34:52.220 --> 01:34:58.320
 notifications within the ETJ and I'd like to probably also talk about this as

01:34:58.320 --> 01:35:03.840
 to if we have two zoning action items going to the on the same agenda like

01:35:03.840 --> 01:35:08.920
 this whether or not we do a dual notice I would just need to talk to legal about

01:35:08.920 --> 01:35:14.200
 that one thing that's different in this DDC whether whether we have to do two

01:35:14.200 --> 01:35:18.680
 different notices I just need to confirm that if it's okay to add them on to one

01:35:18.680 --> 01:35:24.320
 one thing to note though under the new DDC once an SGP is approved it goes on

01:35:24.320 --> 01:35:30.080
 the zoning map with the demarcation of SGP in the past we did not do that so

01:35:30.080 --> 01:35:34.140
 whether or not we can just do that as one notice we'll provide we'll bring

01:35:34.140 --> 01:35:37.900
 that information back great for that work session that'd be helpful thank you

01:35:37.900 --> 01:35:45.480
 Richard and staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the

01:35:45.480 --> 01:35:53.240
 criteria in section 245 E and section 252 D of the DDC that concludes my

01:35:53.240 --> 01:36:01.360
 presentation any questions for Cindy and just city mentioned this I just want to

01:36:01.360 --> 01:36:05.640
 reiterate this evening we'll hear one presentation and then we'll take two

01:36:05.640 --> 01:36:09.600
 separate votes correct the zoning vote has to pass in order for the SGP to be

01:36:09.600 --> 01:36:13.440
 applied to exactly if the zoning doesn't pass then you don't need to consider the

01:36:13.440 --> 01:36:20.640
 SGP Christian thank you chair and then real quick with a motion on the SGP it's

01:36:20.640 --> 01:36:24.920
 assumed that the site plan and landscape plan presented are part of the approval

01:36:24.920 --> 01:36:28.840
 right or do you need to make that part of the motion it's part of the ordinance

01:36:28.840 --> 01:36:32.740
 okay thank you and just for clarification there will be two votes

01:36:32.740 --> 01:36:39.120
 regardless since the SGP has been agenda eyes agenda eyes put yeah put on the

01:36:39.120 --> 01:36:46.600
 agenda making of words here there will be two votes but it'll be separate thank

01:36:46.600 --> 01:36:57.480
 you Cindy sure next up is Ramaguita for items 5d and 5e updates to our DDC

01:37:08.120 --> 01:37:16.520
 thank you chair members a commission this item is development code amendment for a

01:37:16.520 --> 01:37:23.020
 specific section of the code as it relates to the rezonings with overlay

01:37:23.020 --> 01:37:28.480
 condition properties so for those that are new some of the commissioners when a

01:37:28.480 --> 01:37:33.320
 property is rezoned sometimes the commission ultimately the council

01:37:33.320 --> 01:37:39.240
 approves it with a condition for example if it's a residential subdivision they

01:37:39.240 --> 01:37:44.240
 can condition the number of unit dwell units per acre or they'll add certain

01:37:44.240 --> 01:37:49.960
 conditions related to landscaping whatever it may be those are what we

01:37:49.960 --> 01:37:57.120
 call zoning's with overlay conditions and in 2000 2019 and this year in April

01:37:57.120 --> 01:38:02.560
 when the development code update was approved those properties transitioned

01:38:02.560 --> 01:38:07.800
 to plan developments primarily because they they're not able to transition to a

01:38:07.800 --> 01:38:11.340
 zoning district because they've got those conditions so if you look at a

01:38:11.340 --> 01:38:16.480
 zoning district one versus the other because that one has conditions it

01:38:16.480 --> 01:38:21.320
 doesn't equal the same as the other zoning district that it shares so in

01:38:21.320 --> 01:38:27.760
 essence we've given it a PD designation and therefore those PDs that were

01:38:27.760 --> 01:38:33.160
 calling rezoning's with overlays with overlay conditions has a provision under

01:38:33.160 --> 01:38:40.520
 section 1.7.8 and here it illustrates what it basically says and I will get

01:38:40.520 --> 01:38:44.360
 into the text in a couple slides but properties rezoned with overlay

01:38:44.360 --> 01:38:50.320
 conditions are governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning that

01:38:50.320 --> 01:38:57.920
 it governs what that means is if you look at that that means that we apply

01:38:57.920 --> 01:39:06.060
 the 2002 regulations and standards that's how we read it however later this

01:39:06.060 --> 01:39:11.480
 year in September the City Council approved the zoning map with a zoning

01:39:11.480 --> 01:39:15.520
 train a district transition chart which is shown here and I apologize it's not

01:39:15.520 --> 01:39:21.520
 very easy to read but I've got basically a summary of what that chart indicates

01:39:21.520 --> 01:39:27.080
 for these PDs these rezoning's with overly conditions and it states that all

01:39:27.080 --> 01:39:33.040
 remaining zoning districts I'm sorry all remaining zoning regulations and design

01:39:33.040 --> 01:39:40.640
 standards that are not under our condition or whatnot fall under the 2019

01:39:40.640 --> 01:39:46.440
 development code so there's a conflict between what's in the code section 1.7.8

01:39:46.440 --> 01:39:53.280
 and what is in the transition chart that dictates where or what development code

01:39:53.280 --> 01:40:01.200
 applies in these particular properties that have rezoning's with overlays we've

01:40:01.200 --> 01:40:06.560
 got about 45 of these properties in the city that were approved by council

01:40:06.560 --> 01:40:12.760
 recommended by some by this Commission that have conditions and again those

01:40:12.760 --> 01:40:18.440
 transitioned into a PD what we're calling PDs of course not all of them

01:40:18.440 --> 01:40:23.520
 have developed and we want to make sure that we apply the right code in this

01:40:23.520 --> 01:40:27.680
 case obviously we've got a conflict and what we are recommending staff is

01:40:27.680 --> 01:40:34.840
 recommending that we amend section 1.7.8 to be consistent with the

01:40:34.840 --> 01:40:40.640
 transition chart so the language that you see here is right from the code with

01:40:40.640 --> 01:40:47.600
 some changes again 1.7.8 what we're saying is and I'll read it so that we

01:40:47.600 --> 01:40:51.840
 have a general understanding any property that was rezoned with overlay

01:40:51.840 --> 01:40:56.840
 conditions under the prior regulation shall be designated as a PD on the

01:40:56.840 --> 01:41:00.640
 official zoning map and shall be governed by the conditions remember

01:41:00.640 --> 01:41:06.180
 those conditions that council approved will still apply unauthorizing the

01:41:06.180 --> 01:41:13.000
 rezoning all remaining zoning regulations and design standards that are

01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:18.600
 not included in that ordinance shall be governed by the 2019 the today's

01:41:18.600 --> 01:41:23.040
 development code and that's all that we're asking to do with this code

01:41:23.040 --> 01:41:27.600
 amendment it is a city initiated zoning I'm sorry city initiated code amendment

01:41:27.600 --> 01:41:35.160
 to fix that conflict and be consistent in how we apply for these 45 properties

01:41:35.160 --> 01:41:39.760
 that's that's the purpose of this work session I'm sorry this public hearing

01:41:39.760 --> 01:41:45.600
 item that will be later considered by y'all that concludes my presentation

01:41:45.600 --> 01:41:50.840
 Sanford any questions I got a question sir hopefully I can word this correctly

01:41:50.840 --> 01:41:56.160
 if someone came to us two years ago and was approved for a PD with three

01:41:56.160 --> 01:42:01.500
 conditions but I'm rezoning sorry to cut you off sure rezoning and it had

01:42:01.500 --> 01:42:06.000
 overlay three overlay conditions density or whatever else we put on it but they

01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:10.480
 didn't ask for any more conditions because in the 2002 DDC they didn't

01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:17.560
 need it now we have this updated 2019 DDC which might actually those three

01:42:17.560 --> 01:42:21.000
 conditions that they had overlay on those stay correct but all the other

01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:27.800
 ones that changed might cause friction with the development that was approved

01:42:27.800 --> 01:42:32.920
 in 02 because they wouldn't have known to ask for the new conditions that have

01:42:32.920 --> 01:42:40.040
 been placed on by the 2019 so I'm wondering can you help me walk through

01:42:40.040 --> 01:42:45.000
 sure so in those situations in staff's opinion it would be there's an

01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:50.280
 opportunity to amend that PD or that ordinance and if there is something that

01:42:50.280 --> 01:42:55.120
 they need to add or change they can certainly bring it up through this that

01:42:55.120 --> 01:42:58.800
 second actually that last sentence here proposed changes to such properties to

01:42:58.800 --> 01:43:03.480
 follow will follow that PD amendment process so it would it would require

01:43:03.480 --> 01:43:12.240
 them if they need to amend or have it I guess a different requirement they can

01:43:12.240 --> 01:43:18.120
 add that to their PD if that's what they need the amendment process for plan

01:43:18.120 --> 01:43:23.720
 developments is that through city staff it it goes through the planning zoning

01:43:23.720 --> 01:43:27.720
 Commission City Council so it requires a dual public hearing it's a zoning item

01:43:27.720 --> 01:43:37.360
 so it has to go through that process and again we're just talking about zoning

01:43:37.360 --> 01:43:43.520
 items if there's if there's a design standard that they did not they can't

01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:48.320
 meet under 2019 there is obviously flexibility built in to the new the

01:43:48.320 --> 01:43:51.960
 development code but again there's there's always options for amending the

01:43:51.960 --> 01:44:03.640
 PD if that's the case okay any other questions on item 5d great thanks Ron I

01:44:03.640 --> 01:44:07.160
 think you're the next one 5e yes sir

01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:19.000
 so this code amendment is also a city initiated code amendment and it relates

01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:26.240
 to the development criteria manuals that we just heard earlier similarly in April

01:44:26.240 --> 01:44:32.360
 of this year the development code update was done and as part of that update

01:44:32.360 --> 01:44:39.280
 provisions related to criteria manuals were either revised deleted or updated

01:44:39.280 --> 01:44:45.560
 ultimately what we found out was the process in which to create and also

01:44:45.560 --> 01:44:52.120
 update criteria manuals was altered and we need to fix that in order to continue

01:44:52.120 --> 01:44:55.880
 with what we're trying to do with those criteria managed that we heard earlier

01:44:55.880 --> 01:45:03.240
 and so it is a an opportunity for us to clarify basically the authority of the

01:45:03.240 --> 01:45:08.600
 criteria manuals and also to restart re-establish that process of creating and

01:45:08.600 --> 01:45:14.040
 updating the criteria manuals and those are insane and those will be part of

01:45:14.040 --> 01:45:21.800
 section one three point four as well as 211 now a one three point four exists and

01:45:21.800 --> 01:45:25.320
 again we're just going to be adding some wording there to help clarify the

01:45:25.320 --> 01:45:31.880
 authority of criteria manuals section 211 is actually a new section that we'll be

01:45:31.880 --> 01:45:36.960
 adding in essence what we did was we looked at the previous code basically

01:45:36.960 --> 01:45:42.880
 copied and we're inserting it back into the 2019 development code so this is the

01:45:42.880 --> 01:45:48.920
 first section one three four B and again adding where we have underlined is

01:45:48.920 --> 01:45:55.240
 adding those wording again section 211 is the reference in this section we're

01:45:55.240 --> 01:45:59.760
 also adding and updating our list of criteria manuals so really just

01:45:59.760 --> 01:46:05.280
 clarification when it comes to section 211 which is the establishment of the

01:46:05.280 --> 01:46:09.920
 process I didn't put it all in my PowerPoint presentation you do have a

01:46:09.920 --> 01:46:14.960
 copy of what's proposed in the AIS essentially there's gonna be a purpose

01:46:14.960 --> 01:46:19.920
 minimum standards and responsibility and the meat of what we're trying to get to

01:46:19.920 --> 01:46:24.560
 is this procedure there's the initial approval or creation of criteria manuals

01:46:24.560 --> 01:46:29.880
 as you can see here it requires two public hearings as far as updates

01:46:29.880 --> 01:46:33.520
 administrative updates that only requires a work session with the

01:46:33.520 --> 01:46:39.040
 planning zoning Commission and then having public comments followed by City

01:46:39.040 --> 01:46:43.400
 Council public hearing which they will consider it and approve it by ordinance

01:46:43.400 --> 01:46:49.120
 we also have a section for legislative updates and then the last item on the

01:46:49.120 --> 01:46:58.720
 section is an approval criteria again this is a city initiated code amendment

01:46:58.720 --> 01:47:06.600
 to establish that process which we hope to take to council later this month in

01:47:06.600 --> 01:47:11.320
 time for us to bring forward those criteria manuals which will be again in

01:47:11.320 --> 01:47:17.520
 December of this year so just following that that sequence that ends my

01:47:17.520 --> 01:47:21.160
 presentation be happy to answer any questions

01:47:21.160 --> 01:47:28.400
 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so Ron the only question I had is so we get it

01:47:28.400 --> 01:47:34.000
 in a work session prior to the 30-day public review and then it states that

01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:37.680
 staff would try to address concerns that come through that 30-day review then it

01:47:37.680 --> 01:47:42.280
 goes to council for a vote if changes are made to that because of public

01:47:42.280 --> 01:47:48.480
 comment you know we never see that again and so I'm just trying to run through

01:47:48.480 --> 01:47:54.640
 we we can we can you know if we get it in a work session and we throw back to

01:47:54.640 --> 01:47:59.960
 you things suggestions and things that we don't like and then it goes to public

01:47:59.960 --> 01:48:03.700
 and there's more comments that are addressed then we don't really know

01:48:03.700 --> 01:48:08.520
 what's necessarily going to council so I and maybe it doesn't even need a

01:48:08.520 --> 01:48:13.200
 recommendation by us anyway I guess I'm just I'm just I'm trying to work through

01:48:13.200 --> 01:48:19.460
 how you came up with that process I think what well we normally would do in

01:48:19.460 --> 01:48:25.220
 that situation is it's like any other Commission and in this case this

01:48:25.220 --> 01:48:31.360
 wouldn't require a formal recommendation but we certainly again as you did this

01:48:31.360 --> 01:48:37.480
 afternoon we'd like to hear from you as far as comments and input and by this by

01:48:37.480 --> 01:48:41.840
 this Commission having his work session it's it's a little bit of a formal you

01:48:41.840 --> 01:48:45.960
 know submission of comments but certainly there are opportunities for

01:48:45.960 --> 01:48:51.200
 everyone anyone to submit comments the idea there was to just provide the

01:48:51.200 --> 01:48:57.480
 council with input and not a recommendation okay and if there is you

01:48:57.480 --> 01:49:02.400
 know more certainly we can pass it along if and when we do get comments from you

01:49:02.400 --> 01:49:04.880
 okay so when you bring it to council for a vote it's really going to be brought

01:49:04.880 --> 01:49:10.200
 as a staff initiation not really a P&Z recommended correct correct but we will

01:49:10.200 --> 01:49:13.760
 make sure to add we've been you know to add any comments that you provide during

01:49:13.760 --> 01:49:19.160
 the work session okay understood thank you I don't see any other questions all

01:49:19.160 --> 01:49:26.080
 right thanks Ron we've already covered 5f previously so with that our agenda is

01:49:26.080 --> 01:49:35.160
 completed we will I'll close the work session meeting at 354 we'll reconvene

01:49:35.160 --> 01:49:45.360
 in Council chambers at 630 good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the

01:49:45.360 --> 01:49:51.360
 planning and zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday November 6 2019 seeing

01:49:51.360 --> 01:49:56.880
 that we do have a quorum I will open the meeting at 631 the first item of

01:49:56.880 --> 01:50:05.520
 business is to stand if able and provide a Pledge of Allegiance

01:50:26.880 --> 01:50:35.480
 next item of business is to consider the approval of the planet zoning minutes

01:50:35.480 --> 01:50:52.280
 from October 16th mr. Anderson you want a motion for approval yes motion to we

01:50:52.280 --> 01:50:56.520
 have a first for approval mr. Cole second we have a first and second for

01:50:56.520 --> 01:51:02.920
 approval any discussion seeing that I'll call for a vote on the board

01:51:25.480 --> 01:51:35.600
 keys verbally okay motion carries five zero with one recuse next item of

01:51:35.600 --> 01:51:45.400
 business is the consent agenda Christian Ellis we have a first for approval

01:51:45.400 --> 01:51:51.200
 Christian Pernetta the second we have a first and a second for approval of the

01:51:51.200 --> 01:51:58.640
 consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

01:51:58.640 --> 01:52:09.280
 motion carries six zero next item of business is items for individual

01:52:09.280 --> 01:52:19.080
 consideration item 4a PP 19 - 0 0 3 2 as well as item 4b PP 19 - 0 0 3 3 have

01:52:19.080 --> 01:52:23.640
 been withdrawn from this evening's consideration item 4c is requesting a

01:52:23.640 --> 01:52:28.720
 30-day postponement which would within the 30 days the next meeting would be

01:52:28.720 --> 01:52:34.200
 November 20th the chair would ask for a motion to postpone to the date certain

01:52:34.200 --> 01:52:39.560
 of November 20th commissioner Ellis to a date certain November 20th meeting we

01:52:39.560 --> 01:52:44.040
 have first for the postponement and Christian Pernetta second motion we have

01:52:44.040 --> 01:52:48.240
 first and a second postpone item 4c to a date certain November 20th any

01:52:48.240 --> 01:52:53.160
 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

01:52:53.160 --> 01:53:06.600
 motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5a fr 19 - 0 0 2 0 I

01:53:06.600 --> 01:53:11.360
 will open the public hearing invite Haley for presentation

01:53:18.240 --> 01:53:26.440
 good evening Haley with the planning division this is a replat of lot 6r 1

01:53:26.440 --> 01:53:33.400
 6r 2 and 6r 3 block a of the Teasley Commons edition the property is located

01:53:33.400 --> 01:53:36.120
 along Teasley Lane with frontage here on the east side of it it's approximately

01:53:36.120 --> 01:53:41.040
 two and a half acres in size and they are subdividing one lot into three for

01:53:41.040 --> 01:53:46.720
 future commercial development I'm happy to stand for any questions I did not see

01:53:46.720 --> 01:53:49.960
 thank you Haley for the presentation this is a public hearing anyone wishing

01:53:49.960 --> 01:53:54.000
 to speak on this item they certainly do so

01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:59.480
 seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn the dais for discussion

01:53:59.480 --> 01:54:07.640
 or motion Christian Pernetta we have a first for approval commissioner Ellis

01:54:07.640 --> 01:54:13.240
 second we have first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I

01:54:13.240 --> 01:54:28.240
 call for a vote on the board motion carries five one next item of business

01:54:28.240 --> 01:54:36.040
 is item 5b z 19 - 0 0 9a and I will open the public hearing invites Cindy

01:54:36.040 --> 01:54:49.160
 presentation thank you Sharon for the record I'm Cindy Jackson with the

01:54:49.160 --> 01:54:56.360
 development services department I'm bringing for you z 19 - 0 0 9 and s 19

01:54:56.360 --> 01:55:03.280
 - 0 0 1 1 I am going to make the presentation for these items together as

01:55:03.280 --> 01:55:12.600
 they're both on the same lot however you will vote separately on them z 19 - 0 0

01:55:12.600 --> 01:55:17.800
 9 is a request to rezone approximately 2.43 acres from rural residential to

01:55:17.800 --> 01:55:22.360
 mixed-use neighborhood and to rezone approximately eight point eight three

01:55:22.360 --> 01:55:28.360
 eight acres from residential six to mixed-use neighborhood s 19 11 is a

01:55:28.360 --> 01:55:33.160
 request for a specific use permit permit a substation my first the first part of

01:55:33.160 --> 01:55:40.400
 my presentation will be towards z 19 - 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 the three point two seven

01:55:40.400 --> 01:55:45.240
 acre property is located on the north side of Black Road approximately four

01:55:45.240 --> 01:55:51.120
 hundred and thirty feet east of the intersection of Black Road and gisling

01:55:51.120 --> 01:55:56.320
 here you see the current zoning map and you can see the site is surrounded by

01:55:56.320 --> 01:56:02.080
 rural residential public facility and our six residential six if this is

01:56:02.080 --> 01:56:10.280
 approved this will be the zoning map showing the site as MN we have general

01:56:10.280 --> 01:56:16.040
 criteria for all applications that was covered in detail in your app in your

01:56:16.040 --> 01:56:22.560
 backup these are the criteria I'm going to move forward now to the criteria for

01:56:22.560 --> 01:56:30.320
 approval of a zoning case in section 272 D these are the criteria and I'm going

01:56:30.320 --> 01:56:35.320
 to go through them one by one the first one is that the site must comply with

01:56:35.320 --> 01:56:39.240
 the future land that request must comply with the future land use designation the

01:56:39.240 --> 01:56:43.760
 site is designated moderate density residential this is intended for

01:56:43.760 --> 01:56:47.440
 residential neighborhoods with a density between four and twelve dwelling units

01:56:47.440 --> 01:56:52.440
 per acre and it applies to transition areas between established single family

01:56:52.440 --> 01:56:56.040
 neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas that can accommodate

01:56:56.040 --> 01:57:01.320
 greater density or adjacent key corridors as you can see the site is

01:57:01.320 --> 01:57:08.520
 actually located between a low residential more rural area and US 3a

01:57:08.520 --> 01:57:17.560
 University which is it's going to be more commercial and a bit more intense

01:57:17.560 --> 01:57:25.920
 with its uses in the future criteria - it's consistent with relevant small

01:57:25.920 --> 01:57:31.320
 area plans there are no small area plans for this location criteria three it's

01:57:31.320 --> 01:57:35.360
 consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district the purpose

01:57:35.360 --> 01:57:39.480
 of the MN district is to provide compatibility between high intensity

01:57:39.480 --> 01:57:45.280
 mixed-use areas and adjacent residential areas the MN district in this location

01:57:45.280 --> 01:57:49.000
 satisfies the locational requirement as it will be located between the lower

01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:54.320
 intensity rural residential zoning district to the south and the US 380

01:57:54.320 --> 01:57:58.880
 corridor to the north the proposed substation is a permitted use in the MN

01:57:58.880 --> 01:58:03.200
 zoning district upon approval of a specific use permit as required by the

01:58:03.200 --> 01:58:12.080
 specific standards in section 537 a criteria for there have been or will be

01:58:12.080 --> 01:58:16.800
 significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change there have not

01:58:16.800 --> 01:58:21.840
 been significant changes in the area however a residential preliminary plat

01:58:21.840 --> 01:58:27.040
 for the site located to the northwest and west of the subject site was

01:58:27.040 --> 01:58:36.200
 approved tonight on the consent agenda it's PP 19 - 0 0 0 4b for the Walker

01:58:36.200 --> 01:58:43.960
 track the site is zoned rr and r6 electric substations are put is a

01:58:43.960 --> 01:58:48.800
 permitted use in the rr district but is not a permitted use in the current r6

01:58:48.800 --> 01:58:53.000
 zoning district the purpose of this request is to rezone the site to the

01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:56.800
 least intensive zoning district that permits electric substations with the

01:58:56.800 --> 01:59:02.480
 approval of an SUP criteria 5 the intensity of new development permitted

01:59:02.480 --> 01:59:06.880
 by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse

01:59:06.880 --> 01:59:12.680
 effects for number one the streets the proposed electric substation will have

01:59:12.680 --> 01:59:18.000
 very little impact on the street system in the in the area employees will visit

01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:24.000
 the site once or twice a month just to perform maintenance and do security

01:59:24.000 --> 01:59:29.080
 checks and black road is designated as a two-lane collector street with a right

01:59:29.080 --> 01:59:34.760
 of way of 65 feet a total of 32.5 feet of right of way will be dedicated when

01:59:34.760 --> 01:59:42.040
 this site plats water and wastewater public water and wastewater services are

01:59:42.040 --> 01:59:46.320
 not available to the site however the use does not require water and

01:59:46.320 --> 01:59:51.680
 wastewater services so no extensions of utilities will be required to support

01:59:51.680 --> 01:59:57.600
 the development parks the use of the site is a non habitable electric

01:59:57.600 --> 02:00:04.000
 substation proximity to parks is not applicable to this use and the same with

02:00:04.000 --> 02:00:08.720
 schools the proposed use is non habitable and as such it's not expected

02:00:08.720 --> 02:00:13.740
 to generate a student population that would affect the schools fire stations

02:00:13.740 --> 02:00:17.280
 the subject property is located approximately 3.2 miles from fire

02:00:17.280 --> 02:00:23.960
 station number two within the eight minute or less response time boundary we

02:00:23.960 --> 02:00:30.520
 set up notifications for this this site within 200 and 500 feet we did receive

02:00:30.520 --> 02:00:36.280
 actually we received two notices I gave one to you earlier it's for the one I

02:00:36.280 --> 02:00:40.680
 gave to you earlier was for tonight was for the SUP however I talked to the

02:00:40.680 --> 02:00:43.480
 gentleman he's here tonight and he said he is actually against the zoning as

02:00:43.480 --> 02:00:48.760
 well the second one is active is located within the ETJ and it's this

02:00:48.760 --> 02:00:54.280
 property right here the property you see in red is located in the city and it is

02:00:54.280 --> 02:01:02.160
 represents 5% of the land area within the 500 foot boundary a neighborhood

02:01:02.160 --> 02:01:07.320
 meeting was not held for this staff recommends approval of the request as it

02:01:07.320 --> 02:01:12.560
 complies with the criteria in section 2 4 5 e of the Denton Development Code for

02:01:12.560 --> 02:01:18.200
 approval of all applications as well as section 272 D of the DDC for approval of

02:01:18.200 --> 02:01:27.560
 a zoning change we'll move on now to the SUP s 19 - 0 0 1 1 and this is a request

02:01:27.560 --> 02:01:31.880
 for a specific use permit to permit an electric substation in the same location

02:01:31.880 --> 02:01:38.320
 as I just highlighted on the north side of black there are you specific criteria

02:01:38.320 --> 02:01:45.880
 for electric substations in table 5.2 a the table of permitted uses in the DDC

02:01:45.880 --> 02:01:53.920
 if the following criteria in section 5 3 7 a is not satisfied a specific use

02:01:53.920 --> 02:02:00.080
 permit will be necessary to in order to use the site for a substation the first

02:02:00.080 --> 02:02:03.960
 criteria is the use of the property is associated with a City Council approved

02:02:03.960 --> 02:02:08.800
 capital improvements plan or other City approved master plan and this is not

02:02:08.800 --> 02:02:15.640
 part of a CIP plan number 2 is a public hearing was held at City Hall for the

02:02:15.640 --> 02:02:19.680
 selection of the site public hearing was to include written notice of the public

02:02:19.680 --> 02:02:24.080
 hearing to property owners within 200 feet and physical addresses within 500

02:02:24.080 --> 02:02:28.600
 feet at least 12 days prior to the public hearing a sign advertising the

02:02:28.600 --> 02:02:32.120
 public hearing was posted on or adjacent to the property for at least 12 days

02:02:32.120 --> 02:02:36.520
 prior and the proposed screening wall location and design were reviewed and

02:02:36.520 --> 02:02:43.760
 approved by the City Council this this was not part of the this site either

02:02:43.760 --> 02:02:48.840
 because it wasn't part of the CIP plan which all of these number two applies to

02:02:48.840 --> 02:02:54.720
 the CIP plan a neighborhood meeting was held at least 15 days prior to the

02:02:54.720 --> 02:02:58.960
 public hearing at City Council for the acquisition of the site this is not City

02:02:58.960 --> 02:03:03.120
 owned so a public hearing was not held for this reason the applicant is coming

02:03:03.120 --> 02:03:09.100
 before you with a request for a specific use permit the general criteria for

02:03:09.100 --> 02:03:14.520
 approval for all applications applies to this and I went through it detailed

02:03:14.520 --> 02:03:21.400
 analysis of it in your backup I just have the list here I'm going to show you

02:03:21.400 --> 02:03:27.440
 the concept plan for the site Black Road is located right here this is the

02:03:27.440 --> 02:03:33.360
 substation itself and it will have a masonry wall around the perimeter of the

02:03:33.360 --> 02:03:39.200
 site along with landscaping here's a landscape plan which shows landscaping

02:03:39.200 --> 02:03:44.120
 that is required specific for a specific use permit not a specific use permit an

02:03:44.120 --> 02:03:49.360
 electric substation and the site complies with those requirements that are

02:03:49.360 --> 02:03:59.160
 in subchapter 7 we also have SUP criteria for approval in section 252 D the

02:03:59.160 --> 02:04:04.160
 specific use proposed is compatible with the surrounding area the site is

02:04:04.160 --> 02:04:08.080
 compatible with the surrounding area given that there are already electric

02:04:08.080 --> 02:04:13.360
 substations located to the directly to the west and to the north and northwest

02:04:13.360 --> 02:04:19.400
 of the site you can see them on the aerial photo right here there is there

02:04:19.400 --> 02:04:27.880
 are rural properties to the south and to the north and east is is the Walker

02:04:27.880 --> 02:04:34.380
 track which preliminary plot was just approved last tonight the specific use

02:04:34.380 --> 02:04:39.440
 proposed has minimal impacts on future development in the area the property to

02:04:39.440 --> 02:04:43.000
 the northeast and east of the site is undeveloped and is expected to develop

02:04:43.000 --> 02:04:47.120
 it's a single-family subdivision per the design standards for electric

02:04:47.120 --> 02:04:54.040
 substations and 7 13 7 amazingly screen masonry screening wall with a 20-foot

02:04:54.040 --> 02:04:57.720
 clearance zone is required around substations with an additional landscape

02:04:57.720 --> 02:05:04.120
 buffer next to the clearance zone excuse me and I do want to point out that per

02:05:04.120 --> 02:05:08.480
 the preliminary plot for the Walker track this this site is adjacent to a

02:05:08.480 --> 02:05:15.560
 large HOA HOA lot and there are not going to be any residences adjacent to

02:05:15.560 --> 02:05:23.280
 this in the Walker track the specific use proposed meets as proposed meets all

02:05:23.280 --> 02:05:28.000
 other standards of the DDC and all applicable city codes the proposed

02:05:28.000 --> 02:05:32.880
 electric transformer meets all these applicable requirements any impacts

02:05:32.880 --> 02:05:37.880
 associated with access traffic emergency services utilities parking refuse area

02:05:37.880 --> 02:05:44.280
 noise glaring odor have been adequately mitigated this proposed sub station will

02:05:44.280 --> 02:05:47.840
 have very little impact on the infrastructure in the area as previously

02:05:47.840 --> 02:05:51.920
 noted the site does not require water wastewater or solid waste services

02:05:51.920 --> 02:05:57.560
 there's no odor or noise associated with this proposed use the use is in

02:05:57.560 --> 02:06:02.080
 conformance with the comprehensive plan in any adopted plans the subject site

02:06:02.080 --> 02:06:05.800
 has a future land use designation of moderate density residential which

02:06:05.800 --> 02:06:09.240
 applies to transition areas between the established single-family neighborhoods

02:06:09.240 --> 02:06:12.760
 and higher density residential and commercial areas as I previously

02:06:12.760 --> 02:06:18.120
 explained as previously noted the area serves as a transition between the rural

02:06:18.120 --> 02:06:24.840
 residential areas to the south and the US 380 quarter to the north the use

02:06:24.840 --> 02:06:30.000
 adversely impacts the health safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the area

02:06:30.000 --> 02:06:34.720
 the use complies with all applicable requirements and consequently will not

02:06:34.720 --> 02:06:41.760
 adversely affect residents located in the area and in the city again

02:06:41.760 --> 02:06:50.120
 notification was sent out for this request we received two responses in

02:06:50.120 --> 02:06:57.560
 opposition here you can see the area that is an opposition that I handed out

02:06:57.560 --> 02:07:04.840
 earlier tonight which is in the ETJ and then here is the opposition that was in

02:07:04.840 --> 02:07:11.600
 your packet which represents 5% of the land area within 200 feet staff

02:07:11.600 --> 02:07:16.600
 recommends approval of this request as it complies with the criteria section 245

02:07:16.600 --> 02:07:23.560
 E and section 252 D of the Denton Development Code and that concludes my

02:07:23.560 --> 02:07:27.560
 presentation the applicant is here thank you very much for your presentation

02:07:27.560 --> 02:07:33.920
 Cindy I just wanted to update the record that the public hearing for item 5 BZ 19

02:07:33.920 --> 02:07:39.120
 has been open and I will officially open item 5 CS 19 the public hearing open for

02:07:39.120 --> 02:07:43.000
 that item as well during this time it is a public hearing so I don't wish to speak

02:07:43.000 --> 02:07:47.840
 may certainly do so we can converse and discuss about both items but for the

02:07:47.840 --> 02:07:52.280
 Commission will take them separately zoning first then the SUP Cindy I don't

02:07:52.280 --> 02:07:56.960
 see any questions for you this time okay thank you as I mentioned this is a

02:07:56.960 --> 02:08:02.600
 public hearing for both items if you like speaking you can come on down well

02:08:02.600 --> 02:08:08.920
 I it needs to come down to the mic I apologize and when you get here if you

02:08:08.920 --> 02:08:14.360
 just state your name and address for the record I mean certainly sorry my name is

02:08:14.360 --> 02:08:18.040
 Jacqueline Bella and I live directly across from where you guys are trying to

02:08:18.040 --> 02:08:22.760
 build or where it's trying to be built but I don't understand as for opposition

02:08:22.760 --> 02:08:29.160
 only receiving two because myself and my husband we've opposed it we dropped it

02:08:29.160 --> 02:08:35.280
 off at the location I have copies of the opposition that was sent out or dropped

02:08:35.280 --> 02:08:40.440
 off and so I don't understand how there was only like one or two oppositions did

02:08:40.440 --> 02:08:44.800
 did you and do you and your husband represent the same property yes so we

02:08:44.800 --> 02:08:49.220
 highlighted property in opposition not necessarily individuals in opposition

02:08:49.220 --> 02:08:56.040
 okay no but then we'd have within that 200 foot boundary we'd have our house

02:08:56.040 --> 02:09:01.840
 our neighbor would be three people three residents I can ask Cindy what

02:09:01.840 --> 02:09:07.680
 responses you received did you receive three different resident opposition

02:09:07.680 --> 02:09:13.560
 you know you've got in your hands what I received I have I didn't receive

02:09:13.560 --> 02:09:18.880
 anything else I have it on the log to where I signed that day dropping off

02:09:18.880 --> 02:09:32.560
 here's my so it only includes one house for one house from the impression we

02:09:32.560 --> 02:09:37.720
 received we received one property and then one ECJ property okay because we

02:09:37.720 --> 02:09:41.800
 have two houses on our property and my mother-in-law lives in one of them too so

02:09:41.800 --> 02:09:45.680
 does her vote count as well we can certainly receive the opposition stated

02:09:45.680 --> 02:09:48.920
 this evening and then if there's any formal updates we can make going to

02:09:48.920 --> 02:09:54.300
 council yes ultimately the the opposition percentage wouldn't apply

02:09:54.300 --> 02:09:59.160
 from a supermature that the opposition is primarily used to see if we need a

02:09:59.160 --> 02:10:03.520
 supermajority for a vote at council so we can certainly hear the opposition

02:10:03.520 --> 02:10:08.240
 tonight and then if that threshold of five percent that you saw this evening

02:10:08.240 --> 02:10:14.560
 goes to 20% it forces a supermajority at City Council

02:10:14.560 --> 02:10:32.200
 then my other concern it can I continue absolutely sorry this is new to me I've

02:10:32.200 --> 02:10:36.080
 never done this so sorry so currently right now you'll see when you saw the

02:10:36.080 --> 02:10:41.280
 above the aerial view our property would be this is how it looks like whenever

02:10:41.280 --> 02:10:47.000
 you're at our facility I mean walk out our side over to work yeah can we pull

02:10:47.000 --> 02:10:52.440
 up a map and then ma'am would be helpful is that felt right next to you if you

02:10:52.440 --> 02:10:56.160
 just put this picture okay and it'll okay we'll broadcast that everyone

02:10:56.160 --> 02:11:05.040
 watching and then before we turn the eye of the sky on ma'am can you point

02:11:05.040 --> 02:11:10.960
 generally on this map so you see where the yellow is our property is right

02:11:10.960 --> 02:11:16.960
 across the streets so what what their entrance is on there so you see the

02:11:16.960 --> 02:11:20.680
 didn't like right here this is a substation that's supposedly was

02:11:20.680 --> 02:11:24.160
 supposed to be removed within two years because we bought the property and then

02:11:24.160 --> 02:11:27.240
 we were told that within two years didn't electric would be removing the

02:11:27.240 --> 02:11:33.200
 substation and so whenever we walk outside our door this is what we see so

02:11:33.200 --> 02:11:37.080
 that's why I kind of just don't really understand why we would need pretty much

02:11:37.080 --> 02:11:43.000
 three substations in the same area and the road I mean it's you know brings an

02:11:43.000 --> 02:11:47.320
 issue of drainage you know with whenever we're bringing in if you're gonna bring

02:11:47.320 --> 02:11:52.680
 in another substation and then also with you're saying the landscaping it's great

02:11:52.680 --> 02:11:55.920
 for everybody else but when it's directly across from our street you'll

02:11:55.920 --> 02:12:00.880
 see that you know it's the driveway I mean you'll see it's just the entryways

02:12:00.880 --> 02:12:14.440
 so for example that's their gate for one of the substations next to it like

02:12:14.440 --> 02:12:19.240
 directly behind it so if a gate like that is being in front of our house it

02:12:19.240 --> 02:12:24.920
 really doesn't mean it's you know it'd be hard to sell later our property value

02:12:24.920 --> 02:12:29.960
 and just kind of decreases and if we would have known ahead of time about the

02:12:29.960 --> 02:12:34.600
 substation because especially having three of them we were told that the

02:12:34.600 --> 02:12:39.440
 other one was going to be removed it just adds concern for our value of our

02:12:39.440 --> 02:12:44.960
 house drainage and you know I know everyone's saying yeah there's no

02:12:44.960 --> 02:12:50.120
 conclusive evidence or whatever about health and safety but I don't I mean

02:12:50.120 --> 02:12:55.640
 honestly would you want to put your kids there you know we have kids and stuff

02:12:55.640 --> 02:13:01.120
 that you know just doesn't sit well with me on that part and just I don't

02:13:01.120 --> 02:13:06.080
 understand why we'd have to have for Denton Electric and Encore to have two

02:13:06.080 --> 02:13:12.360
 so you know separate substations this picture is off Gisling correct and then

02:13:12.360 --> 02:13:15.760
 your property there's there's two properties directly across the street is

02:13:15.760 --> 02:13:21.400
 yours on the west or the east of those two houses my mine's directly south of

02:13:21.400 --> 02:13:27.080
 it so I have two I have two houses on my property and then here I'll show you

02:13:27.080 --> 02:13:29.280
 another

02:13:29.280 --> 02:13:49.360
 so it just kind of gives a sight for sore eyes so when you're walking out and

02:13:49.360 --> 02:13:53.320
 you're hoping that they're going to remove it now you're we're here to see

02:13:53.320 --> 02:13:57.400
 if we can approve another substation it just kind of adds for concern on top of

02:13:57.400 --> 02:14:02.960
 how much you know if you have two substations how are you you know what's

02:14:02.960 --> 02:14:07.600
 you know really 100% can you guarantee me that's not going to affect someone's

02:14:07.600 --> 02:14:11.440
 health or a kid's health later in life sure we do have a question for you

02:14:11.440 --> 02:14:20.440
 mr. Pernetta your property it was the area that's immediately below the correct

02:14:20.440 --> 02:14:26.080
 where your where the driveways would be or the entry to this facility and the

02:14:26.080 --> 02:14:29.440
 second was you've mentioned a few times that you were under the impression that

02:14:29.440 --> 02:14:35.160
 the substation would be moving the old substation where did that communication

02:14:35.160 --> 02:14:39.920
 come whenever we're purchasing the house they were telling us and the city or

02:14:39.920 --> 02:14:46.880
 from the realtor from the realtor and from the owner the owner because it's no

02:14:46.880 --> 02:14:51.000
 longer on but it did kick on last year in the wintertime and I'm telling you

02:14:51.000 --> 02:14:54.520
 can feel it I was kind of I was worried about it at first I was like do you feel

02:14:54.520 --> 02:15:00.200
 that you could feel this when you can feel yourself vibrating and I just I

02:15:00.200 --> 02:15:03.740
 didn't sit well with me and so usually I mean we only probably felt it maybe two

02:15:03.740 --> 02:15:08.360
 nights last summer last winter but other than that haven't seen it kick on the

02:15:08.360 --> 02:15:14.120
 old substation this one that's right here but you could feel it when they

02:15:14.120 --> 02:15:21.040
 kicked it on well I appreciate you coming to give us some context to the

02:15:21.040 --> 02:15:27.120
 situation Cindy can I ask you a quick question are both substations active is

02:15:27.120 --> 02:15:31.640
 there plans to shut either or any of those down to the knowledge that you

02:15:31.640 --> 02:15:38.840
 have during staff review the DAT review I had heard that the older substation

02:15:38.840 --> 02:15:44.640
 could possibly be removed but I had that's all I've heard okay as the old

02:15:44.640 --> 02:15:47.520
 substation the one in the south of the north is the smaller one of the larger

02:15:47.520 --> 02:15:52.840
 actually the old substation is right next to the subject site right here this

02:15:52.840 --> 02:15:57.600
 is the one that was developed when we annex the property okay so there is a

02:15:57.600 --> 02:16:03.160
 potential for that one to shut down and be replaced or well I don't know if it's

02:16:03.160 --> 02:16:07.880
 going to be replaced is there is a potential for it to be shut down but

02:16:07.880 --> 02:16:12.400
 that's all I've heard great I appreciate that I mean how does this affect I mean

02:16:12.400 --> 02:16:16.400
 if you approve of it how does it affect the roads and the traffic traffic there

02:16:16.400 --> 02:16:19.480
 because it's some pretty narrow road and the entryways if you're bringing in some

02:16:19.480 --> 02:16:24.160
 big trucks to build and I just have a lot of concerns of the drainage issues

02:16:24.160 --> 02:16:29.920
 that's going to impact our you know our properties as well so it has to go

02:16:29.920 --> 02:16:33.400
 through a platting process apart from this in which drainage infrastructure

02:16:33.400 --> 02:16:37.300
 streets traffic that all has to be addressed okay in order for them to get

02:16:37.300 --> 02:16:41.320
 clearance to build whatever they're building so I can't speak to it now

02:16:41.320 --> 02:16:44.480
 except that it wouldn't get built unless it meets all city requirements okay

02:16:44.480 --> 02:16:47.480
 thank you thank you

02:16:50.240 --> 02:16:55.080
 this is a public hearing if you wish to speak to me certainly use them if you

02:16:55.080 --> 02:17:01.160
 just state your name and address you'll have four minutes to speak hello my name

02:17:01.160 --> 02:17:11.160
 is Gary Castro and I reside at 3796 black road one second here I'm if you're

02:17:11.160 --> 02:17:27.240
 looking at the map the panhandle and West Texas is my property first I want

02:17:27.240 --> 02:17:32.000
 to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee we moved I moved

02:17:32.000 --> 02:17:39.040
 to my family to the this property 30 years ago we don't get for 30 years next

02:17:39.040 --> 02:17:45.160
 month and we are within the 200 feet and I'm confident that this council will

02:17:45.160 --> 02:17:50.040
 represent the city of Denton and its residents interest as it relates to the

02:17:50.040 --> 02:17:55.520
 substrate substation expansion more specifically consider my interest in the

02:17:55.520 --> 02:18:02.160
 other residents that reside close by and who speak and address you I'm opposed to

02:18:02.160 --> 02:18:08.200
 this request for the following reasons there's there's health reasons that was

02:18:08.200 --> 02:18:11.640
 mentioned just a few moments ago additionally I'm just going to bring to

02:18:11.640 --> 02:18:14.280
 your attention because I'm not really sure the process and how you'll deal

02:18:14.280 --> 02:18:18.080
 with some of these these issues so I'm just going to state some of the concerns

02:18:18.080 --> 02:18:22.760
 I know I only have four minutes so additional traffic will make the this

02:18:22.760 --> 02:18:26.320
 road even more dangerous than it already is with the steep drop-offs on the side

02:18:26.320 --> 02:18:32.040
 of the road some three feet deep with no curb and within six inches of the edge

02:18:32.040 --> 02:18:36.160
 of the asphalt it was a dark road for the first several years of me living at

02:18:36.160 --> 02:18:40.040
 this address and there have been no improvements to the water runoff

02:18:40.040 --> 02:18:44.040
 drainage gullies to date and it's my understanding that that's accounting it's

02:18:44.040 --> 02:18:48.840
 maintained by the county not the city it's part of the ETJ or something that

02:18:48.840 --> 02:18:56.840
 fact previous expansion plans with the most recent expansion building the new

02:18:56.840 --> 02:19:02.080
 substation was completed within the last couple of years we were informed that

02:19:02.080 --> 02:19:05.760
 the existing smaller substation which is now being expanded was going away as

02:19:05.760 --> 02:19:12.680
 was stated and that was explained to me by the city landscaping has been

02:19:12.680 --> 02:19:16.760
 addressed but I think that we need to have some input we're the ones that pay

02:19:16.760 --> 02:19:24.240
 the taxes there and we have to look at the substation every day I think that

02:19:24.240 --> 02:19:29.200
 you know if this is inevitable you know then I'm going to speak to some of the

02:19:29.200 --> 02:19:32.920
 things that I think need to be considered before it's proved again the

02:19:32.920 --> 02:19:37.680
 landscaping a privacy wall or barrier not just on one side of the property but

02:19:37.680 --> 02:19:43.960
 even across the street consider looking at the tax rate the appraised value

02:19:43.960 --> 02:19:48.760
 rates that's being addressed consider providing city services which we don't

02:19:48.760 --> 02:19:57.880
 have we don't have water and sewage the water runoff erosion when the plant that

02:19:57.880 --> 02:20:03.920
 was built that they pointed out earlier within the last two years I've had about

02:20:03.920 --> 02:20:09.800
 between $7500 and $10,000 worth of water runoff erosion protection that I had put

02:20:09.800 --> 02:20:14.560
 on my property I think these are reasonable requests that need to be

02:20:14.560 --> 02:20:18.600
 considered for the consequences the long-term consequences that the

02:20:18.600 --> 02:20:23.440
 residents close by will have no option but to live with if it's improved so

02:20:23.440 --> 02:20:28.680
 thank you very much for your consideration are there any questions or

02:20:28.680 --> 02:20:34.440
 mr. Beck you said you spoke to someone in the city you remember who you talked

02:20:34.440 --> 02:20:39.560
 to it was prior to them building it's gonna be 34 years ago I can look in

02:20:39.560 --> 02:20:44.520
 files and see if I have anything that I can recover but I don't recall they they

02:20:44.520 --> 02:20:50.360
 I mean we did speak to them I mean did you call city offices did you come into

02:20:50.360 --> 02:20:54.320
 the city itself I mean do you remember the context of who you spoke with and

02:20:54.320 --> 02:20:59.000
 no this is the only reason I'm engaged now is because the past we didn't we

02:20:59.000 --> 02:21:04.200
 didn't even oppose and I can't recall what the circumstances were thank you

02:21:04.200 --> 02:21:11.960
 yeah but if it helps I can look and see but I'm sure the city has a record of if

02:21:11.960 --> 02:21:18.120
 there's if it's in writing you think or somebody should at least be able to

02:21:18.120 --> 02:21:22.620
 because if we did find it then I would think that there'd be an option to have

02:21:22.620 --> 02:21:31.360
 somebody research that in terms of plans or what was presented but that's for

02:21:31.360 --> 02:21:39.940
 that consideration thank you sir I speak sir they just state your name and

02:21:39.940 --> 02:21:45.600
 address for the record we have four minutes my name is Carlos Gonzales and I

02:21:45.600 --> 02:21:52.800
 recite on 37 survey black it will be south of the substation that they try

02:21:52.800 --> 02:22:01.080
 to build and my only concern about it is health issues because so far we haven't

02:22:01.080 --> 02:22:07.280
 get any information about the risk of living too close to substation I mean

02:22:07.280 --> 02:22:14.840
 other than they gonna say that there's nothing to prove that is cause cancer or

02:22:14.840 --> 02:22:21.200
 anything many health issues but we're really not sure about it so that's that

02:22:21.200 --> 02:22:27.840
 will be my only concern health issues for my family and I mean being like

02:22:27.840 --> 02:22:37.440
 within 200 feet I guess so that that's all I would like to know thank you thank

02:22:37.440 --> 02:22:40.760
 you

02:22:41.680 --> 02:22:47.980
 this is a public hearing and you want to speak may certainly do so need to state

02:22:47.980 --> 02:22:53.000
 your name and address yes Brian Saturday with half associates 3803 Parkwood

02:22:53.000 --> 02:22:57.960
 Boulevard Frisco Texas sweet 800 under the applicant yes or representing the

02:22:57.960 --> 02:23:03.360
 applicant encore one of the encore representatives with me as well happy to

02:23:03.360 --> 02:23:08.560
 address any of the questions that y'all may have and also highlight some

02:23:08.560 --> 02:23:12.000
 questions that have been raised by the public yeah if you want to start with

02:23:12.000 --> 02:23:15.880
 answers to the questions and then we'll see if the question has any additional

02:23:15.880 --> 02:23:20.640
 yep and my name is Seth Samson I'm representing encore electric right away

02:23:20.640 --> 02:23:25.480
 sighting specialists our address is 115 West 7th Street Fort Worth Texas and

02:23:25.480 --> 02:23:31.800
 saying I'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have for us so just

02:23:31.800 --> 02:23:34.040
 off the top of my head the ones that have been brought up there's been

02:23:34.040 --> 02:23:40.000
 drainage traffic and health can you speak to those three those three

02:23:40.000 --> 02:23:45.280
 concerns sure and I'll let Brian speak towards the drainage he's an engineer

02:23:45.280 --> 02:23:49.600
 I'm not but I'm just to address kind of the reason for this substation is

02:23:49.600 --> 02:23:55.400
 essentially the the two substations that are currently serving this area are maxed

02:23:55.400 --> 02:24:00.000
 out there at about 113 percent over capacity the reason for this location

02:24:00.000 --> 02:24:06.560
 would be to bring higher reliability and for any type of storm or that whatever

02:24:06.560 --> 02:24:10.600
 that may be the added residential growth that everyone in North Texas is seeing

02:24:10.600 --> 02:24:14.880
 certainly Denton is also seen so that's the reason for the substation would be

02:24:14.880 --> 02:24:21.560
 the the load in this area is growing so substantially substantially and as far

02:24:21.560 --> 02:24:28.960
 as the the health concern concern so the they mentioned EMF's the I don't know

02:24:28.960 --> 02:24:32.200
 how much you guys have looked at a substation but essentially a substation

02:24:32.200 --> 02:24:36.760
 doesn't create any additional power that everything that's there is in the

02:24:36.760 --> 02:24:41.840
 transmission line already it's already been in the area substation essentially

02:24:41.840 --> 02:24:47.040
 takes the high voltage current from the transmission line it steps it down

02:24:47.040 --> 02:24:52.080
 multiple times to put it into a safe state that we can then shoot off to

02:24:52.080 --> 02:24:57.640
 distribution and using your homes and neighborhoods so it's not it's not like

02:24:57.640 --> 02:25:01.040
 a power plant or anything like that it's not generating electricity it's taking

02:25:01.040 --> 02:25:05.200
 it from the transmission lines and pushing it out to other residents so

02:25:05.200 --> 02:25:13.240
 it's there's no additional creation of electricity essentially you mentioned

02:25:13.240 --> 02:25:17.600
 drainage I'll let Brian comment on that what was the third one there's three

02:25:17.600 --> 02:25:22.600
 there's traffic oh traffic sure yeah okay yeah and I'll let Brian speak

02:25:22.600 --> 02:25:27.880
 towards that on as far as the construction wise but once once substation

02:25:27.880 --> 02:25:33.040
 is built we generally have maybe one to two trips a month so it's generally just

02:25:33.040 --> 02:25:37.960
 general maintenance make sure everything looks good security wise and make sure

02:25:37.960 --> 02:25:42.400
 all the equipment still functioning well but yeah trip wise it's it doesn't it

02:25:42.400 --> 02:25:48.080
 doesn't generate trips and out of curiosity the woman spoke about a wall

02:25:48.080 --> 02:25:53.240
 wall wall sound I think it was kind of how you said it what what would be that

02:25:53.240 --> 02:26:00.080
 sure so without getting into the DME site I'm not going to comment on another

02:26:00.080 --> 02:26:05.280
 site as far as it's not ours but sometimes I've heard that you know that

02:26:05.280 --> 02:26:10.480
 could be the generators that is old that's an old substation and any of our

02:26:10.480 --> 02:26:14.080
 new substations that we've built we haven't got those complaints from

02:26:14.080 --> 02:26:17.440
 residents just because the technologies so much different I'm not sure when that

02:26:17.440 --> 02:26:22.480
 DME site was built but we really haven't heard any feedback from residents and

02:26:22.480 --> 02:26:28.840
 substations that we've built really for a long I mean like you'd have to go long

02:26:28.840 --> 02:26:35.920
 ways back to that type of technology and secondly it's encore's standard that at

02:26:35.920 --> 02:26:41.040
 the wall as far as noise you measure at the wall it'd be at no more than 55

02:26:41.040 --> 02:26:46.440
 decibels in comparison 55 decibels is the equivalent of a inside voice

02:26:46.440 --> 02:26:52.500
 conversation so it it's not something that we've heard a lot of feedback from

02:26:52.500 --> 02:27:00.520
 residents so that's kind of where we stand on the noise okay thank you to to

02:27:00.520 --> 02:27:05.460
 address the the drainage concerns you know as part of the the continuing

02:27:05.460 --> 02:27:10.680
 process for this project you know we will be going through after SUP phase

02:27:10.680 --> 02:27:14.640
 would move into full site plan and engineering and follow all the

02:27:14.640 --> 02:27:19.240
 appropriate city standards manuals drainage analysis and construction

02:27:19.240 --> 02:27:24.160
 documents that will all be addressed I do understand his concern the the

02:27:24.160 --> 02:27:28.360
 drainage is a difficult site there's there's a culvert under black so we'll

02:27:28.360 --> 02:27:31.680
 make sure and take appropriate consideration provide necessary

02:27:31.680 --> 02:27:36.960
 detention if that's warranted by drainage analysis and take that into

02:27:36.960 --> 02:27:41.960
 consideration on the traffic side Seth mentioned that during operation of the

02:27:41.960 --> 02:27:45.840
 station there's very little traffic on the construction side you do have

02:27:45.840 --> 02:27:52.000
 significant traffic coming in building the station but encore has a good list

02:27:52.000 --> 02:27:57.840
 of approved contractors that are reputable experienced in building this

02:27:57.840 --> 02:28:02.440
 kind of facility understanding exactly what encore needs and they do you know

02:28:02.440 --> 02:28:07.760
 obviously work with cities inspectors on you know keeping traffic control as

02:28:07.760 --> 02:28:13.320
 necessary keeping the street clean of mud debris anything washing out on the

02:28:13.320 --> 02:28:18.880
 drive keeping the SWIP in place up to good standards so I know your your

02:28:18.880 --> 02:28:24.200
 inspectors will be on them for that and they'll comply what's the general

02:28:24.200 --> 02:28:30.760
 timeline for a substation build out the the main grading operation I think takes

02:28:30.760 --> 02:28:37.880
 about six weeks after that for the equipment maybe another six to eight

02:28:37.880 --> 02:28:43.720
 weeks bringing in some of the larger pieces you know encore does have

02:28:43.720 --> 02:28:49.320
 logistics teams that that make sure you know everything can move into the site

02:28:49.320 --> 02:28:54.480
 as necessary to bring in the control center or some of the larger pieces and

02:28:54.480 --> 02:28:58.600
 there's already there's already been work done in the area you know with the

02:28:58.600 --> 02:29:03.200
 other substations and the transmission line so you know encore is experienced in

02:29:03.200 --> 02:29:08.400
 working with that and following all rules that will be required okay thank

02:29:08.400 --> 02:29:11.280
 you very much yes sir I'm gonna ask Richard real fast

02:29:11.280 --> 02:29:21.360
 commissioner to add a status to the substations if you look at sort of

02:29:21.360 --> 02:29:26.680
 northwest of the site that's being considered that's the city's Arco

02:29:26.680 --> 02:29:32.920
 substation that was recently constructed the to the south of that that substation

02:29:32.920 --> 02:29:37.960
 interestingly enough is two parcels part one a small northern piece is the city

02:29:37.960 --> 02:29:44.840
 of Denton the southern part and then the property to the west is TNPR Texas

02:29:44.840 --> 02:29:48.760
 municipal power that station has already that substation has already been

02:29:48.760 --> 02:29:53.280
 de-energized and so the intent was once the Arco substation was up and going

02:29:53.280 --> 02:29:57.320
 they would de-energize that which has occurred and then that equipment would

02:29:57.320 --> 02:30:04.000
 be removed is there a timeline in that removal that I don't have I don't see

02:30:04.000 --> 02:30:09.160
 other questions for you thank you being here this is a public hearing anyone

02:30:09.160 --> 02:30:12.600
 wishing to speak may certainly do so

02:30:12.600 --> 02:30:21.560
 seeing none I'll close the public hearing for both 5b and 5c and then turn

02:30:21.560 --> 02:30:27.480
 today as for discussion or a motion we'll take in terms of a motion we will

02:30:27.480 --> 02:30:35.880
 take 5b first and independent of the other item kirsten pernetta

02:30:35.880 --> 02:30:42.720
 just wanted to clarify for the residents around that what's proposed for the for

02:30:42.720 --> 02:30:47.720
 the zoning what we are voting on today is simply the zoning and the SCP the

02:30:47.720 --> 02:30:49.960
 concerns that they have about drainage and everything like that would be

02:30:49.960 --> 02:30:56.280
 something that they could address at a later time so typically that wouldn't be

02:30:56.280 --> 02:30:59.960
 a public hearing but there'd be an opportunity to review and speak into but

02:30:59.960 --> 02:31:06.560
 during the plotting period it's just many technical specs okay the plot would

02:31:06.560 --> 02:31:09.800
 be brought back in front of his body

02:31:17.360 --> 02:31:24.000
 so I appreciate the residents coming out I had a friend or have a friend that

02:31:24.000 --> 02:31:27.200
 lives on Black Road actually on Beatty Bend I think it's called to the west of

02:31:27.200 --> 02:31:32.560
 the island so I'll throw with that area and I know that it's not the greatest of

02:31:32.560 --> 02:31:36.560
 roads I'd love to see that improved or at least wind a little bit especially when

02:31:36.560 --> 02:31:41.480
 two cars are going next to each other can be precarious but I do see the need

02:31:41.480 --> 02:31:46.080
 and and getting the substation taken care of I would highly encourage the

02:31:46.080 --> 02:31:52.720
 city to get on that's been de-energized whoever needs to be addressed let's

02:31:52.720 --> 02:31:58.200
 clear that out that's crazy in my opinion to still have a de-energized

02:31:58.200 --> 02:32:02.960
 substation just sitting there as a plight but considering that this is a

02:32:02.960 --> 02:32:08.800
 need and there's it seems like a plausible location I'm going to move to

02:32:08.800 --> 02:32:16.240
 approve the item understanding that drainage traffic landscaping all those

02:32:16.240 --> 02:32:20.000
 will come back to a plot and must be up to state standards for this to move

02:32:20.000 --> 02:32:24.520
 forward but I'm glad to hear that the noise isn't an issue and the health

02:32:24.520 --> 02:32:30.720
 shouldn't be a concern as far as I understand it so with that I move to

02:32:30.720 --> 02:32:39.800
 approve item 5B. I will second yeah I think it's necessary infrastructure I

02:32:39.800 --> 02:32:44.560
 think concerns have been addressed with with the newer technology concur

02:32:44.560 --> 02:32:49.520
 absolutely that we need to get on the de-energized substation that's there but

02:32:49.520 --> 02:32:56.000
 yeah I will second to it. If I can add just for Encore specifically from the

02:32:56.000 --> 02:33:01.360
 pictures shown the the DME site or whoever owns the northwestern site looks

02:33:01.360 --> 02:33:05.360
 like has a nice brick facade out front and the gate and I don't know the plans

02:33:05.360 --> 02:33:10.880
 are but maybe it'd be nice to have a visual barrier in front of the

02:33:10.880 --> 02:33:14.680
 substation I don't know what Encore's policies are but having some sort of

02:33:14.680 --> 02:33:23.120
 visual barrier might be helpful. We intend to meet City of Denton's screening

02:33:23.120 --> 02:33:27.400
 requirements. Denton's actually unique as far as cities go that you guys actually

02:33:27.400 --> 02:33:34.520
 have a specific substation designation and ordinances surrounding that a lot

02:33:34.520 --> 02:33:39.720
 of a lot of cities don't have that so those ordinances we we intend to comply

02:33:39.720 --> 02:33:45.720
 with and as far as landscaping and screen wall the the the screen wall

02:33:45.720 --> 02:33:50.240
 there's a lot of different options for what that can look like as well so yeah

02:33:50.240 --> 02:33:56.520
 we intend to meet you guys on this. Great. Thank you. We do have a first and second

02:33:56.520 --> 02:34:06.080
 on the item. Is there any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:34:06.080 --> 02:34:17.520
 Motion carries 6-0 that moves us to our next item 5-C it's the SGP attached to

02:34:17.520 --> 02:34:24.120
 this zoning case and the chair will again entertain a new discussion and/or a

02:34:24.120 --> 02:34:30.480
 motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first

02:34:30.480 --> 02:34:35.200
 and a second for approval is there any discussion on the item? Seeing none I'll

02:34:35.200 --> 02:34:37.960
 call for a vote on the board.

02:34:41.720 --> 02:34:52.600
 Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5-D DCA 19-0015. I will open the

02:34:52.600 --> 02:34:57.000
 public hearing and call Ron McGuida for a presentation.

02:35:09.640 --> 02:35:14.400
 Just real quick just trying to find a presentation here.

02:35:14.400 --> 02:35:27.960
 Thank you chair members of Commission Ron McGuida with Development Services

02:35:27.960 --> 02:35:32.800
 principal planner brought forward to you for consideration this evening is a city

02:35:32.800 --> 02:35:39.780
 initiated code amendment regarding rezonings with overlay conditions to way

02:35:39.780 --> 02:35:45.760
 of background the Denton Development Code 2009 update was adopted in April of

02:35:45.760 --> 02:35:54.400
 this year with that adoption the creation of section 178 was inserted it

02:35:54.400 --> 02:35:59.800
 again pertains to properties rezone with overlay conditions as it is stated it is

02:35:59.800 --> 02:36:04.360
 governed by the original ordinance authorizing the rezoning and that is

02:36:04.360 --> 02:36:11.440
 interpreted as the 2002 DDC following this in September of this year there was

02:36:11.440 --> 02:36:16.200
 an adoption of the zoning map and with that a zoning district transition chart

02:36:16.200 --> 02:36:21.640
 in that chart it refers to again these properties that are zoned with conditions

02:36:21.640 --> 02:36:26.360
 it states that all remaining zoning regulations and standards are governed by

02:36:26.360 --> 02:36:35.960
 the 2019 Development Code so to clarify and to correct this conflict staff is

02:36:35.960 --> 02:36:40.760
 requesting that there be a city initiated code amendment again amending

02:36:40.760 --> 02:36:47.360
 section 1.7.8 we know that there are 45 properties that are zoned this way or

02:36:47.360 --> 02:36:52.200
 that are now considered PDs so in order to address them as they move forward

02:36:52.200 --> 02:36:56.360
 with development we want to make sure that we apply the appropriate development

02:36:56.360 --> 02:37:04.920
 code and what staff is proposing is that those properties be under the 2019

02:37:04.920 --> 02:37:09.840
 Development Code now those conditions that were approved with the rezoning will

02:37:09.840 --> 02:37:16.800
 still be governing however anything that is not under those conditions the

02:37:16.800 --> 02:37:21.900
 underlying zoning would would prevail or govern and again what we're saying is

02:37:21.900 --> 02:37:30.040
 the be the 2019 Development Code that is really it it is a city initiated code

02:37:30.040 --> 02:37:35.320
 amendment to provide that clarification that concludes my presentation I'll be

02:37:35.320 --> 02:37:39.400
 happy to send for any questions thank you for the presentation I don't see any

02:37:39.400 --> 02:37:43.720
 questions this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item may

02:37:43.720 --> 02:37:49.880
 certainly do so seeing none I'll close the public hearing and certain to the

02:37:49.880 --> 02:37:54.120
 days for discussion or motion Commissioner Pernetta motion to approve

02:37:54.120 --> 02:37:59.400
 we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first

02:37:59.400 --> 02:38:03.880
 and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for

02:38:03.880 --> 02:38:06.360
 vote on the board

02:38:15.640 --> 02:38:23.160
 motion carries six zero the next item of business is item 5 E DCA 19 - 0 0 1 9 I

02:38:23.160 --> 02:38:33.880
 will open the public hearing and invite Ron back to present thank you chair

02:38:33.880 --> 02:38:40.840
 again Ronnie gave development services this is a second code city as an

02:38:40.840 --> 02:38:45.560
 initiated code amendments regarding development criteria manuals as we

02:38:45.560 --> 02:38:49.520
 heard during the work session we had a presentation regarding our criteria

02:38:49.520 --> 02:38:54.240
 manuals and how we're creating to and we're also updating five existing

02:38:54.240 --> 02:39:00.000
 criteria manuals just way background we again with the 2019 Development Code

02:39:00.000 --> 02:39:07.320
 adopted an update and in doing so we looked at in provisions related to

02:39:07.320 --> 02:39:11.800
 criteria manuals we revised we also updated but we also deleted some

02:39:11.800 --> 02:39:16.400
 provisions related to criteria manuals what we found out was that the process

02:39:16.400 --> 02:39:20.560
 in order to create and update criteria mountains was removed so what we're

02:39:20.560 --> 02:39:24.520
 asking as part of this city initiated code amendment is to bring back of that

02:39:24.520 --> 02:39:32.000
 process as part of this request again just to clarify the authority for

02:39:32.000 --> 02:39:35.440
 criteria manuals we want to make sure that we include that but really is to

02:39:35.440 --> 02:39:39.520
 establish reestablish that process in which we create and update criteria

02:39:39.520 --> 02:39:45.520
 manuals we're looking to amend sections one three four as well as establish

02:39:45.520 --> 02:39:52.720
 sections two eleven section two eleven this first part here as you can see by

02:39:52.720 --> 02:39:59.440
 the slide anything that's underlying and highlighted is being added to the to

02:39:59.440 --> 02:40:05.960
 the provision or to the requirement we want to make sure that we fully clarify

02:40:05.960 --> 02:40:10.040
 that the criteria manuals are approved by ordinance and that they are

02:40:10.040 --> 02:40:15.040
 established under section 211 which is one that we are adding and also we want

02:40:15.040 --> 02:40:19.800
 to add and update this list of criteria manuals that we have here so that it'll

02:40:19.800 --> 02:40:25.920
 be consistent with what we have being proposed the other section which we are

02:40:25.920 --> 02:40:31.040
 re-establishing this as part of the procedure element or a procedure chapter

02:40:31.040 --> 02:40:37.920
 under sub chapter 2 is to add this section it will contain a purpose minimum

02:40:37.920 --> 02:40:42.640
 standards and responsibility and really the the key to this amendment is the

02:40:42.640 --> 02:40:48.480
 procedure in which initial approvals or creations of criteria manual will require

02:40:48.480 --> 02:40:52.620
 a public hearing with the Planning Zoning Commission as well as City

02:40:52.620 --> 02:40:58.960
 Council the updates rather will just have a work session required for the

02:40:58.960 --> 02:41:03.920
 update of the criteria manuals there will be opportunities for public input

02:41:03.920 --> 02:41:09.400
 throughout the process and following that update or an public input process a

02:41:09.400 --> 02:41:14.480
 City Council public hearing will be held to approve those updates so again there's

02:41:14.480 --> 02:41:20.360
 ample opportunities for input and opportunities to provide comments in in

02:41:20.360 --> 02:41:25.000
 addition with the procedure there is a legislative update section and then

02:41:25.000 --> 02:41:30.120
 lastly an approval criteria in which the Planning Zoning Commission and City

02:41:30.120 --> 02:41:36.000
 Council can use in order to consider the new creations of criteria manuals as

02:41:36.000 --> 02:41:41.600
 well as the updates that concludes my presentation again this is a city

02:41:41.600 --> 02:41:46.840
 initiated code amendment to provide authority under the criteria manuals as

02:41:46.840 --> 02:41:53.240
 well as to establish the process in which we create and update our annual

02:41:53.240 --> 02:41:58.840
 updates that is for criteria manuals with that I'll stand for any questions

02:41:58.840 --> 02:42:03.440
 Ron thanks for presentation I don't see any questions at this time this is a

02:42:03.440 --> 02:42:08.320
 public hearing anyone wishing to speak about our ordinances may you certainly do

02:42:08.320 --> 02:42:13.600
 so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a

02:42:13.600 --> 02:42:20.120
 motion of discussion or discussion and a motion Commissioner Beck motion to

02:42:20.120 --> 02:42:24.560
 approve we have a first Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a

02:42:24.560 --> 02:42:28.480
 second for approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the

02:42:28.480 --> 02:42:30.680
 board

02:42:30.680 --> 02:42:46.480
 motion carries 6-0 the next time to business is item 5 F DCA 19 - 0 0 0 9

02:42:46.480 --> 02:42:52.240
 looking at the subchapters 1 6 and 8 of the DDC I'll open the public hearing and

02:42:52.240 --> 02:42:55.800
 invite Haley for presentation

02:42:55.800 --> 02:43:13.440
 all right good evening Haley's Gursky with development services so the item

02:43:13.440 --> 02:43:18.360
 before you is a request for code amendments related to the gas well

02:43:18.360 --> 02:43:22.080
 ordinance specifically for reverse setbacks before we dive into that I

02:43:22.080 --> 02:43:25.380
 just wanted to go through some of the background information that we discussed

02:43:25.380 --> 02:43:30.800
 at work session for the public so the the first thing I wanted to cover is the

02:43:30.800 --> 02:43:35.560
 code amendment procedure and our new development code it does outline a very

02:43:35.560 --> 02:43:39.880
 specific dual public hearing process for code amendments and allows for three

02:43:39.880 --> 02:43:43.840
 entities to initiate those either the director of development services which

02:43:43.840 --> 02:43:48.660
 would be a staff initiated amendment such as we just saw from Ron either the

02:43:48.660 --> 02:43:51.360
 planning and zoning Commission or the City Council could also initiate those

02:43:51.360 --> 02:43:56.000
 requests this particular request was initiated by the City Council following

02:43:56.000 --> 02:43:59.920
 a series of work sessions and so your role in this is to hold the first of

02:43:59.920 --> 02:44:03.420
 those two public hearings and make a recommendation to council regarding the

02:44:03.420 --> 02:44:08.440
 proposed amendments the background that I referenced with a series of work

02:44:08.440 --> 02:44:14.040
 sessions started in September of 2018 at that time council first requested a work

02:44:14.040 --> 02:44:18.280
 session to discuss Denton setback policies and how that relates to other

02:44:18.280 --> 02:44:23.360
 area cities and look at what increasing those setbacks and reverse setbacks

02:44:23.360 --> 02:44:28.540
 would be that was followed up in July of this year with further discussion of how

02:44:28.540 --> 02:44:32.440
 Denton compares to other cities and a closer look at some of the setbacks and

02:44:32.440 --> 02:44:36.480
 the potential for air quality studies within the city at that time the only

02:44:36.480 --> 02:44:40.520
 consensus that the council reached was to move forward with increasing Denton's

02:44:40.520 --> 02:44:45.240
 reverse setbacks from 250 feet to 500 feet so staff was directed to begin

02:44:45.240 --> 02:44:50.720
 revising our ordinance to in that direction development services really

02:44:50.720 --> 02:44:55.760
 became a part of the process at that point in time so in August we again went

02:44:55.760 --> 02:44:58.580
 back for a third work session with the draft amendments that council had

02:44:58.580 --> 02:45:03.240
 requested to implement that increase set reverse setback and at that time we also

02:45:03.240 --> 02:45:06.080
 brought forward other concerns that we had such as the potential need for a

02:45:06.080 --> 02:45:09.500
 variance processes and the potential creation of nonconformities if the

02:45:09.500 --> 02:45:14.400
 reverse setback were increased council provided direction at that time to try

02:45:14.400 --> 02:45:18.520
 to draft language that would prevent the creation of those nonconformities and to

02:45:18.520 --> 02:45:22.480
 pursue a combination of variance options that would allow reductions of that 500

02:45:22.480 --> 02:45:27.320
 foot down to as low as 250 the final work session was with with this

02:45:27.320 --> 02:45:33.040
 Commission on October 16th and that is what led us to where we are today so

02:45:33.040 --> 02:45:37.080
 before I get into the what's changing I just wanted to go over again the types

02:45:37.080 --> 02:45:41.200
 of setbacks that are in the code to narrow down what we're looking at there

02:45:41.200 --> 02:45:44.520
 are two primary types the drilling and production site setback and the reverse

02:45:44.520 --> 02:45:48.160
 setback the drilling and production site setback is what is applicable to the

02:45:48.160 --> 02:45:51.200
 gas well side itself it's measured from the pad site boundaries to the

02:45:51.200 --> 02:45:56.760
 surrounding uses or lot lines the reverse setback is essentially the

02:45:56.760 --> 02:45:59.880
 opposite of that it's the setback that applies to the developing protected use

02:45:59.880 --> 02:46:03.800
 and it's measured from that structure or residential lot line to the boundaries

02:46:03.800 --> 02:46:08.280
 of that pad site the code currently does have a third type the minimum setback is

02:46:08.280 --> 02:46:12.240
 a basically a subset of a drilling and production site setback so it's what

02:46:12.240 --> 02:46:18.920
 that number can be reduced to after a variance or other relief is provided so

02:46:18.920 --> 02:46:23.000
 bringing us to the the public hearing component of tonight the request before

02:46:23.000 --> 02:46:26.760
 you are amendments to sub chapters 1 6 & 8 to implement those changes that

02:46:26.760 --> 02:46:31.160
 council has provided direction on related to reverse setbacks definitions

02:46:31.160 --> 02:46:37.000
 and procedures there I've kind of broken this down into four primary topics that

02:46:37.000 --> 02:46:40.420
 we'll talk about the the reverse setbacks and associated definitions and

02:46:40.420 --> 02:46:45.280
 measurements the nonconformity provisions that I referenced earlier the

02:46:45.280 --> 02:46:48.400
 variance and relief options and then some changes to our subdivision

02:46:48.400 --> 02:46:54.620
 standards that would be needed if the variance options are considered again as

02:46:54.620 --> 02:46:57.320
 I mentioned there are criteria for approval for a code amendment that the

02:46:57.320 --> 02:47:01.400
 DDC requires we look at there there are five of those the first being

02:47:01.400 --> 02:47:05.480
 consistency with comprehensive plan and other policies the second whether there

02:47:05.480 --> 02:47:08.720
 are any conflicts with other provisions of the DDC or the code of ordinances

02:47:08.720 --> 02:47:13.560
 third whether there is a demonstrated community need fourth the whether it is

02:47:13.560 --> 02:47:17.440
 in response to a substantial change in condition or policy and then finally

02:47:17.440 --> 02:47:20.920
 whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC so we'll look at each

02:47:20.920 --> 02:47:25.760
 of those in turn once we go through the changes the first of those topics as I

02:47:25.760 --> 02:47:29.120
 mentioned were the setback requirements themselves this is just a look at what

02:47:29.120 --> 02:47:32.600
 we have in the code today drilling and production site setbacks range from a

02:47:32.600 --> 02:47:36.120
 thousand to two hundred and fifty feet depending on the scenario minimum

02:47:36.120 --> 02:47:40.200
 setbacks are five hundred to two hundred and fifty for drilling and production

02:47:40.200 --> 02:47:43.560
 sites and reverse setbacks are currently two hundred and fifty feet in all

02:47:43.560 --> 02:47:49.160
 situations what this would look like with councils recommended change would

02:47:49.160 --> 02:47:52.640
 be that reverse setbacks are all increased to five hundred feet and then

02:47:52.640 --> 02:47:57.360
 we would introduce a new type of setback similar to how the gas well operator has

02:47:57.360 --> 02:48:01.560
 a minimum setback that they can seek relief down to there would now be a

02:48:01.560 --> 02:48:05.240
 reverse minimum setback of two hundred and fifty feet for protected uses that

02:48:05.240 --> 02:48:11.400
 seek a variance or waiver so we needed to introduce definitions for the the

02:48:11.400 --> 02:48:15.800
 minimum reverse setback into the code so that's being added into sub chapter six

02:48:15.800 --> 02:48:19.920
 that definition for a minimum reverse setback would be the minimum distance

02:48:19.920 --> 02:48:23.840
 that a protected use a residential lot must be separated by a surface owner

02:48:23.840 --> 02:48:27.600
 from a an approved drilling and production site or from a gas well within

02:48:27.600 --> 02:48:32.080
 such site after administrative relief or other variance is granted to reduce the

02:48:32.080 --> 02:48:36.080
 reverse setback requirement the reverse setback definition would then be slightly

02:48:36.080 --> 02:48:39.320
 modified to strike the word minimum since there's now a variance option to

02:48:39.320 --> 02:48:45.640
 reduce that and then finally with regard to setbacks the other consideration is

02:48:45.640 --> 02:48:50.320
 measurement with in in the code previously there wasn't a need to

02:48:50.320 --> 02:48:53.840
 necessarily consider how the measurements were taken for things such

02:48:53.840 --> 02:48:57.760
 as parks because there wasn't a lot of overlap between gas well sites and parks

02:48:57.760 --> 02:49:02.400
 what we found now with this increase is that McKenna Park in particular would be

02:49:02.400 --> 02:49:07.380
 highly affected by this increase reverse setback it would be over 40% within that

02:49:07.380 --> 02:49:10.680
 500 foot radius from the pad site so that could affect them if they seek to

02:49:10.680 --> 02:49:14.680
 add additional improvements at that park in the future so whereas the code

02:49:14.680 --> 02:49:18.160
 currently points to measuring from the closest point of a structure to be

02:49:18.160 --> 02:49:23.300
 occupied by a protected use or from a residential lot line we would propose

02:49:23.300 --> 02:49:27.200
 amending that to specify occupied or utilized by a protected use and then

02:49:27.200 --> 02:49:31.320
 further clarify that for parks the setback measurement would be taken from

02:49:31.320 --> 02:49:36.920
 improvement such as buildings playground equipment pools splash pads and then any

02:49:36.920 --> 02:49:40.280
 permanent ball fields or courts or pavilions and it would not include flat

02:49:40.280 --> 02:49:46.560
 work such as parking sidewalks and trails moving on then to our second

02:49:46.560 --> 02:49:51.320
 topic which is nonconformities based on the information that was provided to

02:49:51.320 --> 02:49:55.120
 council during that series of work sessions they requested that staff look

02:49:55.120 --> 02:50:00.640
 at ways to reduce the creation of nonconformities so at that time this

02:50:00.640 --> 02:50:04.980
 language was crafted and brought forward to council it would be added to sub

02:50:04.980 --> 02:50:10.200
 chapter one of the DDC and it would essentially add a new section for non

02:50:10.200 --> 02:50:13.640
 conformities for the applicability of gas well reverse setbacks that would

02:50:13.640 --> 02:50:20.040
 allow reverse setbacks as increased by this ordinance to not cause any existing

02:50:20.040 --> 02:50:23.800
 legally established protected use or residential lot to become nonconforming

02:50:23.800 --> 02:50:27.640
 such existing legally established protected uses or lots would be deemed

02:50:27.640 --> 02:50:32.360
 lawful as lawful site features lots or structures provided that the use is not

02:50:32.360 --> 02:50:37.160
 closer than 250 feet from the pad site so that is essentially saying that this

02:50:37.160 --> 02:50:41.580
 would not assist anything that is nonconforming to the 250 feet today would

02:50:41.580 --> 02:50:45.800
 remain nonconforming it would not be benefited by this clause would further

02:50:45.800 --> 02:50:49.520
 clarify that legally established would mean any protected use structure site

02:50:49.520 --> 02:50:55.160
 feature or lot that is lawfully existing today or any that is a part of a project

02:50:55.160 --> 02:50:59.120
 under sub chapter 245 of the local government code which would allow for

02:50:59.120 --> 02:51:03.000
 projects that are in the queue right now going through preliminary and final

02:51:03.000 --> 02:51:08.720
 plotting to not be deemed nonconforming and then it further specified that no

02:51:08.720 --> 02:51:11.520
 additional improvements would be permitted that would decrease the

02:51:11.520 --> 02:51:17.040
 existing setback you'll notice in red it says say that our legal staff does not

02:51:17.040 --> 02:51:22.360
 recommend this provision so there is an option to for the nonconformities that

02:51:22.360 --> 02:51:26.640
 we're introducing the rationale for not recommending this being that we would

02:51:26.640 --> 02:51:29.640
 then have subsets of nonconformities across the city where certain

02:51:29.640 --> 02:51:35.160
 nonconforming uses that fall between 250 feet and 500 feet wouldn't be

02:51:35.160 --> 02:51:38.080
 nonconforming they'd be protected and be able to rebuild if something were to

02:51:38.080 --> 02:51:42.760
 happen whereas other structures such as those that are nonconforming today to the

02:51:42.760 --> 02:51:46.200
 250 or a structure that's nonconforming to any other provision of the Denton

02:51:46.200 --> 02:51:49.960
 Development Code would not be eligible to rebuild if it were destroyed by more

02:51:49.960 --> 02:51:55.920
 than 50 percent so that that inequality is what we're striving to not create

02:51:55.920 --> 02:52:01.520
 therefore option two that staff is recommending be considered for for how

02:52:01.520 --> 02:52:06.720
 to address nonconformities as council requested would be adding the following

02:52:06.720 --> 02:52:11.520
 language to the nonconforming structure portion of the code and that would be to

02:52:11.520 --> 02:52:14.400
 amend it to say that nonconforming structures that have been damaged or

02:52:14.400 --> 02:52:18.360
 destroyed by fire or other natural causes or accidents to the extent of

02:52:18.360 --> 02:52:22.800
 more than 50% of the gross floor area should not be rebuilt or occupied except

02:52:22.800 --> 02:52:26.200
 upon action by the Board of Adjustment to permit the reconstruction and occupancy

02:52:26.200 --> 02:52:29.760
 and then the action by the Board of Adjustment would have due regard for the

02:52:29.760 --> 02:52:33.680
 property rights of the persons affected and be considered in regard to public

02:52:33.680 --> 02:52:38.040
 welfare character of the area such as the structure conservation preservation

02:52:38.040 --> 02:52:42.880
 and protection of property so this is actually language that was in the 2002

02:52:42.880 --> 02:52:45.720
 development code that allowed nonconforming structures to be rebuilt

02:52:45.720 --> 02:52:48.840
 by action of the Board of Adjustment this language was removed with the

02:52:48.840 --> 02:52:53.040
 adoption of the 2019 code to be more stringent and simply say that if you're

02:52:53.040 --> 02:52:57.780
 destroyed by more than 50 percent you cannot rebuild so by adding this

02:52:57.780 --> 02:53:02.240
 language back in we would extend the protection not only to those that are

02:53:02.240 --> 02:53:06.240
 affected by the reverse setback but to any nonconforming structure citywide to

02:53:06.240 --> 02:53:11.000
 give them the option to go to ZBA to try to rebuild based on the discussion at

02:53:11.000 --> 02:53:15.080
 work session I know there was there was some concern because of the addition of

02:53:15.080 --> 02:53:19.320
 that minimum reverse setback definition that even those nonconforming today to

02:53:19.320 --> 02:53:23.880
 the 250 may not be eligible to rebuild so we would recommend clarifying that by

02:53:23.880 --> 02:53:28.840
 adding language in subchapter 6 for minimum reverse setbacks to simply make

02:53:28.840 --> 02:53:32.320
 that not applicable so we could say something similar to what I've got here

02:53:32.320 --> 02:53:35.360
 that minimum reverse setbacks do not apply to structures or lots that are

02:53:35.360 --> 02:53:40.240
 nonconforming to the reverse setback so that would capture that subset that you

02:53:40.240 --> 02:53:44.920
 all were concerned about for those that are nonconforming today so that the

02:53:44.920 --> 02:53:49.480
 minimum reverse setback wouldn't apply ZBA could therefore potentially approve

02:53:49.480 --> 02:53:54.780
 requests to rebuild if you are within that 250 foot radius that's just one

02:53:54.780 --> 02:53:57.760
 option we can certainly look at other things if you all have additional

02:53:57.760 --> 02:54:01.200
 concerns or or want us to go a different direction but I wanted to provide that

02:54:01.200 --> 02:54:08.020
 as as one possible solution to what we discussed at the work session the moving

02:54:08.020 --> 02:54:14.200
 on then to the third of our topics which are variances so the gas well ordinance

02:54:14.200 --> 02:54:19.000
 today offers operators of a gas well site three different means to to seek a

02:54:19.000 --> 02:54:23.920
 variance or waiver from the setbacks so that same option we thought should be

02:54:23.920 --> 02:54:28.240
 reasonably extended to developers or owners of protected uses to allow them

02:54:28.240 --> 02:54:32.280
 to seek some relief if they're if they're affected by the reverse setback

02:54:32.280 --> 02:54:36.720
 so this language that you see on the screen here is simply adding in a

02:54:36.720 --> 02:54:40.360
 statement in the permitting requirement procedures of the gas well ordinance

02:54:40.360 --> 02:54:44.160
 that says if you don't meet the setback requirements here's where you go in the

02:54:44.160 --> 02:54:47.760
 code to find out what your relief options are so this is simply kind of

02:54:47.760 --> 02:54:52.520
 that placeholder and directional piece the actual variance option language

02:54:52.520 --> 02:54:57.280
 would then be divided into two separate two separate options the first would be

02:54:57.280 --> 02:55:01.840
 introducing the standard hardship variance process for protected uses so

02:55:01.840 --> 02:55:05.760
 any operator surface owner or affected property owner could then seek a

02:55:05.760 --> 02:55:11.200
 variance through this procedure ZBA does have standard criteria for approval of a

02:55:11.200 --> 02:55:14.200
 variance that are stipulated in state law those would remain the same and would

02:55:14.200 --> 02:55:18.000
 apply in these instances in addition to that though we would also introduce

02:55:18.000 --> 02:55:21.960
 three specific criteria that would just apply to protected uses seeking a

02:55:21.960 --> 02:55:25.800
 variance and that would be reasonable use of the surface of the subject

02:55:25.800 --> 02:55:30.160
 property by the owner or developer the availability of alternative site designs

02:55:30.160 --> 02:55:34.240
 or subdivision layouts so has the developer looked at all possible options

02:55:34.240 --> 02:55:39.080
 to try to use utilize the property before seeking the variance and then

02:55:39.080 --> 02:55:43.800
 finally whether it's compatible with approved gas well site plans or plats so

02:55:43.800 --> 02:55:49.480
 ensuring access to gas well sites isn't cut off as an example there just for

02:55:49.480 --> 02:55:52.440
 reference these are the standard hardship criteria that ZBA would also

02:55:52.440 --> 02:55:56.360
 have to consider it's worth noting that any variance request to ZBA does require

02:55:56.360 --> 02:56:01.000
 a super majority vote six out of seven so it's not necessarily an easy process

02:56:01.000 --> 02:56:07.240
 to go through the second option is also modeled after a an existing option that

02:56:07.240 --> 02:56:11.600
 operators have that is if they meet certain criteria they can get a waiver

02:56:11.600 --> 02:56:16.320
 granted by staff not to the full minimum setback but to half of the difference

02:56:16.320 --> 02:56:20.320
 between their requirement and the minimum so in this case that would be

02:56:20.320 --> 02:56:26.000
 down to 375 feet if we split the difference between 500 and 250 so this

02:56:26.000 --> 02:56:29.960
 option well would stipulate that the director could grant administrative

02:56:29.960 --> 02:56:33.520
 relief from the reverse setback requirements upon application of the

02:56:33.520 --> 02:56:38.120
 owner of the protected use or lot where they have one utilized all of the

02:56:38.120 --> 02:56:42.480
 applicable options for alternative site designs so for a residential subdivision

02:56:42.480 --> 02:56:45.960
 that would mean that they have utilized our cluster subdivision standards to try

02:56:45.960 --> 02:56:50.400
 to maximize the potential of their site before seeking a waiver and then for any

02:56:50.400 --> 02:56:55.280
 other protected use that would mean that they have applied essentially enhanced

02:56:55.280 --> 02:57:00.280
 minor modifications so the code allows for staff to approve deviations of up to

02:57:00.280 --> 02:57:04.680
 10% on almost all of our zoning criteria this would extend that to 20% for

02:57:04.680 --> 02:57:08.840
 building height building coverage and then for minimum unit size and minimum

02:57:08.840 --> 02:57:12.280
 parking requirements those could be reduced by up to 20% through this

02:57:12.280 --> 02:57:17.200
 procedure the second criteria they would have to meet is that their site is 50% or

02:57:17.200 --> 02:57:21.160
 more encumbered by the reverse setback so it would only be very specific

02:57:21.160 --> 02:57:27.080
 instances where staff could utilize this to lower the setback as low as 375 and

02:57:27.080 --> 02:57:33.040
 then finally along the avenue of the variance procedure by seeking to apply

02:57:33.040 --> 02:57:36.140
 the cluster subdivision option for residential development through that

02:57:36.140 --> 02:57:42.240
 administrative relief procedure we did see a need to to adjust the applicability

02:57:42.240 --> 02:57:45.880
 of cluster subdivisions because citywide if you seek to do a cluster you have to

02:57:45.880 --> 02:57:50.040
 have a minimum parcel size of five acres there would be many sites affected by

02:57:50.040 --> 02:57:53.000
 gas well reverse setbacks that may be under that so we wanted to strike that

02:57:53.000 --> 02:57:58.660
 requirement in these particular instances and then also citywide if you

02:57:58.660 --> 02:58:02.600
 do clustering you're required to rezone your sites to a plan development so for

02:58:02.600 --> 02:58:05.960
 these instances where they're overly encumbered by more than 50% we would

02:58:05.960 --> 02:58:12.200
 also strike that requirement so getting back to those criteria for approval the

02:58:12.200 --> 02:58:16.000
 first being consistency with the comp plan and other policies our

02:58:16.000 --> 02:58:19.920
 comprehensive plan does just has a section on gas wells and it describes how

02:58:19.920 --> 02:58:23.960
 protected and sensitive land uses are generally incompatible with industrial

02:58:23.960 --> 02:58:28.800
 developments such as gas well sites the comp plan does not prescribe any

02:58:28.800 --> 02:58:32.480
 specific setback or separation distance but it does have that language so this

02:58:32.480 --> 02:58:36.840
 would be consistent with that policy that we want to you know reduce the

02:58:36.840 --> 02:58:41.920
 incompatibilities thereby providing greater separation the second criteria is

02:58:41.920 --> 02:58:44.560
 that it doesn't conflict with other provisions of the DDC or code of

02:58:44.560 --> 02:58:48.720
 ordinances the language proposed in subchapter 6 and 8 wouldn't have any

02:58:48.720 --> 02:58:53.200
 conflicts that we identified the the first option that we looked at for

02:58:53.200 --> 02:58:57.080
 nonconformities that would create those inconsistencies between types of

02:58:57.080 --> 02:59:01.680
 nonconformities citywide would be potentially inconsistent and in

02:59:01.680 --> 02:59:05.760
 conflict with other parts of the code so we recommend against that particular

02:59:05.760 --> 02:59:11.240
 option for that reason third whether it is necessary to address a demonstrated

02:59:11.240 --> 02:59:15.160
 community need when the council brought this request forward they identified

02:59:15.160 --> 02:59:18.200
 that there were concerns regarding community health and safety as well as

02:59:18.200 --> 02:59:23.800
 other compatibility and nuisance issues noise lighting traffic vibrations and

02:59:23.800 --> 02:59:28.040
 similar nuisances and they felt that the 500 foot reverse setback would be more

02:59:28.040 --> 02:59:32.360
 protective than our existing 250 foot setback and that decision was based upon

02:59:32.360 --> 02:59:36.920
 the results of a Fort Worth air quality study that we discussed at work session

02:59:36.920 --> 02:59:41.020
 the fourth criteria is whether it's necessary to respond to substantial

02:59:41.020 --> 02:59:45.200
 change in conditions or policy there have not been condition or policy changes

02:59:45.200 --> 02:59:49.280
 other than that the council of today feels differently than the council of

02:59:49.280 --> 02:59:53.600
 2015 as to what is an adequate and protective reverse setback and then

02:59:53.600 --> 02:59:57.320
 finally whether it's consistent with the general purpose of the DDC these

02:59:57.320 --> 03:00:00.480
 amendments are consistent with the purpose statements in the DDC which

03:00:00.480 --> 03:00:04.640
 includes encouraging appropriate use of land promoting general health safety and

03:00:04.640 --> 03:00:08.880
 welfare of the city's inhabitants and implementing the goals of the comp plan

03:00:08.880 --> 03:00:12.720
 notification was provided in the newspaper and on the city's website in

03:00:12.720 --> 03:00:16.880
 October and we did receive four written responses in opposition to this request

03:00:16.880 --> 03:00:21.920
 passed out at the work session staff is recommending approval specifically of

03:00:21.920 --> 03:00:25.620
 option two that we looked at for subchapter one and then the changes in

03:00:25.620 --> 03:00:30.600
 subchapter six and eight as provided in your backup the next step for this would

03:00:30.600 --> 03:00:35.160
 be a public hearing at City Council it has been tenet noticed for November 19th

03:00:35.160 --> 03:00:39.840
 at this time and I'm happy to stand for any questions Haley thanks for the

03:00:39.840 --> 03:00:43.560
 presentation we do have one question for you Commissioner Beck yeah Haley thank

03:00:43.560 --> 03:00:52.960
 you doesn't option be also create variability in the code by freeing up

03:00:52.960 --> 03:01:00.840
 other nuisances to potentially have exceptions to go to ZBA so both option a

03:01:00.840 --> 03:01:08.120
 and option B both create multiple standards in the code option a is a

03:01:08.120 --> 03:01:12.160
 concern because of the distinction being made between different non-conformities

03:01:12.160 --> 03:01:16.120
 option B would apply to any non-conforming structure I should say

03:01:16.120 --> 03:01:20.600
 citywide so yes it could allow for something non-conforming to another

03:01:20.600 --> 03:01:23.560
 standard in the code to seek a variance but it would put everyone through the

03:01:23.560 --> 03:01:29.560
 same somewhat rigorous process of going to ZBA and making their case for that so

03:01:29.560 --> 03:01:33.620
 it still equalizes the playing field citywide in terms of how non-conformities

03:01:33.620 --> 03:01:40.240
 are treated but we'd be a change to all nuisances everywhere potentially but at

03:01:40.240 --> 03:01:44.480
 the same time not necessarily because that same provisions been in the DDC

03:01:44.480 --> 03:01:48.880
 since 2002 it was only removed as of October 1st with the adoption of the

03:01:48.880 --> 03:01:54.760
 2019 code in my time with the city I've not seen that provision used so unless

03:01:54.760 --> 03:01:58.520
 some disaster were to strike a large portion of dent and I don't know that we

03:01:58.520 --> 03:02:03.520
 would see that widely utilized but it it wouldn't be a change from where we've

03:02:03.520 --> 03:02:11.600
 been over the past decade at least. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair.

03:02:11.600 --> 03:02:18.560
 Haley why do we use the measurement from the pad site to what we're measuring do

03:02:18.560 --> 03:02:23.240
 you know why we do I'm assuming all pad sites are not created equal right so

03:02:23.240 --> 03:02:27.760
 correct they do vary in size but at the same time equipment locations vary

03:02:27.760 --> 03:02:31.520
 within pad sites so for for example you could have a site with multiple wells

03:02:31.520 --> 03:02:34.560
 that are spread throughout the site and then you would have to take measurements

03:02:34.560 --> 03:02:37.800
 from each of those well heads if we were measuring from the well head as Fort

03:02:37.800 --> 03:02:41.520
 Worth does this provides one uniform measurement radius simply from the

03:02:41.520 --> 03:02:45.900
 typically the fence line or the the gravel edge of the pad site boundary so

03:02:45.900 --> 03:02:49.720
 it just creates an easier measurement tool because everyone's measuring from

03:02:49.720 --> 03:02:56.040
 the same perimeter not from different well head locations within a site that

03:02:56.040 --> 03:03:02.040
 makes sense but aren't you getting varied measurements though depending on

03:03:02.040 --> 03:03:08.120
 the pad site size in terms of the the area encompassed by that radius yes it

03:03:08.120 --> 03:03:12.680
 would it would vary depending on pad site size they're typically one one acre

03:03:12.680 --> 03:03:16.520
 or more the code allows them to go up to I believe five to seven acres in some

03:03:16.520 --> 03:03:21.600
 instances for very large sites that demonstrate certain criteria so the

03:03:21.600 --> 03:03:24.920
 radius itself is different but it creates consistency within how that's

03:03:24.920 --> 03:03:31.160
 measured for say surrounding developments Commissioner Beck yes thank

03:03:31.160 --> 03:03:34.920
 you chair so that brings a book I have a maybe a similar question to

03:03:34.920 --> 03:03:39.280
 Commissioner Ellis and that is if if we're measuring from the pad site for

03:03:39.280 --> 03:03:43.680
 sort of ease of language and consistency but the pad site itself is made up of

03:03:43.680 --> 03:03:52.520
 anywhere from 1 to n wells whatever is allowed by code then we have a any given

03:03:52.520 --> 03:04:00.480
 pad site would have a variable amount of potential exposure risk whatever the

03:04:00.480 --> 03:04:04.440
 associated characteristics of the pad site are would vary greatly from pad

03:04:04.440 --> 03:04:10.720
 site to pad site depending on the exact nature of the pad site it could but with

03:04:10.720 --> 03:04:13.960
 the measurement being taken from the boundary of the pad site if the setback

03:04:13.960 --> 03:04:17.520
 are established at 500 feet you would have a minimum of 500 feet between the

03:04:17.520 --> 03:04:20.720
 structure and the edge of the site whereas if you measure from well head

03:04:20.720 --> 03:04:25.760
 one house you know a 500 foot measurement from this well head may

03:04:25.760 --> 03:04:29.560
 affect certain parts of a lot may not affect other parts of a lot it creates a

03:04:29.560 --> 03:04:33.760
 lot of inconsistency in measurement whereas measuring from the fence line or

03:04:33.760 --> 03:04:37.560
 the boundary of the site creates that minimum that everyone is at least 500

03:04:37.560 --> 03:04:41.720
 feet away from the equipment and I see the the advantages to that but that's a

03:04:41.720 --> 03:04:46.920
 pairwise approach and there's not necessarily the same characteristics and

03:04:46.920 --> 03:04:53.000
 features of a multi site pad site that there are to a single pad site or even a

03:04:53.000 --> 03:05:01.240
 small number of well heads and so the risk and exposure of the air quality

03:05:01.240 --> 03:05:05.520
 mitigation all those kinds of things will vary depending on the composition

03:05:05.520 --> 03:05:09.240
 of the pad site itself and so even though yes the language would be simpler

03:05:09.240 --> 03:05:13.640
 if you went from well head to well head or sorry from from the pad site boundary

03:05:13.640 --> 03:05:22.440
 those pad sites are still different your risk would be different for a different

03:05:22.440 --> 03:05:27.680
 composition pad site potentially but in terms of measuring and locating lot lines

03:05:27.680 --> 03:05:31.880
 for developing subdivision it creates the greatest consistency and is more

03:05:31.880 --> 03:05:35.920
 protective generally because equipment is located interior to the site and not

03:05:35.920 --> 03:05:39.200
 directly on the boundaries of it in most cases at least the well heads are

03:05:39.200 --> 03:05:42.320
 typically in the middle of the site so it does create a wider separation

03:05:42.320 --> 03:05:46.080
 distance than say Fort Worth where they measure from well head to site because

03:05:46.080 --> 03:05:50.160
 you have that additional the buffer of the the operational space within the pad

03:05:50.160 --> 03:05:55.640
 side around there so on average when we compare Fort Worth 600 feet from a well

03:05:55.640 --> 03:06:03.720
 head is more like a 450 to 470 foot measurement from the pad site boundary so

03:06:03.720 --> 03:06:09.360
 our rounding that up to 500 for measurement sake is more protective by

03:06:09.360 --> 03:06:13.440
 up to at least a hundred feet than what Fort Worth has measuring from equipment

03:06:13.440 --> 03:06:17.880
 Haley can you pull the example I think you had on slide yeah I don't know that

03:06:17.880 --> 03:06:26.020
 has a at least to give a visual of the location of the equipment yeah and this

03:06:26.020 --> 03:06:31.720
 is just you know boxes on a page if you will but you know a site that has three

03:06:31.720 --> 03:06:36.600
 wells on it there there's typically 50 to 100 feet of space for maneuverability

03:06:36.600 --> 03:06:40.840
 around that measuring from the well head if that 500 foot radius came out would be

03:06:40.840 --> 03:06:45.360
 somewhere in the middle of this rather than when you measure from the perimeter

03:06:45.360 --> 03:06:49.360
 you get the benefit of that additional space sort of my last follow-up to that

03:06:49.360 --> 03:06:57.760
 sort of is are the characteristics of two or more well heads the same is it is it

03:06:57.760 --> 03:07:02.120
 composite or is it pairwise so the the implication of looking at a pad site in

03:07:02.120 --> 03:07:06.440
 general is pairwise but and saying that there's no composite behavior there's no

03:07:06.440 --> 03:07:10.720
 gestalt there's no additive behavior from multiple well heads multiple

03:07:10.720 --> 03:07:18.000
 equipment multiple pumps whatever is is that true do we know that I don't have

03:07:18.000 --> 03:07:21.360
 any knowledge as to what the cumulative effect of multiple well heads on a site

03:07:21.360 --> 03:07:28.480
 would be in terms of of air quality or other nuisances I I can speak to at

03:07:28.480 --> 03:07:32.360
 least that Council's rationale for this was based on Fort Worth study where the

03:07:32.360 --> 03:07:37.520
 600 foot was found to be an adequate setback from a well head we modified that

03:07:37.520 --> 03:07:40.160
 simply based on our measurement techniques as we've discussed because

03:07:40.160 --> 03:07:44.000
 ours are generally more conservative and result in a larger amount of space

03:07:44.000 --> 03:07:47.840
 between the well head itself and the home but the cumulative effects of

03:07:47.840 --> 03:07:51.480
 pollution from the all the equipment and well heads on the site I can't speak to

03:07:51.480 --> 03:07:54.880
 okay thank you we have a couple more questions so I'm gonna hop into a fast

03:07:54.880 --> 03:07:59.360
 question for that for clarification when we look at setbacks do we also measure

03:07:59.360 --> 03:08:03.740
 the output of each well if it's active or fully producing or halfway producing

03:08:03.740 --> 03:08:07.640
 to come up with any variable distance and no the setbacks the same across the

03:08:07.640 --> 03:08:10.960
 board regardless regardless of the status of a site so even if a well is

03:08:10.960 --> 03:08:14.480
 closed in and not producing anything we would require the same setback distance

03:08:14.480 --> 03:08:21.100
 Christian for that and I guess I want to kind of piggyback off what Commissioner

03:08:21.100 --> 03:08:27.560
 Beck said so and I and I understand his concern if we had that square pad site

03:08:27.560 --> 03:08:31.600
 right there and it had you know one well in the middle of it you know the

03:08:31.600 --> 03:08:35.440
 potential danger in terms of pollution everything would be significantly less

03:08:35.440 --> 03:08:41.760
 than if that pad site had six wells on it right and I guess the question is

03:08:41.760 --> 03:08:49.920
 right now we are making an assessment that's based on simply a number and that

03:08:49.920 --> 03:08:56.000
 number is in a seemingly arbitrary sense drafted from some other cities

03:08:56.000 --> 03:09:02.760
 guidelines what I'm not hearing right now it is that it is anything that says

03:09:02.760 --> 03:09:08.880
 that we are in any way measuring you know the output of that and basically the

03:09:08.880 --> 03:09:14.200
 the the effect that pollution particulates that kind of thing from

03:09:14.200 --> 03:09:18.400
 there is going to happen I mean are we do we have any mechanism that would

03:09:18.400 --> 03:09:25.560
 complement that 500 in terms of making sure that the danger posed by what's

03:09:25.560 --> 03:09:31.720
 within that 500 feet is stronger or weaker than any other pad site does that

03:09:31.720 --> 03:09:37.080
 make question make sense I think so so the city does have inspections and air

03:09:37.080 --> 03:09:41.000
 monitoring that's done for all pad sites on a variable basis depending on how

03:09:41.000 --> 03:09:46.520
 close they are to protected uses and any time a release or an emission is found

03:09:46.520 --> 03:09:51.280
 even if it doesn't trigger a threshold set by the state for for a release is

03:09:51.280 --> 03:09:57.520
 still reported to the operator and rectified in terms of does that pair

03:09:57.520 --> 03:10:02.080
 with you know setbacks increasing or decreasing from a pad site that no it

03:10:02.080 --> 03:10:06.720
 doesn't at this point the setbacks are across the board for all sites

03:10:06.720 --> 03:10:09.920
 regardless of size and character measured from the perimeter of that site

03:10:09.920 --> 03:10:16.960
 outwards in a radius all the way around and they're just generally treated the

03:10:16.960 --> 03:10:22.920
 same across the board I I don't know that we have the tools to go the

03:10:22.920 --> 03:10:25.640
 direction that you're referring to without the city trying to conduct its

03:10:25.640 --> 03:10:29.960
 own air emission study which council did consider and chose not to move forward

03:10:29.960 --> 03:10:37.520
 with at this time and I guess that was gonna be my next question because you

03:10:37.520 --> 03:10:46.280
 know as other people have mentioned you know with a stringent criteria and

03:10:46.280 --> 03:10:54.400
 actual plan and basically things that are enforceable you know it 1000 feet

03:10:54.400 --> 03:10:59.840
 500 feet is all is all kind of different right in terms of the effect of people

03:10:59.840 --> 03:11:06.440
 around it one thing that I don't see in this and I apologize I missed the work

03:11:06.440 --> 03:11:11.840
 session today that I don't see in this set of slides that we had I guess a

03:11:11.840 --> 03:11:18.040
 couple of weeks ago was there was a slide that discussed the impact of 500

03:11:18.040 --> 03:11:23.920
 feet versus a thousand versus I think 1200 and and what the range would be in

03:11:23.920 --> 03:11:30.560
 terms of affected properties and and I guess I'll kind of toss this out to you

03:11:30.560 --> 03:11:34.280
 know Richard I don't know if you'd be the one to answer this I believe

03:11:34.280 --> 03:11:37.680
 Commissioner Beck had a question last time where we talked about what our

03:11:37.680 --> 03:11:42.840
 liability was in terms of you know arbitrarily picking a distance when I

03:11:42.840 --> 03:11:47.320
 was looking at that slide one of the things that I noticed was that in

03:11:47.320 --> 03:11:51.000
 theory if we went to a thousand feet which would seem to be you know

03:11:51.000 --> 03:11:57.200
 significantly more severe than the 500 looking at looking at the slide and in

03:11:57.200 --> 03:12:00.520
 terms of the impact that it had on the properties when I when I look at Denton

03:12:00.520 --> 03:12:05.820
 proper there was there were no impacted properties right at Platts and when I

03:12:05.820 --> 03:12:09.600
 looked at most of what's developed in Denton we didn't see that now going to a

03:12:09.600 --> 03:12:14.720
 thousand feet we would see a significant number of impacted you know properties

03:12:14.720 --> 03:12:22.200
 that that are non-developed right now to our to our south and west I guess one of

03:12:22.200 --> 03:12:25.920
 the things that that concerns me is right now whether it's 500 feet or a

03:12:25.920 --> 03:12:33.680
 thousand feet it seems like we would be negligent by not taking the maximum for

03:12:33.680 --> 03:12:38.060
 undeveloped properties because we know that people in the city are not going to

03:12:38.060 --> 03:12:42.200
 get new wells we know that they're not going to be significantly more impacted

03:12:42.200 --> 03:12:45.920
 but the decision that we make are going to be making are going to be impacting

03:12:45.920 --> 03:12:53.840
 future residents of Denton right and I guess my concern on this one is if we

03:12:53.840 --> 03:13:00.000
 pass a 500 as opposed to a thousand the people who live in town right now are

03:13:00.000 --> 03:13:04.280
 already there nothing's really going to happen with them but I want to figure

03:13:04.280 --> 03:13:08.920
 out what we can do to make sure that we're providing safety for future Denton

03:13:08.920 --> 03:13:15.900
 citizens to come does that make sense to do I know that there's a and we can

03:13:15.900 --> 03:13:18.520
 probably you know I'll defer to ever because I know there's people waiting

03:13:18.520 --> 03:13:21.440
 but we'll I'll ask some other questions on that I'm sorry I'll go ahead to that

03:13:21.440 --> 03:13:26.480
 I'm going to ramble sorry. Commissioner Anderson well as of now we haven't had

03:13:26.480 --> 03:13:33.200
 any case studies in medical issues come across about any issues medical issues

03:13:33.200 --> 03:13:38.520
 about being 250 feet correct not certainly not in Denton there haven't

03:13:38.520 --> 03:13:43.200
 been any studies of that nature of any reports that I'm aware of there are

03:13:43.200 --> 03:13:46.920
 studies from other other states in other areas that that indicate there may be

03:13:46.920 --> 03:13:51.640
 potential health ramifications from it but there's nothing definitive for this

03:13:51.640 --> 03:13:56.360
 area that I'm aware of so why would we now just decide to try to make it five

03:13:56.360 --> 03:13:59.960
 hundred feet or a thousand feet when we haven't had any issues I mean I have no

03:13:59.960 --> 03:14:04.800
 problem doing it on future developments you know future wells and stuff like

03:14:04.800 --> 03:14:09.400
 this you know to add the language in there but for existing I think like I

03:14:09.400 --> 03:14:12.360
 said earlier you know you're trying to change rules of the ballgame during the

03:14:12.360 --> 03:14:17.360
 game and I think that's going to affect several people but I mean if we could do

03:14:17.360 --> 03:14:21.080
 this to future developments I'd have no problem with that but existing properties

03:14:21.080 --> 03:14:30.600
 I think that's kind of an issue that's my question back so to get a Commissioner

03:14:30.600 --> 03:14:37.520
 Anderson's question do we feel that studies that have been done at different

03:14:37.520 --> 03:14:41.920
 deposits in the Barnett shale at different deposits at any national gas

03:14:41.920 --> 03:14:47.720
 field across the country are somehow substantially inferior or worse than

03:14:47.720 --> 03:14:54.560
 studies that would be performed here in Denton itself certainly not an expert on

03:14:54.560 --> 03:14:58.520
 the matter my understanding from from staff and from conversations that have

03:14:58.520 --> 03:15:02.680
 been had with the TCEQ is that the Barnett shale is simply a different

03:15:02.680 --> 03:15:06.200
 geology than other basins in say Colorado or Pennsylvania or elsewhere

03:15:06.200 --> 03:15:12.080
 where natural gas production occurs so speaking to what what air pollutants and

03:15:12.080 --> 03:15:16.320
 health effects may occur there could be radically different here but my

03:15:16.320 --> 03:15:20.160
 understanding is that the TCEQ hasn't felt the need to commission studies for

03:15:20.160 --> 03:15:25.600
 the Barnett shale and and they wouldn't necessarily support or accept those

03:15:25.600 --> 03:15:29.200
 studies if they were conducted by an entity other than themselves and no

03:15:29.200 --> 03:15:33.280
 other studies have been conducted in the Barnett shale I actually happen to know

03:15:33.280 --> 03:15:37.280
 that's not true but they could have been done they have not been done in Denton

03:15:37.280 --> 03:15:42.160
 is what I'm trying to say Denton Denton has not commissioned such a study and

03:15:42.160 --> 03:15:46.360
 council chose not to at this time I'm gonna interrupt real fast Haley and I

03:15:46.360 --> 03:15:51.200
 think we have to have to consider a couple things here one I don't know if I

03:15:51.200 --> 03:15:55.360
 would necessarily say was an arbitrary number I think when council looked at

03:15:55.360 --> 03:15:58.280
 this they looked at a variety of measurements I think they looked it was

03:15:58.280 --> 03:16:01.120
 five hundred a thousand fifteen hundred and there were two things that they

03:16:01.120 --> 03:16:05.760
 really looked at one the risk associated with inverse condemnation I think that

03:16:05.760 --> 03:16:10.000
 we talked about that that earlier taste part of the work session and what was

03:16:10.000 --> 03:16:14.680
 decided upon was looking at that looking at increasing it at 500 feet and then

03:16:14.680 --> 03:16:18.880
 using that Fort Worth study to rely upon as support if we were to be challenged

03:16:18.880 --> 03:16:22.520
 and that was really that was really the policy direction that came from council

03:16:22.520 --> 03:16:26.240
 and so it wasn't really whether there was additional they did not want to

03:16:26.240 --> 03:16:30.480
 commission a study specific to Denton and so that was really the impetus for

03:16:30.480 --> 03:16:35.080
 for this amendment it wasn't to to bring additional studies debate additional

03:16:35.080 --> 03:16:39.000
 studies it was this initial this was the initial direction that we got from from

03:16:39.000 --> 03:16:43.080
 council not to say it can't change in six months or in a year in two months

03:16:43.080 --> 03:16:47.760
 but this is what again we were tasked with bringing forward

03:16:47.760 --> 03:16:55.240
 anything else question for that and real quick I do want to you know this is one

03:16:55.240 --> 03:17:00.160
 of the things where I would like to hope that before we make a decision we could

03:17:00.160 --> 03:17:04.080
 possibly postpone until we hear further scientific evidence because because one

03:17:04.080 --> 03:17:08.080
 of the things that you know that like Commissioner Anderson bought up was the

03:17:08.080 --> 03:17:12.240
 idea of 250 feet do we know that that's dangerous do we know that it's not

03:17:12.240 --> 03:17:18.320
 dangerous we had a you know kind of conversation over dinner earlier we were

03:17:18.320 --> 03:17:21.800
 talking about smoking and you know we know the surgeon general report didn't

03:17:21.800 --> 03:17:25.520
 come out until the 60s and we all now accept the smoking you know causes

03:17:25.520 --> 03:17:29.840
 cancer now people smoked for hundreds and hundreds of years before but nobody

03:17:29.840 --> 03:17:33.080
 ever figured out that it caused cancer because they died by being killed by

03:17:33.080 --> 03:17:38.120
 bears and stuff right before they could die slowly of cancer but now we know

03:17:38.120 --> 03:17:42.600
 that this is you know that this is the case you know we don't know what the

03:17:42.600 --> 03:17:47.480
 number is right now in terms of how close to a well is dangerous but one of

03:17:47.480 --> 03:17:51.280
 the things that I also want to stress is that we haven't been fracking in dentin

03:17:51.280 --> 03:17:57.640
 free you know for a terribly long time you know if we haven't had studies that

03:17:57.640 --> 03:18:02.280
 show specifically what the danger zone is it's going to be because it takes a

03:18:02.280 --> 03:18:06.760
 long time for statistics to be put together in studies to be to produce you

03:18:06.760 --> 03:18:12.280
 know good data you know we don't know exactly how many kids have asthma now

03:18:12.280 --> 03:18:15.920
 compared to would have otherwise we don't know how many people have cancer

03:18:15.920 --> 03:18:20.760
 now compared to how you know how many there would have been otherwise but we

03:18:20.760 --> 03:18:24.680
 do know that these things are pollution and pollution is bad and it makes people

03:18:24.680 --> 03:18:29.880
 sick so I kind of hope that you know we kind of start leaning towards the idea

03:18:29.880 --> 03:18:34.840
 that being farther away from a pollutant it is better than bringing one closer to

03:18:34.840 --> 03:18:41.240
 us that's all I want to say thank you I'm gonna ask legal to provide insight

03:18:41.240 --> 03:18:45.520
 mr. chair I just I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions that were

03:18:45.520 --> 03:18:53.500
 raised this evening with regard to reasonableness of the proposed 500-foot

03:18:53.500 --> 03:18:59.240
 setback it is based on the Fort Worth study so it would not be considered

03:18:59.240 --> 03:19:06.960
 arbitrary there is some basis for it and coming up with a different amount would

03:19:06.960 --> 03:19:13.080
 be you know additional support or study with regard to to come up with a

03:19:13.080 --> 03:19:18.920
 different number and as as mr. Kanoni said the direction of the council was

03:19:18.920 --> 03:19:29.280
 excuse me a 500-foot reverse setback thank you I don't see other questions

03:19:29.280 --> 03:19:35.880
 besides this Haley did the City Council ever get to a cost of a study was there

03:19:35.880 --> 03:19:41.400
 a cost analysis done on a study that would be approved by TCQ leave it was at

03:19:41.400 --> 03:19:45.760
 the July work session I would have to go back and look I believe at that time

03:19:45.760 --> 03:19:50.440
 dr. Banks presented them with rough estimates just based on the the company

03:19:50.440 --> 03:19:54.280
 that currently helps us with our gas well air monitoring and I believe it

03:19:54.280 --> 03:19:58.360
 was in the range of 1 to 2 million depending on the scope of the study for

03:19:58.360 --> 03:20:02.040
 example Fort Worth study simply looked at their 600-foot setback and said is

03:20:02.040 --> 03:20:06.320
 this generally protective and that study would be on the lower end of that price

03:20:06.320 --> 03:20:11.840
 range whereas a study trying to identify just without a number in mind what is a

03:20:11.840 --> 03:20:16.520
 safe setback would be a much more extensive lengthy and costly study on

03:20:16.520 --> 03:20:20.720
 the higher end of the spectrum I appreciate that I don't see any other

03:20:20.720 --> 03:20:24.840
 questions so thank you for that this is a public hearing I do have several cards

03:20:24.840 --> 03:20:28.560
 here we'll start with these but if you didn't fill out a card and still want to

03:20:28.560 --> 03:20:32.720
 speak we certainly will welcome that opportunity the first card I have is for

03:20:32.720 --> 03:20:38.240
 Michael Hinnan and if you could just state your name and address for the

03:20:38.240 --> 03:20:44.400
 record you'll have four minutes to speak thank you commissioners Michael Hennan

03:20:44.400 --> 03:20:51.520
 724 Thomas Street in Denton I live across the street from McKenna Park and within a

03:20:51.520 --> 03:20:58.480
 thousand feet of the gas wells that are at Scripture and Bonnie Bray so I'm

03:20:58.480 --> 03:21:08.440
 familiar with the the sites and their impact on the area when the City Council

03:21:08.440 --> 03:21:15.520
 enacted the ordinance back in 2015 in the resolution preceding its its

03:21:15.520 --> 03:21:22.440
 ordinance it found that significant and compelling environmental and land use

03:21:22.440 --> 03:21:28.460
 compatibility concerns are associated with gas wells and it found that the

03:21:28.460 --> 03:21:34.480
 potentially harmful effects of gas wells and their impacts and the production of

03:21:34.480 --> 03:21:40.160
 gas fall most heavily upon the neighborhoods and properties that are

03:21:40.160 --> 03:21:44.160
 adjacent to those gas wells and that's why we're here discussing this tonight

03:21:44.160 --> 03:21:53.640
 and I'm here in opposition to this item because I believe that the 500 feet is

03:21:53.640 --> 03:22:00.120
 not a sufficient protective zone for the health and safety of the residents of

03:22:00.120 --> 03:22:07.240
 Denton the studies that I think that have been referred to and have been many

03:22:07.240 --> 03:22:11.120
 of which I think have been forwarded to City Council members and perhaps some of

03:22:11.120 --> 03:22:16.360
 you have seen dr. Zachariah Hildebrand for example who spoke here in Denton

03:22:16.360 --> 03:22:23.720
 back in September referenced 11 studies from various areas that dealt with the

03:22:23.720 --> 03:22:29.560
 health impacts of people who sometimes live only within a mile of a production

03:22:29.560 --> 03:22:36.840
 site and still have significant statistical impacts on respiratory

03:22:36.840 --> 03:22:46.960
 issues on issues concerning pregnancy and on the unborn and often we know that

03:22:46.960 --> 03:22:56.120
 these gas wells do leak we know that the infrastructure that supplies the gas the

03:22:56.120 --> 03:23:01.200
 pipes the various compressors all the items that are on these wells they do

03:23:01.200 --> 03:23:08.240
 leak we've seen the studies and we've seen the pictures of these gas wells

03:23:08.240 --> 03:23:14.800
 that are taken by infrared equipment that show a lot of escaping hydrocarbons from

03:23:14.800 --> 03:23:20.040
 these sites so that they do have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods they

03:23:20.040 --> 03:23:24.480
 have impacts on the soil because these things that go into the air come out of

03:23:24.480 --> 03:23:31.120
 the air in the rain and impact the soil as well as the general environment of

03:23:31.120 --> 03:23:35.000
 the areas near the neighborhoods I think we should follow in this case the

03:23:35.000 --> 03:23:42.600
 precautionary principle and err on the side of caution when we put an

03:23:42.600 --> 03:23:49.080
 industrial use when we allow neighborhoods to approach an industrial

03:23:49.080 --> 03:23:55.920
 use as dangerous as a gas well we know they explode we know they leak and we

03:23:55.920 --> 03:24:02.520
 know that they can cause impacts on our soil and our air the this proposal I do

03:24:02.520 --> 03:24:08.760
 believe does not adequately address those issues certainly 500 feet is better

03:24:08.760 --> 03:24:16.000
 than 200 feet 250 feet but it is still not adequate in my opinion to protect

03:24:16.000 --> 03:24:30.240
 our citizens the I think but what we need to do is step back and say what is

03:24:30.240 --> 03:24:36.040
 our responsibility here and that is to protect our citizens we should not allow

03:24:36.040 --> 03:24:41.520
 developers to get close as we're talking about to these gas wells I know that

03:24:41.520 --> 03:24:46.020
 there's some concern about whether or not this would be a taking of property

03:24:46.020 --> 03:24:51.440
 rights I believe that the property rights the taking was done by drilling

03:24:51.440 --> 03:24:56.160
 the gas well there in the first place if somebody has affected the ability of the

03:24:56.160 --> 03:25:00.800
 use of that property it was the people who drilled the well I appreciate you

03:25:00.800 --> 03:25:05.440
 being here I have one question I did not listen to dr. Hildebrandt study but for

03:25:05.440 --> 03:25:08.360
 several people reference it what was the number that he concluded was a safe

03:25:08.360 --> 03:25:14.000
 distance well he I think looks at at least between 1,500 and 2,000 feet

03:25:14.000 --> 03:25:22.180
 that's what he concluded that's my recollection okay thank you next card we

03:25:22.180 --> 03:25:25.440
 have is Jody is Mert

03:25:25.440 --> 03:25:32.720
 if you just state your name and address you might want to need to pull the mic

03:25:32.720 --> 03:25:40.120
 down but you have four minutes I'm definitely pulling the mic down Jody is

03:25:40.120 --> 03:25:49.680
 Mert 819 Anna Street and so I am in opposition to this for similar reasons

03:25:49.680 --> 03:25:57.600
 because I think the 500 is inadequate the 500 feet is inadequate so part of

03:25:57.600 --> 03:26:03.680
 the Denton Development Code and the purpose the first thing that's listed is

03:26:03.680 --> 03:26:11.080
 to promote the health safety and general welfare of the city's inhabitants

03:26:11.080 --> 03:26:17.320
 that's that's the first thing that's listed in the Development Code as far as

03:26:17.320 --> 03:26:22.080
 the mission statement is concerned and from what I'm hearing from the

03:26:22.080 --> 03:26:27.200
 presentation is that we didn't really look at recent studies because dr.

03:26:27.200 --> 03:26:31.920
 Hildebrand I know that's been mentioned before he provided a lot more recent

03:26:31.920 --> 03:26:38.880
 studies than 2011 even cancer clusters in certain areas due to due to fracking

03:26:38.880 --> 03:26:43.600
 operations due to well operations so we're starting to see that come out

03:26:43.600 --> 03:26:48.560
 we're starting to see data for this now it's been long enough to where we're

03:26:48.560 --> 03:26:54.200
 we're actually starting to see some of the impacts so I definitely would hope

03:26:54.200 --> 03:26:58.840
 that you guys would postpone your vote until further research can be done I

03:26:58.840 --> 03:27:04.120
 think 500 is great start I want to applaud the city for considering this

03:27:04.120 --> 03:27:09.280
 and I think this is a discussion that we absolutely have to have I just think

03:27:09.280 --> 03:27:16.520
 the scope of what city staff was asked to do was not broad enough I think that

03:27:16.520 --> 03:27:23.560
 we need to have a broader scope as far as what is looked at we need more robust

03:27:23.560 --> 03:27:27.920
 protection for citizens who will be near well operations I'd like to also talk

03:27:27.920 --> 03:27:36.160
 about soil impact because dr. Hildebrand had mentioned that heavy

03:27:36.160 --> 03:27:42.760
 metals are found in the soil near well operations abandoned well operations

03:27:42.760 --> 03:27:47.920
 active well operations and so soil testing is something that's new but heavy

03:27:47.920 --> 03:27:53.080
 metals radioactive materials so I think especially with protected uses like

03:27:53.080 --> 03:27:59.320
 parks and schools and playgrounds you know children you know and most of us

03:27:59.320 --> 03:28:02.440
 probably hear our parents and I know one of the first things my daughter does

03:28:02.440 --> 03:28:06.400
 when she goes to a playground it's a very intimate relationship she wants to

03:28:06.400 --> 03:28:11.120
 get in the sand she wants to search for insects you know when she was little she

03:28:11.120 --> 03:28:16.160
 would put things in her mouth rocks and we're letting our kids play on

03:28:16.160 --> 03:28:22.600
 playgrounds that you know like McKenna Park for example that's you know within

03:28:22.600 --> 03:28:28.540
 this zone that's unsafe and you know when we figured out that Eureka Park was

03:28:28.540 --> 03:28:32.640
 covered with Carson Carson engines we tore it down and we built a new park

03:28:32.640 --> 03:28:39.880
 because we wanted as a community to protect our kids I think that we should

03:28:39.880 --> 03:28:45.800
 do the same here we should postpone the vote we should have a broader scope we

03:28:45.800 --> 03:28:51.680
 should look at the more recent studies we should not have protected uses like

03:28:51.680 --> 03:28:59.320
 schools and playgrounds within 500 feet of well operations because when you

03:28:59.320 --> 03:29:04.560
 think about it 500 feet and maybe it sounds like a large long distance if you

03:29:04.560 --> 03:29:09.440
 are if you've ever run on a track before it's a hundred meter dash it's a little

03:29:09.440 --> 03:29:17.760
 bit longer than a hundred meter dash or if you play golf it's a nine iron it's

03:29:17.760 --> 03:29:25.080
 it's not a very long distance and so I would like to encourage us to perhaps

03:29:25.080 --> 03:29:33.320
 look at extending the distance thank you very much I do not see any questions

03:29:33.320 --> 03:29:42.640
 appreciate you being here though next card I have is for Ed soft and if you

03:29:42.640 --> 03:29:52.680
 just state your name and address for the record my name is Ed so I live at 1620

03:29:52.680 --> 03:29:59.040
 Victoria Drive here in Denton of tear about 32 years I had had a prepared

03:29:59.040 --> 03:30:02.720
 statement which I've sent to you and I'm going to not read that unless I have

03:30:02.720 --> 03:30:10.440
 time because I want to comment on some things that have been said here if you

03:30:10.440 --> 03:30:19.080
 don't mind the whole process that has brought us to this point was terribly

03:30:19.080 --> 03:30:25.680
 flawed and I say this because dr. Hildenbrand published an article with

03:30:25.680 --> 03:30:32.160
 dr. Shug in the Dallas Morning News in November of 2018 I sent that to City

03:30:32.160 --> 03:30:36.080
 Council because it was already in the pipeline that that's revision was going

03:30:36.080 --> 03:30:43.160
 to happen I sent it to council I sent it to staff innumerable times please this

03:30:43.160 --> 03:30:47.640
 man is a good resource he's local he knows what's going on around here have

03:30:47.640 --> 03:30:57.840
 him come in and speak no response no result no outside expertise other than

03:30:57.840 --> 03:31:05.000
 an outdated 2011 air study from Fort Worth if you haven't read that study read

03:31:05.000 --> 03:31:11.840
 it read the executive summary and read the conclusion and see how comfortable

03:31:11.840 --> 03:31:21.720
 you feel with the efficacy of that study I inquired to staff thinking hey there

03:31:21.720 --> 03:31:26.520
 are great concerns in the community about the health impacts of this possible

03:31:26.520 --> 03:31:31.800
 500 foot reverse setback do the developers know about these concerns

03:31:31.800 --> 03:31:37.920
 staff has met with developers are they discussing this with them are they

03:31:37.920 --> 03:31:42.080
 giving the developers a chance to say wow I didn't realize that let's see what

03:31:42.080 --> 03:31:48.980
 else we can do no I don't know because again I never got a reply I never got an

03:31:48.980 --> 03:31:55.360
 answer after repeated questions regarding to the developers know how the

03:31:55.360 --> 03:32:01.640
 folks feel about this I never got an answer staff has given the impression

03:32:01.640 --> 03:32:10.920
 that the only valid study is that 2011 Fort Worth air study well as you know

03:32:10.920 --> 03:32:19.320
 and I appreciate your patience with me I sent you four more studies today one of

03:32:19.320 --> 03:32:27.400
 those studies actually used the TCE queues own air monitors to come up with

03:32:27.400 --> 03:32:33.320
 its conclusions about the impact of gas well drilling on ozone production and as

03:32:33.320 --> 03:32:39.600
 I think I mentioned to you ozone is bad it exacerbates childhood asthma ruins

03:32:39.600 --> 03:32:47.240
 people's lungs but that was only one I sent you three more and I hope you will

03:32:47.240 --> 03:32:53.920
 look at those because the city hasn't responsibilities on your shoulders

03:32:53.920 --> 03:33:06.120
 because the city did not do due diligence so with time left if you don't

03:33:06.120 --> 03:33:15.000
 mind I will read my statement most if not all of the 13 pad sites and 51 gas

03:33:15.000 --> 03:33:20.280
 wells on the 6,000 acres of the proposed coal hunter ranch development are low

03:33:20.280 --> 03:33:25.640
 priority this is also true for pad sites and wells on many other yet to be

03:33:25.640 --> 03:33:32.920
 developed tracks in Denton these low priority wells will become at least

03:33:32.920 --> 03:33:38.040
 moderate priority with a new residential and commercial development and these

03:33:38.040 --> 03:33:43.040
 former low priority wells may have plat language that allows the drilling and

03:33:43.040 --> 03:33:47.240
 fracking of more wells and the refracting of existing wells on those pad

03:33:47.240 --> 03:33:53.320
 sites we must know what which pad sites those are because of what has already

03:33:53.320 --> 03:33:58.200
 happened in Denton we cannot forget the horrible experiences suffered by the

03:33:58.200 --> 03:34:03.000
 residents of the vintage neighborhood constant noise and lights cracked house

03:34:03.000 --> 03:34:08.160
 foundations the air filled with choking silica dust the stench of toxic chemicals

03:34:08.160 --> 03:34:12.840
 and exhaust fumes and frightened children with nosebleeds headaches and

03:34:12.840 --> 03:34:17.500
 asthma attacks an expectant mother who lived in the neighborhood came before

03:34:17.500 --> 03:34:23.400
 counsel stood right here and asked what's going to happen to my baby we know

03:34:23.400 --> 03:34:28.000
 now that proximity to gas well operations at distances of more than 500

03:34:28.000 --> 03:34:34.880
 feet poses grave health risks to both the expectant mother and her unborn child

03:34:34.880 --> 03:34:41.600
 this raises some questions which have to be answered before we move forward can

03:34:41.600 --> 03:34:47.320
 the city assure expectant mothers that a 500 foot reverse setback or God forbid a

03:34:47.320 --> 03:34:52.560
 250 foot variance is safe for them and their infants can the city assure

03:34:52.560 --> 03:34:58.040
 residents that continuous air monitoring of wells is unnecessary to protect the

03:34:58.040 --> 03:35:01.560
 health and safety of people living and working and playing and raising a family

03:35:01.560 --> 03:35:07.520
 500 feet from existing wells and pad sites can the city assure residents that

03:35:07.520 --> 03:35:13.160
 it is safe to live within 500 feet of a reef racking operation it boils down to

03:35:13.160 --> 03:35:18.680
 this are you willing to take the chance that new Denton neighborhoods have to

03:35:18.680 --> 03:35:24.080
 experience the same nightmare as the vintage neighborhood because the one

03:35:24.080 --> 03:35:30.480
 thing we do know absolutely is that the closer we live to well operations the

03:35:30.480 --> 03:35:36.240
 greater the hazards to our health and safety whether it's in Colorado Texas or

03:35:36.240 --> 03:35:41.800
 Timbuktu it's been almost six years since that expectant mother stood here

03:35:41.800 --> 03:35:46.920
 and asked her question I hope you'll agree that it's time to do what is right

03:35:46.920 --> 03:35:51.040
 so that future mothers won't have to stand here and ask what's going to

03:35:51.040 --> 03:35:58.040
 happen to their children you all can make it right by voting to postpone the

03:35:58.040 --> 03:36:03.160
 adoption of this current ordinance revision please there are simply too

03:36:03.160 --> 03:36:07.000
 many unanswered questions thank you very much thank you we do have questions

03:36:07.000 --> 03:36:11.600
 Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. self I because we've been in session most

03:36:11.600 --> 03:36:15.960
 of the day I haven't necessarily had a chance to read all those studies are

03:36:15.960 --> 03:36:21.920
 those peer-reviewed studies accepted by other scientists three of them are and

03:36:21.920 --> 03:36:32.080
 the fourth one which is a journalists summary of another paper if one goes to

03:36:32.080 --> 03:36:38.000
 the references referenced in that article they will find that those sources

03:36:38.000 --> 03:36:49.360
 are all peer-reviewed thank you Krister pernetta yes mr. so yeah you mentioned

03:36:49.360 --> 03:36:53.640
 the other the request for a postponement and that's come up a couple of times and

03:36:53.640 --> 03:36:57.560
 and I guess I have a couple of questions and you may not have the answer this

03:36:57.560 --> 03:37:03.080
 is because I'm asking you right now you know as mr. can only mentioned this came

03:37:03.080 --> 03:37:13.320
 back due to basically a political shift in our City Council right and because of

03:37:13.320 --> 03:37:17.720
 that we know that any action taken by council may not necessarily be based on

03:37:17.720 --> 03:37:28.520
 science but rather on political whim if my fear is this we have 250 feet right

03:37:28.520 --> 03:37:33.640
 now we have a momentum to get 500 which is still not great but better than it

03:37:33.640 --> 03:37:42.880
 was I have a fear that you know if we postpone and wait for 1,000 by the time

03:37:42.880 --> 03:37:47.560
 it comes back to council we may not get a vote and wind up stuck with a 250 so

03:37:47.560 --> 03:37:52.560
 my question though is when we're discussing a postponement to ensure

03:37:52.560 --> 03:37:58.600
 that we get more data to make a decision what kind of timeline are we looking at

03:37:58.600 --> 03:38:03.800
 here because I would be reluctant to push for a postponement if I didn't feel

03:38:03.800 --> 03:38:09.080
 like we could have something come back within 60 days you know what I mean

03:38:09.080 --> 03:38:16.960
 because what we're in November now 60 days puts us puts us at January we know

03:38:16.960 --> 03:38:21.200
 people are going to start filing to run for City Council in February and you

03:38:21.200 --> 03:38:27.960
 know I'm worried about that but but I'm guessing you know the oil and you know

03:38:27.960 --> 03:38:32.320
 the drilling awareness group has some experts that they'd like to bring in

03:38:32.320 --> 03:38:38.240
 some data they'd like to have considered can you give us an idea of what a

03:38:38.240 --> 03:38:42.720
 postponement would look like and what we would be bringing back and how soon we

03:38:42.720 --> 03:38:46.160
 would be able to do something actionable on that I obviously don't know how

03:38:46.160 --> 03:38:52.840
 postponement would work because I would that's it's up to staff obviously to set

03:38:52.840 --> 03:39:02.120
 a realistic time frame for any further discussions okay and that's as far as

03:39:02.120 --> 03:39:09.360
 dent and dag helping out as we tried to do before yeah we're ready at moments

03:39:09.360 --> 03:39:19.000
 notice to get whomever the city wants to talk to so as far as I'm concerned it's

03:39:19.000 --> 03:39:29.120
 up in some ways to you folks to set a timeline that you feel is is workable

03:39:29.120 --> 03:39:36.000
 and to work that out with staff I mean it's not hard it's it's not hard to to

03:39:36.000 --> 03:39:42.440
 research this stuff as you know and there's no reason why within a

03:39:42.440 --> 03:39:48.040
 reasonable amount of time there cannot be a meaningful dialogue that takes

03:39:48.040 --> 03:39:54.120
 into account those questions that I asked in my statement because those

03:39:54.120 --> 03:39:59.920
 questions have to be answered and I don't know what else to say in that

03:39:59.920 --> 03:40:05.920
 regard and I guess my question would then go to staff I mean what would a

03:40:05.920 --> 03:40:10.120
 turnaround like that be if they were to if we were to bring in some peer review

03:40:10.120 --> 03:40:17.000
 studies and you know some people to testify before council on you know what

03:40:17.000 --> 03:40:21.720
 the impact of a 500 number versus what else would be I just want to make sure

03:40:21.720 --> 03:40:26.960
 that we the decision that we're making is you know as close to founded on recent

03:40:26.960 --> 03:40:33.760
 information as possible again I think it certainly if there were to be a

03:40:33.760 --> 03:40:38.720
 postponement and a request for additional studies or analysis I would I would have

03:40:38.720 --> 03:40:43.040
 to take that to City Council for for consideration and recommendation again

03:40:43.040 --> 03:40:48.440
 this this was an amendment that was brought on by that a request by council

03:40:48.440 --> 03:40:54.960
 right initiated by them I do know at I was going to mention it it's part of the

03:40:54.960 --> 03:41:01.200
 the matrix I do know at next week's work session they will have a discussion on

03:41:01.200 --> 03:41:05.280
 whether or not they want to consider I think there's four or five items that

03:41:05.280 --> 03:41:09.560
 that mr. So's group had brought up for consideration whether or not council

03:41:09.560 --> 03:41:13.840
 decides to move forward with that again that's ultimately up to that that body

03:41:13.840 --> 03:41:18.800
 as a whole that wouldn't preclude them from making changes or if this were to

03:41:18.800 --> 03:41:23.560
 proceed to then come back two months later or three months later or shorter

03:41:23.560 --> 03:41:27.280
 or longer with an additional amendment there's no limitation on on a city

03:41:27.280 --> 03:41:31.560
 initiated amendment that's driven by City Council

03:41:31.560 --> 03:41:39.200
 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. soap is always for sharing your

03:41:39.200 --> 03:41:44.640
 insight you know my concern here with postponement is it's taken us a year to

03:41:44.640 --> 03:41:51.040
 get where we are right now and I what I'm not understanding and help me here

03:41:51.040 --> 03:41:57.640
 is why we would think this amendment isn't for the protection and welfare of

03:41:57.640 --> 03:42:03.160
 the citizens I'm not saying it's a fix-all but it's better than where we're

03:42:03.160 --> 03:42:11.120
 at now and it doesn't preclude future amendments to this ordinance so I'm at

03:42:11.120 --> 03:42:16.320
 the moment uncomfortable with postponing because like I said this got brought up

03:42:16.320 --> 03:42:32.120
 in September of 18 this is November of 19 so I'll let you speak to that I I have

03:42:32.120 --> 03:42:43.840
 a problem with with it because science tells us that beyond doubt 500 feet is

03:42:43.840 --> 03:42:51.960
 too close and if one does go with 500 feet though one must have continuous air

03:42:51.960 --> 03:43:01.520
 monitoring of the wells that are within 500 feet of new homes how can I say

03:43:01.520 --> 03:43:12.680
 they're wrong I can't and mr. Hennan mentioned the precautionary principle

03:43:13.880 --> 03:43:20.600
 we take precautions every day we put on seat belts when we get in our car not

03:43:20.600 --> 03:43:24.680
 because we're sure we're gonna have an auto crash because we might or we could

03:43:24.680 --> 03:43:31.800
 we get home insurance not because we know our house is gonna catch fire but

03:43:31.800 --> 03:43:38.280
 just in case it does you follow my drift we go to the doctor when we feel great

03:43:38.280 --> 03:43:43.920
 because we want to make sure we're not getting sick that cut same kind of thing

03:43:43.920 --> 03:43:48.460
 needs to be instituted in how the city thinks about things like this that have

03:43:48.460 --> 03:43:55.360
 such drastic possibilities for horrible impacts on the public health and was

03:43:55.360 --> 03:44:04.760
 mentioned about cigarettes you know how long did it take science knew long ago

03:44:04.760 --> 03:44:09.900
 just like science knew long ago about global warming and what is it gonna

03:44:09.900 --> 03:44:14.560
 take we're gonna sit until it's right there till we've got the bodies to count

03:44:14.560 --> 03:44:22.400
 till we've got the cancer clusters that we have to we have to think like that

03:44:22.400 --> 03:44:29.120
 because things are not getting better when we have this wait-and-see attitude

03:44:29.120 --> 03:44:35.600
 so I see absolutely no reason for especially what I said about sitting

03:44:35.600 --> 03:44:40.960
 down with the developers and explaining this to them and see if the consensus

03:44:40.960 --> 03:44:47.560
 can be reached with a either monitoring systems if it's if it's a lesser

03:44:47.560 --> 03:44:53.640
 distance or even working out ways in certain situations I mean god there's

03:44:53.640 --> 03:44:59.800
 great example right there with multiple wells on one pad yeah that group should

03:44:59.800 --> 03:45:02.920
 require a different setback difference because there's more wells there's more

03:45:02.920 --> 03:45:08.280
 pollutants it's that simple but at any rate that's what my take on that and I

03:45:08.280 --> 03:45:12.200
 understand that but you you're comfortable with postponing it to an

03:45:12.200 --> 03:45:18.720
 indefinite period of time no not indefinite better quicker by at least

03:45:18.720 --> 03:45:23.120
 increasing it double from what it is currently I don't know I just want the

03:45:23.120 --> 03:45:26.960
 dialogue because the dialogue has not happened because the resources have not

03:45:26.960 --> 03:45:35.280
 been studied it's the net focus of this is entirely too narrow for the for the

03:45:35.280 --> 03:45:38.960
 for the for the for what we're dealing with right but why do you think the

03:45:38.960 --> 03:45:44.520
 dialogue is cut off if this if this were to be recommended City Council and

03:45:44.520 --> 03:45:47.720
 ultimately approved by City Council why do you think the dialogue would be cut

03:45:47.720 --> 03:45:52.600
 off from other concerns that for the same reasons that it's taken us so long

03:45:52.600 --> 03:46:03.640
 to get here politics vested interests you name it so I mean we I I'm looking

03:46:03.640 --> 03:46:09.040
 at it a at it realistically because in my 30 years here I've seen how the

03:46:09.040 --> 03:46:17.240
 system can work Eureka the IPM plan that the that the city parks have and I've

03:46:17.240 --> 03:46:22.240
 seen how it doesn't work to the point that we had to pass a fracking ban you

03:46:22.240 --> 03:46:24.240
 know

03:46:24.240 --> 03:46:32.000
 Christian back yes thank you chair so in the discussion that you brought up and

03:46:32.000 --> 03:46:36.280
 counselor printed brought up they had the analogy to smoking maybe that's an

03:46:36.280 --> 03:46:42.760
 appropriate analogy in more ways than you suspect we all have the 90 year old

03:46:42.760 --> 03:46:48.920
 grandma who's been smoking 10 packs a day and is 90 so mate but what she does

03:46:48.920 --> 03:46:56.200
 is go to the doctor regularly and all the time so maybe the appropriate

03:46:56.200 --> 03:47:01.680
 responses to follow maybe what counselor pernetta and counselor Ellis are

03:47:01.680 --> 03:47:08.360
 suggesting and and that is except a partial increase because we're unaware

03:47:08.360 --> 03:47:12.440
 of the risks but then measure more so I guess maybe this is more of a question

03:47:12.440 --> 03:47:18.880
 to Richard and that is can we go can we make the recommendation to accept but

03:47:18.880 --> 03:47:27.240
 then encourage City Council to go to say you know something much more frequent

03:47:27.240 --> 03:47:34.720
 monthly bi-weekly continuous monitoring in order to mitigate risks then you

03:47:34.720 --> 03:47:40.040
 could have the smaller setbacks especially if you didn't have if there

03:47:40.040 --> 03:47:43.080
 was no proof of release if there's no VOCs if there's none of the health

03:47:43.080 --> 03:47:48.240
 issues because we have proof then it would be entirely appropriate to have

03:47:48.240 --> 03:47:54.900
 less a shorter setback distance and then we mitigate some of these qualms that

03:47:54.900 --> 03:47:58.480
 some of us here have at the dais

03:47:58.480 --> 03:48:09.440
 I just want to make sure understand so you're asking whether or not as part of

03:48:09.440 --> 03:48:13.440
 the recommendation is if it is at 500 could could there essentially be an add-on

03:48:13.440 --> 03:48:16.640
 that there be additional monitoring that's conducted by the city yeah

03:48:16.640 --> 03:48:19.600
 regardless of the distance regardless of the distance can we make the

03:48:19.600 --> 03:48:24.260
 recommendation regardless of the distance that we go to as near practical

03:48:24.260 --> 03:48:30.080
 continuous monitoring as possible yeah I mean I don't know that that would

03:48:30.080 --> 03:48:34.280
 necessarily be a land development regulation I do know we have our own

03:48:34.280 --> 03:48:39.180
 inspection that we do on a you know that I think I had forwarded that modern

03:48:39.180 --> 03:48:44.600
 geosciences handles but it could be a suggestion that we could certainly pass

03:48:44.600 --> 03:48:49.600
 on or be made as part of the the recommendation to counsel if I remember

03:48:49.600 --> 03:48:57.480
 correctly that that the report is that even for a short distance those short

03:48:57.480 --> 03:49:01.160
 distance setbacks those are only monitored twice a year and that for

03:49:01.160 --> 03:49:05.160
 anything longer than that they're at best monitored once a year and sometimes

03:49:05.160 --> 03:49:09.920
 every other year so I think again we don't go we're not going to send our

03:49:09.920 --> 03:49:13.520
 90 year old grandma to the doctor every other year if she's smoking two packs a

03:49:13.520 --> 03:49:20.800
 day so perhaps regardless of what people feel about individual distances I would

03:49:20.800 --> 03:49:25.560
 like to encourage us to put some thought into increasing the frequency of

03:49:25.560 --> 03:49:29.360
 recommending to council that we increase the frequency of monitoring and as I

03:49:29.360 --> 03:49:33.680
 understand our code now it is already incumbent upon the operator to pay for

03:49:33.680 --> 03:49:37.800
 inspections so I don't see how that would change or have any impact on the

03:49:37.800 --> 03:49:46.720
 city's bottom line yeah I think there's unless sort of a two-fold because I know

03:49:46.720 --> 03:49:51.040
 there's there's testing that's required by TCEQ that we're sort of preempted I

03:49:51.040 --> 03:49:59.520
 think these are our inspections that we do in addition to but if I understand

03:49:59.520 --> 03:50:05.400
 the question it's whether or not the the Planning and Zoning Commission can make

03:50:05.400 --> 03:50:09.400
 a recommendation to the council that they amend the gas well ordinance with

03:50:09.400 --> 03:50:14.840
 regard to the air quality monitoring is that your question yes or at least

03:50:14.840 --> 03:50:24.840
 that's part of it yes it's it seems to be outside of the the gas well ordinance

03:50:24.840 --> 03:50:30.800
 but as mr. Kanoni said something that could be passed along as part of the

03:50:30.800 --> 03:50:37.600
 discussion of this ordinance just to clarify the air monitoring policy that

03:50:37.600 --> 03:50:41.720
 council has with modern Geoscience is not derived from the code that's an

03:50:41.720 --> 03:50:47.400
 additional policy that they adopted so it could be part of that perhaps the the

03:50:47.400 --> 03:50:51.240
 operator payment for inspections is a requirement in the code but those are

03:50:51.240 --> 03:50:55.520
 the inspections that city staff is able to conduct for the the surface elements

03:50:55.520 --> 03:50:59.120
 that are allowed under House Bill 40 so that is a separate totally separate

03:50:59.120 --> 03:51:05.720
 from the air quality monitoring that the council has a separate policy for but

03:51:05.720 --> 03:51:09.480
 since you bring that up it's it's our standards and our service standards that

03:51:09.480 --> 03:51:13.120
 they're monitoring and that it's our scope of work that they're following

03:51:13.120 --> 03:51:17.760
 when when they do an investigation is that correct correct that was a policy

03:51:17.760 --> 03:51:21.440
 adopted by council so if it's our scope of work we can set our scope of work or

03:51:21.440 --> 03:51:26.200
 rather we can recommend to council to alter the scope of work council could

03:51:26.200 --> 03:51:29.640
 potentially do that it's to Richard's point simply not a part of the gas well

03:51:29.640 --> 03:51:32.600
 ordinance so it wouldn't necessarily be part of the language in an ordinance

03:51:32.600 --> 03:51:36.000
 that were to go to council but it could be a recommendation that's passed along

03:51:36.000 --> 03:51:40.520
 to them from this interject I think the response is it wouldn't be part of

03:51:40.520 --> 03:51:43.760
 recommendation but it could be a suggestion to move to council but I

03:51:43.760 --> 03:51:48.800
 want to make sure we stay to germane to the topic of the setback that we're

03:51:48.800 --> 03:51:55.160
 looking at the ordinances and the sub chapters identified tonight I actually

03:51:55.160 --> 03:52:09.720
 had a question for mr. self if I may I think Mr. Ellis was asking this question

03:52:09.720 --> 03:52:14.520
 I was maybe asking a little more directly and maybe even more frankly we

03:52:14.520 --> 03:52:19.040
 have an opportunity tonight to change it to 500 there's you and several others

03:52:19.040 --> 03:52:23.320
 I've had a peak one a postponement I'm trying to understand the rationale if

03:52:23.320 --> 03:52:27.960
 while developers are knocking at our doors we can put a stopgap measure in

03:52:27.960 --> 03:52:33.400
 place I'm trying to stand the rationale to go ahead and postpone and leave the

03:52:33.400 --> 03:52:40.040
 door open for 250 foot reverse setbacks for 30 days 60 days and provide an

03:52:40.040 --> 03:52:45.040
 opportunity for a myriad of developers to come in and get plans under the 250

03:52:45.040 --> 03:52:50.720
 where tonight although might not be the thousand feet seeking I don't I'm trying

03:52:50.720 --> 03:52:55.280
 to understand why the advocacy for a postponement is is what you suggested

03:52:55.280 --> 03:53:00.160
 and others have suggested rather than we support the move we don't think it's

03:53:00.160 --> 03:53:04.800
 adequate there needs to be more done can you help me understand that rationale

03:53:04.800 --> 03:53:12.120
 well I don't know about the myriads of developers I mean I I know what's on the

03:53:12.120 --> 03:53:18.680
 horizon yeah I would the only way that I would feel comfortable and I guess you

03:53:18.680 --> 03:53:27.880
 would feel comfortable too with this is if you did pass this 500 rather than

03:53:27.880 --> 03:53:31.960
 postpone it if you really have fears of developers coming in and taking

03:53:31.960 --> 03:53:38.120
 advantage of the 250 foot reverse setback as it stands now and you feel

03:53:38.120 --> 03:53:44.560
 that you will alleviate that worry by promoting them are passing the proposed

03:53:44.560 --> 03:53:52.960
 500 that at least you put some conditions with it and those conditions

03:53:52.960 --> 03:54:00.480
 some have already been mentioned air monitoring continuous air monitoring

03:54:00.760 --> 03:54:17.040
 soil testing drawing a blank air monitoring soil testing pardon me no

03:54:17.040 --> 03:54:21.680
 thank you yeah adding the compressor stations line compressor stations to the

03:54:21.680 --> 03:54:27.960
 to the ordinance which are not in there at all and I think I sent you those

03:54:27.960 --> 03:54:34.800
 those points in an email earlier but I that's the only way that I would feel

03:54:34.800 --> 03:54:42.400
 comfortable knowing that you would provide the groundwork for actually

03:54:42.400 --> 03:54:49.720
 strengthening the protections whether it with the 500 foot reverse setback which

03:54:49.720 --> 03:54:58.080
 I hope we all realize has has great health hazard potential and implications

03:54:58.080 --> 03:55:04.280
 okay I appreciate the clarification yeah thank you make sense your what you said

03:55:04.280 --> 03:55:09.920
 I understand okay your perspective thank you thanks that's the last card I have

03:55:09.920 --> 03:55:12.700
 for individuals wanting to speak I have some white cards I'll read into the

03:55:12.700 --> 03:55:17.460
 record and then anyone who still wants to speak they certainly do so the first

03:55:17.460 --> 03:55:21.800
 card I have is from Larry Beck I'm gonna read and to record the notation on the

03:55:21.800 --> 03:55:24.360
 card it says outside of what the Commission raised in the work session

03:55:24.360 --> 03:55:28.320
 today about language that fails to protect non-conforming residencies in

03:55:28.320 --> 03:55:33.000
 the proposed expanded reverse setbacks these amendments also fail to acknowledge

03:55:33.000 --> 03:55:36.680
 the current science that shows setbacks less than 1,000 feet raised serious

03:55:36.680 --> 03:55:41.400
 health and safety risk for protected uses in close proximity and fails to

03:55:41.400 --> 03:55:45.440
 address the need to provide sufficient air monitors that can alert neighbors

03:55:45.440 --> 03:55:50.960
 when the toxic emission levels exceed recommended thresholds the next card I

03:55:50.960 --> 03:55:57.640
 have is Kim McGibbon and she is an opposition not wishing to speak she has

03:55:57.640 --> 03:56:03.560
 a note here and I'll do my best to read the handwriting it says please postpone I

03:56:03.560 --> 03:56:13.120
 want more consensus about the science behind needed setbacks what do

03:56:13.120 --> 03:56:20.800
 firefighters have to say distances need to be a minimum of 500 feet and a

03:56:20.800 --> 03:56:28.640
 thousand feet and the last card I have is Carol and so Carol and so she is an

03:56:28.640 --> 03:56:32.920
 opposition not wishing to speak but noted here please postpone until further

03:56:32.920 --> 03:56:37.120
 health studies are done

03:56:39.080 --> 03:56:45.120
 you absolutely can if you just come down and if you just stage your name and

03:56:45.120 --> 03:56:52.840
 address for the record Carol so 16 20 Victoria I have one other condition that

03:56:52.840 --> 03:56:58.280
 you might want to consider and we've talked about it a lot in our group that

03:56:58.280 --> 03:57:03.120
 the people in the vintage were surprised and they didn't know that this was going

03:57:03.120 --> 03:57:09.200
 to happen to them and we talked about disclosure and we would like the

03:57:09.200 --> 03:57:13.760
 homeowners to know ahead of time that they're buying a house that may or may

03:57:13.760 --> 03:57:18.080
 not have well behind it or that something might happen there might be

03:57:18.080 --> 03:57:26.320
 refract they just don't know so I don't know if that's within your realm or if

03:57:26.320 --> 03:57:30.360
 we wait till City Council to ask for that but I thought I'd throw that in as a

03:57:30.360 --> 03:57:37.040
 condition I appreciate that thank you this is a public hearing anyone was to

03:57:37.040 --> 03:57:44.840
 speak I certainly do so Christopher do you have questions for my question was

03:57:44.840 --> 03:57:52.120
 to Haley or Richard with regard to the disclosure what would our guidelines be

03:57:52.120 --> 03:58:00.680
 in terms of notifying people who are going to buy a rent within near site

03:58:00.680 --> 03:58:05.160
 there are requirements in the code today for disclosure at the time of platting

03:58:05.160 --> 03:58:10.560
 there's believe four different requirements on the plat itself which a

03:58:10.560 --> 03:58:14.040
 homeowner receives a copy of when they purchase a home there is a note and all

03:58:14.040 --> 03:58:17.520
 lots are called out with the distance to the well for lots that are within a

03:58:17.520 --> 03:58:21.600
 thousand feet there is a requirement that the HOA documents indeed

03:58:21.600 --> 03:58:24.540
 restrictions for the neighborhood contain disclosure regarding proximity

03:58:24.540 --> 03:58:28.360
 to a gas well and then there is an additional separate document that gets

03:58:28.360 --> 03:58:31.440
 filed with the county that lists each individual lot so that when a title

03:58:31.440 --> 03:58:34.800
 search is done that document comes back saying this home is within a thousand

03:58:34.800 --> 03:58:38.040
 feet of a gas well new wells could be drilled or added on the site and work

03:58:38.040 --> 03:58:42.000
 over operations could be completed on the site all of that's currently in the

03:58:42.000 --> 03:58:46.200
 code that doesn't necessarily speak to rental properties as you mentioned that

03:58:46.200 --> 03:58:49.040
 is a separate item that I know the committee on citizen engagement has

03:58:49.040 --> 03:58:53.120
 addressed previously and at this time they've not provided staff direction on

03:58:53.120 --> 03:58:56.880
 how to proceed with notifying renters okay but right now regardless of whether

03:58:56.880 --> 03:59:01.320
 we go to whether we're 250 or 500 if they're within a thousand they do get

03:59:01.320 --> 03:59:18.160
 that notification correct sorry were you motioning to speak yes my name is Kevin

03:59:18.160 --> 03:59:24.400
 Bankhead reside at five two two one North O'Connor Boulevard suite 700 Irving

03:59:24.400 --> 03:59:30.200
 Texas seven five oh three nine I'm speaking on behalf of Allegiance Hillview

03:59:30.200 --> 03:59:36.980
 which is a landowner we are adjacent to a two acre pad site one of our neighbors

03:59:36.980 --> 03:59:45.000
 is here the pad site is the razor unit one two and three speaking in opposition

03:59:45.000 --> 03:59:51.600
 to the proposal a little different reason than the anti-fracking crowd has

03:59:51.600 --> 03:59:58.960
 presented though there may be some other studies the one study that is being

03:59:58.960 --> 04:00:08.040
 cited is presenting a demonstrated community need is the Eastern research

04:00:08.040 --> 04:00:17.680
 group study that was done for Fort Worth in 2011 this was a attempt to look at

04:00:17.680 --> 04:00:22.520
 the public health concerns that were raised by the Fort Worth community at

04:00:22.520 --> 04:00:28.320
 the time however that study seems to have been mischaracterized the report

04:00:28.320 --> 04:00:34.720
 itself if read Ed Soph had suggested that everyone read that report I'm not

04:00:34.720 --> 04:00:40.740
 sure who has but the report does not state that a minimum 600 foot setback

04:00:40.740 --> 04:00:50.200
 from the wellhead is required for public health reasons in fact reading from the

04:00:50.200 --> 04:00:56.320
 report the adequacy of setback limits was one of the charges for Eastern

04:00:56.320 --> 04:01:02.480
 research they state taken together monitoring and modeling data provide a

04:01:02.480 --> 04:01:06.640
 basis for assessing the adequacy of the city of Fort Worth setback distances

04:01:06.640 --> 04:01:13.200
 plural the minimum setback distance required is 600 feet though variances

04:01:13.200 --> 04:01:20.240
 can lead to setbacks as low as 200 feet this is also from the wellhead not from

04:01:20.240 --> 04:01:28.360
 the site plan line the critical issue is evaluating the setback distances is the

04:01:28.360 --> 04:01:33.520
 extent to which air quality impacts decrease from distance from the facilities

04:01:33.520 --> 04:01:44.320
 the actual finding from the report was that the concentration was less than the

04:01:44.320 --> 04:01:51.480
 TCEQs short and long-term ESLs at both the 600 foot distance and 200 foot

04:01:51.480 --> 04:01:58.760
 distance so in essence their report actually found that 200 foot distance was

04:01:58.760 --> 04:02:11.400
 below the TCEQs long-term and short-term ESLs level a couple of other points ESL

04:02:11.400 --> 04:02:17.640
 of course is environmental screening levels another couple of points I'd like

04:02:17.640 --> 04:02:24.160
 you to consider in a previous work session presented to you as a PNZ body

04:02:24.160 --> 04:02:31.320
 by city staff it was reported that there was some 265 single-family residences

04:02:31.320 --> 04:02:38.760
 that are currently affected by the 250 foot reverse setback staff I believe

04:02:38.760 --> 04:02:46.120
 identified an additional 750 residences that would be affected by 500 foot

04:02:46.120 --> 04:02:52.680
 reverse setback that's 750 additional residences that would be adversely

04:02:52.680 --> 04:02:59.800
 impacted their marketability their insurability and their financability by

04:02:59.800 --> 04:03:07.640
 an increase in reverse setback I asked and staff did not individually mail

04:03:07.640 --> 04:03:15.880
 notices to any of these 750 residences I would have concern that those residents

04:03:15.880 --> 04:03:21.800
 were not truly informed of the proposed negative impact on their residences by

04:03:21.800 --> 04:03:29.200
 this proposed ordinance and in fact that doesn't appear to be any individual

04:03:29.200 --> 04:03:39.480
 resident here to speak for the Commission one last point briefly one

04:03:39.480 --> 04:03:45.040
 available variance process that's been presented is to go through the ZBA

04:03:45.040 --> 04:03:53.440
 process my understanding is that the ZBA approval requires a six out of seven

04:03:53.440 --> 04:04:00.720
 vote that would mean that only two appointees could deny or block any and

04:04:00.720 --> 04:04:05.160
 all variances that are brought in front of it I do not believe that that's a

04:04:05.160 --> 04:04:11.920
 fair and equitable process those are the points I'd like to present and thank the

04:04:11.920 --> 04:04:17.400
 opportunity to the Commission I appreciate you being here I do not see

04:04:17.400 --> 04:04:23.240
 any questions for you this time right thank you this is a public hearing you

04:04:23.240 --> 04:04:27.040
 want to wish to speak may certainly do so

04:04:27.040 --> 04:04:35.240
 seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais and I think

04:04:35.240 --> 04:04:40.880
 a motion is most appropriate to lead out the discussion and in terms of just the

04:04:40.880 --> 04:04:48.680
 effectiveness of the discussion Mr. Beck thank you chair I'd like to actually

04:04:48.680 --> 04:04:53.160
 make a motion to postpone and and I I've heard the arguments that we say it said

04:04:53.160 --> 04:04:57.920
 here on the dais and I understand that it was sort of bird-in-the-hand kind of

04:04:57.920 --> 04:05:02.960
 idea but most concerning to me is not only the the health effects that we've

04:05:02.960 --> 04:05:08.280
 been discussing but also the ambiguity in the language whether we're

04:05:08.280 --> 04:05:18.400
 considering 3a or 3b options because there there seems to be an issue with

04:05:18.400 --> 04:05:24.600
 how we are going to treat legally non-conforming properties and so from

04:05:24.600 --> 04:05:31.880
 the property perspective that ambiguity continues to exist in these documents

04:05:31.880 --> 04:05:37.200
 regardless of what the actual distance is and then on top of that we're

04:05:37.200 --> 04:05:41.880
 discussing these various health effects distances and then I brought up the

04:05:41.880 --> 04:05:46.720
 concept of whether we're allowed to suggest and propose continuous monitoring

04:05:46.720 --> 04:05:52.680
 all three of those points could be addressed by you know a delay staff

04:05:52.680 --> 04:05:58.880
 input as well as a suggestions to counsel so I'd like to make a motion to

04:05:58.880 --> 04:06:02.800
 postpone while we addressed some of those issues particularly the the ones

04:06:02.800 --> 04:06:09.280
 about the confusion between 3a and 3b and the health effects and just to

04:06:09.280 --> 04:06:15.160
 clarify a question back you're wanting to postpone to a date uncertain I'd be

04:06:15.160 --> 04:06:20.320
 willing to entertain some reasonable near-term date because I think we could

04:06:20.320 --> 04:06:28.240
 resolve most of these within a near term I think we need to be more specific in

04:06:28.240 --> 04:06:36.200
 terms of a date so we have a November 20th meeting the December 11th meeting

04:06:36.200 --> 04:06:52.880
 given the holidays I think that might be tight what's the January meeting 8

04:06:58.240 --> 04:07:15.440
 the 22nd so we have the 8th and the 22nd of January I'm gonna make a motion to

04:07:15.440 --> 04:07:33.680
 postpone till the January 8th meeting yeah there's a multi-part motion I'm

04:07:33.680 --> 04:07:41.160
 making a motion to postpone till January 8th in order to clarify confusion in the

04:07:41.160 --> 04:07:47.320
 language choices between 3 and 3b options investigate and report on

04:07:47.320 --> 04:07:55.480
 continuous monitoring as well as get information from sources regarding

04:07:55.480 --> 04:08:09.680
 appropriate setback distances for health effects from staff we have a motion on

04:08:09.680 --> 04:08:14.240
 the table to postpone to a date certain of January 8th with the conditions just

04:08:14.240 --> 04:08:17.920
 listed can we have a second

04:08:17.920 --> 04:08:27.360
 so Commissioner Parnett I would believe potentially go to council that following

04:08:27.360 --> 04:08:31.800
 week for a work session so we're looking at it would be possibly counseled by

04:08:31.800 --> 04:08:45.720
 January 14. Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I guess I have a question for staff

04:08:45.720 --> 04:08:53.760
 realistically can that be accomplished I mean I understand our two options that

04:08:53.760 --> 04:08:57.280
 are here and staff has made it very clear what option they recommend so I'm

04:08:57.280 --> 04:09:02.520
 not sure what we're clarifying there and the other things are not anything they've

04:09:02.520 --> 04:09:10.000
 been delved into yet so that that just doesn't seem like very much time if I

04:09:10.000 --> 04:09:15.120
 just may add and I kind of hinted to this earlier council next week is is

04:09:15.120 --> 04:09:21.800
 there was a request made from councilmember Armitour on the very four

04:09:21.800 --> 04:09:28.520
 items five items that that the group that was here tonight the notification

04:09:28.520 --> 04:09:32.520
 sent to new new home buyers line compressor safety measures continuous

04:09:32.520 --> 04:09:36.680
 air monitoring within 500 feet implementation of soil testing and whether

04:09:36.680 --> 04:09:41.280
 or not to have dr. Hildenbrandt present the council council will consider

04:09:41.280 --> 04:09:44.840
 whether or not they want to take on any of those items separate and apart from

04:09:44.840 --> 04:09:52.480
 this 500 foot distance and so again this is this was not a staff initiated text

04:09:52.480 --> 04:09:56.600
 amendment this was something that was directed from council and so whether or

04:09:56.600 --> 04:10:01.560
 not I don't know how they're gonna vote on Tuesday some of those items are

04:10:01.560 --> 04:10:07.080
 included in this but it could I could come back on January 8th and tell you I

04:10:07.080 --> 04:10:11.520
 this isn't what council directed us to do they don't want to hear this or

04:10:11.520 --> 04:10:15.960
 council agreed and it's going to take another six or seven I just I can't

04:10:15.960 --> 04:10:23.400
 realistically give that a definitive answer would it Richard be more prudent

04:10:23.400 --> 04:10:34.000
 to motion to a date uncertain and then provide get an update from City Council

04:10:34.000 --> 04:10:39.040
 after their meeting to see if a date certain could be assessed that that

04:10:39.040 --> 04:10:43.120
 quite honestly would probably be that the better choice because then I can add

04:10:43.120 --> 04:10:48.440
 it back on as an item and our at our meeting on the 20th depending what the

04:10:48.440 --> 04:10:54.320
 outcome is on the 12th questioner back would you be amenable to a friendly

04:10:54.320 --> 04:10:59.480
 motion for a date uncertain rather than a date certain of January 8th yes I

04:10:59.480 --> 04:11:04.880
 would actually because the January 8th was just to make it expeditious okay so

04:11:04.880 --> 04:11:08.600
 the new motion on the table is to postpone to a date uncertain with the

04:11:08.600 --> 04:11:14.240
 three conditions that Commissioner Beck outlined if I just may also add if there

04:11:14.240 --> 04:11:19.640
 is a suggestion to change the ordinance above sort of what we're what we've

04:11:19.640 --> 04:11:25.960
 advertised we may have to kind of start this started back over and then go back

04:11:25.960 --> 04:11:30.080
 out to do the notification in accordance with local government code and then

04:11:30.080 --> 04:11:34.400
 re-notice again for City Council so right now it was advertised for tonight

04:11:34.400 --> 04:11:40.560
 and then for City Council on the 19th so it would it would essentially postpone

04:11:40.560 --> 04:11:48.800
 that public hearing on the 19th with City Council on the site so I want you to go

04:11:48.800 --> 04:11:51.920
 ahead and speak but after that we're gonna have to see if there's gonna be a

04:11:51.920 --> 04:11:55.680
 second on this because the discussion should take place after a second if you

04:11:55.680 --> 04:11:59.840
 have something to add to this I'd certainly hear it no I just had a

04:11:59.840 --> 04:12:03.200
 question it was gonna be a question about because this is a public hearing

04:12:03.200 --> 04:12:08.920
 right we would have to re-notice for the postponement that came back to here

04:12:08.920 --> 04:12:17.360
 right so we're looking at what at least 30 days from well that the the public

04:12:17.360 --> 04:12:22.560
 hearing is closed so it would we would essentially bring if the if if it is

04:12:22.560 --> 04:12:28.240
 voted for postponement ultimately depending what council decides next week

04:12:28.240 --> 04:12:33.720
 we could we obviously provide the clarification on an A and B any of the

04:12:33.720 --> 04:12:40.280
 other items if they needed to be added to the code we would essentially have to

04:12:40.280 --> 04:12:46.720
 start it it would be a new notification and essentially new new application if

04:12:46.720 --> 04:12:59.600
 you will we have a first on the on the table is there a second seeing non motion

04:12:59.600 --> 04:13:05.120
 fails the chair will entertain another motion and discussion

04:13:17.720 --> 04:13:23.800
 seeing no movement on the dais or discussion items I'm gonna go ahead and

04:13:23.800 --> 04:13:32.480
 make a motion I move Haley can you bring up the recommendations I want to make

04:13:32.480 --> 04:13:50.400
 sure I state this correctly thank you I move that we approve item 5f as staff

04:13:50.400 --> 04:13:59.160
 recommends changes to sub chapter 6 and a sub chapter 8 and in regard to sub

04:13:59.160 --> 04:14:07.800
 chapter 1 I am in favor of option 2 so that is as long as the language and the

04:14:07.800 --> 04:14:13.940
 intent from the Commission is that individuals at any distance between the

04:14:13.940 --> 04:14:20.600
 setbacks do not have to go to ZBA but have right to rebuild if there was

04:14:20.600 --> 04:14:30.840
 something to happen to their structure cursor back so to that last component of

04:14:30.840 --> 04:14:34.680
 your your motion this is part of the reason I was suggesting that there is

04:14:34.680 --> 04:14:40.160
 needing we need additional clarification because it was difficult for you to come

04:14:40.160 --> 04:14:46.120
 up with that motion because of the ambiguity of some of the presentation

04:14:46.120 --> 04:14:53.040
 that we saw not I understand that I as we talked about in work session the

04:14:53.040 --> 04:14:57.240
 intent of my motion was not to craft the language but to provide the intent of

04:14:57.240 --> 04:15:03.160
 language so that can be crafted before presented to council we have a first on

04:15:03.160 --> 04:15:07.600
 the floor is there a second

04:15:08.840 --> 04:15:16.000
 Commissioner Ellis second we have first and a second Commissioner Pereta few things

04:15:16.000 --> 04:15:21.200
 so just to verify the the recommendation you're making is in the event of a

04:15:21.200 --> 04:15:26.520
 disaster of some kind rather than have to go back to ZBA to get an approval to

04:15:26.520 --> 04:15:30.120
 rebuild on their house that that would be non-conforming they would

04:15:30.120 --> 04:15:34.760
 automatically have the right to rebuild on that same spot right correct okay

04:15:34.760 --> 04:15:42.080
 all right okay I understand that so I guess before we go to the vote I just

04:15:42.080 --> 04:15:47.360
 kind of wanted to discuss a few things this has been a very difficult decision

04:15:47.360 --> 04:15:55.680
 for me because one of the things that keeps coming back into my mind is the

04:15:55.680 --> 04:16:07.200
 notion that it's taken us a long time to get to 500 feet from 250 I am not 100%

04:16:07.200 --> 04:16:12.920
 confident that if we pushed further we could we get anything better and my fear

04:16:12.920 --> 04:16:17.440
 is that rather than having a starting point of 500 feet going forward we

04:16:17.440 --> 04:16:26.200
 would maintain a starting point of 250 feet I was hesitant about the postponement

04:16:26.200 --> 04:16:32.360
 simply because based on the fact that it took forever for us to get here I didn't

04:16:32.360 --> 04:16:37.440
 want to wind that having this be a thing where basically we lose a battle of

04:16:37.440 --> 04:16:41.080
 attrition where it's harder to get people to come out to actually state a

04:16:41.080 --> 04:16:48.880
 case that would be that would be persuasive I believe 500 feet is better

04:16:48.880 --> 04:16:57.160
 than 250 so I'll be voting to send this to council what I what I'd hope you get

04:16:57.160 --> 04:17:02.120
 you guys could do is rally the troops and bring people out to talk to council

04:17:02.120 --> 04:17:05.440
 to see if you know council will be able to you know make a decision that would

04:17:05.440 --> 04:17:11.880
 be more amenable to get us someplace closer to safe based on science and

04:17:11.880 --> 04:17:18.200
 based on on that data I just I worry that we would wind up being stuck here

04:17:18.200 --> 04:17:22.280
 in planning and zoning and never get to that point where y'all could present a

04:17:22.280 --> 04:17:28.320
 present a case so I wanted to say I was asked to clarify my motion

04:17:28.320 --> 04:17:58.200
 Commissioner Ellis so on the same page the condition I was specifying in subchapter 1 is at any distance regardless if it's the 500 or 250 that for the rebuilding of a structure at any distance due to a disaster or something happened to the structure, are you okay with that? I am. And you also have the floor Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair and I just wanted to say a few words before the vote you know the way I look at this is staff was tasked by

04:17:58.200 --> 04:18:04.600
 council to craft an amendment language to increase the reverse setback to 500 feet

04:18:04.600 --> 04:18:10.320
 that is what is presented before us that is what they did what they were tasked

04:18:10.320 --> 04:18:17.280
 with it's been a much discussion in several pieces of very concerning

04:18:17.280 --> 04:18:23.600
 relevant information with living near gas wells but that's not what they were

04:18:23.600 --> 04:18:29.720
 tasked to delve into hopefully that will with whatever they're going to be

04:18:29.720 --> 04:18:36.800
 talking about at the next council meeting maybe that will be staff's next task but

04:18:36.800 --> 04:18:42.720
 this task was to increase that setback I don't understand postponing something

04:18:42.720 --> 04:18:49.120
 that makes things better all of this talk has been about care for this is in the

04:18:49.120 --> 04:18:56.160
 city being double the distance away is better than what we currently have

04:18:56.160 --> 04:19:01.760
 sending it into postponement land to where who knows when it's coming back

04:19:01.760 --> 04:19:10.800
 before a vote it is not something that I can support as well this vote does not

04:19:10.800 --> 04:19:16.400
 preclude further discussion and that's what it seems where the disconnect is is

04:19:16.400 --> 04:19:22.800
 if we move forward with this it precludes further discussion of the

04:19:22.800 --> 04:19:28.080
 increasing studies that we're collecting data on that hopefully council will move

04:19:28.080 --> 04:19:36.440
 and we'll make other changes to our gas well regulations so let's go back to the

04:19:36.440 --> 04:19:44.200
 non-conforming we were gonna insert in this so within 250 you can rebuild no

04:19:44.200 --> 04:19:47.760
 matter what and you don't have to go I mean we don't have a process for that I

04:19:47.760 --> 04:19:58.720
 mean yeah yeah might be my motion is to have individuals be able to build back

04:19:58.720 --> 04:20:07.320
 what they had by right if a process needs to be created I can't speak to

04:20:07.320 --> 04:20:14.160
 that but where I am and in terms of the motion is I think it it moves the needle

04:20:14.160 --> 04:20:22.600
 it we have done the obligation of planning and zoning in terms of what

04:20:22.600 --> 04:20:30.360
 we're commissioned to do from the council I have a I take issue with the

04:20:30.360 --> 04:20:34.120
 idea of someone who has already been there who is there before the wells or

04:20:34.120 --> 04:20:37.400
 whoever that timeline happened if something was to happen to their house

04:20:37.400 --> 04:20:42.200
 to then as you mentioned a work session in the midst of everything going on they

04:20:42.200 --> 04:20:46.400
 have to go to ZBA where two boats eliminates the ability from the rebuild

04:20:46.400 --> 04:20:53.340
 and so I'm not really interested in considering solutions that wouldn't

04:20:53.340 --> 04:20:57.200
 allow property owners to maintain the right of what use they've been having for

04:20:57.200 --> 04:21:00.120
 decades and decades

04:21:00.120 --> 04:21:10.320
 pressure back so on that exact point I'm just for clarification of your motion

04:21:10.320 --> 04:21:17.120
 you're you're you're saying no distance metrics at all in your motion just that

04:21:17.120 --> 04:21:25.020
 they would be able to rebuild period is that how I'm understanding that's correct

04:21:25.020 --> 04:21:35.240
 regardless of other DDC codes that may impact potentially

04:21:36.720 --> 04:21:42.360
 question Prada because it's basically what you're what you're introducing as a

04:21:42.360 --> 04:21:46.080
 grandfather class right you had your house something happens to your house

04:21:46.080 --> 04:21:50.480
 you don't lose your house because we have retroactively applied you know a

04:21:50.480 --> 04:21:56.800
 distance to that and I think I think that's reasonably fair because ultimately

04:21:56.800 --> 04:22:02.320
 while we are advancing you know distances and trying to you know create

04:22:02.320 --> 04:22:06.760
 safety for additional people people who already live there have already made their

04:22:06.760 --> 04:22:12.720
 decisions I guess so I guess I'm okay with that but that's I mean right is it

04:22:12.720 --> 04:22:17.080
 was that that was that the question that you had so the the angle that I was

04:22:17.080 --> 04:22:22.360
 angling at was I was concerned well other concerns aside that I talked about

04:22:22.360 --> 04:22:26.400
 earlier but for this particular motion and the reason I asked the DDC question

04:22:26.400 --> 04:22:39.240
 was I we should still hold homeowners liable for other DDC code I worry that

04:22:39.240 --> 04:22:42.920
 the way you stated the motion sort of gives them a get out of jail free card

04:22:42.920 --> 04:22:48.560
 in a way that you didn't intend I mean I feel like we should if this is the kind

04:22:48.560 --> 04:22:52.520
 of motion we're gonna go for and that we could all reach a consensus on then that

04:22:52.520 --> 04:23:03.360
 should somehow be crafted in a way that doesn't give them more rights as it were

04:23:03.360 --> 04:23:08.520
 or more freedoms than they had that this is simply a grandfather replacement

04:23:08.520 --> 04:23:13.200
 which is the intent rather than I mean I'm worried I'm concerned that we're

04:23:13.200 --> 04:23:19.520
 we're increasing their their get out of jail free card miss if you will if I can

04:23:19.520 --> 04:23:25.040
 point that terrible term yeah and I don't think the intention is for someone

04:23:25.040 --> 04:23:28.240
 whose house is burned down to play get out of jail free card I don't know if

04:23:28.240 --> 04:23:33.480
 that's what you're intending to make the accusation that someone in a loss would

04:23:33.480 --> 04:23:39.200
 be doing I'm saying that if someone had a structure or a residence in which they

04:23:39.200 --> 04:23:43.160
 lived in I believe fundamentally they should have the right to build that back

04:23:43.160 --> 04:23:51.200
 I don't I don't think innate and into my motion is suggesting we give them a pass

04:23:51.200 --> 04:23:55.440
 to build anything they want to take a one-story farmhouse and build a hotel

04:23:55.440 --> 04:24:01.520
 I'm suggesting that what they had there would reasonably reconstruct be

04:24:01.520 --> 04:24:05.800
 reconstructed with the same provisions they've had for in the commissioner

04:24:05.800 --> 04:24:19.520
 Cole's case 60 years that's the intent of it. Commissioner Cole. Thank you so

04:24:19.520 --> 04:24:29.480
 when this if if this passes and goes to counsel can counsel change that and I

04:24:29.480 --> 04:24:32.920
 would I would think they have that authority yeah yeah we're the

04:24:32.920 --> 04:24:48.120
 recommending body is this you know my main problem this is the nonconformity

04:24:48.120 --> 04:24:56.040
 and I'm worried that you know this is going to get changed down the road if

04:24:56.040 --> 04:25:05.080
 this passes they'll just maybe take that out of it and then we're back for not

04:25:05.080 --> 04:25:21.200
 you know that's that's my issue you know I just I don't trust the process is what

04:25:21.200 --> 04:25:28.480
 I'm saying. For clarification Commissioner Cole and I know Richard wants to hop in here if the

04:25:28.480 --> 04:25:34.080
 ultimate action tonight was to deny the staff's recommendation it still goes to

04:25:34.080 --> 04:25:38.000
 City Council for them to move forward. Right, right, right. Richard can you add some clarification?

04:25:38.000 --> 04:25:41.840
 Yeah and I just wanted to really speak back to option one and two where

04:25:41.840 --> 04:25:47.760
 option two came from. Option one again that was a request from counsel the

04:25:47.760 --> 04:25:52.240
 concern that created option two was essentially for lack of a better way to

04:25:52.240 --> 04:25:57.680
 you know choosing winners and losers so those that were or were from 250 to 500

04:25:57.680 --> 04:26:04.880
 you were you would be conforming those within the 250 ring sorry you're out of

04:26:04.880 --> 04:26:10.800
 luck and so you're sort of creating two different again winners and losers the

04:26:10.800 --> 04:26:16.640
 intent with option two was to apply it broadly to all non-conforming structures

04:26:16.640 --> 04:26:21.600
 across the city that that's really where that's really where option two came from.

04:26:21.600 --> 04:26:27.480
 Now the recommendation that that's sort of on the table could essentially be a

04:26:27.480 --> 04:26:34.000
 modification of option one that it'd be all within the gas well again that's the

04:26:34.000 --> 04:26:38.720
 concern that legal had the risk is out there again it's it's a council decision

04:26:38.720 --> 04:26:43.840
 or option two could be that it applies to all non-conforming structures City

04:26:43.840 --> 04:26:48.680
 one now that would that would take any other property that's a foul of not just

04:26:48.680 --> 04:26:51.880
 gas well but some other provision of the DDC there's a number of buildings

04:26:51.880 --> 04:26:55.400
 downtown that are that are non-conforming and again but that goes

04:26:55.400 --> 04:26:59.380
 back that that that's a recommendation that that council would have to

04:26:59.380 --> 04:27:05.440
 consider these would be the options that we would we would present to them in two

04:27:05.440 --> 04:27:16.680
 weeks. We have a first and a second for approval with a condition to sub chapter

04:27:16.680 --> 04:27:26.280
 one option two is there any discussion on the item? So before we take to a vote

04:27:26.280 --> 04:27:29.800
 what I haven't mentioned was the respect I have for the individuals here for you

04:27:29.800 --> 04:27:34.520
 coming out and speaking and for what I mostly appreciate is the articulation of

04:27:34.520 --> 04:27:39.360
 studies being done for our edification that we don't have I don't have a lot of

04:27:39.360 --> 04:27:44.200
 time to read and so the summaries that were presented including mr. Beck who

04:27:44.200 --> 04:27:48.400
 stepped out I don't think it's insignificant and I would like to see

04:27:48.400 --> 04:27:52.760
 more studies conducted I believe we're all on the same page maybe not I can't

04:27:52.760 --> 04:27:56.680
 speak for everyone I'm on the same page of more research being done so we can

04:27:56.680 --> 04:28:01.600
 determine this and there's advocacy that can be done so that in two months we

04:28:01.600 --> 04:28:05.320
 kick-start another campaign for council to look at extending that that's not off

04:28:05.320 --> 04:28:10.880
 the table in this discussion so my motion was to solidify the request of

04:28:10.880 --> 04:28:15.920
 council to move it a little bit take take a maybe a perceived small win in

04:28:15.920 --> 04:28:22.020
 this conversation but also obviously I have issue with the nonconformity of the

04:28:22.020 --> 04:28:25.440
 rebuilds that I will certainly be following up with my council member

04:28:25.440 --> 04:28:30.480
 about and ensuring that that hopefully is taken seriously into consideration but

04:28:30.480 --> 04:28:33.880
 that's where I am that's the intent of my motion I appreciate you staying late

04:28:33.880 --> 04:28:38.400
 tonight and having this conversation with us I do have two small kids and I

04:28:38.400 --> 04:28:43.720
 take it seriously with the parks and the city we live in so with that I don't see

04:28:43.720 --> 04:28:47.680
 any other discussion so I'll call for motion on the board our vote on the

04:28:47.680 --> 04:28:49.880
 board

04:28:57.720 --> 04:29:06.920
 motion carries five one the next item for agenda this evening is item six the

04:29:06.920 --> 04:29:13.080
 project matrix and I will turn that over to Richard and just one moment before we

04:29:13.080 --> 04:29:19.160
 get into the matrix I did want to publicly thank mr. Jerry Drake for his

04:29:19.160 --> 04:29:23.280
 service to our Commission he was here longer than I think he wanted to be it

04:29:23.280 --> 04:29:29.600
 seemed but nevertheless I leaned on him almost every meeting so I appreciate

04:29:29.600 --> 04:29:33.360
 personally the council you provided me and running the meeting but also on

04:29:33.360 --> 04:29:37.680
 behalf of the Commission thank you for your tireless hours and your vast

04:29:37.680 --> 04:29:42.520
 knowledge to bring to the table and help guiding our discussions I appreciate it

04:29:42.520 --> 04:29:50.200
 very much with that we can introduce to you finally Cynthia is it Kirk off Kirk

04:29:50.200 --> 04:29:55.200
 off she will be our new legal help on a dais going forward so we welcome you to

04:29:55.200 --> 04:29:59.120
 the Commission and thank you for finally being here I'm glad the Texas bar got

04:29:59.120 --> 04:30:04.600
 that that taken care of with that Richard I'll turn it over to you we start the

04:30:04.600 --> 04:30:09.120
 matrix conversation I'll be brief just wanted to update a couple of the items

04:30:09.120 --> 04:30:13.600
 on there if you see we I was a help how the I think because we cleared that list

04:30:13.600 --> 04:30:17.080
 so much we didn't have to update the status column so we added the status

04:30:17.080 --> 04:30:21.720
 column back in and just wanted to give an update on the city initiated

04:30:21.720 --> 04:30:27.560
 rezoning's we're going to council work session next may actually it's a 19th I

04:30:27.560 --> 04:30:31.840
 think it's been moved today but we're looking to bring that back to P&Z on

04:30:31.840 --> 04:30:37.360
 12/11 regarding the discussion on notification what will be added to that

04:30:37.360 --> 04:30:41.480
 is that dual notice item that we discussed in work session as it relates

04:30:41.480 --> 04:30:47.540
 to zoning and SGP items so we'll also have that on the 12/11 work session what

04:30:47.540 --> 04:30:51.680
 I'm looking to do I have the policies and procedures that is just always kept

04:30:51.680 --> 04:30:57.560
 on I know we've had a discussion as a result of the gas well of what can be and

04:30:57.560 --> 04:31:03.340
 can't be put on work sessions and there's since we do follow the council

04:31:03.340 --> 04:31:08.840
 rules of procedures that's even changed about how they request items beyond work

04:31:08.840 --> 04:31:13.640
 sessions of we're working through and getting how that applies to to P&Z

04:31:13.640 --> 04:31:19.480
 again different from from the policy setters IE council but how that would

04:31:19.480 --> 04:31:25.320
 apply to to this to this commission and so that's what what is intended to to be

04:31:25.320 --> 04:31:31.120
 part of that discussion on 11/20 so we hope to have someone from the manager's

04:31:31.120 --> 04:31:36.880
 office and as well as legal provide some provide some guidance on that in

04:31:36.880 --> 04:31:45.840
 addition I think we can also just like that yeah it was on the policies and

04:31:45.840 --> 04:31:49.080
 procedures have all these notes and you just drop that yeah that was the one I

04:31:49.080 --> 04:31:54.880
 didn't write down it's always the case I'll remember it after as soon as I

04:31:54.880 --> 04:31:58.480
 leave that was it the only other thing I wanted to update on the brush Creek

04:31:58.480 --> 04:32:02.960
 rezoning I can't remember if I updated that last meeting they did withdraw

04:32:02.960 --> 04:32:06.920
 their application so that that has not moved that will not be moving forward

04:32:06.920 --> 04:32:11.720
 and then the the two text amendments clean up at the MN and then the NPC

04:32:11.720 --> 04:32:18.120
 Council did approve those last night 7-0 thank you for the update Mr. Ellis

04:32:18.120 --> 04:32:24.240
 thank you chair Richard can you provide us when you have time with an update to

04:32:24.240 --> 04:32:30.440
 that substation and what it would take for the city to initiate that cleanup or

04:32:30.440 --> 04:32:39.080
 where where it's at in in in removing that yeah and that is the TMP so the

04:32:39.080 --> 04:32:43.760
 substations actually the the Texas Municipal Power Authority or Association

04:32:43.760 --> 04:32:47.840
 so it's not technically the city's equipment but I will reach out to DME

04:32:47.840 --> 04:32:51.840
 and get that get an answer and I'll just provide an update yeah maybe just some

04:32:51.840 --> 04:32:55.760
 kind of update of what's the process the procedure what can what can those people

04:32:55.760 --> 04:33:08.400
 expect thank you crystal what was the count on the NPC but what was it was it

04:33:08.400 --> 04:33:13.400
 unanimous what did you say I believe it was unanimous last night on adding those

04:33:13.400 --> 04:33:19.960
 again it was just a clarification language I have one item it literally

04:33:19.960 --> 04:33:23.600
 affects no one but me and I guess maybe the mayor and Kathy's you could listen

04:33:23.600 --> 04:33:28.800
 to this for some reason on the summary of votes the recuse number doesn't show

04:33:28.800 --> 04:33:35.520
 up up top so tonight we had a recuse and up top it said five zero zero I have no

04:33:35.520 --> 04:33:42.160
 idea if that's a tech issue but I hate to recall a boat wrongly that you know

04:33:42.160 --> 04:33:52.760
 what I'm saying okay okay it gotcha when I almost miscalled it tonight but I saw

04:33:52.760 --> 04:33:58.240
 blue bullet next to whoever's recusing themselves but at the top there's three

04:33:58.240 --> 04:34:02.840
 blocks it always says zero for recuse I'm surprised Mayor Watts doesn't

04:34:02.840 --> 04:34:09.200
 complain about that but I am complaining about it formally thanks for the ears

04:34:09.200 --> 04:34:15.960
 any other discussion tonight for the matrix great with that I will close our

04:34:15.960 --> 04:34:23.000
 meeting at 917 thank you