Not actually
» information.
Did a little bit of research before.
» These are just this is just the agenda. too specific.
» You know, the agenda it talks about the difference between like the current
adopted zoning plan and the master land use plan. I know the land use plan just
kind of speaks to industrial
current facilities.
right on the border industrial and the difference between one airport
permitted us storage distribution type users whereas
industrials
[clears throat]
» this conference will now be recorded.
» So, we'll uh call to order the um city of HST Planning and Zoning Commission,
Tuesday, August 21st at 6:30 p.m. Um that's item one. Item two, uh, I
think we've all been doing that. Recognition of retirement for our
planning and economic development coordinator, Maurice Schwanki. And let's
give him a hand. [applause]
I would say I've I've been on planning and zoning for I don't know, five or six
years. and and I and Greg's been here, Greg and Dorian been here forever, but
Maurice has done an excellent job for our city in helping us um
understand planning and zoning better. uh develop a better comprehensive idea
of what planning and zoning is and u and trying to make our city more um
diversified and I guess uh I don't know user friendly or something like that.
But anyhow, you know, bringing in businesses that are that we need,
keeping out some that we don't need and things like that. So, you've done a
great job and we appreciate it and thank you for your service and we're you want
to introduce Ben? >> Yeah, I can do that.
» Yeah. Why don't you do that now?
» And he is the uh my replacement and he's been with the Bureau of Veraritoss uh
for for over a year now. And u he's been in the planning business for a number of
years himself, you know, prior to coming to work with our company. He's a very
knowledgeable young man and I think he's going to do you a great job.
» Very good. Well, we're looking forward to working with you, Ben.
» Thank you. And uh do you want to say anything at all or
» u I look forward to working with you guys. I've been shadowed
the last few meetings city council and looking forward to working with you guys
and seeing what we can do here. >> Very good. Thank you very much. We'll
look forward to that. So, okay. Um item number three, citizens participation and
comments. um this is an opportunity for you to address and it appears to me that
we're going to have a couple two or three people that want to talk. So if
you've signed a card over there um we can start that uh right now.
» Okay.
And I and I would ask you our PNZ doesn't have a threeinut rule or
anything like that, but please keep your comments concise
uh and to the point and um you know if you need a couple more if you need more
than three minutes I think we've said too much. So anyhow that's my opinion.
So please uh whoever's first. >> Okay. First we have Laura Slaughterhawk.
Laura Slaughteroff 1195 Wildson away. >> Okay.
» Um I was hoping that you could clarify if not now uh at some point later um
what the allowed land uses in plan development districts are. I see that it
was part of the packet and it talks about um
referencing a base zoning district. So if you could give example of that says
if the PD concept plan specifically references a base zoning district. Um
any land use permitted by right in the applicable underlying base zoning
district as amended may be permitted and it goes on. if you'd give an example of
what the base zoning would be. And then I would also ask that data centers not
be allowed to be zoned in PD development. Thank you.
» Well, I think Joe, do you want to take that on or Maurice?
» Yeah, let me take a stab at it. You know, when you have a a plan development
and you have a base zoning district, the reason for the base zoning district, if
there was some use or not use, but some item that was left off of the PD like
front setback, side setback, then the base zoning district would cook in and
you would use those those uh items. But under a plan development,
the uses have to be spelled out in advance and they're not necessarily
inclusive of the base zoning district. In some instances, they may be, but
usually they're not.
[clears throat] Does that satisfy you, Laura?
Okay, very good. Anybody else want to speak?
» Brandon Preston.
» Hello, Brandon Preston. Address is 1608 Metal Lane. And uh first and foremost, I
wanted to come up. I know you've got a data center workshop tonight. Um wanted
to offer myself up again as a resource as we have larger discussions. I have
worked on uh design, build and operation of data centers again on three different
continents. Uh I have worked with large manufacturers that make cooling systems
for these guys. So uh want to be clear on a few things. One, I'm not here to
advocate for data centers near uh neighborhoods like the Westlake Keller
issue. I think that's a bad situation for everybody involved. I'm not here to
advocate against or for a data center specifically. I'm here to advocate for
good conversation so that we do not so to say throw the baby out with the
bathwater because there aren't very good partners in the space to work with.
Biggest question for us as a community [clears throat] down to power because
there's solutions for water. There are solutions for sound and uh I sent some
videos over to Joe that show what the sound outside the QTS data center in
Irving is. Basically, the ambient sound around the data center is louder than
the data center, right? So there's solutions for sound, there's solutions
for water. We just make educated decisions and conversations with
developers like Hillwood uh on those topics and with clients who come in. The
big question is power. Can our grid handle it? That comes down to a case by
case basis with a data center firm. Are they willing to invest in us? Right?
Powerhouse is the company coming in in Westlake. And I'll tell you, I've got
some disagreements with what they're doing, but one thing they are doing is
investing. I think it was 1 to2 billion within the power grid, right? So,
they're actually making investments back into the community. So, all I'm
advocating for is good conversation around something that is the I'm not
going to say the highest, I'll put it this way. It is one of the highest
revenue per acre generating things that we could have in this city from a
taxbased purpose. And what do we have right now? We have a deficit in our
budget. And eventually that's going to come to either a bond election or
getting a firm in that's actually uh going to be able to help us cover those
costs. Right? So I'm here to advocate for that good conversation, working with
the right partners, partnering with Encore, Hillwood, and the right data
center that if it does become an opportunity out near the airport where
it's away from all of the communities, you won't hear it, you won't see it,
right? that we at least think about it, talk through it, and have people
involved, and I will be a free resource to help with those conversations and
pull others in that I can. So, just here to [clears throat]
» Thank you, Brandon.
» Next, we have Christine Gross.
Good evening, members of the commission. Thank you for your time. My name is
Christine Gross. I live at 1328 Wild Sunnaway in HLlett. I'm here to address
8A on the data center ordinance. I'm very concerned that the critical first
steps of investigating the impact of the data centers in HLlet has not been
implemented. Without this, it can't be determined whether data centers should
even be allowed in HLET. First and foremost, the city should impede a
moratorum or all data center approvals or developments until the city contracts
with an independent study using the standardization request for proposed
valuation matrix that score suppliers objectively. Regarding the current data
center ordinance draft, it does not address critical factors that protect
our residents, our land, and our infrastructure. Additional issues to be
addressed should include but not be limited to, one, noise pollution. Data
centennas operate massive industrial chillers and exhaust fans 24/7. This
creates a continuous low frequency hum known to disturb sleep and lower
residential property values. Ordinance must mandate a strict acoustic limit at
any residential property line backed by independent moni monitoring.
Two, residential buffer zones. The draft ignores physical proximity to our
neighborhoods. We need strict zoning exclusions. There should be specific
setback distances from any residential district, school or park accompanied by
high density mature evergreen landscaping to shield those industrial
blocks. Three, resource and grid protection. Draft mentions high-capacity
power feeds and cooling strategies, but fail to protect the city. These
facilities consume millions of gallons of water and strain the electrical grid.
We must mandate closed loop water cooling systems that recycle 100% of the
water require an independent Urkott grid stability study before approval to
ensure residents do not face brownouts or soaring electrical rates. Four, air
emissions and safety backup generator standards, restricting the use of highly
polluting diesel generators, capping testing hours, or mandating cleaner tier
4 engines equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems. Five
battery storage hazards requiring dedicated self protocols, thermal
management plans, and non-liththium ion alternatives large-scale battery r rooms
to minimize explosive fire risks. I urge the commission to table this proposal
and recommend an in-depth objective study of the impact of data centers in
Hazlet. The promised tax revenue is enticing, but let's ensure that it's not
at the cost of Hlet resources and its citizens safely and safety and quality
of life is protected. Um, I'm not against data centers. I just want to be
thoroughly investigated with all parameters and to protect the city and
the residents. >> Thank you for your time.
» Thank you very much. I think we are all in agreement with that.
» Next, >> Mr. Wallock. Um, if I may, and not just
just sort of a general statement on um when that item does come up, there is no
proposal tonight to attempt to adopt anything uh tonight. So actually
everything that's that's being said tonight is really the first we look at
as the first steps of that conversation. So we we greatly appreciate it and yes
there is no u there is no request from staff to uh this isn't uh listed as
anything that could be provided for recommendation yet. It's just to have a
workshop and and get these issues out. So uh wanted to thank everybody that's
[clears throat] spoken already and anybody that will speak on it. But that
is the the goal tonight is to to get information
» and and let me say something. If if there's misconception, the workshop item
on there will not be open for public discussion tonight. There will
[clears throat] be no public. So if you want to speak on that, now is your time.
Um workshop is right here. So we'll be talking if there's anything we need to
talk amongst ourselves or we might even put it off because we don't have a full
slate of officers here and whatever we want to call this board commission. So
just to make that clear, no discussion during workshop. So next
» I'm Kitty Warts. >> Kitty. Okay.
» Thank you, Commission Kitty Warts, 205 Thistle Drive. And first of all, I don't
I want to make it clear, I'm not 100% against data centers. I just think it's
very important that um the zoning is the key to determine where the facilities
can reside and I agree with a few people's already said that uh it needs
to be it needs to reside in the airport district area far away from residential
houses um anywhere from I've seen some ordinance 300 ft some as far away as
1,000 ft from any residential location. Um, it makes sense that we capitalize on
this industry and that we help our city uh improve our infrastructure and we uh
capitalize on the taxes that come in from one of these facilities. Um, but it
needs to [clears throat] um be done correctly.
um we should um um make sure it's following um the conservation of the
electricity, the water and the noise pollution that uh it will emit. Um we
also need to make sure that whoever um we consider that they are financially
sound. Last thing in the world we need is someone to come in and and bankrupt
and leave us with an arbitrage around our neck. We also need to make sure when
we write the ordinance up we include um um a decommission and restoration uh
aspect of when that industry does pull out. Don't know how long this industry
is going to be a boom. I've I've heard that this could be a boom and a bust
because technology is evolving so fast that maybe these uh businesses are are
out of date in 5 to 10 years. We just don't know that. So, we have to think
ahead and make sure that we're protecting oursel as a city. Thank you,
» Kitty
Wise.
All right. My name is Jasmine Weise, 1469 Primmer's Place. I currently serve
on the HLO City Council. The comments I'm making tonight to reflect my own
views and not the position of the city council as a whole. Thank you for taking
the time to begin looking into data centers tonight. I think it's important
that we take the time to really understand this issue before deciding
what is or is not appropriate for HLET. Right now, data centers require an SUP
or specific use permit, and we currently have no applications before the city. An
SUP is not an automatic approval or a use that is simply permitted by right.
It is one of the more rigorous and discretionary zoning approval processes
we have in HLlet. It requires public hearings before both PNZ and city
council with PNZ making a recommendation and city council having the final
authority to approve approve the conditions, deny or send the application
back. The city can also impose additional development standards and
safeguards through the SUP based on specific project and its location. So we
already have a significant level of control over any proposal that might
come forward. This gives us an opportunity to be proactive rather than
reactive. I know a moratorum has been discussed and brought forward by
concerned residents and I'm not opposed to consider one if we reach a point
where it is necessary. But with no data center application currently before the
city, I don't think we need to rush to that step. We already require an SUP
which gives us significant control over the proposal that comes forward. I would
rather use this opportunity to understand the industry, identify the
concerns we need to address and deter and and determine what additional
standards Haslett should have in place. I would encourage PNZ to look beyond
simply whether we should allow them and instead dig into where they could
potentially be appropriate, what protections we would need, and what
standards should be in place before an application ever comes before us. That
means looking closely at things like noise, setbacks, proximity to
residential areas, screening, building design, water and power demands, backup
generators, environmental impacts, infrastructure, and the potential
economic benefits and opportunities these projects could bring to the city.
I would also strongly encourage you to speak with people who actually work in
the industry as well as other cities that have already dealt with these
projects. We should understand both the benefits and the challenges from people
who have firsthand experience. I don't think our goal should be to find a way
to say yes to data centers. And I don't think it should be to find a way to say
no. Our goal should be to understand them well enough that if one is ever
proposed in HLlett, we already know what we are willing to accept, where we are
willing to accept it, and what protections our residents should expect.
I appreciate you taking the time on and doing that work now before we have an
application sitting in front of us. I also wanted to comment on 7A and 7B and
say that I I don't see any issues with us approving
um or not approving um I don't see any issues with the request
from Hillwood. Um no one really travels up that way unless you're industrial. So
I just like us to really consider their request.
» So is that is that from councel or from you?
» From me. Everything I said is from me. >> Okay. [laughter] I'm just kidding,
Jasmine. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you.
» Thank you. All right. >> Okay. And then we have
» nice to know though. >> A one email a Dorene Snediger.
» Well, let's do Dorine's during the workshop.
» Should we do that? >> It's up to you. Yeah.
» Yeah, we could because we can talk. I can read her thing to us
» since she's on. You mean because she's a board member? Um, yes. Yes, you could.
» She can't make the meeting tonight, but we can we can read her.
» Yes. If you if you want that would still fit with what you
» I mean it's essentially the same thing. She's not against data centers. It just
» Yes, sir. >> And I just thought we don't need to get
her any others. >> Is that it?
» Okay. All right. Well, then we will move on to item four.
So [clears throat] 4 A um all city offices will be closed Monday, September
7th in observance of Labor Day. Item 4B, National Night Out, will be held
Tuesday, October 6th, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the community park. And uh
information is available on the city's web page for that. And we would
encourage participation. Um, good time. Get out. Get meet neighbors
that are maybe not in your neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods around the
city. We're getting to be a big small city. I guess we could call it that.
Item 4 C. Movie in the park featuring Goat that is will take place Friday,
October 9th at Nance Field. The movie will begin at dark and again there's
information on the web page. Our [clears throat]
consent agenda meeting minutes dated July 28th. Do we have any comments or
recommendation or motion? You guys got a share?
» Yeah. I make a motion that we accept the uh minutes as written.
» I second it. >> All right. All in favor? Right. All
oppose? Nobody. So fine. We'll get on to item seven. Item
7A is conduct a public hearing. Pardon me.
» What? 6A residential status. We skip 6A.
» Where have I? Oh, I'm sorry. 6A. Yeah, I moved. I'm
I got crosseyed. So, our residential project status report is available in
the packet. So, any comments, any questions, anything we want to talk
about? Okay. Thanks, Chuck. Okay. Seven. The 7A conduct a public hearing for
zoning on approximately a 16 12 acre of Caleb P Orient Survey abstract number
1195 in the MEP and and P RR company survey abstract
1135 Taran County properties west of Interotal Parkway and south of Railroad
Drive with an address of 1051 Railhead Drive. staff presentation
» and chairman and members of of the board. This is a zoning request for from
AF airport facilities to industrial zoning and the purpose of this zoning
request is to allow more flexibility in the uses that are allowed
AF. There are a few more uses in the industrial zoning classification that
you can do. The whole area on the master land use plan is shown as industrial
except there are just two zoning designations for it. The staff is in
support of this zoning request. >> So, who's bringing that request?
» The Hillwood. >> Hillwood. And are they the owners of the
property? >> They are the owners of the property and
they are in the audience tonight. >> Yeah, I knew that. So, but
any comments? You want to say anything? >> Blessed Tom Davies.
» Yeah, you can talk.
» Oh, wait a wait a minute. So, maybe I should open the public hearing. Yeah,
just a second. Yeah. >> So, let me open a public hearing at 6:52
uh on item 78. There. Now, you can talk. >> Okay. My name is Tom Davies. Uh I'm a
development manager representing Hillwood as everyone has said. Um I'm
speaking on behalf of item 7A and 7B. There are two uh properties uh directly
across from each other at the northwest and southeast corners of Interotal
Parkway and Tradewind Drive. Um so yeah, as Morris summarized, and congrats on
your retirement, uh uh these two properties are currently
zoned for airport facilities. We're requesting that they be reszoned for
industrial um there is indust industrial zoning immediately adjacent and as
Morris said um it is part of the 2024 adopted master land use plan that there
industrial area again as as Morris summarized uh it just right now all that
we're planning to do is build two industrial shell buildings on the site
just speculative industrial shells um the reasonzoning would allow us uh
greater marketing flexibility to attract a wider range of customers to be tenants
in those buildings. Airport facilities currently is a little bit more limited
in the permitted use. It would it would allow us to have a traditional uh
distribution and warehouse facility, but u that's that's more or less kind of it.
So, um that's the request and if you guys have any questions, uh feel free to
ask. I think Ben and Brad with Westwood, our civil consultant are here and they
might be speaking as well, but they can answer specifics.
» All right. Thank you. >> All right. Will anybody else want to
talk about um item 7A public hearing? So, we'll close the uh public hearing at
7:54. So, >> 654.
» 654. I'm sorry. Um all right so we got
discussion here
» chairman on on the map that you see on on the screen is our our master land use
plan and all the purple area that you see is industrial on the master land use
plan and these two tracks are up in this area right here. One's
right here and then the other one is just caddy corner right up here.
Then as far as um zoning,
the blue is the AF district and we have one tracks right here and the other
track is right here and we have industrial is this orangey color. So we
have a lot of industrial in the area but it is in the AF district.
Are there any other parcels any other parcels up there that are
vacant like this [snorts] that might be brought to us in the future?
» There could be some. >> Could be some up there. Okay. They're
all north of Westport Parkway. >> That is correct.
» Yeah. Okay. That in any >> Yeah. Westport Parkway lies like right
here. >> Okay. All right.
Any >> Yes. So
» what what is the biggest difference between AF and industrial? It seems
almost identical. >> They are almost identical. You know,
setbacks, etc. are all the same. It's just the the uses. When you go to the
use chart, there's a few more uses that are identified in the industrial than
they are in the AF. But for >> Was there a reason we did this? I wasn't
here, you know, when it was done. Is there reason?
» I wasn't I wasn't here either. So, we're we're both in the dark on that. Uh but
uh >> but it's not a height issue. It's not
anything else. >> No.
» Okay. >> No. The height of these shoes are are
controlled by these arcs that you can see here on the zoning map.
Identify the arcs. And there's actually some definitions up here in the lefth
hand corner which actually specify the heights that you can have.
» All right.
» It's just weird because it's like, you know, I don't understand. I I just
understand the difference. Yeah, exactly.
» Paul, Greg is online with his hand raised.
» Greg is online.
Thank you very much.
Well, okay. So, his question is, "Are trucking terminals one of the permitted
differences?"
I'm going to pull up the use charts and you can just go through. There's a lot
of different differences.
Yeah. Um Morris can bring it up, but uh I believe that's one use. Specifically,
truck and freight transportation services are allowed in both uh airport
facilities and industrial. Um so yeah airport facilities more geared towards
transportation related uses and warehouse and storage whereas industrial
also includes that but other uses as well
» only by text I guess but he said thank you no other questions.
All right.
» Okay. I'd make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval
of the uh change in zoning from uh airport facility to uh industrial for
the 16.5 acres of the Caleb Por orbit survey abstract number 11 195 in the
MEPN RR company uh survey abstract 135 Tarant
County.
We >> have a [clears throat] second. I second
it. >> All in favor? Okay. Motion passed.
Item 7 A. 7B conduct a public hearing for zoning.
Apparently, this is from airport facilities to industrial and
approximately 10.2 acres. In the HC Johnson survey, abstract
number 870, Taran County, Texas, property east of Interotal Parkway and
south of Tradewind Drive. address of 179 Intermoal Parkway.
I think you've already talked to it, but >> yes,
» chairman, members of the board, this is not on the same property, but your caddy
corner to the southeast of it, >> and it's basically the same thing. It's
for expanded uses that you can do. And if I can get the monitor back, I can put
up those that use chart. And so you can just see what the some of the
differences are. [clears throat] >> Okay.
» And over here in our use chart, you have the AF right here. Then you have
industrial. And the P means permitted use. And as you go down the industrial,
there's like I say, there's some P's on on both, but there are more P's on the U
industrial, giving more flexibility on the uses that can
» distribution and warehouse, right? And that's what you were talking about, Tom,
right? >> Correct. And yeah, if you go down to the
transportation related uses, I think what the gentleman online was asking
about, >> right?
See, >> right there it is. Both of them have P's
on them. They're both as permitted uses. >> All right. So,
we'll open a public hearing on that at uh let me get the right time. 7:03.
You want to speak to that directly? I mean, you talk to both, but you want to
get on record here or you >> If I need to, I can.
» Why not? Come here. talk about 7B. Tell us about that one. [snorts]
» So, uh 7B specifically, that's the roughly 10acre track that's at the
southeast corner of inner model and Tradewind, but like Morris said, it's
essentially the same thing. We don't have specific uses identified for either
of these buildings. Uh the site plan that we currently have, which is in for
review and appro approval, is a roughly 150,000 ft² speculative shell industrial
building. But this resoning effort would grant us the ability to market that uh
building to more potential customers and and companies [clears throat] to come to
Hasllett. >> Very good. Okay. Anybody else wish to
speak for or against item 7B?
Then we'll close the public hearing at 704.
So, do we want anything to talk here? >> Nothing really. Okay. I get a motion.
» All right. I make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval
of the change in zoning from airport facility to industrial for the 10.2
acres in the HC Johnson survey abstract 870 Tarant County, Texas.
» Have a second. >> I second it.
» All in favor? All right. Motion passes. >> 7B. Thank you very much.
» Okay. Item 7 C is um discuss consider an act regarding the approval and amendment
to the HLlet zoning ordinance amending the exterior site lighting section 5.1
of chapter 14 exhibit A staff presentation.
Yeah, chairman and members of the board, this is a topic that has been discussed
over the last couple meetings and and we have brought back u the corrections and
we've put this in front of our city attorney and had him take a look at it
and there he's made several comments and if I could have the screen back again
this email. >> He just wanted to make sure that that
the board knew that through section 5.10.3D1 10.3.D1
and the next a few items that these things will all apply to the city's
ordinances facilities as well as far as lighting.
And um then he also wanted him let everybody know that uh
that um when this goes to the city council, there needs to be a parallel
resolution that the city council needs to approve first and then this which
would basically state that the city wants to go to a dark sky type uh
situation which is required to do that under state law. And so I just I'm just
bringing that to your attention that if you approve this, then there will be
those items that will need to also go with this that going to the city
council. >> Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, good.
» Basically, you're doing the dark sky ordinance and but anyway, that was his
two points. I just want to make sure that we need knew that we needed to do
that parallel resolution and also these items that are above that
uh are things that'll apply to the city's facilities as well.
» The parallel resolution would be done at council.
» Yes. >> Yeah, that's council. Okay.
» And and that u Mr. Wallik, if I could um just kind of build on what Morris has
said. Um the the state, this is kind of one of those things where
they've they've limited
how we can regulate it unless we go through this um dark skies city
initiative type of thing. So that's why it it's kind of in a um it's not all or
nothing, but it is that's why it's it's not just here's one thing or or another
thing. It has to there there's a lot of things that kind of have to be
incorporated in it because of the way that the state has um uh going forward
permitted cities to regulate uh outdoor lighting. So that's why a little bit it
probably is a little bit different than than what had been expected but that's
why is because of uh matching state law. >> Okay. Very good.
» Okay. [clears throat] We'll uh I know we have someone wants to speak to it. So
we'll open [clears throat] a public hearing at 709
or you want to want to speak tell us found a couple of issues. She has a
couple of things she wanted to point out to us. Ordinance.
» Hi [clears throat] count uh commissioners. My name is Teresa Moore
with Clear Channel Outdoor. My address is 3616 Watonga Street, Fort Worth,
Texas. Um we came before the council two years ago and um were u supporting an
ordinance that allowed us to take down three billboards that are were along I35
and convert or and rebuild two one digital and one printed. So, we did that
about a year and a half ago and um they've been operating as the ordinance
allows, but under this proposed ordinance, we would not be able to
operate the digital. Um it the ordinance here uh has a measurement of ambient or
let me back up a little bit. When we were uh discussing this project with
council and the ordinance that they were um considering, we did come with some
information about how we operate. And our digital billboards are um have
louvers that direct the lighting to the freeway. So, it protects the light from
spilling on surrounding properties. The um the brightness also is measured um
based on the ambient conditions. So, as the sun goes down, the ambient light
goes darker and so our power goes down. And we operate at all times, whether
it's daylight or night, um at.3 foot candles above ambient light. And that is
a standard that's set by the state. That's also in the ordinance that was
adopted here in Hasslid. So, we've been operating um with that brightness um
since we built the structure. And um this ordinance would not allow us to do
that because the measurement or the the um limits that are laid out here are
much lower and they would not allow us to have any contrast at all after the
sun went down. So, um, we are just asking maybe for a little more time to
present you guys with some information about how our billboards work, how
lighting is measured, um, how we control any spillage into the night sky or to
neighboring properties. But even our printed billboard under this proposed
ordinance would not be conforming. we would have to take off the fixtures that
are um facing the um printed's face and put them on top, which we don't do
anymore because technology allows us to direct the um light directly on the face
and and in the old days we had four four fixtures and the light was just like a
regular bill a regular light bulb and so we didn't couldn't control the spillage.
But now we've reduced that to two fixtures. They're very they're directed
right on the face. The spillage is minimal. And just as a comparison, if
you're on the freeway, the lights that light the freeway at night are brighter
than our billboard. So, the other um piece of the ordinance being considered,
it limits the message duration to 30 seconds. We operate um our messages are
visible. They're a static image. They're visible for 8 seconds. Then um the state
requires that the change in message not have any scrolling or flashing or
blinking and that it happens immediately on the whole face at one time and it's
accomplished within one second. The ordinance being proposed requires that
that flip happen with uh in a quarter of a second, which is I mean we could
probably change things, but at our standard way that we operate everywhere
across the country except for Las Vegas is um 8 seconds static and then it
changes within 1 second to the next message and then there are eight spots
and the rotation starts again. So the the way this is written is just in
conflict with the ordinance that we um discussed and was that was approved two
years ago as far as we operate. So we we're just asking for a little more time
to discuss some of these things and how it impacts us because we would not be
able to operate that that billboard at night.
» Um >> Mr. Chair, um well would you like me to
speak now or after the public hearing? Oh,
» you talk. >> Okay. So, just one thing from a staff
perspective because Miss Moore, correct? Yes. Miss Moore did reach out today. Um,
I don't think that this was anybody's I know it wasn't staff's goal. I don't
think it was anybody's goal. I don't think anybody we've had even one
complaint about their um their product. So, um from a staff perspective um if if
the commission wanted to table this so that we can look at it a little bit
closer. Like I said, this was the goal was to get uh to get this in front of
y'all and then the attorney had some input that was based on the state. So,
um basically in short, um we would be more than uh happy to uh table this and
be able to speak with Miss Moore about ways that uh maybe address
[clears throat] her concerns just to make sure. I I don't think
» Chairman Cat, can you hear me? >> Oh, I can. Yes, sir.
» Can you hear me? >> I can. Yes, sir.
I I don't think the idea is to table this. I think we can figure out a way to
resolve this this evening. >> Okay. Yes, that was just I understand.
Yes, sir. >> Well, I'm I Greg, you're on if you can
hear us. I mean, we talked about the um dimming the lights, you know, everything
coming down after dark and all that stuff. But I think we were we were
talking more about like restaurants, places like that, neighborhood.
» Yeah. And that's addressed severally. So yeah,
» so so uh so I did look into Miss Moore's communication to the city today.
» Yeah. >> And text dot standards are it it this
the message has to be displayed for at least 8 seconds and the transition has
to happen within 2 seconds. That's the text standard.
» Yeah. >> There are cities that have lengths of d
you know display duration longer than 8 seconds like Dallas. Dallas is 20
seconds. You can't change the message any less than 20 seconds.
» That That's not true. >> This particular item I'm not as
concerned about. >> Great. Just second. Miss Moore, did you
want to comment on that? >> The standard in Dallas is 8 seconds.
Also, we operate under the same >> all over the
» That's interesting. I just looked it up today and it said 20 seconds.
That may be for premise or >> irregardless of that I I I am not that
concerned about this as long as we adjust the verbiage here to say this is
electronic displays slash billboards something to make sure it's applicable
to along highway frontages
» which is that's what I was thinking I mean because we didn't even talk about
billboards last one of the things I would like to point Now that the
agreement that they're working under, they are going to be legally
non-conforming if they're if they don't abide by the ordinance. So, we're not
going to ask them to change anything. >> They can you could continue just like
you are. The second point, there's nothing in this ordinance about uh signs
and changing. >> Um
we there was a a section about change displays. It's in 510.8
talks about electronic message display boards.
» Yeah. 8D4. Look at that. >> And the definition of that is includes
offsite bill or offsite >> what section again?
» 8 D4. 8D4. I think
» 5.1.8 Yeah. >> Yeah. But paragraph 4, if it was revised
to read according to text standards of 8 seconds and 2 seconds,
» I think that would be perfectly appropriate.
» Sure. Because it says 30 seconds, I think, in there.
» Currently, ours says 30 seconds and 0.25 seconds.
» So,
» if we're if we're grandfathered, it wouldn't wouldn't affect us. But that
the language >> You're not grandfathered. You're
operating under a different ordinance that was passed on your behalf.
» Yeah. But somebody else may come up with.
» So can we make that modification to this ordinance then instead of
[clears throat] apparently it's I don't have it in front of me but I think it
reads 30 seconds. >> It does. Paragraph 4 says or F says 30
seconds and >> it says 30 seconds.25.
Change that to 8 seconds. Right. Okay. >> That's
that's 5 10.8 D4. All right. Then the other the other
» is 5.10.3 H2.
I >> think
5.3 5.10.3H2 10.3 H2
I think is the where it said after a certain time it had to go dark.
» That is for that is for commercial properties if they have a display.
» Yep. So that's that's if they close they have to turn their sign off within
a certain time period of closing the business.
» Yeah. But we're talking her if this impacts the billboard up there.
It should >> somehow we should
» if if we're just saying that impact but I don't I I got to read it. Does it say
» Can I get the screen again please? >> 510.3
H2.3 >> in the final draft of this thing if you
can look up at this at the screen everything about sign elimination has
been taken out stricken by our city attorney.
» Yeah. >> Has not included. So, in the final
draft, it's not in there at all. About the 30 seconds, 8 seconds,
» it's gone. >> That was That was highlighted yellow in
the package we got. Is that what that was?
» Yeah, >> it was highlighted. Not Not
» should have been redlined. >> It wasn't redlined. It was highlighted
yellow in the package we got. That was a question I had. So, all of that came
out. >> That's gone.
» That's all coming out. >> Mhm.
» Yes. >> So, how would this affect?
» Why? Yeah, it wouldn't it wouldn't have >> it wouldn't even correct. Yes. So, it
would not they wouldn't even be grandfa grandfathered or legal non-conformance.
They would just not be affected at all. So, they would continue to be a legal
conforming use. >> So, was that the published one from
Thursday? because we pulled it from the >> um
things when we sent things to the attorney. He just was able to give this
» and uh did that come >> Why would he take that out?
» So maybe on a different >> we Yeah, we'd be happy to review what
changes were made. >> So in the packet it's all highlighted
yellow. >> So why do we don't know why he redlined
all that? Yeah, I'm
» sign illumination. >> What he stated just the the note on
there stating that basically since they're already as sign signage is
already regulated in article 4 >> of the city's code then that's
» basically I was going to ask about that. He was just going to remove it
recommending removal. >> Yeah. 4.04.47
[clears throat] says that the message duration is 5 minutes.
So for changing signs, it has to be a five minute message.
» Well, that ain't going to work. >> Yeah. And and we think that's we think
that's a problematic in itself and [clears throat] that that'll be a
subsequent ordinance that we're going to bring forward on the sign is is to
change it to more in tune with with the state to 8 seconds
because right now five minutes you it'll never change when people go by. Right.
» But you're you're not you're not abiding by that ordinance anyway because you
have your own separate agreement. >> The ordinance we operate under under
separate classification. >> All right. So, but sign illumination
doesn't necessarily just pertain to their billboard or a billboard be any
sign illumination. Okay.
» And it was we were just saying it was in conflict with the ordinance we operate
under what was being proposed. But if the changes were made after we saw the
the draft and >> I I understand that. Yeah. I I don't
think anybody's going to make you change your bill. [laughter]
» But u All right. So Mr. Page says strike that because it's covered under article
4.04. Then we have to address that. >> Yes.
» And decide when we talk about sign illumination, are we talking about signs
sitting out in front of a business or a billboard 50t in the air?
both. >> Yeah. So, you got to address them both.
You got to address them separately. >> Yeah. Because right now, you know, when
you drive by QT, >> if you notice the sign, this changing
about every 5 seconds. >> Yeah.
» And so, uh, instead of 8 minutes.
» All right. But, >> but it just needs to be addressed.
» We'll leave that up to Mr. Ben to come up with something next time.
» Yes. >> Okay. All right.
Yeah. Yeah, we're going to we're going to wait.
Well, I don't know. Maybe we don't need to wait on it.
All right, let's uh let's close the public public hearing. Just a minute.
Where are we? >> Thank you.
» All right. Thank you, Miss Mark. We'll close the public hearing at 7:23.
Okay. Now,
That's like that's so this since a lawyer's version is
different than what was published in the newspaper. Do we have to wait or what's
the story?
» But it was it's different. What I got was different than what?
» You do have the discretion. um if if you're if it really just comes down if
if you're comfortable with it with the understanding that uh it it it was a
different version. But yes, if you're comfortable with it, you can legally uh
recommend that with the understanding that you're recommending the version
that Morris uh included that includes the uh portion
being struck out completely. the sign that referenced the the sign
illumination. >> Yes.
» Are you still >> I am, but I can't hear you guys. You're
you're very muffled. >> You have to turn my phone.
» Can you hear me now? >> Perfectly.
» All right. So, did you hear that? that at the whole
bring that up again here. But that whole section on um
signs was struck out by Mr. Page because we address signs in article
4.04.
» So is the is the version that was in our packet what we're reviewing and
approving tonight? >> No.
» No. in the packet. It wasn't struck out, but it struck out what we're looking at
on the screen. And we're saying,
» well, I have not been provided a copy of that. So, how I I have no ability to
understand what you'd be reviewing or approving since nobody felt necessary to
give me a new copy. >> Bring that up again and we'll tell him
what it is. It's
was it this from electronic message displays or was it?
» Yeah. Well, actually this
» open that up again. [clears throat and cough]
Well, first of all, we determined that Miss Moore's questions, their sign is
okay. It stays where it is and operates like it is right now. It was approved
long time ago. All right. So, the question here is this lighting
ordinance. >> So, the what the the question is 5.10
10.8 and uh we're looking at sub paragraph D
on and it's called uh >> messaging sign
» right electronic message displays
» and and that's what Jeremy Page struck red line all the way through that
» he struck out all of section 5.107 107, which is just notification. There's a
notification statement. >> Yeah.
» And then 5.1.8
» struck. >> And he struck it all out.
» Yes. >> And not that he disagrees with what's in
there. It's just a duplicate. >> Yes. That's
» somewhere else in our ordinances. >> Section 4.04
talks all about signs. It's not in this packet.
» Not not in this. It's another >> it's another section ordinance.
» Another section of the ordinance. >> So if we
» So that's in our side or so Mr. Spanky is that would appear in our sign
ordinance. Is that correct? >> That is that is correct.
» Right. >> And that's another audit that we need to
address. >> So if we go forward with this, we'll
have two opposing codes. >> I I don't think so because if this is
struck out of what we're approving, then the sign ordinance stands on its own.
» This doesn't address the signage elements.
» I don't think we have Yeah. We should not have opposed code if that's the
case. >> And and then we just address 4.04 later,
» but adopt this as [clears throat] as >> without
» stricken by the the attorney removing section 5 one
» 5.10.7 and 5.10.8. >> Yeah.
» Make that motion. >> Yes.
» Yeah. That that makes sense to me.
You agree with that, Drake? >> Yeah, that makes sense to me. Thank you.
» All right. Very good. So,
» so the motion would be to recommend approval of this ordinance
and then eliminate section 5 >> 10.7
» 10.7 and 5.10.8. >> I'm sorry.
» All right. And then do we need to make a as part of our motion, do we need to
make that statement that we need the city to make a par parallel u
designation of a dark sky? >> I don't think so. I think the city
council is going to take care of that. >> Yes. Take care of that. Right.
I'd like a recommendation that the city council approve the exterior light of
the amendment to the Hazlet zoning ordinance amending the exterior site
lighting section 510 with the update that we're going to
remove section 5.10.7 and 5.10.8.
» I'll second. >> Okay.
All in favor? Motion passed. So, we uh make that
motion and send it on to city council.
» Thank you, Greg. >> Yeah. And I don't know if I'm able to uh
cast a vote there. >> I don't think so.
» Being remote. If so, I would vote I would have voted yes.
» What was the question? I'm sorry. >> Cast a vote remote.
» I don't believe so. So since he's not Mr. Cadesh since he's you're not uh
visible on the screen I don't think we can we would technically allow the vote.
» Oh well he he is now. So yeah well it it's supposed I believe the it's the
similar to the council where it has to be vis visible with the camera. So um
the deliberation I don't think is an issue but yes to actually cast a vote I
believe we need to have >> make sure that that's really him talking
» yes as that that and the state is so [laughter] it for for those that were
around uh during the co years it loosened up the state loosened the laws
up for about 6 months or so around that but other than that they generally
require >> there there he is
» yes sir so I'm a yes >> but we're not sure he's not an AI though
» thank Right. Okay. So,
» Greg votes. >> Can he cast a vote now?
» Yes. >> Yes.
» All right. All in favor raise your hand. >> All right. So, we got Greg voted in
favor of that. So, nobody opposed, I guess.
» Thank you. >> Thank you, Greg. Okay. Very good. Let's
um move on to um item 7D
is discuss and consider an act regarding the approval of the replat of block 1 R
block 11 city of Hston
chairman Wallick and and members of the of the board. This is a plat where
they're taking two lots and combining it into one. And it's right at first just
right just north of here right here, >> excuse me, west of here
» where you have a a lot and then you have these other two lots and they're
combining those two so they can build a house on it which should be in
conformance with the zoning ordinance. >> Good. Okay.
Any discussion? I got a motion.
I recommend approve to city council we approve uh the uh replat of lot one R
block
» 11
city of Hassle. Thank you. >> Right. Second.
» Okay. All in favor? Okay. Second, Mr. Chuck. Motion passes. So good. That's
7D. All right. 7E is um discuss, consider, and act or recommend
Westwood review our land use plan with the purpose of identifying appropriate
uses for our undeveloped land in both the ETJ
and city limits. Um
that's just we don't need that. So you guys
» So I this one I I was also a little stumped on
» I don't know >> the city's city discussion involved.
» Hopefully I can spread some light on on this but uh back a few months ago we had
a zoning case that was at the intersection of Harmon Road and Westport
Parkway. >> Right. and it's shown on our current
master land use plan as industrial and there's industrial zoning all the
way around it. That case was denied at the city council. It was approved by
this board, but it was denied at at the city council.
Subsequently, they said maybe we should take another look at our master land use
plan. >> Oh, that's city council.
» Yes, at city council. And so they really referred it back to the planning and
zoning commission to take that that look >> for one parcel.
» I believe I believe we made a motion to recommend to city council to contract
with an agency to conduct this analysis and there were a couple of
recommendations on firms to do that. I looked at their capabilities.
uh a few others from the city looked at those organizations capabilities and
this one was the one that we believed was most qualified to move that
initiative forward and so this is a u an item on our agenda to recommend that we
move forward with Westwood. And just to uh further uh kind of build on what the
uh chair cadesh said um back at the towards the end of June whenever we
initially brought the land use to PNZ to look at uh that was as uh Mr. Cadesh
stated that was whenever uh we as staff were told that that y'all would like to
see a uh kind of a third party brought in. So, um the the goal here is just for
us to uh to make sure we're providing PNZ and council with what what's been
requested. So, um don't we want to make sure uh council's been very clear
[clears throat] particularly at the last several months of meetings that uh they
want to make sure that boards are are that are designated or or given uh the
assignment to review things are are given them. So, uh, we wanted to make
sure when PNZ said that that, um, we did bring that back specifically to PNZ as
opposed to just directly to council. So, that is, uh, as as chair Cadesh, he's,
uh, stated, he's, uh, looked at this, Westwood as well as Morris had come up
with a couple of others. Um, then and that that would be the the goal. Um,
yes, sir. >> I I
» Okay. I kind of remember that discussion, but I don't
» not like that. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think we I I don't remember us.
I I don't I don't know. I mean, I know I think you I remember you saying city
council had talked about that, you know, getting PNZ. I I just don't see any need
for it. I I don't see any I think that we've done a pretty good job of laying
it out right now. And if city council didn't want to approve that one plant,
that's their deal. >> Yeah. This was a so when we made the
motion to to request city council appoint or I contract with a firm to do
this >> there were a number of objectives in
mind. One was to understand compatible uses in some of our main uh undeveloped
areas with the development that has occurred on the surrounding areas.
Making sure that we understand where our tax revenue opportunities might lie with
appropriate development. and then understanding what's the appropriate
uses for the ETJ. We don't have a line of sight to that.
We need industry experts to uh to that know more about what industries are
doing, what businesses are doing, what their motivations are to help us
understand some of that. That's why this part, this body, the planning and zoning
commission requested city council and we voted on it. We voted to have the city
council appoint somebody. Okay. Greg, I remember now. I think you're
right. Think I think we all at the time a lot more details were missing, but I
think the time >> you know what this is going to cost?
» Yeah. Do we have any idea what it's going to cost?
» I mean, you have idea. I mean, Westwood is a large engineering planning firm. I
mean, you know, this is >> Yeah, we don't have any idea what it's
what it's going to cost at this point, but it's just a recommendation of a firm
to do that. >> Okay.
» So, as part of recommendation, can we Okay. No.
» And and and the and the planning and zoning commission has no money. So it
needs to go to the council to >> Sure.
» to actually establish that and also approve a contract to that's
appropriate. >> Right. So they're just looking for us to
make a recommendation back to the city council to accept.
» Okay. >> I don't want to do that.
» If somebody wants to make a motion. >> All right. I'll make a motion that we
recommend to the city council to have Westwood review our land use plan with
the purpose of identifying appropriate uses for our undeveloped land both in
ETJ and city limits with the purpose of encouraging compatibility with
surrounding uses and revenues. >> I'll second.
» All in favor? All opposed? >> No, I'm
» and I have my hand as in favor. So, Greg's three in favor and I and I I
don't think it's necessary. >> Okay.
» I think it's a waste of waste of money. >> No, I voted no.
» I vote no. Tell them I voted no. They're going to ask me about it later.
Okay. Um item eight, workshop on data data center
ordinance.
I'll let uh you want to start us out on that one.
» Yeah, it's been in the news a lot lately
lately about uh data centers and in our ordinance there is no specific place for
that. The only place where it's ever been mentioned was on the Ironwood
property and it could be done there with a specific use permit. Other than that,
no place in the city has been designated for that. And what this does is just
sort of starts planning some ideas, the possibility if one would come around,
where would we want to do it? And instead of waiting till they come and
say, "Okay, we're going to figure out where we want to put you."
So, this would sort of identify a place and and then maybe look at some
standards that uh we could use to evaluate it. And if you could pull that
ordinance up
and this is by no means an ordinance, this is just showing and go down to the
table. This is an in the zoning ordinance.
It's It's almost, you know, clear down to the bottom of it. Go down a little
bit further. Keep on going. Keep on going. Keep on going.
It's down in the industrial area. Keep on going.
Right. Hold on. Right there. And the use category. If we just scroll up just a
little bit. Yeah, right there it's under utility and
utility related services. Now go down and um data center. It'd be with what
we're saying it perhaps the best place for that would be in the AF airport
facilities or industrial with a specific use request. Now if you look at the far
end of the table over there, it refers to 4.26 26J
and go down to the very bottom.
[snorts]
Okay, stop. Right. Go back up. And this is this is what the J refers
to. And these are different things that you could potentially look at. You could
add to this list or subtract from this list. There's nothing sitting concrete.
I just threw these out as ideas that the commission may want to look at when
they're uh taking a look at a specific use permit for a for a data center. One
would be in the site selection and then the next one would be power delivery
infrastructure. And there's different kinds of power, you know, delivery
surfaces. And then there's three cooling strategies. There's water. There's go on
scroll scroll down a little bit.
» There's hot and cold, direct liquid cooling, hybrid cooling,
modular cooling. There there's all different kinds of cooling and that's
where they get the water usage or non-water usage. And then there's
physical layouts of them. And then there's energy efficiency, stability,
and and then safety risk. And those are just some ideas of things that that PNZ
may want to look at when they're evaluating a data data center. That
doesn't mean you have to use any of those things, but it's something I just
threw out there just for for talking points of of what you can do. You can
look at things that like noise.
Yeah, I think there there's another element we need to look at also is you
know what's the viability that we even have the acreage to support a large data
center because typically those are in the 500 acre you know thousand acre
minimum uh footprints and then they go up from
there. Uh so do we have a even a footprint in the city or the ETJ that
you know could support something like that? nothing the work of being prepared
for uh something should something come be wrong. You know, I don't know that
that's wasted work, but it what's the likelihood given the available
developable land in the city of Hasslj. >> Well, it it could be very applicable
because not all data centers are large. They actually in the city of Rice, I
believe they're looking at an 11,000 square foot mini data center. So, not
all of them [clears throat] are 500,000 square feet or larger. So, some of them
are very very small. >> Yeah. But those don't have the demands
like one of these big five, you know, 5,000 acre footprints do. You know,
there it's a very different type of impact
» compared to, you know, what something like a Facebook has over on 170 and some
and I work extensively with data center development across the country, so I'm
very familiar with it. But those smaller ones are not the impact is nothing like
these bigger ones. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do the work to be prepared
should something come, but the impact is very different.
» So the question I was asking earlier about about noise. So uh someone sent a
video I thought that was pretty interesting. They had a they actually
had an meter or a sound meter right pretty impressive. Um what what do we
how do we write something like that in there? Do we say there's a certain
number they can go to? How do we write that? Yeah, you could you could add
anything like that you wanted to in here, but like I say, this this tonight
is not for any vote. This is just a discussion.
» Yeah, I think it's I think it's sensible for us to have a road map for
» the development, but I think we need to understand that
that development is could be very scallable.
» Yeah. >> But I I would not want to write it into
this We can talk about that,
» right? >> And I think that that we could have if
if we were interested. I mean, we might have had one of our own residents in
Hasslith that offered to furnish us with some a little bit of
assistance, maybe develop uh some criteria
for data centers, something that we could look at
» a little more in depth than I know what you said. You just put stuff you pulled
up and good information here, but a little bit more in depth working toward
developing some sort of ordinance or adding it to this ordinance here.
» Yeah. And I believe Governor Abbott's requiring some
work be done to define the roadmap for development in
the state of Texas as well. So we I don't think we can get out in front of
what the state's doing. Well, the state's put a 90-day moratorum on data
centers right now. They've shut down. >> So, and and by the time they get done
looking at that, they may put another 90 days so they could study the study
» and um >> new ones, right?
» Yeah. >> There's still on new ones.
» There's still hundreds under construction right now.
» Well, the one's under construction, but we're talking about here. This would be
a new one. So, if we had somebody that came
to us and said, "We're looking at the airport area
or out there along in uh >> Westport Parkway or Hasslet Parkway on
the north side. >> Is that far enough away from
residential? Is it more, you know, an industrial part of our city?" Um, you
know, but we right now we have no ordinance. have nothing at all. So, we
would have to tell them, "Thank you very much. When we develop an ordinance,
we'll come back and talk to us." >> So, you know, if we want to get some
input on that, I' I mean, I would I'd rather get input on that than on the
land plan use myself. >> Yeah. If somebody would walk in the door
today say we want to do a data center on it,
» our first response is it's not listed in our use chart.
» We don't have it. Mhm. >> And so then it falls on to the city
administrator to make a recommendation to the planning and zoning commission
and then you go from there. >> Yeah.
» But we'd rather preempt that and say, "Hey, let's settle this up front. Where
where do you want to see them? What kind of standards you want to look at?"
Instead of all of a sudden putting it all on Mr. Ashton's back and say, "This
is what's going to go on. This is what we recommend." Well, let's let's hash it
out and and come up with a good solid recommendation for the city council and
what benefits the city and them. >> So, are there other and you have
connections, Mr. Ash? I mean, is there are there other cities of our size, our
situation here where we might could get ideas from them or get a maybe they've
developed an ordinance >> and we could and we could look at
theirs. I mean, >> sure. And this was this was just a first
uh kind of a first run at it for for Morris on his his last meeting. So
» um but kind of to to what Morris said there
» put this on in your last meeting. >> No.
» Um it is a benefit and the reason Morris kind of touched on it. So there is yes
there is that that small portion that is um allowed by that annexation agreement
over in the Ironwood area um only by specific use permit. it's not allowed by
right. Um but as Morris said because it is not and
this actually act that's actually a good thing to bring up for the the folks uh
that might prefer a moratorum. So we already basically have kind of in effect
a moratorum in the sense that if somebody comes in right now
» it's it's well yes in addition to the states because as Morris said it's not a
permitted use anywhere else other than that small area um by the annexation
agreement. So what that would mean is yes if somebody comes in and asks for
for it right now it they give immediately told they would get this has
not literally not come up I don't believe even once so far um but they
would be told it's not a permitted use so you can't do it and then the process
that you would then add that you would make petition or request to add a
permitted use is like Morris said which is you would be requesting the planning
and zoning and the council to add uh any use that you're requesting in this case
data centers into an existing zoning district or multiple ones. And so the
problem with that if it did come up starting you know tomorrow or whatever
and we haven't already started down that process just from whenever you look at
any city whenever they deal with that it it winds up it it's a very reactive
thing instead of proactive and sometimes with small cities we have to react to
things and we understand that but it doesn't let you uh it doesn't let you
put the time into it it winds up being very specific to what that request is
and so you potentially wind up considering a broader text amendment to
the zoning ordinance and it's all bu built around what this one request is
because you didn't have it we didn't have it as a permitted use. So, um
that's a lot of words to say. Yes, I do I do appreciate Morris bringing this up
because um the goal would be to to get out in front of it and I think as Chair
Cadesh uh described it, kind of give us a roadmap and and something that um you
know we're we're just able to have something that addresses it that's
already put thought into it before suddenly now we would feel like okay we
we have to figure this out quick because we've got somebody that's that's pushing
something specific. So, [clears throat] >> so could we ask you or our engineering
consultant, somebody to bring to us some
sample ordinances that we could read, that we could look at?
» Sure. Yes, sir. >> I mean, I'm I'm certainly not Okay. I'm
an engineer, but the last [clears throat] thing I'd want to do is
develop an ordinance on data centers. I have no idea what I'm doing. Okay. I
don't know if you know if we're we're not so I'd like to see something that's
been developed by someone that knows what they're talking about.
» Sure. >> You know, and um or put some effort into
it since since we haven't put any effort into it.
» Yes. Yes, sir. We can certainly get some samples.
» I mean, some ideas. I mean, maybe you know some people that
» Is he still there? You still there?
I don't know if he's there. Um, but still here somebody to write an
ordinance. Um, you know, I wouldn't have anybody that could would would
understand what to write an ordinance around. Yeah.
» So, I'm just saying let's do a little bit of looking out there. See what we
can find. >> Yes, sir. We can definitely get some of
those and get those um even send those out to the P&Z in advance to to sort of
look over before the next time it's discussed.
» So, I want to jump in real quick. One of the comments I heard over and over
earlier on the public comment was about let's put by the airport which I I don't
disagree. That's probably a great place to put it somewhere on that kind of more
densely industrial area concern I have is we want to make sure that there can
we we should put something about it needs to be a closed loop or or low on
what's low vapor emitting. Okay. Because right next to an airport they don't want
to have you know gigantic clouds. So I mean I know that sounds dumb but
we've had issues like that already that I'm aware of. you know, not here, but in
other states. So, something to think about.
» Well, that's a good point. Sure.
» They would go to if you could scroll up a little bit.
Right there, it says natural hazards. Man-made hazards.
» Yeah, >> that's what that is. Natural hazards.
Manmade hazards. >> You really can't control it. Just it's
it's a My understanding is the closed loop systems don't have the same issues
as when they want to do the open loop, which that waste lots of water. I think
everybody's going toward the closed loop anyway, but you know, just in case
someone comes in for a smaller unit says, "Oh, we'll just we'll just open
the, you know, open making an open air thing." I don't think that's a good
idea. So, >> I'm showing my bias. I'm sorry. I'm open
to anything, but yeah, I just I I agree that I think we need to be ready for
these because the people are going to come. I just did a quick look on my
phone and there's like five or six here in North Fort Worth already under
construction. a 52 acre right in said Fort Worth Alliance.
Yeah. So, it's it they're they're coming to the area. I think we need to be
prepared and and uh I mean noise is only one factor of you know having an air
airport you're not going to have to worry about noise. the airplanes taking
off are louder than the I I I think I I do think that we need to consider a few
more things than what are on this list like recom you know I think that's a
really a good way of think we need to also in the plan consider the total life
cycle >> I mean decommissioning plan and
responsibility we don't want somebody to you know leave us a bunch of hazmat and
and walk away and the other thing is I think we need to put a limitation on
distance from residential. >> Yeah.
» I mean, and I just did a quick look too with the distance from Hazlet Parkway
and Westport Parkway is about 2 miles. >> So, I if we put everything say a mile
from residential be the top half of that land between and then the airport area.
Yeah. >> And that would keep I mean a mile
separation from housing. Most people wouldn't even know they were there.
» Well, and and along Westport Parkway, we got a buffer. It's called a bunch of
It's called a bunch of >> warehouses,
» right? It was all that land in between though that that we don't know what
they're going to do with yet, >> right? All that stuff on the north side.
» And if you listen to the news, there's already 600 of them in in Texas.
» Yeah, there's there's some big ones that are under construction right now and and
» like I said, they're we were just out in Abalene last week and they're building
gigantic ones out in Abalene. So,
» I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, but these are financially beneficial,
even the kind of smaller ones, right? They I mean, it's going to help us. It's
not going to hurt us, I wouldn't think. >> That's my understanding. They're very
lucrative for a city. >> Yeah. I saw a story on Lowden County
that has 52 of them in Lowden County, Virginia, and they bring in $1.3 billion
a year. >> 45% of their revenue.
» They can't spend it all. >> Yeah. And so, I mean, do we want 52 of
them? I don't think so. But yeah, two or three of them might be
might be beneficial as long as they don't create a stress on the system,
» right? >> And it I just don't want to see where we
get in the situation where, you know, everybody else's power bill is going to
go up because we allow these people to come in. Uh power is already an issue
with everything they're building up north, uh along, you know, in the Rome
area. I know they're already working trying to get transmission lines out
there. And so I imagine this whole north side of Fort Worth is power is a is at a
premium, you know, with all the development we have. And so we just need
to make sure we we cover all these [clears throat] bases.
» Anything else on that? >> No, I'm glad we're doing this.
» Great. You got anything else you want to say?
» No, thank you, Paul. >> All right. Very good. Okay. Um future
agenda items anything there or Ben or who wants to
talk about it? >> Well, there will be a few things. There
will be probably a uh sign ordinance. >> Yeah.
» To address some things. >> It came out tonight. A sign ordinance
» 4.04. >> Yeah.
» Okay. you going from eight minutes down to something more reasonable
and could be some illumination type things
for the signs that like we heard tonight just to make sure that nobody is going
to get hurt along the freeway what is allowed now.
» Yeah. >> So that would be one item that I think
Ben needs to start working on.
» Very good. Uh there will be several other things. Um they weren't quite
ready, but those two sites that uh that we looked at tonight were the zoning
changes, there were really proceeding fast with some site plans. And so you'll
be seeing those in in the future too, near future on those two tracks.
» All right. Very [clears throat] good.
» Tracks 41 and 42.
those items um 7A and 7B I think. Yeah. On the on the agenda.
» Okay. >> And um sorry to Mr. Wallik. Um if there
were no other agenda items uh future agenda items, I did just want to take
this opportunity again to uh thank Morris. Um he's he's been a invaluable
resource I got to the city. I I think he's he's
put in just a great deal of work on behalf of the city of Hlet uh long
before I got to the city, but I can certainly attest for in the last 6
months or so that I've been here. So, uh wanted to wish him the best uh uh uh
blessings for him and his family going forward and welldeserved well-deserved
retirement. So, just thank you very much.
» Thank you. >> All right. You know what I forgot to do
was Darlene sent in an email about data centers. So
I'll let you guys read it. See what she It's the same thing. Noise, electricity,
water, stuff like that. So, but we didn't we didn't bring it up. But
anyhow, and to echo what you just said, >> the same thing.
» Yeah. Since I've been on council, since Morris came with us and Belchief, I've
seen a significant improvement in planning, engineering,
thinking, and and the stuff that that's going on for our small city, but you
know, we're still it's a city and we have to think about that stuff. We just
don't throw stuff up willy-nilly. people the the biggest thing I think people fa
don't think about on that is you know traffic but water and sewer
water is very important >> and uh you know if you people think you
can just throw up a subdivision and and we're going to magically get water to it
and handle the sewer the sewer capacity the lines you you're going to you're
going to stress them or or overstress them stuff like that so I that Belchup's
done an excellent job at looking at that and um and then Morris has done a good
job of helping us understand where the best places to develop in our city is. I
I'd like just to speak a little bit about consultants for small cities, you
know, because one of the things that we have an
advantage in a lot of times is if you hire a like a planning director,
» he knows what's going on in your city. But when you work with 240 other cities
in the state, you bring a lot of >> knowledge in that say it work. It's
working over here in this. Why don't we bring it over here? and and you can
share that information rather than it all being just from one city. So I think
in some ways like Belcheff and Associates, they have a lot of cities
they work with and they bring a lot of knowledge to the city that you wouldn't
get if you just had a an engineer, >> right? [clears throat]
» It does make a difference. Personally been involved in that.
Okay, other than we just meeting adjourned
» 802. >> Thank you all.
» Okay,
» this conference is no longer being recorded.