[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.