[0:00] Not actually

[0:10] » information.

[0:19] Did a little bit of research before.

[0:26] » These are just this is just the agenda. too specific.

[0:35] » You know, the agenda it talks about the difference between like the current

[0:40] adopted zoning plan and the master land use plan. I know the land use plan just

[0:46] kind of speaks to industrial

[0:53] current facilities.

[0:57] right on the border industrial and the difference between one airport

[1:07] permitted us storage distribution type users whereas

[1:12] industrials

[1:17] [clears throat]

[1:24] » this conference will now be recorded.

[1:34] » So, we'll uh call to order the um city of HST Planning and Zoning Commission,

[1:40] Tuesday, August 21st at 6:30 p.m. Um that's item one. Item two, uh, I

[1:50] think we've all been doing that. Recognition of retirement for our

[1:54] planning and economic development coordinator, Maurice Schwanki. And let's

[1:59] give him a hand. [applause]

[2:05] I would say I've I've been on planning and zoning for I don't know, five or six

[2:10] years. and and I and Greg's been here, Greg and Dorian been here forever, but

[2:16] Maurice has done an excellent job for our city in helping us um

[2:25] understand planning and zoning better. uh develop a better comprehensive idea

[2:31] of what planning and zoning is and u and trying to make our city more um

[2:38] diversified and I guess uh I don't know user friendly or something like that.

[2:41] But anyhow, you know, bringing in businesses that are that we need,

[2:45] keeping out some that we don't need and things like that. So, you've done a

[2:49] great job and we appreciate it and thank you for your service and we're you want

[2:53] to introduce Ben? >> Yeah, I can do that.

[2:56] » Yeah. Why don't you do that now?

[3:02] » And he is the uh my replacement and he's been with the Bureau of Veraritoss uh

[3:08] for for over a year now. And u he's been in the planning business for a number of

[3:13] years himself, you know, prior to coming to work with our company. He's a very

[3:17] knowledgeable young man and I think he's going to do you a great job.

[3:22] » Very good. Well, we're looking forward to working with you, Ben.

[3:24] » Thank you. And uh do you want to say anything at all or

[3:28] » u I look forward to working with you guys. I've been shadowed

[3:32] the last few meetings city council and looking forward to working with you guys

[3:37] and seeing what we can do here. >> Very good. Thank you very much. We'll

[3:42] look forward to that. So, okay. Um item number three, citizens participation and

[3:48] comments. um this is an opportunity for you to address and it appears to me that

[3:53] we're going to have a couple two or three people that want to talk. So if

[3:57] you've signed a card over there um we can start that uh right now.

[4:03] » Okay.

[4:07] And I and I would ask you our PNZ doesn't have a threeinut rule or

[4:13] anything like that, but please keep your comments concise

[4:18] uh and to the point and um you know if you need a couple more if you need more

[4:24] than three minutes I think we've said too much. So anyhow that's my opinion.

[4:28] So please uh whoever's first. >> Okay. First we have Laura Slaughterhawk.

[4:44] Laura Slaughteroff 1195 Wildson away. >> Okay.

[4:48] » Um I was hoping that you could clarify if not now uh at some point later um

[4:54] what the allowed land uses in plan development districts are. I see that it

[5:00] was part of the packet and it talks about um

[5:05] referencing a base zoning district. So if you could give example of that says

[5:10] if the PD concept plan specifically references a base zoning district. Um

[5:16] any land use permitted by right in the applicable underlying base zoning

[5:21] district as amended may be permitted and it goes on. if you'd give an example of

[5:25] what the base zoning would be. And then I would also ask that data centers not

[5:32] be allowed to be zoned in PD development. Thank you.

[5:43] » Well, I think Joe, do you want to take that on or Maurice?

[5:50] » Yeah, let me take a stab at it. You know, when you have a a plan development

[5:54] and you have a base zoning district, the reason for the base zoning district, if

[5:58] there was some use or not use, but some item that was left off of the PD like

[6:04] front setback, side setback, then the base zoning district would cook in and

[6:09] you would use those those uh items. But under a plan development,

[6:15] the uses have to be spelled out in advance and they're not necessarily

[6:21] inclusive of the base zoning district. In some instances, they may be, but

[6:27] usually they're not.

[6:34] [clears throat] Does that satisfy you, Laura?

[6:38] Okay, very good. Anybody else want to speak?

[6:43] » Brandon Preston.

[6:49] » Hello, Brandon Preston. Address is 1608 Metal Lane. And uh first and foremost, I

[6:56] wanted to come up. I know you've got a data center workshop tonight. Um wanted

[7:00] to offer myself up again as a resource as we have larger discussions. I have

[7:04] worked on uh design, build and operation of data centers again on three different

[7:08] continents. Uh I have worked with large manufacturers that make cooling systems

[7:12] for these guys. So uh want to be clear on a few things. One, I'm not here to

[7:16] advocate for data centers near uh neighborhoods like the Westlake Keller

[7:20] issue. I think that's a bad situation for everybody involved. I'm not here to

[7:24] advocate against or for a data center specifically. I'm here to advocate for

[7:30] good conversation so that we do not so to say throw the baby out with the

[7:34] bathwater because there aren't very good partners in the space to work with.

[7:39] Biggest question for us as a community [clears throat] down to power because

[7:42] there's solutions for water. There are solutions for sound and uh I sent some

[7:47] videos over to Joe that show what the sound outside the QTS data center in

[7:51] Irving is. Basically, the ambient sound around the data center is louder than

[7:55] the data center, right? So there's solutions for sound, there's solutions

[7:59] for water. We just make educated decisions and conversations with

[8:02] developers like Hillwood uh on those topics and with clients who come in. The

[8:07] big question is power. Can our grid handle it? That comes down to a case by

[8:10] case basis with a data center firm. Are they willing to invest in us? Right?

[8:15] Powerhouse is the company coming in in Westlake. And I'll tell you, I've got

[8:19] some disagreements with what they're doing, but one thing they are doing is

[8:23] investing. I think it was 1 to2 billion within the power grid, right? So,

[8:27] they're actually making investments back into the community. So, all I'm

[8:31] advocating for is good conversation around something that is the I'm not

[8:36] going to say the highest, I'll put it this way. It is one of the highest

[8:40] revenue per acre generating things that we could have in this city from a

[8:45] taxbased purpose. And what do we have right now? We have a deficit in our

[8:50] budget. And eventually that's going to come to either a bond election or

[8:53] getting a firm in that's actually uh going to be able to help us cover those

[8:57] costs. Right? So I'm here to advocate for that good conversation, working with

[9:02] the right partners, partnering with Encore, Hillwood, and the right data

[9:06] center that if it does become an opportunity out near the airport where

[9:10] it's away from all of the communities, you won't hear it, you won't see it,

[9:14] right? that we at least think about it, talk through it, and have people

[9:17] involved, and I will be a free resource to help with those conversations and

[9:20] pull others in that I can. So, just here to [clears throat]

[9:26] » Thank you, Brandon.

[9:30] » Next, we have Christine Gross.

[9:41] Good evening, members of the commission. Thank you for your time. My name is

[9:43] Christine Gross. I live at 1328 Wild Sunnaway in HLlett. I'm here to address

[9:48] 8A on the data center ordinance. I'm very concerned that the critical first

[9:52] steps of investigating the impact of the data centers in HLlet has not been

[9:56] implemented. Without this, it can't be determined whether data centers should

[10:00] even be allowed in HLET. First and foremost, the city should impede a

[10:04] moratorum or all data center approvals or developments until the city contracts

[10:08] with an independent study using the standardization request for proposed

[10:12] valuation matrix that score suppliers objectively. Regarding the current data

[10:16] center ordinance draft, it does not address critical factors that protect

[10:20] our residents, our land, and our infrastructure. Additional issues to be

[10:24] addressed should include but not be limited to, one, noise pollution. Data

[10:29] centennas operate massive industrial chillers and exhaust fans 24/7. This

[10:33] creates a continuous low frequency hum known to disturb sleep and lower

[10:37] residential property values. Ordinance must mandate a strict acoustic limit at

[10:41] any residential property line backed by independent moni monitoring.

[10:46] Two, residential buffer zones. The draft ignores physical proximity to our

[10:51] neighborhoods. We need strict zoning exclusions. There should be specific

[10:54] setback distances from any residential district, school or park accompanied by

[10:59] high density mature evergreen landscaping to shield those industrial

[11:03] blocks. Three, resource and grid protection. Draft mentions high-capacity

[11:08] power feeds and cooling strategies, but fail to protect the city. These

[11:12] facilities consume millions of gallons of water and strain the electrical grid.

[11:16] We must mandate closed loop water cooling systems that recycle 100% of the

[11:21] water require an independent Urkott grid stability study before approval to

[11:26] ensure residents do not face brownouts or soaring electrical rates. Four, air

[11:31] emissions and safety backup generator standards, restricting the use of highly

[11:35] polluting diesel generators, capping testing hours, or mandating cleaner tier

[11:40] 4 engines equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems. Five

[11:45] battery storage hazards requiring dedicated self protocols, thermal

[11:49] management plans, and non-liththium ion alternatives large-scale battery r rooms

[11:54] to minimize explosive fire risks. I urge the commission to table this proposal

[11:59] and recommend an in-depth objective study of the impact of data centers in

[12:02] Hazlet. The promised tax revenue is enticing, but let's ensure that it's not

[12:06] at the cost of Hlet resources and its citizens safely and safety and quality

[12:11] of life is protected. Um, I'm not against data centers. I just want to be

[12:16] thoroughly investigated with all parameters and to protect the city and

[12:21] the residents. >> Thank you for your time.

[12:23] » Thank you very much. I think we are all in agreement with that.

[12:29] » Next, >> Mr. Wallock. Um, if I may, and not just

[12:32] just sort of a general statement on um when that item does come up, there is no

[12:37] proposal tonight to attempt to adopt anything uh tonight. So actually

[12:43] everything that's that's being said tonight is really the first we look at

[12:47] as the first steps of that conversation. So we we greatly appreciate it and yes

[12:52] there is no u there is no request from staff to uh this isn't uh listed as

[12:57] anything that could be provided for recommendation yet. It's just to have a

[13:02] workshop and and get these issues out. So uh wanted to thank everybody that's

[13:06] [clears throat] spoken already and anybody that will speak on it. But that

[13:09] is the the goal tonight is to to get information

[13:12] » and and let me say something. If if there's misconception, the workshop item

[13:17] on there will not be open for public discussion tonight. There will

[13:23] [clears throat] be no public. So if you want to speak on that, now is your time.

[13:27] Um workshop is right here. So we'll be talking if there's anything we need to

[13:33] talk amongst ourselves or we might even put it off because we don't have a full

[13:40] slate of officers here and whatever we want to call this board commission. So

[13:44] just to make that clear, no discussion during workshop. So next

[13:48] » I'm Kitty Warts. >> Kitty. Okay.

[13:56] » Thank you, Commission Kitty Warts, 205 Thistle Drive. And first of all, I don't

[14:02] I want to make it clear, I'm not 100% against data centers. I just think it's

[14:08] very important that um the zoning is the key to determine where the facilities

[14:13] can reside and I agree with a few people's already said that uh it needs

[14:20] to be it needs to reside in the airport district area far away from residential

[14:27] houses um anywhere from I've seen some ordinance 300 ft some as far away as

[14:33] 1,000 ft from any residential location. Um, it makes sense that we capitalize on

[14:39] this industry and that we help our city uh improve our infrastructure and we uh

[14:45] capitalize on the taxes that come in from one of these facilities. Um, but it

[14:50] needs to [clears throat] um be done correctly.

[14:54] um we should um um make sure it's following um the conservation of the

[15:01] electricity, the water and the noise pollution that uh it will emit. Um we

[15:08] also need to make sure that whoever um we consider that they are financially

[15:14] sound. Last thing in the world we need is someone to come in and and bankrupt

[15:19] and leave us with an arbitrage around our neck. We also need to make sure when

[15:26] we write the ordinance up we include um um a decommission and restoration uh

[15:33] aspect of when that industry does pull out. Don't know how long this industry

[15:42] is going to be a boom. I've I've heard that this could be a boom and a bust

[15:46] because technology is evolving so fast that maybe these uh businesses are are

[15:53] out of date in 5 to 10 years. We just don't know that. So, we have to think

[15:58] ahead and make sure that we're protecting oursel as a city. Thank you,

[16:03] » Kitty

[16:06] Wise.

[16:13] All right. My name is Jasmine Weise, 1469 Primmer's Place. I currently serve

[16:17] on the HLO City Council. The comments I'm making tonight to reflect my own

[16:21] views and not the position of the city council as a whole. Thank you for taking

[16:25] the time to begin looking into data centers tonight. I think it's important

[16:29] that we take the time to really understand this issue before deciding

[16:32] what is or is not appropriate for HLET. Right now, data centers require an SUP

[16:37] or specific use permit, and we currently have no applications before the city. An

[16:42] SUP is not an automatic approval or a use that is simply permitted by right.

[16:46] It is one of the more rigorous and discretionary zoning approval processes

[16:50] we have in HLlet. It requires public hearings before both PNZ and city

[16:54] council with PNZ making a recommendation and city council having the final

[16:58] authority to approve approve the conditions, deny or send the application

[17:02] back. The city can also impose additional development standards and

[17:06] safeguards through the SUP based on specific project and its location. So we

[17:10] already have a significant level of control over any proposal that might

[17:15] come forward. This gives us an opportunity to be proactive rather than

[17:19] reactive. I know a moratorum has been discussed and brought forward by

[17:23] concerned residents and I'm not opposed to consider one if we reach a point

[17:27] where it is necessary. But with no data center application currently before the

[17:31] city, I don't think we need to rush to that step. We already require an SUP

[17:35] which gives us significant control over the proposal that comes forward. I would

[17:39] rather use this opportunity to understand the industry, identify the

[17:42] concerns we need to address and deter and and determine what additional

[17:46] standards Haslett should have in place. I would encourage PNZ to look beyond

[17:50] simply whether we should allow them and instead dig into where they could

[17:53] potentially be appropriate, what protections we would need, and what

[17:57] standards should be in place before an application ever comes before us. That

[18:01] means looking closely at things like noise, setbacks, proximity to

[18:05] residential areas, screening, building design, water and power demands, backup

[18:09] generators, environmental impacts, infrastructure, and the potential

[18:13] economic benefits and opportunities these projects could bring to the city.

[18:18] I would also strongly encourage you to speak with people who actually work in

[18:21] the industry as well as other cities that have already dealt with these

[18:25] projects. We should understand both the benefits and the challenges from people

[18:28] who have firsthand experience. I don't think our goal should be to find a way

[18:33] to say yes to data centers. And I don't think it should be to find a way to say

[18:37] no. Our goal should be to understand them well enough that if one is ever

[18:40] proposed in HLlett, we already know what we are willing to accept, where we are

[18:44] willing to accept it, and what protections our residents should expect.

[18:49] I appreciate you taking the time on and doing that work now before we have an

[18:53] application sitting in front of us. I also wanted to comment on 7A and 7B and

[18:58] say that I I don't see any issues with us approving

[19:03] um or not approving um I don't see any issues with the request

[19:09] from Hillwood. Um no one really travels up that way unless you're industrial. So

[19:14] I just like us to really consider their request.

[19:17] » So is that is that from councel or from you?

[19:20] » From me. Everything I said is from me. >> Okay. [laughter] I'm just kidding,

[19:24] Jasmine. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

[19:26] » Thank you. All right. >> Okay. And then we have

[19:30] » nice to know though. >> A one email a Dorene Snediger.

[19:36] » Well, let's do Dorine's during the workshop.

[19:39] » Should we do that? >> It's up to you. Yeah.

[19:42] » Yeah, we could because we can talk. I can read her thing to us

[19:45] » since she's on. You mean because she's a board member? Um, yes. Yes, you could.

[19:49] » She can't make the meeting tonight, but we can we can read her.

[19:52] » Yes. If you if you want that would still fit with what you

[19:55] » I mean it's essentially the same thing. She's not against data centers. It just

[19:59] » Yes, sir. >> And I just thought we don't need to get

[20:01] her any others. >> Is that it?

[20:08] » Okay. All right. Well, then we will move on to item four.

[20:14] So [clears throat] 4 A um all city offices will be closed Monday, September

[20:20] 7th in observance of Labor Day. Item 4B, National Night Out, will be held

[20:26] Tuesday, October 6th, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the community park. And uh

[20:32] information is available on the city's web page for that. And we would

[20:36] encourage participation. Um, good time. Get out. Get meet neighbors

[20:42] that are maybe not in your neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods around the

[20:46] city. We're getting to be a big small city. I guess we could call it that.

[20:52] Item 4 C. Movie in the park featuring Goat that is will take place Friday,

[21:00] October 9th at Nance Field. The movie will begin at dark and again there's

[21:04] information on the web page. Our [clears throat]

[21:09] consent agenda meeting minutes dated July 28th. Do we have any comments or

[21:14] recommendation or motion? You guys got a share?

[21:18] » Yeah. I make a motion that we accept the uh minutes as written.

[21:22] » I second it. >> All right. All in favor? Right. All

[21:25] oppose? Nobody. So fine. We'll get on to item seven. Item

[21:32] 7A is conduct a public hearing. Pardon me.

[21:36] » What? 6A residential status. We skip 6A.

[21:41] » Where have I? Oh, I'm sorry. 6A. Yeah, I moved. I'm

[21:46] I got crosseyed. So, our residential project status report is available in

[21:52] the packet. So, any comments, any questions, anything we want to talk

[21:55] about? Okay. Thanks, Chuck. Okay. Seven. The 7A conduct a public hearing for

[22:01] zoning on approximately a 16 12 acre of Caleb P Orient Survey abstract number

[22:08] 1195 in the MEP and and P RR company survey abstract

[22:16] 1135 Taran County properties west of Interotal Parkway and south of Railroad

[22:21] Drive with an address of 1051 Railhead Drive. staff presentation

[22:30] » and chairman and members of of the board. This is a zoning request for from

[22:36] AF airport facilities to industrial zoning and the purpose of this zoning

[22:43] request is to allow more flexibility in the uses that are allowed

[22:49] AF. There are a few more uses in the industrial zoning classification that

[22:53] you can do. The whole area on the master land use plan is shown as industrial

[23:00] except there are just two zoning designations for it. The staff is in

[23:04] support of this zoning request. >> So, who's bringing that request?

[23:09] » The Hillwood. >> Hillwood. And are they the owners of the

[23:13] property? >> They are the owners of the property and

[23:15] they are in the audience tonight. >> Yeah, I knew that. So, but

[23:20] any comments? You want to say anything? >> Blessed Tom Davies.

[23:26] » Yeah, you can talk.

[23:31] » Oh, wait a wait a minute. So, maybe I should open the public hearing. Yeah,

[23:35] just a second. Yeah. >> So, let me open a public hearing at 6:52

[23:41] uh on item 78. There. Now, you can talk. >> Okay. My name is Tom Davies. Uh I'm a

[23:47] development manager representing Hillwood as everyone has said. Um I'm

[23:52] speaking on behalf of item 7A and 7B. There are two uh properties uh directly

[23:59] across from each other at the northwest and southeast corners of Interotal

[24:03] Parkway and Tradewind Drive. Um so yeah, as Morris summarized, and congrats on

[24:09] your retirement, uh uh these two properties are currently

[24:13] zoned for airport facilities. We're requesting that they be reszoned for

[24:18] industrial um there is indust industrial zoning immediately adjacent and as

[24:23] Morris said um it is part of the 2024 adopted master land use plan that there

[24:29] industrial area again as as Morris summarized uh it just right now all that

[24:36] we're planning to do is build two industrial shell buildings on the site

[24:39] just speculative industrial shells um the reasonzoning would allow us uh

[24:45] greater marketing flexibility to attract a wider range of customers to be tenants

[24:49] in those buildings. Airport facilities currently is a little bit more limited

[24:54] in the permitted use. It would it would allow us to have a traditional uh

[24:59] distribution and warehouse facility, but u that's that's more or less kind of it.

[25:05] So, um that's the request and if you guys have any questions, uh feel free to

[25:10] ask. I think Ben and Brad with Westwood, our civil consultant are here and they

[25:15] might be speaking as well, but they can answer specifics.

[25:20] » All right. Thank you. >> All right. Will anybody else want to

[25:25] talk about um item 7A public hearing? So, we'll close the uh public hearing at

[25:33] 7:54. So, >> 654.

[25:36] » 654. I'm sorry. Um all right so we got

[25:41] discussion here

[25:45] » chairman on on the map that you see on on the screen is our our master land use

[25:50] plan and all the purple area that you see is industrial on the master land use

[25:56] plan and these two tracks are up in this area right here. One's

[26:02] right here and then the other one is just caddy corner right up here.

[26:08] Then as far as um zoning,

[26:13] the blue is the AF district and we have one tracks right here and the other

[26:19] track is right here and we have industrial is this orangey color. So we

[26:24] have a lot of industrial in the area but it is in the AF district.

[26:29] Are there any other parcels any other parcels up there that are

[26:35] vacant like this [snorts] that might be brought to us in the future?

[26:39] » There could be some. >> Could be some up there. Okay. They're

[26:43] all north of Westport Parkway. >> That is correct.

[26:46] » Yeah. Okay. That in any >> Yeah. Westport Parkway lies like right

[26:51] here. >> Okay. All right.

[26:56] Any >> Yes. So

[27:01] » what what is the biggest difference between AF and industrial? It seems

[27:04] almost identical. >> They are almost identical. You know,

[27:06] setbacks, etc. are all the same. It's just the the uses. When you go to the

[27:11] use chart, there's a few more uses that are identified in the industrial than

[27:15] they are in the AF. But for >> Was there a reason we did this? I wasn't

[27:19] here, you know, when it was done. Is there reason?

[27:21] » I wasn't I wasn't here either. So, we're we're both in the dark on that. Uh but

[27:25] uh >> but it's not a height issue. It's not

[27:27] anything else. >> No.

[27:28] » Okay. >> No. The height of these shoes are are

[27:31] controlled by these arcs that you can see here on the zoning map.

[27:36] Identify the arcs. And there's actually some definitions up here in the lefth

[27:39] hand corner which actually specify the heights that you can have.

[27:44] » All right.

[27:51] » It's just weird because it's like, you know, I don't understand. I I just

[27:54] understand the difference. Yeah, exactly.

[27:58] » Paul, Greg is online with his hand raised.

[28:02] » Greg is online.

[28:39] Thank you very much.

[30:26] Well, okay. So, his question is, "Are trucking terminals one of the permitted

[30:31] differences?"

[30:36] I'm going to pull up the use charts and you can just go through. There's a lot

[30:39] of different differences.

[31:03] Yeah. Um Morris can bring it up, but uh I believe that's one use. Specifically,

[31:10] truck and freight transportation services are allowed in both uh airport

[31:14] facilities and industrial. Um so yeah airport facilities more geared towards

[31:20] transportation related uses and warehouse and storage whereas industrial

[31:24] also includes that but other uses as well

[31:41] » only by text I guess but he said thank you no other questions.

[31:47] All right.

[32:11] » Okay. I'd make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval

[32:14] of the uh change in zoning from uh airport facility to uh industrial for

[32:20] the 16.5 acres of the Caleb Por orbit survey abstract number 11 195 in the

[32:27] MEPN RR company uh survey abstract 135 Tarant

[32:34] County.

[32:39] We >> have a [clears throat] second. I second

[32:40] it. >> All in favor? Okay. Motion passed.

[32:45] Item 7 A. 7B conduct a public hearing for zoning.

[32:51] Apparently, this is from airport facilities to industrial and

[32:54] approximately 10.2 acres. In the HC Johnson survey, abstract

[33:00] number 870, Taran County, Texas, property east of Interotal Parkway and

[33:04] south of Tradewind Drive. address of 179 Intermoal Parkway.

[33:11] I think you've already talked to it, but >> yes,

[33:13] » chairman, members of the board, this is not on the same property, but your caddy

[33:21] corner to the southeast of it, >> and it's basically the same thing. It's

[33:25] for expanded uses that you can do. And if I can get the monitor back, I can put

[33:31] up those that use chart. And so you can just see what the some of the

[33:35] differences are. [clears throat] >> Okay.

[33:38] » And over here in our use chart, you have the AF right here. Then you have

[33:43] industrial. And the P means permitted use. And as you go down the industrial,

[33:49] there's like I say, there's some P's on on both, but there are more P's on the U

[33:55] industrial, giving more flexibility on the uses that can

[34:00] » distribution and warehouse, right? And that's what you were talking about, Tom,

[34:04] right? >> Correct. And yeah, if you go down to the

[34:06] transportation related uses, I think what the gentleman online was asking

[34:10] about, >> right?

[34:22] See, >> right there it is. Both of them have P's

[34:23] on them. They're both as permitted uses. >> All right. So,

[34:28] we'll open a public hearing on that at uh let me get the right time. 7:03.

[34:34] You want to speak to that directly? I mean, you talk to both, but you want to

[34:38] get on record here or you >> If I need to, I can.

[34:42] » Why not? Come here. talk about 7B. Tell us about that one. [snorts]

[34:48] » So, uh 7B specifically, that's the roughly 10acre track that's at the

[34:53] southeast corner of inner model and Tradewind, but like Morris said, it's

[34:56] essentially the same thing. We don't have specific uses identified for either

[34:59] of these buildings. Uh the site plan that we currently have, which is in for

[35:04] review and appro approval, is a roughly 150,000 ft² speculative shell industrial

[35:10] building. But this resoning effort would grant us the ability to market that uh

[35:15] building to more potential customers and and companies [clears throat] to come to

[35:19] Hasllett. >> Very good. Okay. Anybody else wish to

[35:24] speak for or against item 7B?

[35:30] Then we'll close the public hearing at 704.

[35:35] So, do we want anything to talk here? >> Nothing really. Okay. I get a motion.

[35:42] » All right. I make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval

[35:45] of the change in zoning from airport facility to industrial for the 10.2

[35:50] acres in the HC Johnson survey abstract 870 Tarant County, Texas.

[35:57] » Have a second. >> I second it.

[35:59] » All in favor? All right. Motion passes. >> 7B. Thank you very much.

[36:06] » Okay. Item 7 C is um discuss consider an act regarding the approval and amendment

[36:13] to the HLlet zoning ordinance amending the exterior site lighting section 5.1

[36:20] of chapter 14 exhibit A staff presentation.

[36:26] Yeah, chairman and members of the board, this is a topic that has been discussed

[36:30] over the last couple meetings and and we have brought back u the corrections and

[36:37] we've put this in front of our city attorney and had him take a look at it

[36:42] and there he's made several comments and if I could have the screen back again

[37:07] this email. >> He just wanted to make sure that that

[37:11] the board knew that through section 5.10.3D1 10.3.D1

[37:20] and the next a few items that these things will all apply to the city's

[37:24] ordinances facilities as well as far as lighting.

[37:30] And um then he also wanted him let everybody know that uh

[37:36] that um when this goes to the city council, there needs to be a parallel

[37:41] resolution that the city council needs to approve first and then this which

[37:49] would basically state that the city wants to go to a dark sky type uh

[37:55] situation which is required to do that under state law. And so I just I'm just

[38:00] bringing that to your attention that if you approve this, then there will be

[38:04] those items that will need to also go with this that going to the city

[38:09] council. >> Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, good.

[38:12] » Basically, you're doing the dark sky ordinance and but anyway, that was his

[38:18] two points. I just want to make sure that we need knew that we needed to do

[38:21] that parallel resolution and also these items that are above that

[38:28] uh are things that'll apply to the city's facilities as well.

[38:34] » The parallel resolution would be done at council.

[38:38] » Yes. >> Yeah, that's council. Okay.

[38:41] » And and that u Mr. Wallik, if I could um just kind of build on what Morris has

[38:47] said. Um the the state, this is kind of one of those things where

[38:53] they've they've limited

[38:57] how we can regulate it unless we go through this um dark skies city

[39:04] initiative type of thing. So that's why it it's kind of in a um it's not all or

[39:10] nothing, but it is that's why it's it's not just here's one thing or or another

[39:16] thing. It has to there there's a lot of things that kind of have to be

[39:19] incorporated in it because of the way that the state has um uh going forward

[39:25] permitted cities to regulate uh outdoor lighting. So that's why a little bit it

[39:31] probably is a little bit different than than what had been expected but that's

[39:34] why is because of uh matching state law. >> Okay. Very good.

[39:43] » Okay. [clears throat] We'll uh I know we have someone wants to speak to it. So

[39:49] we'll open [clears throat] a public hearing at 709

[39:52] or you want to want to speak tell us found a couple of issues. She has a

[39:58] couple of things she wanted to point out to us. Ordinance.

[40:02] » Hi [clears throat] count uh commissioners. My name is Teresa Moore

[40:07] with Clear Channel Outdoor. My address is 3616 Watonga Street, Fort Worth,

[40:12] Texas. Um we came before the council two years ago and um were u supporting an

[40:20] ordinance that allowed us to take down three billboards that are were along I35

[40:26] and convert or and rebuild two one digital and one printed. So, we did that

[40:32] about a year and a half ago and um they've been operating as the ordinance

[40:37] allows, but under this proposed ordinance, we would not be able to

[40:40] operate the digital. Um it the ordinance here uh has a measurement of ambient or

[40:47] let me back up a little bit. When we were uh discussing this project with

[40:52] council and the ordinance that they were um considering, we did come with some

[40:57] information about how we operate. And our digital billboards are um have

[41:02] louvers that direct the lighting to the freeway. So, it protects the light from

[41:08] spilling on surrounding properties. The um the brightness also is measured um

[41:15] based on the ambient conditions. So, as the sun goes down, the ambient light

[41:21] goes darker and so our power goes down. And we operate at all times, whether

[41:27] it's daylight or night, um at.3 foot candles above ambient light. And that is

[41:32] a standard that's set by the state. That's also in the ordinance that was

[41:35] adopted here in Hasslid. So, we've been operating um with that brightness um

[41:40] since we built the structure. And um this ordinance would not allow us to do

[41:45] that because the measurement or the the um limits that are laid out here are

[41:51] much lower and they would not allow us to have any contrast at all after the

[41:56] sun went down. So, um, we are just asking maybe for a little more time to

[42:01] present you guys with some information about how our billboards work, how

[42:06] lighting is measured, um, how we control any spillage into the night sky or to

[42:11] neighboring properties. But even our printed billboard under this proposed

[42:15] ordinance would not be conforming. we would have to take off the fixtures that

[42:21] are um facing the um printed's face and put them on top, which we don't do

[42:28] anymore because technology allows us to direct the um light directly on the face

[42:34] and and in the old days we had four four fixtures and the light was just like a

[42:40] regular bill a regular light bulb and so we didn't couldn't control the spillage.

[42:44] But now we've reduced that to two fixtures. They're very they're directed

[42:49] right on the face. The spillage is minimal. And just as a comparison, if

[42:53] you're on the freeway, the lights that light the freeway at night are brighter

[42:57] than our billboard. So, the other um piece of the ordinance being considered,

[43:02] it limits the message duration to 30 seconds. We operate um our messages are

[43:09] visible. They're a static image. They're visible for 8 seconds. Then um the state

[43:15] requires that the change in message not have any scrolling or flashing or

[43:20] blinking and that it happens immediately on the whole face at one time and it's

[43:24] accomplished within one second. The ordinance being proposed requires that

[43:28] that flip happen with uh in a quarter of a second, which is I mean we could

[43:34] probably change things, but at our standard way that we operate everywhere

[43:40] across the country except for Las Vegas is um 8 seconds static and then it

[43:46] changes within 1 second to the next message and then there are eight spots

[43:50] and the rotation starts again. So the the way this is written is just in

[43:55] conflict with the ordinance that we um discussed and was that was approved two

[43:59] years ago as far as we operate. So we we're just asking for a little more time

[44:04] to discuss some of these things and how it impacts us because we would not be

[44:08] able to operate that that billboard at night.

[44:14] » Um >> Mr. Chair, um well would you like me to

[44:17] speak now or after the public hearing? Oh,

[44:20] » you talk. >> Okay. So, just one thing from a staff

[44:23] perspective because Miss Moore, correct? Yes. Miss Moore did reach out today. Um,

[44:28] I don't think that this was anybody's I know it wasn't staff's goal. I don't

[44:32] think it was anybody's goal. I don't think anybody we've had even one

[44:35] complaint about their um their product. So, um from a staff perspective um if if

[44:43] the commission wanted to table this so that we can look at it a little bit

[44:48] closer. Like I said, this was the goal was to get uh to get this in front of

[44:52] y'all and then the attorney had some input that was based on the state. So,

[44:58] um basically in short, um we would be more than uh happy to uh table this and

[45:05] be able to speak with Miss Moore about ways that uh maybe address

[45:08] [clears throat] her concerns just to make sure. I I don't think

[45:10] » Chairman Cat, can you hear me? >> Oh, I can. Yes, sir.

[45:14] » Can you hear me? >> I can. Yes, sir.

[45:16] I I don't think the idea is to table this. I think we can figure out a way to

[45:19] resolve this this evening. >> Okay. Yes, that was just I understand.

[45:24] Yes, sir. >> Well, I'm I Greg, you're on if you can

[45:28] hear us. I mean, we talked about the um dimming the lights, you know, everything

[45:33] coming down after dark and all that stuff. But I think we were we were

[45:37] talking more about like restaurants, places like that, neighborhood.

[45:42] » Yeah. And that's addressed severally. So yeah,

[45:44] » so so uh so I did look into Miss Moore's communication to the city today.

[45:49] » Yeah. >> And text dot standards are it it this

[45:54] the message has to be displayed for at least 8 seconds and the transition has

[45:59] to happen within 2 seconds. That's the text standard.

[46:04] » Yeah. >> There are cities that have lengths of d

[46:08] you know display duration longer than 8 seconds like Dallas. Dallas is 20

[46:13] seconds. You can't change the message any less than 20 seconds.

[46:20] » That That's not true. >> This particular item I'm not as

[46:23] concerned about. >> Great. Just second. Miss Moore, did you

[46:26] want to comment on that? >> The standard in Dallas is 8 seconds.

[46:30] Also, we operate under the same >> all over the

[46:35] » That's interesting. I just looked it up today and it said 20 seconds.

[46:38] That may be for premise or >> irregardless of that I I I am not that

[46:43] concerned about this as long as we adjust the verbiage here to say this is

[46:50] electronic displays slash billboards something to make sure it's applicable

[46:55] to along highway frontages

[47:00] » which is that's what I was thinking I mean because we didn't even talk about

[47:03] billboards last one of the things I would like to point Now that the

[47:08] agreement that they're working under, they are going to be legally

[47:13] non-conforming if they're if they don't abide by the ordinance. So, we're not

[47:16] going to ask them to change anything. >> They can you could continue just like

[47:21] you are. The second point, there's nothing in this ordinance about uh signs

[47:26] and changing. >> Um

[47:29] we there was a a section about change displays. It's in 510.8

[47:37] talks about electronic message display boards.

[47:40] » Yeah. 8D4. Look at that. >> And the definition of that is includes

[47:45] offsite bill or offsite >> what section again?

[47:52] » 8 D4. 8D4. I think

[48:01] » 5.1.8 Yeah. >> Yeah. But paragraph 4, if it was revised

[48:06] to read according to text standards of 8 seconds and 2 seconds,

[48:12] » I think that would be perfectly appropriate.

[48:15] » Sure. Because it says 30 seconds, I think, in there.

[48:18] » Currently, ours says 30 seconds and 0.25 seconds.

[48:21] » So,

[48:26] » if we're if we're grandfathered, it wouldn't wouldn't affect us. But that

[48:29] the language >> You're not grandfathered. You're

[48:31] operating under a different ordinance that was passed on your behalf.

[48:34] » Yeah. But somebody else may come up with.

[48:42] » So can we make that modification to this ordinance then instead of

[48:48] [clears throat] apparently it's I don't have it in front of me but I think it

[48:51] reads 30 seconds. >> It does. Paragraph 4 says or F says 30

[48:58] seconds and >> it says 30 seconds.25.

[49:01] Change that to 8 seconds. Right. Okay. >> That's

[49:06] that's 5 10.8 D4. All right. Then the other the other

[49:13] » is 5.10.3 H2.

[49:18] I >> think

[49:22] 5.3 5.10.3H2 10.3 H2

[49:28] I think is the where it said after a certain time it had to go dark.

[49:32] » That is for that is for commercial properties if they have a display.

[49:38] » Yep. So that's that's if they close they have to turn their sign off within

[49:45] a certain time period of closing the business.

[49:48] » Yeah. But we're talking her if this impacts the billboard up there.

[49:54] It should >> somehow we should

[49:57] » if if we're just saying that impact but I don't I I got to read it. Does it say

[50:02] » Can I get the screen again please? >> 510.3

[50:10] H2.3 >> in the final draft of this thing if you

[50:15] can look up at this at the screen everything about sign elimination has

[50:19] been taken out stricken by our city attorney.

[50:22] » Yeah. >> Has not included. So, in the final

[50:24] draft, it's not in there at all. About the 30 seconds, 8 seconds,

[50:32] » it's gone. >> That was That was highlighted yellow in

[50:35] the package we got. Is that what that was?

[50:37] » Yeah, >> it was highlighted. Not Not

[50:39] » should have been redlined. >> It wasn't redlined. It was highlighted

[50:42] yellow in the package we got. That was a question I had. So, all of that came

[50:46] out. >> That's gone.

[50:47] » That's all coming out. >> Mhm.

[50:49] » Yes. >> So, how would this affect?

[50:51] » Why? Yeah, it wouldn't it wouldn't have >> it wouldn't even correct. Yes. So, it

[50:57] would not they wouldn't even be grandfa grandfathered or legal non-conformance.

[51:01] They would just not be affected at all. So, they would continue to be a legal

[51:05] conforming use. >> So, was that the published one from

[51:09] Thursday? because we pulled it from the >> um

[51:14] things when we sent things to the attorney. He just was able to give this

[51:20] » and uh did that come >> Why would he take that out?

[51:22] » So maybe on a different >> we Yeah, we'd be happy to review what

[51:27] changes were made. >> So in the packet it's all highlighted

[51:32] yellow. >> So why do we don't know why he redlined

[51:36] all that? Yeah, I'm

[51:39] » sign illumination. >> What he stated just the the note on

[51:44] there stating that basically since they're already as sign signage is

[51:49] already regulated in article 4 >> of the city's code then that's

[51:54] » basically I was going to ask about that. He was just going to remove it

[51:57] recommending removal. >> Yeah. 4.04.47

[52:01] [clears throat] says that the message duration is 5 minutes.

[52:06] So for changing signs, it has to be a five minute message.

[52:10] » Well, that ain't going to work. >> Yeah. And and we think that's we think

[52:13] that's a problematic in itself and [clears throat] that that'll be a

[52:17] subsequent ordinance that we're going to bring forward on the sign is is to

[52:20] change it to more in tune with with the state to 8 seconds

[52:26] because right now five minutes you it'll never change when people go by. Right.

[52:33] » But you're you're not you're not abiding by that ordinance anyway because you

[52:36] have your own separate agreement. >> The ordinance we operate under under

[52:40] separate classification. >> All right. So, but sign illumination

[52:46] doesn't necessarily just pertain to their billboard or a billboard be any

[52:52] sign illumination. Okay.

[52:55] » And it was we were just saying it was in conflict with the ordinance we operate

[52:59] under what was being proposed. But if the changes were made after we saw the

[53:03] the draft and >> I I understand that. Yeah. I I don't

[53:06] think anybody's going to make you change your bill. [laughter]

[53:10] » But u All right. So Mr. Page says strike that because it's covered under article

[53:16] 4.04. Then we have to address that. >> Yes.

[53:20] » And decide when we talk about sign illumination, are we talking about signs

[53:25] sitting out in front of a business or a billboard 50t in the air?

[53:30] both. >> Yeah. So, you got to address them both.

[53:32] You got to address them separately. >> Yeah. Because right now, you know, when

[53:35] you drive by QT, >> if you notice the sign, this changing

[53:38] about every 5 seconds. >> Yeah.

[53:41] » And so, uh, instead of 8 minutes.

[53:47] » All right. But, >> but it just needs to be addressed.

[53:50] » We'll leave that up to Mr. Ben to come up with something next time.

[53:55] » Yes. >> Okay. All right.

[53:58] Yeah. Yeah, we're going to we're going to wait.

[54:03] Well, I don't know. Maybe we don't need to wait on it.

[54:08] All right, let's uh let's close the public public hearing. Just a minute.

[54:12] Where are we? >> Thank you.

[54:13] » All right. Thank you, Miss Mark. We'll close the public hearing at 7:23.

[54:22] Okay. Now,

[54:31] That's like that's so this since a lawyer's version is

[54:36] different than what was published in the newspaper. Do we have to wait or what's

[54:39] the story?

[54:45] » But it was it's different. What I got was different than what?

[54:51] » You do have the discretion. um if if you're if it really just comes down if

[54:55] if you're comfortable with it with the understanding that uh it it it was a

[55:02] different version. But yes, if you're comfortable with it, you can legally uh

[55:06] recommend that with the understanding that you're recommending the version

[55:11] that Morris uh included that includes the uh portion

[55:18] being struck out completely. the sign that referenced the the sign

[55:24] illumination. >> Yes.

[55:28] » Are you still >> I am, but I can't hear you guys. You're

[55:32] you're very muffled. >> You have to turn my phone.

[55:40] » Can you hear me now? >> Perfectly.

[55:44] » All right. So, did you hear that? that at the whole

[55:50] bring that up again here. But that whole section on um

[55:55] signs was struck out by Mr. Page because we address signs in article

[56:02] 4.04.

[56:05] » So is the is the version that was in our packet what we're reviewing and

[56:12] approving tonight? >> No.

[56:14] » No. in the packet. It wasn't struck out, but it struck out what we're looking at

[56:19] on the screen. And we're saying,

[56:23] » well, I have not been provided a copy of that. So, how I I have no ability to

[56:27] understand what you'd be reviewing or approving since nobody felt necessary to

[56:33] give me a new copy. >> Bring that up again and we'll tell him

[56:38] what it is. It's

[56:45] was it this from electronic message displays or was it?

[56:49] » Yeah. Well, actually this

[56:55] » open that up again. [clears throat and cough]

[57:15] Well, first of all, we determined that Miss Moore's questions, their sign is

[57:20] okay. It stays where it is and operates like it is right now. It was approved

[57:26] long time ago. All right. So, the question here is this lighting

[57:30] ordinance. >> So, the what the the question is 5.10

[57:36] 10.8 and uh we're looking at sub paragraph D

[57:43] on and it's called uh >> messaging sign

[57:47] » right electronic message displays

[57:53] » and and that's what Jeremy Page struck red line all the way through that

[57:58] » he struck out all of section 5.107 107, which is just notification. There's a

[58:04] notification statement. >> Yeah.

[58:06] » And then 5.1.8

[58:10] » struck. >> And he struck it all out.

[58:12] » Yes. >> And not that he disagrees with what's in

[58:16] there. It's just a duplicate. >> Yes. That's

[58:19] » somewhere else in our ordinances. >> Section 4.04

[58:24] talks all about signs. It's not in this packet.

[58:27] » Not not in this. It's another >> it's another section ordinance.

[58:30] » Another section of the ordinance. >> So if we

[58:32] » So that's in our side or so Mr. Spanky is that would appear in our sign

[58:36] ordinance. Is that correct? >> That is that is correct.

[58:39] » Right. >> And that's another audit that we need to

[58:41] address. >> So if we go forward with this, we'll

[58:43] have two opposing codes. >> I I don't think so because if this is

[58:49] struck out of what we're approving, then the sign ordinance stands on its own.

[58:53] » This doesn't address the signage elements.

[58:56] » I don't think we have Yeah. We should not have opposed code if that's the

[59:00] case. >> And and then we just address 4.04 later,

[59:06] » but adopt this as [clears throat] as >> without

[59:11] » stricken by the the attorney removing section 5 one

[59:18] » 5.10.7 and 5.10.8. >> Yeah.

[59:22] » Make that motion. >> Yes.

[59:24] » Yeah. That that makes sense to me.

[59:29] You agree with that, Drake? >> Yeah, that makes sense to me. Thank you.

[59:33] » All right. Very good. So,

[59:38] » so the motion would be to recommend approval of this ordinance

[59:44] and then eliminate section 5 >> 10.7

[59:47] » 10.7 and 5.10.8. >> I'm sorry.

[59:50] » All right. And then do we need to make a as part of our motion, do we need to

[59:54] make that statement that we need the city to make a par parallel u

[59:58] designation of a dark sky? >> I don't think so. I think the city

[1:00:03] council is going to take care of that. >> Yes. Take care of that. Right.

[1:00:08] I'd like a recommendation that the city council approve the exterior light of

[1:00:15] the amendment to the Hazlet zoning ordinance amending the exterior site

[1:00:19] lighting section 510 with the update that we're going to

[1:00:25] remove section 5.10.7 and 5.10.8.

[1:00:32] » I'll second. >> Okay.

[1:00:36] All in favor? Motion passed. So, we uh make that

[1:00:44] motion and send it on to city council.

[1:00:49] » Thank you, Greg. >> Yeah. And I don't know if I'm able to uh

[1:00:54] cast a vote there. >> I don't think so.

[1:00:57] » Being remote. If so, I would vote I would have voted yes.

[1:01:01] » What was the question? I'm sorry. >> Cast a vote remote.

[1:01:04] » I don't believe so. So since he's not Mr. Cadesh since he's you're not uh

[1:01:10] visible on the screen I don't think we can we would technically allow the vote.

[1:01:17] » Oh well he he is now. So yeah well it it's supposed I believe the it's the

[1:01:22] similar to the council where it has to be vis visible with the camera. So um

[1:01:28] the deliberation I don't think is an issue but yes to actually cast a vote I

[1:01:32] believe we need to have >> make sure that that's really him talking

[1:01:35] » yes as that that and the state is so [laughter] it for for those that were

[1:01:40] around uh during the co years it loosened up the state loosened the laws

[1:01:44] up for about 6 months or so around that but other than that they generally

[1:01:49] require >> there there he is

[1:01:51] » yes sir so I'm a yes >> but we're not sure he's not an AI though

[1:01:56] » thank Right. Okay. So,

[1:02:00] » Greg votes. >> Can he cast a vote now?

[1:02:02] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:02:03] » All right. All in favor raise your hand. >> All right. So, we got Greg voted in

[1:02:10] favor of that. So, nobody opposed, I guess.

[1:02:14] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Greg. Okay. Very good. Let's

[1:02:18] um move on to um item 7D

[1:02:25] is discuss and consider an act regarding the approval of the replat of block 1 R

[1:02:30] block 11 city of Hston

[1:02:35] chairman Wallick and and members of the of the board. This is a plat where

[1:02:40] they're taking two lots and combining it into one. And it's right at first just

[1:02:46] right just north of here right here, >> excuse me, west of here

[1:02:50] » where you have a a lot and then you have these other two lots and they're

[1:02:53] combining those two so they can build a house on it which should be in

[1:02:56] conformance with the zoning ordinance. >> Good. Okay.

[1:03:02] Any discussion? I got a motion.

[1:03:09] I recommend approve to city council we approve uh the uh replat of lot one R

[1:03:15] block

[1:03:18] » 11

[1:03:23] city of Hassle. Thank you. >> Right. Second.

[1:03:28] » Okay. All in favor? Okay. Second, Mr. Chuck. Motion passes. So good. That's

[1:03:34] 7D. All right. 7E is um discuss, consider, and act or recommend

[1:03:42] Westwood review our land use plan with the purpose of identifying appropriate

[1:03:48] uses for our undeveloped land in both the ETJ

[1:03:52] and city limits. Um

[1:03:57] that's just we don't need that. So you guys

[1:04:02] » So I this one I I was also a little stumped on

[1:04:07] » I don't know >> the city's city discussion involved.

[1:04:13] » Hopefully I can spread some light on on this but uh back a few months ago we had

[1:04:19] a zoning case that was at the intersection of Harmon Road and Westport

[1:04:25] Parkway. >> Right. and it's shown on our current

[1:04:29] master land use plan as industrial and there's industrial zoning all the

[1:04:35] way around it. That case was denied at the city council. It was approved by

[1:04:40] this board, but it was denied at at the city council.

[1:04:45] Subsequently, they said maybe we should take another look at our master land use

[1:04:50] plan. >> Oh, that's city council.

[1:04:53] » Yes, at city council. And so they really referred it back to the planning and

[1:04:58] zoning commission to take that that look >> for one parcel.

[1:05:04] » I believe I believe we made a motion to recommend to city council to contract

[1:05:08] with an agency to conduct this analysis and there were a couple of

[1:05:14] recommendations on firms to do that. I looked at their capabilities.

[1:05:18] uh a few others from the city looked at those organizations capabilities and

[1:05:22] this one was the one that we believed was most qualified to move that

[1:05:26] initiative forward and so this is a u an item on our agenda to recommend that we

[1:05:34] move forward with Westwood. And just to uh further uh kind of build on what the

[1:05:40] uh chair cadesh said um back at the towards the end of June whenever we

[1:05:45] initially brought the land use to PNZ to look at uh that was as uh Mr. Cadesh

[1:05:52] stated that was whenever uh we as staff were told that that y'all would like to

[1:05:57] see a uh kind of a third party brought in. So, um the the goal here is just for

[1:06:04] us to uh to make sure we're providing PNZ and council with what what's been

[1:06:09] requested. So, um don't we want to make sure uh council's been very clear

[1:06:13] [clears throat] particularly at the last several months of meetings that uh they

[1:06:17] want to make sure that boards are are that are designated or or given uh the

[1:06:24] assignment to review things are are given them. So, uh, we wanted to make

[1:06:29] sure when PNZ said that that, um, we did bring that back specifically to PNZ as

[1:06:34] opposed to just directly to council. So, that is, uh, as as chair Cadesh, he's,

[1:06:39] uh, stated, he's, uh, looked at this, Westwood as well as Morris had come up

[1:06:44] with a couple of others. Um, then and that that would be the the goal. Um,

[1:06:50] yes, sir. >> I I

[1:06:53] » Okay. I kind of remember that discussion, but I don't

[1:06:56] » not like that. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think we I I don't remember us.

[1:07:02] I I don't I don't know. I mean, I know I think you I remember you saying city

[1:07:06] council had talked about that, you know, getting PNZ. I I just don't see any need

[1:07:11] for it. I I don't see any I think that we've done a pretty good job of laying

[1:07:16] it out right now. And if city council didn't want to approve that one plant,

[1:07:20] that's their deal. >> Yeah. This was a so when we made the

[1:07:24] motion to to request city council appoint or I contract with a firm to do

[1:07:31] this >> there were a number of objectives in

[1:07:33] mind. One was to understand compatible uses in some of our main uh undeveloped

[1:07:39] areas with the development that has occurred on the surrounding areas.

[1:07:43] Making sure that we understand where our tax revenue opportunities might lie with

[1:07:49] appropriate development. and then understanding what's the appropriate

[1:07:53] uses for the ETJ. We don't have a line of sight to that.

[1:07:58] We need industry experts to uh to that know more about what industries are

[1:08:04] doing, what businesses are doing, what their motivations are to help us

[1:08:08] understand some of that. That's why this part, this body, the planning and zoning

[1:08:12] commission requested city council and we voted on it. We voted to have the city

[1:08:18] council appoint somebody. Okay. Greg, I remember now. I think you're

[1:08:23] right. Think I think we all at the time a lot more details were missing, but I

[1:08:26] think the time >> you know what this is going to cost?

[1:08:30] » Yeah. Do we have any idea what it's going to cost?

[1:08:32] » I mean, you have idea. I mean, Westwood is a large engineering planning firm. I

[1:08:36] mean, you know, this is >> Yeah, we don't have any idea what it's

[1:08:40] what it's going to cost at this point, but it's just a recommendation of a firm

[1:08:44] to do that. >> Okay.

[1:08:47] » So, as part of recommendation, can we Okay. No.

[1:08:52] » And and and the and the planning and zoning commission has no money. So it

[1:08:55] needs to go to the council to >> Sure.

[1:08:57] » to actually establish that and also approve a contract to that's

[1:09:02] appropriate. >> Right. So they're just looking for us to

[1:09:04] make a recommendation back to the city council to accept.

[1:09:06] » Okay. >> I don't want to do that.

[1:09:09] » If somebody wants to make a motion. >> All right. I'll make a motion that we

[1:09:12] recommend to the city council to have Westwood review our land use plan with

[1:09:16] the purpose of identifying appropriate uses for our undeveloped land both in

[1:09:20] ETJ and city limits with the purpose of encouraging compatibility with

[1:09:25] surrounding uses and revenues. >> I'll second.

[1:09:29] » All in favor? All opposed? >> No, I'm

[1:09:34] » and I have my hand as in favor. So, Greg's three in favor and I and I I

[1:09:40] don't think it's necessary. >> Okay.

[1:09:42] » I think it's a waste of waste of money. >> No, I voted no.

[1:09:49] » I vote no. Tell them I voted no. They're going to ask me about it later.

[1:09:56] Okay. Um item eight, workshop on data data center

[1:10:04] ordinance.

[1:10:07] I'll let uh you want to start us out on that one.

[1:10:10] » Yeah, it's been in the news a lot lately

[1:10:14] lately about uh data centers and in our ordinance there is no specific place for

[1:10:20] that. The only place where it's ever been mentioned was on the Ironwood

[1:10:26] property and it could be done there with a specific use permit. Other than that,

[1:10:33] no place in the city has been designated for that. And what this does is just

[1:10:39] sort of starts planning some ideas, the possibility if one would come around,

[1:10:45] where would we want to do it? And instead of waiting till they come and

[1:10:49] say, "Okay, we're going to figure out where we want to put you."

[1:10:54] So, this would sort of identify a place and and then maybe look at some

[1:10:59] standards that uh we could use to evaluate it. And if you could pull that

[1:11:04] ordinance up

[1:11:11] and this is by no means an ordinance, this is just showing and go down to the

[1:11:14] table. This is an in the zoning ordinance.

[1:11:25] It's It's almost, you know, clear down to the bottom of it. Go down a little

[1:11:30] bit further. Keep on going. Keep on going. Keep on going.

[1:11:37] It's down in the industrial area. Keep on going.

[1:11:49] Right. Hold on. Right there. And the use category. If we just scroll up just a

[1:11:54] little bit. Yeah, right there it's under utility and

[1:12:00] utility related services. Now go down and um data center. It'd be with what

[1:12:07] we're saying it perhaps the best place for that would be in the AF airport

[1:12:11] facilities or industrial with a specific use request. Now if you look at the far

[1:12:17] end of the table over there, it refers to 4.26 26J

[1:12:23] and go down to the very bottom.

[1:12:38] [snorts]

[1:12:49] Okay, stop. Right. Go back up. And this is this is what the J refers

[1:12:56] to. And these are different things that you could potentially look at. You could

[1:13:00] add to this list or subtract from this list. There's nothing sitting concrete.

[1:13:04] I just threw these out as ideas that the commission may want to look at when

[1:13:08] they're uh taking a look at a specific use permit for a for a data center. One

[1:13:14] would be in the site selection and then the next one would be power delivery

[1:13:18] infrastructure. And there's different kinds of power, you know, delivery

[1:13:22] surfaces. And then there's three cooling strategies. There's water. There's go on

[1:13:27] scroll scroll down a little bit.

[1:13:32] » There's hot and cold, direct liquid cooling, hybrid cooling,

[1:13:36] modular cooling. There there's all different kinds of cooling and that's

[1:13:40] where they get the water usage or non-water usage. And then there's

[1:13:44] physical layouts of them. And then there's energy efficiency, stability,

[1:13:49] and and then safety risk. And those are just some ideas of things that that PNZ

[1:13:53] may want to look at when they're evaluating a data data center. That

[1:13:57] doesn't mean you have to use any of those things, but it's something I just

[1:14:01] threw out there just for for talking points of of what you can do. You can

[1:14:06] look at things that like noise.

[1:14:12] Yeah, I think there there's another element we need to look at also is you

[1:14:15] know what's the viability that we even have the acreage to support a large data

[1:14:19] center because typically those are in the 500 acre you know thousand acre

[1:14:25] minimum uh footprints and then they go up from

[1:14:29] there. Uh so do we have a even a footprint in the city or the ETJ that

[1:14:34] you know could support something like that? nothing the work of being prepared

[1:14:38] for uh something should something come be wrong. You know, I don't know that

[1:14:43] that's wasted work, but it what's the likelihood given the available

[1:14:48] developable land in the city of Hasslj. >> Well, it it could be very applicable

[1:14:54] because not all data centers are large. They actually in the city of Rice, I

[1:15:00] believe they're looking at an 11,000 square foot mini data center. So, not

[1:15:06] all of them [clears throat] are 500,000 square feet or larger. So, some of them

[1:15:09] are very very small. >> Yeah. But those don't have the demands

[1:15:14] like one of these big five, you know, 5,000 acre footprints do. You know,

[1:15:19] there it's a very different type of impact

[1:15:23] » compared to, you know, what something like a Facebook has over on 170 and some

[1:15:29] and I work extensively with data center development across the country, so I'm

[1:15:32] very familiar with it. But those smaller ones are not the impact is nothing like

[1:15:38] these bigger ones. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do the work to be prepared

[1:15:42] should something come, but the impact is very different.

[1:15:46] » So the question I was asking earlier about about noise. So uh someone sent a

[1:15:50] video I thought that was pretty interesting. They had a they actually

[1:15:52] had an meter or a sound meter right pretty impressive. Um what what do we

[1:15:57] how do we write something like that in there? Do we say there's a certain

[1:16:00] number they can go to? How do we write that? Yeah, you could you could add

[1:16:04] anything like that you wanted to in here, but like I say, this this tonight

[1:16:08] is not for any vote. This is just a discussion.

[1:16:13] » Yeah, I think it's I think it's sensible for us to have a road map for

[1:16:20] » the development, but I think we need to understand that

[1:16:24] that development is could be very scallable.

[1:16:28] » Yeah. >> But I I would not want to write it into

[1:16:31] this We can talk about that,

[1:16:34] » right? >> And I think that that we could have if

[1:16:38] if we were interested. I mean, we might have had one of our own residents in

[1:16:42] Hasslith that offered to furnish us with some a little bit of

[1:16:47] assistance, maybe develop uh some criteria

[1:16:52] for data centers, something that we could look at

[1:16:55] » a little more in depth than I know what you said. You just put stuff you pulled

[1:16:59] up and good information here, but a little bit more in depth working toward

[1:17:06] developing some sort of ordinance or adding it to this ordinance here.

[1:17:11] » Yeah. And I believe Governor Abbott's requiring some

[1:17:17] work be done to define the roadmap for development in

[1:17:21] the state of Texas as well. So we I don't think we can get out in front of

[1:17:25] what the state's doing. Well, the state's put a 90-day moratorum on data

[1:17:30] centers right now. They've shut down. >> So, and and by the time they get done

[1:17:35] looking at that, they may put another 90 days so they could study the study

[1:17:40] » and um >> new ones, right?

[1:17:43] » Yeah. >> There's still on new ones.

[1:17:45] » There's still hundreds under construction right now.

[1:17:46] » Well, the one's under construction, but we're talking about here. This would be

[1:17:49] a new one. So, if we had somebody that came

[1:17:54] to us and said, "We're looking at the airport area

[1:18:00] or out there along in uh >> Westport Parkway or Hasslet Parkway on

[1:18:06] the north side. >> Is that far enough away from

[1:18:10] residential? Is it more, you know, an industrial part of our city?" Um, you

[1:18:16] know, but we right now we have no ordinance. have nothing at all. So, we

[1:18:20] would have to tell them, "Thank you very much. When we develop an ordinance,

[1:18:24] we'll come back and talk to us." >> So, you know, if we want to get some

[1:18:29] input on that, I' I mean, I would I'd rather get input on that than on the

[1:18:33] land plan use myself. >> Yeah. If somebody would walk in the door

[1:18:36] today say we want to do a data center on it,

[1:18:40] » our first response is it's not listed in our use chart.

[1:18:44] » We don't have it. Mhm. >> And so then it falls on to the city

[1:18:48] administrator to make a recommendation to the planning and zoning commission

[1:18:53] and then you go from there. >> Yeah.

[1:18:56] » But we'd rather preempt that and say, "Hey, let's settle this up front. Where

[1:19:00] where do you want to see them? What kind of standards you want to look at?"

[1:19:04] Instead of all of a sudden putting it all on Mr. Ashton's back and say, "This

[1:19:08] is what's going to go on. This is what we recommend." Well, let's let's hash it

[1:19:12] out and and come up with a good solid recommendation for the city council and

[1:19:17] what benefits the city and them. >> So, are there other and you have

[1:19:23] connections, Mr. Ash? I mean, is there are there other cities of our size, our

[1:19:29] situation here where we might could get ideas from them or get a maybe they've

[1:19:35] developed an ordinance >> and we could and we could look at

[1:19:38] theirs. I mean, >> sure. And this was this was just a first

[1:19:41] uh kind of a first run at it for for Morris on his his last meeting. So

[1:19:45] » um but kind of to to what Morris said there

[1:19:48] » put this on in your last meeting. >> No.

[1:19:50] » Um it is a benefit and the reason Morris kind of touched on it. So there is yes

[1:19:55] there is that that small portion that is um allowed by that annexation agreement

[1:20:01] over in the Ironwood area um only by specific use permit. it's not allowed by

[1:20:06] right. Um but as Morris said because it is not and

[1:20:11] this actually act that's actually a good thing to bring up for the the folks uh

[1:20:16] that might prefer a moratorum. So we already basically have kind of in effect

[1:20:21] a moratorum in the sense that if somebody comes in right now

[1:20:26] » it's it's well yes in addition to the states because as Morris said it's not a

[1:20:30] permitted use anywhere else other than that small area um by the annexation

[1:20:35] agreement. So what that would mean is yes if somebody comes in and asks for

[1:20:40] for it right now it they give immediately told they would get this has

[1:20:43] not literally not come up I don't believe even once so far um but they

[1:20:48] would be told it's not a permitted use so you can't do it and then the process

[1:20:53] that you would then add that you would make petition or request to add a

[1:20:58] permitted use is like Morris said which is you would be requesting the planning

[1:21:02] and zoning and the council to add uh any use that you're requesting in this case

[1:21:08] data centers into an existing zoning district or multiple ones. And so the

[1:21:13] problem with that if it did come up starting you know tomorrow or whatever

[1:21:17] and we haven't already started down that process just from whenever you look at

[1:21:22] any city whenever they deal with that it it winds up it it's a very reactive

[1:21:26] thing instead of proactive and sometimes with small cities we have to react to

[1:21:30] things and we understand that but it doesn't let you uh it doesn't let you

[1:21:35] put the time into it it winds up being very specific to what that request is

[1:21:40] and so you potentially wind up considering a broader text amendment to

[1:21:45] the zoning ordinance and it's all bu built around what this one request is

[1:21:49] because you didn't have it we didn't have it as a permitted use. So, um

[1:21:52] that's a lot of words to say. Yes, I do I do appreciate Morris bringing this up

[1:21:56] because um the goal would be to to get out in front of it and I think as Chair

[1:22:01] Cadesh uh described it, kind of give us a roadmap and and something that um you

[1:22:08] know we're we're just able to have something that addresses it that's

[1:22:11] already put thought into it before suddenly now we would feel like okay we

[1:22:15] we have to figure this out quick because we've got somebody that's that's pushing

[1:22:20] something specific. So, [clears throat] >> so could we ask you or our engineering

[1:22:25] consultant, somebody to bring to us some

[1:22:32] sample ordinances that we could read, that we could look at?

[1:22:36] » Sure. Yes, sir. >> I mean, I'm I'm certainly not Okay. I'm

[1:22:39] an engineer, but the last [clears throat] thing I'd want to do is

[1:22:42] develop an ordinance on data centers. I have no idea what I'm doing. Okay. I

[1:22:47] don't know if you know if we're we're not so I'd like to see something that's

[1:22:52] been developed by someone that knows what they're talking about.

[1:22:56] » Sure. >> You know, and um or put some effort into

[1:22:59] it since since we haven't put any effort into it.

[1:23:03] » Yes. Yes, sir. We can certainly get some samples.

[1:23:06] » I mean, some ideas. I mean, maybe you know some people that

[1:23:12] » Is he still there? You still there?

[1:23:17] I don't know if he's there. Um, but still here somebody to write an

[1:23:21] ordinance. Um, you know, I wouldn't have anybody that could would would

[1:23:26] understand what to write an ordinance around. Yeah.

[1:23:28] » So, I'm just saying let's do a little bit of looking out there. See what we

[1:23:32] can find. >> Yes, sir. We can definitely get some of

[1:23:34] those and get those um even send those out to the P&Z in advance to to sort of

[1:23:40] look over before the next time it's discussed.

[1:23:43] » So, I want to jump in real quick. One of the comments I heard over and over

[1:23:46] earlier on the public comment was about let's put by the airport which I I don't

[1:23:49] disagree. That's probably a great place to put it somewhere on that kind of more

[1:23:52] densely industrial area concern I have is we want to make sure that there can

[1:23:57] we we should put something about it needs to be a closed loop or or low on

[1:24:01] what's low vapor emitting. Okay. Because right next to an airport they don't want

[1:24:05] to have you know gigantic clouds. So I mean I know that sounds dumb but

[1:24:10] we've had issues like that already that I'm aware of. you know, not here, but in

[1:24:13] other states. So, something to think about.

[1:24:15] » Well, that's a good point. Sure.

[1:24:21] » They would go to if you could scroll up a little bit.

[1:24:25] Right there, it says natural hazards. Man-made hazards.

[1:24:29] » Yeah, >> that's what that is. Natural hazards.

[1:24:31] Manmade hazards. >> You really can't control it. Just it's

[1:24:33] it's a My understanding is the closed loop systems don't have the same issues

[1:24:37] as when they want to do the open loop, which that waste lots of water. I think

[1:24:40] everybody's going toward the closed loop anyway, but you know, just in case

[1:24:43] someone comes in for a smaller unit says, "Oh, we'll just we'll just open

[1:24:46] the, you know, open making an open air thing." I don't think that's a good

[1:24:48] idea. So, >> I'm showing my bias. I'm sorry. I'm open

[1:24:53] to anything, but yeah, I just I I agree that I think we need to be ready for

[1:24:57] these because the people are going to come. I just did a quick look on my

[1:25:01] phone and there's like five or six here in North Fort Worth already under

[1:25:05] construction. a 52 acre right in said Fort Worth Alliance.

[1:25:11] Yeah. So, it's it they're they're coming to the area. I think we need to be

[1:25:15] prepared and and uh I mean noise is only one factor of you know having an air

[1:25:21] airport you're not going to have to worry about noise. the airplanes taking

[1:25:24] off are louder than the I I I think I I do think that we need to consider a few

[1:25:31] more things than what are on this list like recom you know I think that's a

[1:25:35] really a good way of think we need to also in the plan consider the total life

[1:25:41] cycle >> I mean decommissioning plan and

[1:25:44] responsibility we don't want somebody to you know leave us a bunch of hazmat and

[1:25:49] and walk away and the other thing is I think we need to put a limitation on

[1:25:54] distance from residential. >> Yeah.

[1:25:56] » I mean, and I just did a quick look too with the distance from Hazlet Parkway

[1:26:01] and Westport Parkway is about 2 miles. >> So, I if we put everything say a mile

[1:26:06] from residential be the top half of that land between and then the airport area.

[1:26:12] Yeah. >> And that would keep I mean a mile

[1:26:14] separation from housing. Most people wouldn't even know they were there.

[1:26:19] » Well, and and along Westport Parkway, we got a buffer. It's called a bunch of

[1:26:23] It's called a bunch of >> warehouses,

[1:26:25] » right? It was all that land in between though that that we don't know what

[1:26:28] they're going to do with yet, >> right? All that stuff on the north side.

[1:26:31] » And if you listen to the news, there's already 600 of them in in Texas.

[1:26:36] » Yeah, there's there's some big ones that are under construction right now and and

[1:26:40] » like I said, they're we were just out in Abalene last week and they're building

[1:26:44] gigantic ones out in Abalene. So,

[1:26:48] » I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, but these are financially beneficial,

[1:26:51] even the kind of smaller ones, right? They I mean, it's going to help us. It's

[1:26:55] not going to hurt us, I wouldn't think. >> That's my understanding. They're very

[1:26:58] lucrative for a city. >> Yeah. I saw a story on Lowden County

[1:27:01] that has 52 of them in Lowden County, Virginia, and they bring in $1.3 billion

[1:27:08] a year. >> 45% of their revenue.

[1:27:11] » They can't spend it all. >> Yeah. And so, I mean, do we want 52 of

[1:27:15] them? I don't think so. But yeah, two or three of them might be

[1:27:19] might be beneficial as long as they don't create a stress on the system,

[1:27:25] » right? >> And it I just don't want to see where we

[1:27:28] get in the situation where, you know, everybody else's power bill is going to

[1:27:31] go up because we allow these people to come in. Uh power is already an issue

[1:27:36] with everything they're building up north, uh along, you know, in the Rome

[1:27:40] area. I know they're already working trying to get transmission lines out

[1:27:44] there. And so I imagine this whole north side of Fort Worth is power is a is at a

[1:27:50] premium, you know, with all the development we have. And so we just need

[1:27:53] to make sure we we cover all these [clears throat] bases.

[1:28:00] » Anything else on that? >> No, I'm glad we're doing this.

[1:28:03] » Great. You got anything else you want to say?

[1:28:08] » No, thank you, Paul. >> All right. Very good. Okay. Um future

[1:28:13] agenda items anything there or Ben or who wants to

[1:28:19] talk about it? >> Well, there will be a few things. There

[1:28:23] will be probably a uh sign ordinance. >> Yeah.

[1:28:27] » To address some things. >> It came out tonight. A sign ordinance

[1:28:32] » 4.04. >> Yeah.

[1:28:34] » Okay. you going from eight minutes down to something more reasonable

[1:28:39] and could be some illumination type things

[1:28:44] for the signs that like we heard tonight just to make sure that nobody is going

[1:28:48] to get hurt along the freeway what is allowed now.

[1:28:52] » Yeah. >> So that would be one item that I think

[1:28:57] Ben needs to start working on.

[1:29:01] » Very good. Uh there will be several other things. Um they weren't quite

[1:29:06] ready, but those two sites that uh that we looked at tonight were the zoning

[1:29:11] changes, there were really proceeding fast with some site plans. And so you'll

[1:29:17] be seeing those in in the future too, near future on those two tracks.

[1:29:23] » All right. Very [clears throat] good.

[1:29:28] » Tracks 41 and 42.

[1:29:34] those items um 7A and 7B I think. Yeah. On the on the agenda.

[1:29:41] » Okay. >> And um sorry to Mr. Wallik. Um if there

[1:29:45] were no other agenda items uh future agenda items, I did just want to take

[1:29:48] this opportunity again to uh thank Morris. Um he's he's been a invaluable

[1:29:55] resource I got to the city. I I think he's he's

[1:29:59] put in just a great deal of work on behalf of the city of Hlet uh long

[1:30:03] before I got to the city, but I can certainly attest for in the last 6

[1:30:08] months or so that I've been here. So, uh wanted to wish him the best uh uh uh

[1:30:15] blessings for him and his family going forward and welldeserved well-deserved

[1:30:19] retirement. So, just thank you very much.

[1:30:22] » Thank you. >> All right. You know what I forgot to do

[1:30:26] was Darlene sent in an email about data centers. So

[1:30:31] I'll let you guys read it. See what she It's the same thing. Noise, electricity,

[1:30:37] water, stuff like that. So, but we didn't we didn't bring it up. But

[1:30:42] anyhow, and to echo what you just said, >> the same thing.

[1:30:47] » Yeah. Since I've been on council, since Morris came with us and Belchief, I've

[1:30:53] seen a significant improvement in planning, engineering,

[1:30:58] thinking, and and the stuff that that's going on for our small city, but you

[1:31:04] know, we're still it's a city and we have to think about that stuff. We just

[1:31:08] don't throw stuff up willy-nilly. people the the biggest thing I think people fa

[1:31:15] don't think about on that is you know traffic but water and sewer

[1:31:20] water is very important >> and uh you know if you people think you

[1:31:24] can just throw up a subdivision and and we're going to magically get water to it

[1:31:29] and handle the sewer the sewer capacity the lines you you're going to you're

[1:31:35] going to stress them or or overstress them stuff like that so I that Belchup's

[1:31:41] done an excellent job at looking at that and um and then Morris has done a good

[1:31:47] job of helping us understand where the best places to develop in our city is. I

[1:31:54] I'd like just to speak a little bit about consultants for small cities, you

[1:31:58] know, because one of the things that we have an

[1:32:02] advantage in a lot of times is if you hire a like a planning director,

[1:32:08] » he knows what's going on in your city. But when you work with 240 other cities

[1:32:13] in the state, you bring a lot of >> knowledge in that say it work. It's

[1:32:18] working over here in this. Why don't we bring it over here? and and you can

[1:32:22] share that information rather than it all being just from one city. So I think

[1:32:27] in some ways like Belcheff and Associates, they have a lot of cities

[1:32:30] they work with and they bring a lot of knowledge to the city that you wouldn't

[1:32:35] get if you just had a an engineer, >> right? [clears throat]

[1:32:39] » It does make a difference. Personally been involved in that.

[1:32:44] Okay, other than we just meeting adjourned

[1:32:49] » 802. >> Thank you all.

[1:32:51] » Okay,

[1:32:55] » this conference is no longer being recorded.

Planning and Zoning Commission - 25 Aug 2026

Transcript