[0:00] to
vary to
[0:03] u provide uh a series of tents in order
to regulate height in a kind of rational
[0:10] and consistent way. Um we used uh we
studied various models that are used uh
[0:16] by neighboring jurisdictions and are
common and are common you know
[0:21] throughout you know the United States.
Um and there's two basic uh methods. One
[0:28] is known as a kind of parallel plane
where we're basically taking the
[0:32] topography and and taking that plane
that's undulating with the land and then
[0:38] moving it up the height limit. And then
the other method that's very common so
[0:43] so that is the method that's used by the
city of Westlake Hills. Then another
[0:47] method that's fairly common that's used
by the city of Austin is is sort of a
[0:50] series of segmented uh planes where
you're going along the property line and
[0:58] uh and assigning a certain uh depth in
in the city of Austin it's a 40 foot
[1:03] increment and then you're getting high
points or low points and then from those
[1:07] you're you're generating your height
envelopes.
[1:10] Um, so what we did is we we studied um
several lots uh in in Rollingwood that
[1:19] have different characteristics in terms
of shape and topography in terms of
[1:23] whether they slope from the street back
or back to the street or side to side.
[1:30] And uh we've included sort of a a house
sort of a standard home so you can sort
[1:35] of see the implications of these
different tents on on a on a on a
[1:41] residence. So the first one uh that
we'll talk about is is the kind of the
[1:47] one that that the zoning and planning
commission have have recommended which
[1:51] is the parallel plane model. And like I
said that's the one sort of used in city
[1:56] of Westlake Hills. It's right here. The
the difference between what what is
[2:03] being proposed for Rollingwood and
Westlake Hills is is because side
[2:08] setbacks in Rollingwood are are smaller
uh in order to avoid significant
[2:13] encroachment on neighbors. There's a
kind of tapering effect on the on the
[2:17] sides. So it's a little bit it takes
some aspects of the the the segmented
[2:25] planes and puts them on the parallel
planes. And so that's why you see this
[2:29] kind of I guess what you might call a
little bit of a zigurat on both both
[2:33] sides where uh it the parallel plane is
being stepped one foot for every foot
[2:39] that you come into the lot. Can I ask
you a question? Absolutely. Sorry. No.
[2:43] No. But you mentioned that West Lake has
bigger side yard setbacks, right?
[2:49] Remember what? 25 feet. 25 or 10 or 15,
right? My my memory is that you're 15,
[2:58] right? And 15 on the side or 10. We're
25 total. 25 minimum of 10 on on any
[3:05] side, right? 10. Yeah. So, he's got a
Right. And so, that's my understanding.
[3:10] And I do apologize. It's been a while
since I to house in my understanding is
[3:14] your rear setback is 25 ft. So it's 20t
20 ft. So it's more in Westlake side
[3:20] setbacks are more like your rear
setbacks. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
[3:23] Is there a way possibly to uh zoom?
Absolutely. Yes.
[3:30] So and and I can go around it too so
that you can see sort of um how and as
[3:36] you can see the as the topography
uh undulates and in this case is going
[3:41] down from the street the the height
plane is doing the same. And then you
[3:46] can see how this what I call this kind
of like ziggurat or or this
[3:51] stepping would prohibit someone for bu
from building a home and having a very
[3:57] large uh you know facade very close to
their neighbor, their side neighbor. Of
[4:04] course, they can if they want that
height house, they can just bring it in
[4:09] to at the point to where they're their
the stepping uh align with the the par
[4:16] the full height of the parallel
plane. So that's the um that's the you
[4:22] know that that seems to be the the the
sort of the leading contender based on
[4:27] what zoning and planning. This is uh the
the very basic version of the segmented
[4:33] planes
um where you're going back a a certain
[4:37] distance for every segment. Um often
it's 40 ft. Um and then and then you
[4:44] pick either low points or high points.
So as you go back in the segments, you
[4:49] essentially get four corners and you can
either decide to use the low point of
[4:54] those four corners or the high point and
then extrude up to create these these
[4:59] these very clear tents and and actually
the these are
[5:04] more this is where we get the term tent
because obviously it looks like a tent.
[5:08] Um now no jurisdiction typically allows
just a tent. they typically then will
[5:14] have the tent plus a sort of like an
auxiliary height limit, sort of a cap.
[5:19] Um, and that's what you're seeing in
these other ones. And so the the common
[5:23] one like the one that we have in the
city of Austin, um, is there's just an
[5:29] overall height limit and it and it's
just flat. And that's what you're seeing
[5:33] here. Um, this this gold one, which is
probably just too complicated and
[5:40] pointless, is combining the parallel
plane as the sort of truncating plane
[5:44] for those segments. And there's really
very little value in that because it
[5:48] pretty much mimics what you would get
with a parallel plane and just
[5:52] introduces unnecessary complexity. But
these other ones are, you know, sort of
[5:57] like a method that is used in in in
cities. Um, it must be said that it's
[6:04] more typical and probably more
appropriate for um sort of core urban
[6:10] areas like you see in Austin where you
have narrower lots
[6:14] um and and you the chances of having
significant cross slope is very minimal
[6:20] because you know you over a 50 foot lot
chances are you're not going to have a
[6:22] lot of cross slope over 50 feet. um it's
not a very it's generally not sort of a
[6:28] great solution
for more suburban areas like this where
[6:32] you can have wider lots and you can have
significant cross slope and we'll see
[6:35] that in some of the other examples uh um
that that have those kinds of lots. So
[6:42] I'm going to go to the next property.
This one um is
[6:48] sloping significant. It has a
significantly more slope um and it is
[6:53] sloping um you know towards the street.
Now we didn't we didn't redesign the
[6:59] house. So it's kind of confusing because
like that the house looks like it's the
[7:04] backyard is facing the street but that's
my understanding that's not the case. Uh
[7:08] but but you see how then the the that
the ramifications of the of the
[7:14] different approaches on this lot.
Um and then there's there's another
[7:21] property that um is what you would
consider just basically much more of a
[7:26] flat lot. Um and again um obviously
these are the easier ones where there's
[7:32] less less difference between the
approaches. they tend to end up kind of
[7:37] netting the same. Um, and then you get a
lot like this, which you know gives you
[7:45] is is a very wide lot and so you get
significant distortions and complexities
[7:52] with the other sort of tenting
approaches
[7:55] um that they get kind of a little, you
know, a little unwieldy. Um it would be
[8:03] unfortunately we didn't have that lot
but if you had a lot with a lot of cross
[8:06] slope that had this kind of width it
would be even sort of more complicated
[8:10] because then you would not you wouldn't
want to assign the segmenting parallel
[8:15] to the street. You'd want to
perpendicular to the street. you'd want
[8:18] to assign it parallel to the street. And
and that gets into sort of a level of
[8:22] complexity that may be hard to to um you
know adjudicate in terms of how you
[8:28] write write the the ordinance and how
it's
[8:31] interpreted.
Um and that's that's basically it as far
[8:37] as what we've done. I'm happy to go back
to any of these and show uh zoom in and
[8:44] show more clarity on it. Um, I don't
know if there's any if I need to answer
[8:47] any questions.
Yeah, maybe could you just like go back
[8:52] and set sort of the context like what
are these houses? What are the lots
[8:56] like? Um, yeah. So, these are all it's
all the same house. It's all the same
[9:01] sort of house design uh if you will. So,
how did you come up with that design?
[9:08] Like that one of the I can help. Yeah,
that would be great. Thank you. Um,
[9:15] I'm just curious like what is the square
footage on that house like? Oh, what
[9:19] what we have here Dave Bench one
Randolph. Uh, what we have here are five
[9:25] properties that were essentially um um
volunteered by either people on PNG or
[9:34] other interested people. And
um we used there if you'll recall last
[9:41] time that there was a presentation there
was some concern that yeah we were
[9:46] showing these boxes as they were
portrayed as parallel plane or by
[9:50] segmenting that were empty and there was
concern that it didn't really provide a
[9:55] a practical picture of what's going on
and wouldn't it be cool if we could put
[10:00] a a house in there and so Tony Stein who
has one of these properties said that we
[10:06] could use a plan that had been devised
for his property. He didn't doesn't
[10:12] expect to execute it, but he had hired
an architect to develop a plan and then
[10:17] we could use that and show it inside of
his property and whether or not it would
[10:21] work within the parallel plane. And then
we would use that same
[10:26] um plan, house plan, and just project it
on the other properties too, just for
[10:30] the sake of scale and so you could see.
Does that help? Yeah, that totally
[10:34] helps. So maybe it'd be like cool to see
the presentation from that perspective
[10:39] because I forgot about that but now I
totally remember us doing that in the
[10:42] last meeting. So yeah I think that the
concept would be like in my view is like
[10:47] hey this is what we could he could have
built two years ago or today maybe even
[10:52] like this is the plan. How does this the
these different like proposals or
[10:57] possibilities affect what would do that
house? So can maybe like kind of wish
[11:04] And one thing that would help me is if
you zoom in on one and then drop the
[11:08] perspective closer to ground level. Can
you see the house under the plane? Sure.
[11:12] And then hold it still because I'm
conscious.
[11:16] And I think if you could zoom as much as
possible that would help too.
[11:24] But do we have like a We don't have like
a a like this is what it Well, I guess
[11:28] that is the house. You can It is. Okay.
And it's a house that was So that's what
[11:33] it would look like without any cropping
or any like any modifications. Is there
[11:40] I guess is there one? Yeah. So so I can
show you some slight areas where there's
[11:44] encroachment that you can see. So um and
it's actually easier to see on the gold.
[11:49] So um let me go to the gold one. Gold
one just
[11:56] clearly. So you can see here there's a
little bit of encroachment.
[12:01] Um,
but this is like the what you're showing
[12:04] here is like the parallel plane, right?
Okay. The first two up the top. Yeah.
[12:09] Okay. So, it's very slight, but there
are areas, you know, obviously it, you
[12:14] know, if you were designing it with
this, you would have to nip and tuck a
[12:18] bit and adjust the design slightly, but
it wouldn't affect the overall house. I
[12:22] I believe it was said that this was a
6,500 foot house, not something that So,
[12:27] so, you know, it's a nice sizable home.
Obviously, there's much more volume that
[12:31] could be built out under the the um the
the tent. Okay.
[12:38] Can you do a 360 on just one? Yeah. So,
here I'm going 360 and uh and you can
[12:45] see that Eve slightly is projecting
through. You see, is that Do you all see
[12:50] this area here? Let me zoom
in there. There's your incred.
[12:56] Yeah.
There you go. Thanks. You're right.
[13:00] There you go. You see how that sophet is
projecting through?
[13:04] Um, and you know, there are eve
exemptions in some jurisdictions.
[13:10] Um, you know, a lot of these things are
just not really needed on wider lots.
[13:15] The architect will just adjust
accordingly. Um,
[13:18] if I may interrupt what I understood on
this plan, on that
[13:23] model, that house would work if you just
move it over a foot.
[13:30] You You could make it work on that one.
Yeah, you can. Yeah, very good point.
[13:33] You can clear, In fact, you can clearly
see here. You move this house over a
[13:36] foot, there's plenty of room on this
side. Take advantage of the the
[13:40] situation you all have in Rollingwood
where you can
[13:46] [Music]
Then from the can you show the other the
[13:50] other the segmented one? Yes. And let me
go to the the one that would actually be
[13:56] used like a segmented with truncation
not using ones that so
[14:02] um this is this is using low
points. So these are segments but with
[14:10] truncating for the low points. Okay. Um
why would
[14:16] someone pick the low point sometimes?
Well, a low point will obviously make
[14:21] houses less uh large. Um so
well yeah I think he was saying oh yeah
[14:30] so in Austin
the low point would be more in tune with
[14:35] the way you know West Lakes Westlake
Hills attitude is like let's keep houses
[14:39] low under the tree line. In Austin, it
was more about, you know, letting people
[14:44] build a little
[14:52] taller, but you can see this one has,
you know, no violations. It's it's
[14:57] totally
fine. And
[15:02] uh and then here with the high points,
obviously, it's well above, but you
[15:07] know, um it doesn't take much. You can
see you could build a pretty monstrous
[15:11] house with the using the high points and
the the segmented tents. That's what
[15:17] that is. That's the high point, right?
Because you can see how you have a lot
[15:20] of a lot of volume above the house. Um
it's almost like you would almost add
[15:27] another floor to this house. So you're
getting it to something that looks
[15:30] almost more multifamily than top.
Yeah. Top deck. And that's
[15:43] um and yeah and that's that that's
there's not a lot of difference then
[15:48] after that because these were just
different ways of of one thing that we
[15:52] did study but it's totally minor but I
think it's it's it if you need if you're
[15:58] thinking in terms of the segmented
planes is establishing the height of the
[16:03] segment from the property line versus
the setback back. And typically, you
[16:08] would want to do it you you'd want to
achieve the same height, but you'd want
[16:12] to start on the property line because
you're going to get less distortion of
[16:16] grade based on existing conditions. Say
someone has has built retaining walls in
[16:22] the setback. The house is demoed. It
will create an artificial tent, but
[16:27] going to the proper line is is is
usually better. So there's there's a
[16:30] study here that reflects that, but it's
really only relevant if you're seriously
[16:36] considering the uh segments. And it
sounds like what I'm hearing you say is
[16:42] segmented is unnecessarily complicated
and not as so appropriate for big lots.
[16:48] It's better for these small lots like
instant.
[16:51] That's how we see it in in in you know
the neighboring jurisdictions. Um and
[16:56] and that that's you know the the problem
that you need to think about with the
[17:02] segments also especially when you have
you're trying to protect trees and you
[17:07] want people to do good design is that
the segments force the architect or the
[17:12] designer to push the volume of the house
into the
[17:16] segment and which you know is less than
ideal like I think as a as a codew
[17:21] writing organization land codew writing
organization
[17:25] You want to, you know, the trees aren't
moving and you want people to build
[17:30] beautiful homes as beautiful as they can
build. And so creating that kind of
[17:34] artificial constraint on where those
segments are is a little bit of a
[17:39] problem. It it was it was desired in
Austin at the time that it was uh chosen
[17:46] because the goal was to have people
break up the volumes of homes because
[17:52] they're so tightly piped together. So
they wanted in fact it were one of the
[17:58] things that happened in Austin there was
uh side setback uh articulation. They
[18:04] didn't want people building, you know,
flat walls on these very narrow lots.
[18:08] And so the sidewall articulation worked
with the segmented tents in order to
[18:13] encourage people to build houses that
were more discrete volumes. Um, and we
[18:20] considered sidewall articulation in in
committees, but it just seemed like too
[18:26] micromanaging people's home design for
rolling, right? And and you have large
[18:30] enough setbacks that it's kind of not
really. It's not so so relevant. Yeah.
[18:46] Can you show me the two like the height
like the gap? You know how you show that
[18:51] one? Yeah. Space there was between. Can
you show me like on the on the the
[18:57] parallel plane one to the low point one?
I guess just so I see the difference.
[19:02] Yeah. So,
[19:07] uh, here it is. And you can
see, I'm sorry because the stuff is in
[19:12] the background, so it's a little hard,
but you can see you have a pretty good
[19:16] amount of space still. So, this this
could be a, you know, this this roof
[19:20] pitch could be taller
and it would still fit nicely um in
[19:27] there.
[19:33] Um, yeah, this one might be easier to
see because I can
[19:38] What was the difference between the gold
and gold? Well, the gold is really just
[19:42] a
[19:45] uh it's kind of causing confusion. First
of all, this is just a replication. We
[19:50] should have just deleted this one. This
is the gold where this is the goal that
[19:54] matters is where combining the parallel
plane with the with the segments. I this
[19:59] one you're you're combining the parallel
plane with the parallel plane. So you're
[20:04] just getting parallel plane.
So I I I should we should have those two
[20:08] are the same. These two are the same.
And these two are they describe a real
[20:25] difference and I can take you to another
property. Maybe that might be nice. Just
[20:29] like a different lot. Yeah, there you
go. There's a different lot. Here you
[20:33] go. The parallel plane, you know, and
and this is where you can see the
[20:39] advantages, so to speak, that the
parallel plane will force this, you
[20:44] know, they can't as their lot drops off,
they can't just build a really tall
[20:50] element here. Um, but they can build a
little bit taller on this side where you
[20:55] know they have better topog, you know,
higher topography. So, how did you make
[21:00] that house do that? Just like lower one
or how did you Yeah, we just that that's
[21:06] we were just we just basically used our
best judgment. If you put this house on
[21:10] this lot, what would your typical
architect builder do? And they would
[21:13] typically just build these kind of tall
foundation walls. Gotcha. Yeah. you
[21:17] know, they wouldn't obviously and that's
something that is important to note like
[21:22] you know someone who wants a little bit
a certain kind of massing they can lower
[21:28] grade build retaining walls close to the
house in an artful way and and still get
[21:33] a little extra height. that there's
still plenty of there are tools in the
[21:37] tool belt for the architect and and
builder
[21:39] designer to still be able to achieve
visual results and and work with the
[21:46] with the with the tenting.
[21:54] So, and then let me go to another
[22:02] lot. Obviously with this was a ladder
lot very it makes it fairly easy to be
[22:10] in
[22:12] the under the plane. Oh, so wait the
first one was like this is the flat
[22:17] line. Well, it's a little flatter. Yeah,
the the first one has more slope. Yeah,
[22:22] it's it's I wouldn't call it slopey, but
it's the second one's the real slopey
[22:26] lot. Yeah, this one's pretty darn flat.
Going to be hard to hard to find a
[22:30] flatter lot in Rollingwood than this
one. And then the last lot would be like
[22:36] a kind of, you know, a kind of oddly
shaped long wide lot with some
[22:43] topography.
Uh but the characteristic is mostly now
[22:47] obviously this house doesn't fit on this
lot.
[22:53] Um we we would have to have altered the
design. Um but wasn't just
[23:04] yeah was a bit tough that's
[23:13] one.
[23:21] Well, this is really interesting. I
think if like maybe some screenshots of
[23:25] this would be too to show. I don't know
if planners gonna like look at these or
[23:29] see these or not. They've already seen
it. Okay. They did. They've already
[23:33] they've already voted on it. All right.
Sorry.
[23:39] And if you if you uh look at the Zoom B
the Zoom uh for this most recent
[23:48] planning zoning commission meeting,
these show up nicely on the Zoom
[23:53] screens. So, They're well they're well
presented.
[24:03] Well, you guys have obviously put a lot
of effort into this and really
[24:06] appreciate it. It's really helpful.
Yeah. For the community too at large to
[24:11] understand. Yeah. No, it's our pleasure.
Work.
[24:16] All right. Any more questions or
anything else anybody wants to
[24:20] see? All
[24:24] right.
Thank you for voting.
[24:30] Thank you all.
I know we paid you a fee, but I kind of
[24:35] feel like you you volunt you volunteered
a bit, too, because there's a lot of
[24:39] effort that went into that. I can tell.
Yeah. Well, you know, it's it's nice to
[24:43] be able to help out, too. So, we
appreciate it. The the fee was only
[24:47] partial the partial compensation. All
right, good ordinances is can tell
[24:51] there's a real public service component
to that. We appreciate that. Thank you.
[24:59] We'll move on to the consent agenda. And
I have comments on two of these. So I
[25:04] think we'll just take them one at a
time. So item number three,
[25:09] uh discussion, possible action on the
minutes from the March 26, 2025 joint
[25:14] council and planning and zoning
commission meeting. I have a
[25:20] Move
approval. Have a second. Second. All
[25:24] right. Motion by Brooke, second by Phil.
All in favor say I. I. Any oppose say
[25:31] nay. Motion passes. Um. Agenda item
number four, discussing and possible
[25:36] action on the minutes from the April
16th, 2025 city council meeting. I have
[25:43] and I'm sorry I meant to call about this
and get it fixed before the meeting and
[25:47] I didn't um there is a typo on the very
last
[25:53] page and and and it's a word but I don't
think it's the word that we intended to
[25:59] have
um agenda item number
[26:04] 16 the last paragraph it says members of
city council expressed interest in the
[26:08] park commission perusing next steps
I think it's supposed to say pursuing
[26:13] the next steps. We
fix that. Um, that was my only
[26:21] comment. We have a motion on uh move
approval with the change on page
[26:30] uh the last page 345 of the minutes from
perusing item 16 from perusing to
[26:38] pursuing. Is there a second?
Second.
[26:43] Motion by Brooke, second by Alec. All in
favor say I. I. Any oppose say
[26:49] nay. Motion passes. 5
[26:54] nothing. Agenda item number six. No.
Five. Five. Discussion possible action
[27:00] regarding acceptance of Michael RH's
resignation from the planning and zoning
[27:04] commission. Do I have a motion? Move
approval of item number six. I have a
[27:11] second.
Second. Motion by Brook, second by Bill.
[27:16] All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose
say nay.
[27:21] Okay. Motion passes five to
nothing. Agenda item number six,
[27:26] discussion and possible action regarding
acceptance of a water utilities easement
[27:29] granted by Olga Hobsar and located at 14
Tmont Drive.
[27:35] Um, is he's not here. Right. Right. Do
we have an explanation? And is this a is
[27:43] it a a water utility easement or
wastewater? Does it make a difference
[27:47] how we describe it? No, it's it's been
worded so as to allow either water or
[27:51] wastewater services. Okay. In there. The
intention of this particular easement is
[27:55] I think council is is aware of it. at
that particular property. There is an
[27:59] issue with the discharge line that comes
into the sanitary sewer from that
[28:03] property on 14 Tmont that needs to be
corrected temporarily. The discharge
[28:08] from that house, the waste water is
being routed above ground through a pipe
[28:11] on the adjacent property at 13 Tmont um
through an agreement kind of a verbal
[28:17] agreement that that pipe is temporary.
It's above ground. It's fairly
[28:21] vulnerable given to given its placement.
So, it's important the public health
[28:26] that we we rectify the situation as
quickly as possible. So to be able to do
[28:31] that, the uh the mayor and staff even
preceding me sort with Miss Kobar to get
[28:36] the easement in there so we could do the
appropriate repairs to the sewer system.
[28:41] And we've got all of the issues with the
grinder pump and all that worked out and
[28:47] he's responsible and yeah, the the
grinder pump is most certainly on on the
[28:51] resident is the discharge line as it
kind of comes into the sewer system
[28:56] that's owned and operated by the city.
There's that pipe that connects to
[29:00] it. If I Is here, you can say it more
eloquently, but it is after the grinder
[29:04] pump before the main trunk. Okay. All
right. Anybody else have any questions?
[29:11] No, but I was involved in some
discussions on this and at some point
[29:15] we're going to consider defining the
homeowner's responsibility all the way
[29:19] to the sewer line connection. And right
now it's from the we pick it up from the
[29:25] um grinder pump, but that's probably
needs to change. Right. I've spoken with
[29:30] the mayor some a few times since I've
been here about that exact same thing.
[29:34] He wanted to make sure that this was
taken care of first and and then we can
[29:37] make sure that this particular situation
doesn't become the city's issue moving
[29:41] forward.
[29:44] We have a motion motion to accept the
easements. There a second. Second.
[29:51] Motion by Kevin, second by Brooke. All
in favor say I. I. Any oppose say
[29:56] nay. A motion passes. Five to
nothing. Um, all right. On to the
[30:03] regular agenda.
[30:08] Agenda item number seven discussion
discussion and possible action on
[30:11] opposed ordinance amending chapter 107
of the city of rollingwoods code of
[30:15] ordinances to related to residential
building heights and height measurement.
[30:20] So the subject of our
[30:26] presentation any
discussion do we need a motion before we
[30:31] can have the discussion?
Um y'all can discuss.
[30:42] Um, Mayor Pro Tim, um, Brook Brown. Uh,
this item comes to the, um, council now
[30:51] for a decision, um, based on a 50 vote
from the planning and zoning commission.
[30:58] As y'all are aware, this is a uh
proposal regarding build setting new
[31:04] standards for building height uh within
the city of Rollingwood and methods of
[31:10] measurement for building height. It
adopts what has the recommendation that
[31:16] has come from the uh originally from the
uh
[31:22] CRC and then after about a year's worth
of review at planning and zoning
[31:29] uh it has been recommended to the
council for approval as proposed
[31:34] virtually as proposed by the the
CRC. I'm happy to walk through the terms
[31:40] of the uh changes if the council would
like. I've also uh done my usual thing
[31:49] of clarifying edits to the language uh
without substantive change in except for
[31:57] one exception which I can I can talk
about but it would be uh my motion to
[32:05] recommend approval of the proposed
ordinance with the edits that have been
[32:11] proposed
uh subject to
[32:17] uh the council's discussion and the
um
[32:22] consideration of the
[32:31] uh the one substantive change which is
to section 10783 lines 112 to
[32:39] 118 that uh provide a an additional
clause laws to the special exception
[32:46] that would be allowed for uh lots that
are on a flood plane or drainage
[32:51] easement.
A very long motion. Do we have a second?
[32:59] Um or discussion.
I'm ready to discuss it. Do we have to
[33:04] have a second to discuss it or we have a
motion? So, we have a motion. So, as
[33:08] well get a second.
I'll second it for point of discussion.
[33:14] Okay. Motion number second by Phil. So
may I? Yes.
[33:22] Um so I want to say this I think this is
a good ordinance. I really appreciate
[33:28] the CRC's work on this and planning and
zoning's work on it. I know a lot of
[33:33] people put a lot of effort and a lot of
time into it and it's very much
[33:37] appreciated and I think it's really
helped the whole community's
[33:40] understanding of the issue and of the
solution. So, it's really remarkable to
[33:46] see that much care and effort put into
it. I've reviewed um Council Member
[33:51] Brown's edits to the ordinance that are
clarifying and I concur with her
[33:56] suggestions on the clarifying
um edits. that you know I do want to
[34:03] discuss uh the special exception
process. um you know a a
[34:11] um special exception my understanding is
a is a easier uh way to go to get relief
[34:18] from the ordinance than a variance would
be because a variance would have to show
[34:22] hardship I believe is the term which is
narrowly defined in the law and a
[34:28] special exception would allow um
homeowners to get some relief from the
[34:32] height limit but it has to have specific
criteria set out um to qualify for the
[34:38] special exception. And um you know,
Council Member Brown, I think you
[34:43] mentioned a substantive edit which would
clarify the qualification for the
[34:48] special exception involving being
adjacent to um was it green space or
[34:54] drainage? Uh flood plane or flood plane
or drainage easement. Okay. So that
[34:59] means that the theory is that if if it's
next to a drainage easement or flood
[35:04] plane then it's not going to annoy the
neighbor there to go higher. Yes. Okay.
[35:09] With a limit of five additional a
maximum of five feet of uh additional
[35:15] height uh from what would otherwise be
the limit on height. So there's a cap so
[35:21] to speak on the additional relief that
can be granted right in that situation.
[35:28] That's in the proposal. But the language
that that I suggested adding would be um
[35:36] it it said in such cases in the case of
special exception were granted, the
[35:42] board may grant uh up to five additional
feet of building height. I added the
[35:47] language such that the maximum height
limits in
[35:51] 10771B, the 35 ft are increased up to an
additional five um may be increased up
[35:59] to an additional 5T of building height
across the the um building
[36:07] footprint. So the the five additional
feet didn't quite say all of that. It
[36:15] just said five additional feet. You
don't know if that's across the entire
[36:19] building, if that's across the entire
buildable area. So, I added that as
[36:24] clarified. And would that additional 5T
change the 25- ft height at the distance
[36:32] 10 ft from the property line? It would
change it to 30 feet. Okay. And then the
[36:38] 35 ft would be 40t. And why would we go
up to 40 feet if we're really just
[36:44] recognizing the fact that that side yard
is adjacent to a green space or flood
[36:51] plane? It could it could be the the the
um drainage easement or the flood plane
[36:59] isn't necessarily limited to the
sideyard. There can be a flood plane. My
[37:05] lot has flood plane across the back of
the lot. Uh other lots have flood plane
[37:12] uh that may be diagonal to the lot.
Okay? You know, there's um there's a
[37:17] house on Pwick um that's on stilts that
most of that lot is in the flood plane.
[37:25] So there the you can't quite it's not
it's not absolutely granted. that is
[37:33] subject to the approval of the board of
adjustment about how much of the lot
[37:39] would be
uh how much the height across what part
[37:44] of the lot the height would be
increased. But it is possible this
[37:48] language makes it possible to do it
across the entire lot. Okay. Up to five
[37:53] feet from the what from 25 to 30 and 35
to 40. And can I ask legal a question
[38:00] about that?
Um is that
[38:04] um if we write a special exception in
that manner, is a homeowner entitled to
[38:10] the special exception if they show the
uh conditions that are set forth in the
[38:16] ordinance that is being adjacent to
flood plane or drainage easements. You
[38:21] put the word shall in there then. Yes.
But we didn't. Right. Yeah. So, we're
[38:27] preserving the discretion of the board
of adjustment to grant or not grant that
[38:32] based on how appropriate it is, the
reasonable discretion. Okay. And and the
[38:36] the the test is used in this section is
the adverse impact on the lot's
[38:42] buildable area. Okay.
All right. From the from the um flood
[38:49] plane or the um drainage ements. Okay.
Thank you for the explanation.
[38:55] There's another place in this ordinance
where special exception was used and the
[39:01] recommendation from council was would be
to keep that as a variance. that was
[39:06] addressed at PNZ and the change that was
suggested by council from special
[39:11] exception to variance was approved in
the PNZ proposal. And if you um uh Duke
[39:19] Garwood gave uh a very cogent response
on in other types of situations just
[39:27] like we have for other building code
requirements, a variance may be granted
[39:32] if there are certain findings. and he
says, "I'm kind of the godfather of the
[39:37] variances in Rollingwood, and the
process works well if you have an odd
[39:41] lot or an odd situation or an that
impacts your ability to build with
[39:48] within reasonable limits." And so, um,
that was the PNZ was comfortable with
[39:55] leaving that a variance for conditions
other than the flood plane or the
[39:59] drainage easement. Um,
so that's I wanted to make sure that it
[40:06] was clear that that variance is still a
variance or that variance is a variance.
[40:11] That condition is a variant. Other
conditions would remain subject to a
[40:14] variance standard.
So my question on the flood plane issue
[40:20] is that there's no definition of
what
[40:24] what classification if you will of flood
flame. You know, it is a the one-year
[40:31] flood plane, the 500year flood plane,
which flood plane,
[40:38] because that that makes a huge
difference on how many homes this
[40:44] potentially affects or how many lots it
potentially affects.
[40:50] Do you have any suggestions on what
would be appropriate?
[40:53] I don't I don't know how
many homes are potentially affected.
[40:59] That was going to be my other question.
Um how many that we have that are um
[41:06] abuing a flood
plane to know what the what the
[41:11] difference would
be. But um Mr. Bench,
[41:17] would you be able to answer that
question? I'm sorry. And and I have a
[41:21] question about that too. is
okay. So, we just say that should some
[41:26] portion of the buildable area reside on
or
[41:33] um the altered version is reside on or
have a common boundary with a flood
[41:38] plane or drainage easement. And we don't
say
[41:44] um what what category of flood plane if
we added oh one one year 100y year 500
[41:51] year what's unbuildable. Okay. Yeah.
Well, generally most of our ordinances
[41:57] are written around the country. Mhm.
And it it is probably worth noting that
[42:04] within this within this but u I think
whenever we were coming up with this
[42:10] when we were thinking through this I
think we were considering it to be the
[42:13] 100red-year flood plan which as you know
[42:18] um you know um government entities like
the
[42:22] USGS could change that at any time. So
that was really kind of what we were
[42:28] after is we wanted to give people the
latitude to be able to work even as
[42:34] flood plane definitions are changing.
And is a 100red-year flood plane you
[42:39] cannot permit a structure in it. Can you
I'm not an engineer, but
[42:46] usually if you as long as you don't
raise the base flood elevation by a foot
[42:50] and you do all the appropriate things
that so that you're not then most cities
[42:54] will allow building in in the 100redyear
flood plane, but I don't know what our
[42:59] ordinances do and I don't know
you can build in a 100-year flood plan.
[43:04] Yeah, I've worked in several cities that
have 100 flood planes and it was quite
[43:08] flat and they absolutely extensively
built there, but it was related to the
[43:12] base flood elevation and dirt you can
bring in, move around. You couldn't
[43:16] bring dirt in, you could just move it
around on the lot. Yeah. And so in lies
[43:20] the reason why you would want to add in
five feet to the allowable height so
[43:26] that you could accommodate for that
flooding. The notion would be that you
[43:30] may not be building livable area in that
additional 5t. you would be raising the
[43:35] structure so that you're able to
accommodate. Does that make sense? So
[43:39] maybe instead of it being adjacent to or
sharing a boundary with it should say if
[43:43] it's on 100year flood plan maybe. I
don't know. I'm just trying to figure
[43:48] out the Well, it says some portion of
the
[43:53] reside on or have a common boundary with
because if you have a common boundary
[43:58] with a hundred-year flood plane that
somebody builds a house on, should you
[44:03] get to go higher just because they're on
flood plane? No, that's not the way it
[44:07] reads. It's adjacency to the flood plane
that's on the lot.
[44:12] Oh, there is a lot. Yeah, thank you.
Sorry, I'm a little slow on this. There
[44:18] we are. Thank you. Okay. Are drainage
easements are they not
[44:24] typically is that the same as a a like a
utility easement where it's usually five
[44:30] feet on each side of the property line
or how how big are the I I think we have
[44:37] very few actual drainage easements in
Rollingwood. We do I think in the in
[44:43] this instance in which this provision
would work, it would have to be a
[44:47] drainage easement recorded with the city
of Rollingwood. Um it's like Ashworth's
[44:53] new drainage easement or Kevin Shell
probably has one. Exactly. are the
[44:59] drainage easements that are that uh run
on what was private prop what was uh
[45:06] homeowner owned property between the uh
Nixon and uh the houses on um Hatwood
[45:17] and Pleasant Cove. So there you know th
those are dedicated those are dedicated
[45:23] easements. They'll have a meets and
bounds description. It's not uh it
[45:28] wouldn't be
um an easement that it wouldn't be
[45:34] property where
a drainage facility is located because
[45:40] that still remains private property and
there's no easement to the city for a
[45:44] drainage facility. If there's an actual
dedicated drainage easement, then this
[45:49] provision would allow the exception. So
the intention is though that the the
[45:55] special exception is only allowed if the
drainage easement is in the buildable
[46:01] area of the lot. Uh the it the way it's
written is that there's a drainage
[46:09] easement some portion of the drainage
the buildable area is on or have a com
[46:15] has a boundary with the
uh buildable area. the drain the
[46:22] buildable
area. Let me start up. The uh flood
[46:27] plane or drainage easement must either
be on the buildable area or have a
[46:33] boundary with the bu buildable area and
an extreme adverse impact on the lots
[46:38] buildable area. So you could have a
situation where
[46:45] um the the the slope's so steep adjacent
to it or there's some other condition
[46:52] where it's affect even though it's not
on the buildable area it's affecting the
[46:58] buildable area.
[47:03] I'm having a hard time understanding an
an example of where if if it's not on
[47:10] the buildable area, how how would it
impact? Well, there's like one on Inwood
[47:16] where the water goes actually through
part of the house where they've bridged
[47:20] over the drainage or is that right?
Yeah. And that would be an example. You
[47:25] couldn't have built on the ground, but
that would be within the biblical area.
[47:28] Yeah. Right. Yeah. I'm thinking about if
it's adjacent to there's one on Hubard
[47:34] Circle too kind of like that.
That's also not in the available area.
[47:44] Sorry about
that. Checking my message and it came up
[47:48] music.
Yeah, those are those are
[47:54] both in the setbacks. And so I'm trying
to understand how that how being
[48:00] adjacent to that would necessitate being
able to go higher. I don't know if Mr.
[48:07] Bench wants to address that or not
on the on the drainage.
[48:13] again. Um I think what our intent was
was to not penalize someone who is in a
[48:22] floodprone area or an area where the
city asks to be able to put a
[48:30] um a a a drainage easement in. They
would not be penalized by being that
[48:37] close to the water. we would give them
some
[48:41] additional height so that they can
overcome any kind of hardship that
[48:46] flooding or an easement would create.
Now again this is all subject to BOA
[48:53] approval. So you know it would be up to
the BOA to decide whether or not there's
[48:58] really something there. Does it really
merit the additional 5 feet or doesn't
[49:03] it?
and and what we wanted to do was to
[49:07] provide at least the latitude to enable
it just a little breathing
[49:13] room. We had been asked about this was a
discussion within CRC and there were
[49:18] interested people about this particular
thing. Jay, I could I could see a situ
[49:24] the just as I'm sitting here thinking, I
could see a situation where the a
[49:29] drainage easement would take what would
otherwise be the entire sideyard where
[49:33] you would have
um um potentially some equipment, air
[49:39] conditioner unit, and you would want
some accommodation to be able
[49:45] to even though the drainage easement's
not in the buildable area. It takes up
[49:52] the whole sideyard and you need some
additional room or space.
[49:58] like the example. I've got a severely
sloped lot with a seasonal creek that
[50:03] runs in the back of it down at Inwood
Circle and I could see wanting to
[50:09] cantalveriever a house out over that a
little bit. So that you stay out of that
[50:14] floodway, but that's going to if you're
measuring from natural grade, that's
[50:19] going to severely limit
how high I can build. uh you know cuz I
[50:24] might be 10 ft off the ground hanging
out over the over the drainage. So
[50:30] that's just a an example I think that
applies.
[50:42] I already built mine. Or if your if your
if your backyard is taken up by the
[50:46] drainage easement Yeah. and you want uh
you know some outdoor area in well I
[50:54] don't think anybody's whole backyard is
going to be taken up by the drainage but
[50:59] I'm comfortable with it because of the
point that Mr. bench made. That's the
[51:02] BOA still has to approve this. I mean,
if this was some automatic thing, they'd
[51:07] be entitled to it. I would be concerned
about it, right? More, but I think with
[51:12] the BOA.
Yeah. Given our topography, you might
[51:18] just want to be a little sensitive to
some of our special situations. And I
[51:24] believe this is it.
[51:27] or have your driveway outside the
drainage ement.
[51:35] And if I might add, so while while
you're discussing that, I pulled up our
[51:38] GIS map, assuming the accuracy of the
GIS map, the only uh 100-year flood
[51:44] plane that exists within the city limits
is it follows Eden's Creek. It starts
[51:49] right there at Edgroveve goes up around
the back of Peters and uh then just
[51:53] follows the north side of uh of B caves
there and terminates into Lana. So
[51:59] roughly counting while you're talking
about 10 properties there would be
[52:03] affected that currently have buildings
and about seven that don't have
[52:05] buildings. That's 100year flood plan
100. Yeah. And we don't define what kind
[52:09] of flood plane. Understood. But for the
discussion of should be 100 or 500 or
[52:13] what the hundredyear flood plane affects
about 17 properties of which 10 have
[52:16] buildings. Yeah. Well, I'm pretty sure
that like Brook said, she's got a flood
[52:20] plane, but if the if that's not a
hundred-year flood plane, then hers is
[52:23] less than that, and that would affect
everybody on that.
[52:30] Um, so
there without
[52:35] a from the modifier, it's just hard to
know how many properties this
[52:40] potentially
affects and and who all would be.
[52:45] I would I would not opposed having it
apply to the hundredyear flood plane.
[52:50] No. Okay. 100 or less. No. No. 100 or
more. I think 100 or more. And I uh the
[52:58] I don't know what what our administrator
is looking at, but when we have the u
[53:03] the
the infrastructure improvement
[53:07] improvement plan that K Freeze did model
the 100red-year flood plane
[53:13] uh in it. And there's several like my
backyard like the the
[53:18] the creek bed that runs through open
yards on
[53:26] uh
Wallace and down down Wallace. Those
[53:32] were hund those were shown as
hundred-year flood lines including and
[53:35] and the the creek that comes through the
dry creek that comes through the park
[53:40] property and onto Pleasant Cove. Okay, I
have a question about that. I'm sorry.
[53:44] I'm maybe I'm confused, but my
understanding of hundredyear flood plane
[53:48] means that it's going to flood every
hundred years is the definition of it.
[53:52] And my creek in the back of my house
floods every year. So, are we saying
[53:58] that it only covers 100 year flood plane
or 100 or less? Creek behind you doesn't
[54:02] flood every Well, it would flood a
structure every year. I mean, it runs
[54:06] water that deep that's like white water
with a little waterfall. So there's
[54:11] runoff that goes through it every time
it rains, right? But that's a difference
[54:16] between So what's the difference between
10-year flood plane and 100red-year
[54:20] flood plane? 10ear floods more often. 10
times more often, right? Well, I don't
[54:24] know. That's 10 times more often. Well,
that's that's the very definition. 10
[54:28] times more likely. It's the very
definition. 10 times more likely to
[54:31] flood. So what I'm saying is we want to
give relief to the areas that are more
[54:36] likely to flood, not less likely to
flood. Right. Correct. So, we want to do
[54:41] 100 years or less. I agree. That makes
sense to me, too. That's a logic way I
[54:48] think about it. But
if it's a 10ear flood plan, you would
[54:52] want to give them relief even more so
than 100. Yeah. Yeah.
[55:01] I'm going to look up what's in these
freeze up to the board of adjustment,
[55:07] right? providing that but I do think
it's a hundredyear flood plan or less
[55:13] you know so if it's 50 year 10 year or
up to a hundred year then yeah but you
[55:20] don't usually define a a a one year well
I understand that's not the that's not
[55:26] the concern usually so okay well we can
just leave so 100 a 100red-year flood
[55:31] plane would contain the 50-year flood
plane and a 10 year flood plane the
[55:35] 100-year flood plane the extent of the
flooding It's inclusive of it. Exactly.
[55:39] They're progressively largest. Yes,
that's very plain. It's most certainly
[55:44] within the 100 year flood plane. I might
be in the 5,000y year flip plane. You
[55:48] guys probably wouldn't want to give me
any relief. I'm not What about that?
[55:51] What about the ice age?
10,000 years.
[55:58] Well,
[56:03] um I'm trying to find the infrastructure
improvement plan and it's always a pain
[56:08] to
do. So, I'm
[56:14] at this point. Is there a uh Nikki or
Michaela, can you tell me where to find
[56:20] it on our website? I know there's a link
to it in one of the times on the
[56:25] lefthand column, but I don't know
[56:45] which at the top if you go to meet your
government on our web page. If you go to
[56:50] I'm sorry.
Okay. And then in the middle uh under
[56:55] planning and development, if you just
click on planning and
[56:58] development and then once you click on
that, it'll be down the side panel on
[57:04] the left. Okay.
[57:24] Yeah, at this point I if you could go to
um can you put up page 43 of that on our
[57:33] screen?
[57:44] [Music]
[57:49] This shows the
[57:56] Oh,
[57:58] [Music]
actually it
[58:07] this is where the city is looking at
doing drainage improvements.
[58:11] They've identified that it's the plan
that identifies the top during the
[58:18] and I would think that's
[58:23] I'm okay with it as it's written. No,
with the
[58:31] BOA I've always looked at this because
that's what this legend shows. Okay.
[58:38] What? Um 43 43 page 43.
[58:46] A 100redyear flood plane is a more
significant flood
[58:50] than a 100red-year flood is a more
significant flood than
[58:54] a fiveyear flood or a 10ear flood.
That's true. That's the way to think
[58:58] about a thing, right?
That's true.
[59:02] So this what I what
I'm if we can pull it up I can pass this
[59:09] over to you. I was going to say the the
water level is lower with a one-year
[59:14] flood. This is with a 10ear
flood study indicates are the drainage
[59:21] areas of the city that need attention.
Right. And so that's what I I'd be
[59:27] comfortable with whatever that
is or leave it plain. That makes sense.
[59:34] I would leave it as it is and let the
board of adjustment figure it out when
[59:38] when they get
[59:42] I think it's a good ordinance. I like
all the work that's been done on it.
[59:52] It show as I understand the legend it's
the this is
[1:00:00] this is a 100redyear inundation anywhere
from
[1:00:07] [Music]
[1:00:15] that's why I've always thought that that
this map showed the 100redyear flood
[1:00:18] plane. Yeah.
[1:00:24] Yeah.
Well, I think at this point we just move
[1:00:29] on with what we have.
[1:00:34] Um there is one other decision that
needs to be made and that is the
[1:00:39] language
um
[1:00:42] um on um at line 42.
[1:00:51] If y'all recall the the current
ordinance uses the term building height,
[1:00:57] residential as a defined term to define
building height. I think we can do away
[1:01:03] with that kind of cumbersome term and
replace it with building
[1:01:07] height and then reference the
residential zoning code. So building
[1:01:14] height is used in the resident in in
chapter 107 division two of the
[1:01:20] residential zoning district
means. And then in if you turn to the se
[1:01:26] second page
uh section 10771 at line 74
[1:01:33] uh and throughout section
[1:01:38] 10771 my edits would use the term
building height consistently through
[1:01:43] that section.
[1:01:47] If we don't do
that, if you look back at lines um 62 to
[1:01:54] 65, this is the language in the existing
code that ties the definition building
[1:01:59] height residential to the residential
zoning
[1:02:02] code. So what I'm proposing is just a
simpler way and less convoluted way to
[1:02:08] show use that term defined term.
[1:02:14] Sounds good to me. Yeah, it's fine to
me.
[1:02:18] And I would recommend that we we we we
do it as I just described it retain the
[1:02:24] deletion of line 63 through 65 but now
use the term building height as opposed
[1:02:30] to building height, residential. We take
that as an amended motion. I think I'll
[1:02:36] state it in the motion. Okay. Um we had
a motion already. We didn't have a
[1:02:41] motion. Didn't get a vote. U somebody
somebody seconded it.
[1:02:46] vote on it. Second on it. That's
correct. Yes.
[1:02:52] Right. Well, what I was I I knew when I
made the motion that I didn't want to
[1:02:57] add all the the things that still needed
uh um Well, then resend your motion and
[1:03:05] remake your motion. I'm going to resend
the motion and remake my motion. Fine
[1:03:09] with that.
[1:03:15] I move we adopt ordinance
[1:03:20] 2025-05-21-06 as uh contained in the
packet
[1:03:28] uh the item Brook with the Brook Brown
edits. It's shown Brook Brown
[1:03:32] definitions of existing
grade I'm sorry Brook Brown edits to
[1:03:38] building height ordinance
519-2025 with the changes as proposed in
[1:03:46] that version of the proposed ordinance
and that those changes include the
[1:03:53] changes at lines 42 through 44.
[1:04:07] Four and that is my
[1:04:12] proposal and the deletion of lines 62
through 65.
[1:04:17] Well, it is deleted. That that's with
the with the edits. But I I believe you
[1:04:22] want didn't you want to remove the word
residential on the building height?
[1:04:27] No, that's that's no. Okay. Okay.
We're striking the term building res
[1:04:35] residential building height,
residential. We're converting that to
[1:04:40] building height. We're
referencing as used in chapter 107
[1:04:45] division 2 residential zoning district.
[1:04:51] And we're re retaining the deletion of
lines 62 62 through
[1:04:57] 65 and we're not using the alternative
that's in the paragraph or keep this
[1:05:03] right. Okay. Okay. But when I look at
line 42, it says building height,
[1:05:08] residential, and she's got that
scratched out. It's not scratched out on
[1:05:11] mine. You're not looking at Brook's
edits version of that. It's all
[1:05:15] handwritten. Oh, the handwritten. Okay.
I was looking. Okay. Y and second.
[1:05:24] Okay. Amended motion by or revised
motion by Brook and second by Phil. So
[1:05:33] may I last? Okay. I I just have one
question. Um on line 118 in uh
[1:05:42] Councilwoman Brown's um additions.
I'm not sure I that she so wants to have
[1:05:50] so long as such increase in height at a
distance of at least 25 ft from the
[1:05:55] nearest property line. Did you want to
keep that in there or uh No, I did not.
[1:06:00] Instead of that language, my motion
would be that line
[1:06:06] 171 117 to 118 read, "In such cases, the
board may grant a special
[1:06:12] exception such that in insert such that
the maximum height limits as stated in
[1:06:21] 10771B are
increased for up to five additional feet
[1:06:27] of building height.
[1:06:39] So this would this portion would get
scratched.
[1:06:43] Uh lines 117 to 118 would be reddrafted
to add the additional clause. So long as
[1:06:51] but not the so long as not the so long
ask. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:06:58] And uh I appreciate Jay's bringing this
to my attention because I missed it.
[1:07:11] Are we clear on
what the wording changes?
[1:07:16] Okay.
All
[1:07:19] right. Any additional
discussion? We get to vote.
[1:07:25] All those in favor say I. I. All say
nay. Motion passes. 5 nothing.
[1:07:32] And I do I do want
[1:07:42] Mayor Pro Tim. Yes ma'am. Uh, I would
like to take a minute to uh give a big
[1:07:50] thank you to the
CRCRC, Dave Bench, Tom Ferrell, Duke
[1:07:54] Garwood, Alex Robinette, Jayvon Babl,
Jeff Marx, Brian
[1:07:59] Ryder, and for all their work that
they've done on this project. I would
[1:08:04] also like to give a big thank you to the
members of the planning and zoning
[1:08:08] commission, Dave Bench, Tony Stein, Mike
Rhodess, Brian Nash, Jeannie Nyer, Jerry
[1:08:14] Fleming, Michael Hall for all the work
they've done on this project. I would
[1:08:20] also like to thank the community members
who have spoken up and come to the
[1:08:24] meetings and attended and given their
advice and their comment and their um um
[1:08:32] uh participation, the benefit of their
council to the commission and to the to
[1:08:38] both planning zoning commission and to
this council. And I would like to give a
[1:08:42] big thank you to our staff Michaela and
Nikki Ashley now gone and our new
[1:08:48] administrator Allan who have manned the
meetings, kept us on track, answered our
[1:08:54] questions and shared their experiences.
And I would like to also thank Alter
[1:08:58] Studio for all their good work on this
project.
[1:09:08] All right. Um, we have had a request to
jump to agenda item number 11.
[1:09:17] This will be quick, Melissa, and then
we'll go back to
[1:09:19] your discussion and possible action
regarding appointing appointment to fill
[1:09:24] a vacancy on the planning and zoning
commission. Um due to the retire um
[1:09:31] resignation of Michael Rhodess, we have
an opening on PMZ and we have two
[1:09:37] applicants for that position. Sean
Downing and Jay Van Bal.
[1:09:44] I have a motion. Okay. Uh I would move
that we appoint uh Jayvon Bavl to the
[1:09:51] open position on planning and zoning
commission. Jay's been a tireless member
[1:09:55] of the CRC. did a beautiful job on the
pre-ordinance and uh I think you do a
[1:10:01] fine job on planning and zoning and I so
I would like to move to appoint Javvon
[1:10:07] Babel. We have a second.
I'll second.
[1:10:12] All right. Motion by Brooke, second by
Kevin. Any further
[1:10:17] discussion? All those in favor say I. I.
All oppose. All right. Motion passes.
[1:10:24] Five to nothing.
Uh, welcome Jay. The planning and zoning
[1:10:30] commission.
[1:10:35] All right. Appreciate you being willing
to serve. Yes. Yes. And Sean being
[1:10:40] willing to serve. Absolutely. We will
find a spot for him later.
[1:10:48] Um, we will go back now to agenda item
number eight, discussion and possible
[1:10:53] action on recommendations from the park
commission regarding proposals received
[1:10:56] for the alternative plan to the
retaining wall project.
[1:11:02] All right, who wants
to who wants to talk?
[1:11:14] Melissa Morrow, 252 Timberline Drive.
Um, parks commission chair. Um, this has
[1:11:19] been a long time coming. Um, this was
approved almost probably more than a
[1:11:24] year and a half ago. Um, and RCDC has
funded it. Um, and we got some great
[1:11:30] bids. They were wide ranging in scale.
Um some people wanted to do what seemed
[1:11:37] like a went above and beyond what was
required of the bid. Um we did feel
[1:11:42] really confident that Gomez um would do
a good job. They do a lot of work in the
[1:11:46] community and um several people were
familiar with them. Um and they also
[1:11:53] happen to be the lowest bidder which we
love. So um but we do think they do
[1:11:57] really quality work. So, um, if y'all
have any questions, go right ahead.
[1:12:03] So, are we being asked to take action
and approve the Gomez Gomez bid bid?
[1:12:09] Okay. And that that's what uh we had a
motion from parks recommending it to you
[1:12:13] all. Great. Okay. And you're confident
that their bid includes all of the
[1:12:18] essential items? Yes.
Because they're very brief. They are
[1:12:24] very brief. And so I was
very wordy. I was I was not clear from
[1:12:31] their bid that they
had from the wording of their bid and
[1:12:36] from the dollar amount of their bid that
they had included everything. So they
[1:12:41] did and I I can tell you one comparison
to Moserity. Moserity included a rain
[1:12:46] garden and something else that was way
above and beyond what we were having a
[1:12:50] plan for. So that if you took those two
things out and I can't remember what the
[1:12:56] other thing was, then they really were
very similar. Um, but we really believe
[1:13:01] that Gomez has seen the picture of what
we want it to look like and they're
[1:13:05] like, "Done. That's what we're going to
do."
[1:13:10] And they and they're familiar with the
site and they know what they have to
[1:13:16] demo and Yep. what they're starting with
and all of that, too. So Okay.
[1:13:21] Okay. Move to approve. Second.
All right. Any additional discussion?
[1:13:29] All those in favor say I. I. Oppose say
nay. And thank you to parks commission
[1:13:36] for getting this proposal together and
before us. Yeah. Yeah. CDC2. Yeah. Such
[1:13:42] a such a better plan. Fantastic. Much
better plan. I think it's going to be
[1:13:46] really beautiful. And then we have one
more thing. Okay. Yes. We go on to
[1:13:52] agenda item number 12, I think. I think
no, we're nine. Nine. Okay. Um,
[1:13:58] discussion and possible action on a
recommendation from the park commission
[1:14:01] to authorize funding for a partial
survey of Rollingwood Park to be used to
[1:14:05] facilitate planning for future
improvements. Yes. So, it turns out we
[1:14:09] don't have a survey, which makes it
really hard. Um, in particular, when we
[1:14:13] look at um doing some improvements to
the parking areas, that's what we're
[1:14:17] really looking at at this point. And so
I think you can see in your packet
[1:14:21] there's three different levels of what
we could ask for in a survey. And we
[1:14:25] really just decided that we would let
you all make the decision. Um basically
[1:14:29] one is to survey the entire park. Um two
is to survey just the upper park and
[1:14:35] three was just to survey the areas
around our parking. And when I say that,
[1:14:41] I believe we actually drew a little
picture around it. I don't know if it's
[1:14:44] included in your packet, but basically
what we're talking about is the the
[1:14:49] parking lot that is south of field two
um uh east of field 3, four, and five
[1:14:59] between the field and the pool. And then
the one that's north of fields 3, four,
[1:15:06] and five, that's we just need a survey
basically around those areas. I would
[1:15:11] include I liked the bid that had $15 per
tree. We because we do want to include
[1:15:16] the trees obviously that's important in
the park, you know, dealing with the
[1:15:20] parking. Um but we're totally fine with
not doing a full survey and just doing
[1:15:27] um the areas around those parking areas
and the I'm just now seeing this bid
[1:15:33] price. So
um can can staff address what the the
[1:15:40] cost of the different options are? Yes
ma'am. So we did ask um ATS with whom we
[1:15:46] we normally work for such things. They
bid it conservatively. So they did say
[1:15:52] this can be kind of the high-end cost
because of the time constraints they had
[1:15:55] from us between the park commission
meeting and this meeting for it. So the
[1:16:00] uh the full survey which is the boundary
and improvements only they're saying be
[1:16:04] 11,000 or no more than
11,500. The upper park boundary and
[1:16:08] improvements be no more than 6,500. And
then the portion of the park that uh
[1:16:13] Miss Mara just described would be no
more than 3500. The tree survey would be
[1:16:18] kind of an alakard option of $15 per
tree. And if we want to do topographical
[1:16:23] features as well, that would add either
5,000 for the upper park or 8,000 to the
[1:16:27] cost of the entire survey.
I don't see do topographic of just that
[1:16:32] area. Yeah, but it's it's I don't think
you're going to need it because that if
[1:16:38] you're talking about just the parking
lot areas, it's pretty flat. So, there's
[1:16:42] not really a bunch of topo to shoot and
the grades are pretty obvious as far as
[1:16:47] which way it's going to sheet flow, I
think. But I don't think you need the
[1:16:51] too. It's just my opinion, but that's
just an opinion. We know what that's
[1:16:57] worth. Well, I'd be in favor of doing
just the parking lot areas and including
[1:17:02] the trees as you mentioned. That seems
like a reasonable cost and I certainly
[1:17:07] understand the need for it to plan
parking lot improvements and I think
[1:17:11] those parking lot improvements are
sorely needed. I'm really glad to hear
[1:17:15] the park commission's focusing on the
parking lot and what could be done to
[1:17:18] improve it. I think it's been a safety
issue for a long time and it's very
[1:17:23] inefficient as it is now and so I
certainly support that effort.
[1:17:31] Which one? Option three. Is it option
three with the trees included?
[1:17:38] Trees in that area. Yeah, just the trees
within the boundaries of that area and
[1:17:42] no topo just
to basically locate the pavement, the
[1:17:46] fencing, the grass,
the figure out that'll help them lay
[1:17:52] that into CAD and start playing around
with new parking lot configurations, see
[1:17:57] if they fit or not. Do we have any other
projects where a more thorough survey
[1:18:04] would be useful?
[1:18:08] Well, I don't know what y'all's plan is
if you do the um the city hall and this
[1:18:15] area. If you consider that part of the
park, that that's that would be a
[1:18:19] another huge project that I occasionally
hear about.
[1:18:24] I think we should do that on a cart at
that time. Yeah. I'm sorry, I can't hear
[1:18:29] you. I I think we ought to, you know,
Yes.
[1:18:33] We haven't gotten very far on the design
of city hall, but I think at the time
[1:18:38] that we start doing that, then we'll
worry about doing topos and and surveys
[1:18:44] of this area. I don't think we need to
include that in with this. Nor do I
[1:18:51] think that the fieldhouse requires any
kind of survey currently if we want to
[1:18:57] do anything with the fieldhouse. Could
could we put on the agenda for our next
[1:19:02] meeting to talk about the status of the
new city hall and uh you know kind of
[1:19:07] see what's happening with that and what
we want to do about it if you don't
[1:19:10] mind. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you
Michaela.
[1:19:15] Yes. Yeah.
I didn't but I just this is ad livinging
[1:19:22] Shanti Jumar 39 Park Drive. When we did
the park master plan, did they not do a
[1:19:29] survey? Just a question. I mean, that
cost us like $25,000 for the entire park
[1:19:36] master plan. You would have thought I I
couldn't dig up my thing. I didn't have
[1:19:40] the time. But I know we've asked all the
city staff and no one's been able to
[1:19:44] find it because I exactly like you, I
thought for sure we don't have a survey
[1:19:47] because I have the park master plan
somewhere, but I just couldn't get my
[1:19:52] hands on it. We looked through that as
well. look through different department
[1:19:56] on the Travis County police website. I
I've just
[1:20:01] That was a big big expense that we did
to survey and chart out all the you know
[1:20:09] where everything is, right? Surely that
was part of the I hate for us to pay
[1:20:15] double for all these things. So I just
thought I'll bring that up for yall.
[1:20:19] I've seen that master plan and I didn't
see a survey in it. I don't think there
[1:20:23] was one. I don't think there was one.
Um, there probably was a survey done
[1:20:29] when we bought the property from the
There's a meats and bounds description
[1:20:35] dispound. Yeah. But it won't show where
the fence is, where the edge of the
[1:20:39] pavement is, and they're trying to
locate like the ball field fences and
[1:20:42] the pavement edges which came later.
Yeah. Which can they can then drop into
[1:20:46] a CAD program and start redesigning
those parking areas. That makes sense.
[1:20:51] Well, just start guessing. There's a
good there's a good point. We tried.
[1:20:56] Yeah, we we looked everywhere.
Save some money like this retaining wall
[1:21:03] project retaining wall project. I mean,
didn't we like
[1:21:07] 30 up to 30,000 or something? That was
what the original cost was. What did the
[1:21:12] new retaining wall project? What is the
new Gomez that we just approved?
[1:21:17] It's approximately 21,000 and RCDC my
memory serves me approved up to 32.
[1:21:23] Yeah. Or 31 32 somewhere something like
that. Yeah, that's great. I don't know
[1:21:26] if there's a way to like lump this in.
You going to get our CDC to pay for
[1:21:30] this? Yeah, we could ask them to part of
a capital improvement. It is. I would
[1:21:36] think they had allocated as part of
their motion the 32,000 or 31,000 was
[1:21:42] for erosion controls behind the
fieldhouse. Okay. All right. We can come
[1:21:47] back to them later. Well, I would that
because they beer slotted a certain up
[1:21:53] to a certain amount annually, but we can
certainly ask
[1:21:58] I'm I'm happy with the upper park only
and trees, the parking areas only.
[1:22:05] Uh the half park survey as it's listed
in the attachment.
[1:22:12] Yeah, half park survey. the half park
survey at $3,500.
[1:22:17] Option three plus option six, the tree
survey for the half park area.
[1:22:24] Great. Yeah.
We have an official motion. A motion. Is
[1:22:29] that a motion? Um I'm I was thinking you
were going to do the motion, but I can
[1:22:34] do the motion. I'm I move we approve
uh uh hiring ATS to do a half park
[1:22:43] survey identified as option three in
their bid proposal at $3500 plus option
[1:22:49] six tree survey at $15 per tree for
those trees that are in the half park
[1:22:56] survey area plus
tax plus tax
[1:23:03] if applicable if applicable.
[1:23:08] Okay, that's the way they've quoted it.
So, just make sure.
[1:23:14] Okay, we have a second.
[1:23:19] A second. Okay, motion by Brooke, second
by Kevin. Any further discussion?
[1:23:26] All those in favor say I. I. All post
say nay. Motion passes five to nothing.
[1:23:33] Thank you. Thank you.
[1:23:48] Okay. On to agenda item number 10.
Discussion and possible action to
[1:23:53] approve the fiscal year 2025 2026 budget
calendar.
[1:23:59] So, mayor and and council members, uh,
the proposed calendar in front of you
[1:24:03] very closely mirrors um what you did
last year. Uh, the days had to go
[1:24:09] forward and backwards a couple of days
based on uh when Wednesdays fall. It all
[1:24:14] meets the uh it's been reviewed by our
legal department here, our legal
[1:24:18] services. And
um the calendar is legal so long as the
[1:24:23] tax rate that is proposed by council um
will not exceed the voter approval rate
[1:24:28] which I thought was a safe assumption
for the uh the draft of the the
[1:24:37] calendar assumption.
I never I never like to assume too much
[1:24:41] but I thought that was that was safe.
Well that has been our that has been our
[1:24:46] normal procedure. Yes.
do not require a vote on our tax rate.
[1:24:56] Um, I would move approval of the
proposed budget and tax rate calendar. I
[1:25:03] will note I am out of town the
Wednesday, June the 11th. U,
[1:25:09] but someone can catch me up, I'm sure.
I don't know if other I raise that only
[1:25:16] because if others are going to be
absent, we may want to change that date.
[1:25:19] But if not, I can live with it and
June when June 11th because it's a
[1:25:26] workshop, we don't have to have a super
majority
[1:25:31] even even if it's just a work even if
we're not taking any action.
[1:25:36] Okay. spoke one of them can be n all
have to be in person. Okay. Okay.
[1:25:46] Anybody else have a problem with June
11th?
[1:25:50] [Music]
[1:25:54] Nope. I'm
looking two days before that. Somebody's
[1:26:00] flying to MSP that day. Okay. The other
one that might be you have to be is
[1:26:08] Labor Day September
[1:26:17] 1st. I mean that's far enough away that
might not be a problem. It is apparent.
[1:26:22] Anybody going to be gone the week of
Labor
[1:26:28] Day? Okay.
[1:26:34] we can catch you up. Yeah, I think so.
Okay, so it was a motion. Did we have a
[1:26:41] second?
Second. Okay, motion by Brooke, second
[1:26:46] by Alec. Any further
[1:26:52] discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any
oppose say nay. All right. Motion
[1:26:58] passes.
[1:27:04] All right. 11. So on to agenda item
number 12. Discussion, possible action
[1:27:10] on a recommendation for planning and
zoning commission requesting a
[1:27:14] recommendation and next steps such as
scheduled public hearings from the city
[1:27:18] council regarding proposed amendments to
the Rollingwood Code of Ordinances,
[1:27:22] Chapter 107, zoning related to
definitions and the placement of
[1:27:26] playhouses, playscapes, and mechanical
equipment.
[1:27:32] So, we want to have Dave explain or
Nikki, you good?
[1:27:40] Okay. So, um this actually comes to
y'all from CRC. Oh, actually, sorry.
[1:27:49] This comes to y'all partially from the
CRC, but um mostly from when we had the
[1:27:56] uh playhouse on uh Pwick that came to us
and we all were to be looking at
[1:28:04] playhouses, playcapes, and then uh
mechanical equipment locations. So, they
[1:28:09] were accessory structures or buildings.
we had a little bit confusion on how
[1:28:14] those were defined, how um we were to
interpret that in the code. Um what the
[1:28:21] planning and zoning commission did is
once we got the guidance from y'all,
[1:28:24] they uh started a subcommittee and that
subcommittee kind of came up with the
[1:28:30] different definitions of playhouse, the
playcapes, where they should be located
[1:28:34] and um how to differentiate um the
locations of them. Um, so that is the
[1:28:40] one ordinance that you have written in
front of you that gives you the
[1:28:46] definitions as well as the placement for
those. And then on the other ordinance
[1:28:54] that you have in front of you is for
mechanical equipment. The reason for
[1:28:57] this is um mechanical equipment such as
a pool, a generator, um your AC's, HVAC
[1:29:05] units, anything of that is considered a
structure currently in our code because
[1:29:10] it is built on a slab and structures
can't encroach into a setback or into a
[1:29:18] required yard. So with that um it was
kind of interesting on how those are
[1:29:24] playing out with the review process. Um
so the commission did kind of come up
[1:29:31] with a definition of what mechanical
equipment is which does define out the
[1:29:37] generators, the pool equipment and
HVAC. And then it uh gives you the
[1:29:44] allowances of where they are allowed and
where they're not.
[1:29:48] Um what we are asking is that um y'all
take a look at this and uh the planning
[1:29:56] and zoning commission uh did look at
this. They did um kind of go in and
[1:30:03] approve the language per se to bring
forward to y'all. Um and they did that
[1:30:08] unanimous unanimously um on two separate
votes, two separate occasions. Um, and
[1:30:16] what we're asking is for you to take a
look at that and then um, if possible,
[1:30:20] this will have to go through a public
hearing before it is adopted. So, um, I
[1:30:25] do have a few dates for that if y'all
are interested in that.
[1:30:42] Do you have any
questions, comments? I think we should
[1:30:46] take them one at a time.
I didn't have any on the mechanical. I
[1:30:51] did on the playscapes, I think. I'm just
trying to figure it out.
[1:30:55] Okay. Want to do the playhouse and
playcape one first?
[1:31:02] I am I'm ready to uh allow this to be go
back to planning and zoning for a public
[1:31:08] hearing. I don't think we need to spend
that much
[1:31:12] time deciding if we like this exact
language because it will go back to
[1:31:17] planning and zoning
for public hearing. Yes, we are.
[1:31:25] [Laughter]
[1:31:33] I think you got a good point. I think
you have a good point. Yeah. I think
[1:31:36] what they need is just for us to
What is that? Do you want to make that a
[1:31:43] motion to send it back? I would I would
move we approve
[1:31:48] the recommendation
uh from planning and zoning to set a
[1:31:55] date for their cons for public
hearings on the
[1:32:02] uh playscape the proposed Playscape
ordinance and
[1:32:08] um mechanical equipment ordinance and
that
[1:32:13] Um I think the So that's my motion.
Second. And the So you doing just one or
[1:32:20] both of them? She did both. Both. Okay.
And I would um as to public hearing, I'd
[1:32:28] like some discussion on whether there
are other things pending that require
[1:32:34] public hearing at planning and zoning
and when we might set those dates and
[1:32:37] whether we do a joint public hearing on
them.
[1:32:42] At this time, we don't have anything
that's pending for a public hearing
[1:32:46] except for these two. Okay. Say public
hearing in the summertime is usually not
[1:32:51] go over well. Want to do it in September
because a lot of people are gone. I do
[1:32:57] have the potential dates if y'all are
interested in that. Sure. Okay. So, um,
[1:33:04] with the timetable that we have to
notify with the mailed notices and the
[1:33:09] newspaper, the next PNZ meeting that it
could go to, if y'all would like to do a
[1:33:13] joint, um, is the planning and zoning
commission meeting on the regular
[1:33:17] scheduled agenda date of June 4th. So,
um, not um, actually, sorry, sorry,
[1:33:26] that's not enough notice. If we wanted
to do a joint meeting on uh y'all's next
[1:33:30] scheduled uh council meeting, so the
June meeting on June 18th, we could do
[1:33:35] that. Um but planning and zoning would
have to attend y'all's meeting for that.
[1:33:40] Um and then we could jointly do that if
that is one. If not, if you wanted to
[1:33:44] kind of do them separately, the next uh
PNZ meeting, if y'all wanted to do them
[1:33:48] separate, would be the July 2nd one. Um
and then the council meeting for July.
[1:33:55] Is there going to be a July 2nd P&Z
meeting?
[1:34:00] I'm sorry. Is there going to be a July
2nd? Right. Um,
[1:34:06] well, I guess it depends on whether or
not there's a subject matter to discuss.
[1:34:10] I was going to say a lot of the boards
and commissions don't meet in the
[1:34:13] summertime because you can't get enough
people for a quorum and the week of
[1:34:18] Fourth of July. Fourth of July. my
office. The week of Fourth of July was
[1:34:23] just as bad as the week of Christmas. It
was like nobody there. So, can we just
[1:34:28] do it in September?
Let's do it as a joint a joint meeting.
[1:34:33] Let's do it in in a joint meeting so we
don't have to do two notices and do it
[1:34:37] in September. That's what I'd suggest.
That's what I would suggest too. And
[1:34:41] this is residential code. So it would
require
[1:34:47] um individual mailings, doesn't it? So I
think it's I think it saves us money and
[1:34:54] effort to do a joint meeting, joint
public
[1:35:01] hearing. So I would agree with your
recommendation. Do we want to anybody
[1:35:08] have any tweaks to these before we
publish them for a public
[1:35:12] meeting a public
[1:35:17] hearing? I have a few comments if nobody
else does. Um the definition of
[1:35:22] playscape
um where it says has no solid
[1:35:26] floor. A lot of the play states have
um upper levels that have a solid floor.
[1:35:35] And so I don't know why the solid floor
is a part of that definition but I think
[1:35:45] that is unnecessarily restrictive.
My understanding from the planning is
[1:35:51] only commission the intention was I
think a ground level floor so as to
[1:35:55] preclude the the growth of grass. I
don't think they were considering a
[1:35:59] second level where it's open below. So I
know there's a lot of focus on could the
[1:36:03] sunlight get there? the rain get there.
And I think we should clarify clarify
[1:36:10] that. Um and then on the taller place
gate where it says the
[1:36:21] D3, the playhouse must be set back at
least six feet from any property
[1:36:26] line. We
[1:36:30] have setback requirements.
um for
[1:36:36] fences. I don't remember if the fence is
the side fence is 15 feet from the curb
[1:36:41] or from the property line.
[1:36:46] It's going to be um from the curb
because it can be on but Oh, you're
[1:36:52] talking about from the front, not on the
side yard on a playcapes may be in the
[1:36:57] required side or rear yard, right? Okay.
Okay. So, if it's on the side on the
[1:37:02] corner. Yes, I get it. Yeah. I did not
follow that. Yeah. What's your Can you
[1:37:07] explain what you were thinking? Okay. If
you have a house on a corner. Mhm. You
[1:37:13] have a requirement that the fence if you
have a fence that it can't be any closer
[1:37:19] than 15 feet from the curb,
right? And the side.
[1:37:27] Um but then 10 feet of that is the
rightway.
[1:37:33] The rightway. 10 feet is what? Is the
ride ofway? 10 feet of what is the
[1:37:39] rightway?
10 of the 15t that you have from the
[1:37:45] curb to the fence. 10 feet is the
rightway. And so you could put it I
[1:37:52] guess that would allow you to put it
just inside the the allowable fence. So
[1:38:00] okay
I wasn't remembering if the if 15t was
[1:38:05] from the curb or from the I don't from
the property line. When you say 10 the
[1:38:11] first 10 feet on a residential lot on a
corner lot from the curb to the the
[1:38:17] first 10 feet on the sideyard is right
ofway property from the curb.
[1:38:23] Yes. Right of way for what? Street
rightway. Street right period. Just city
[1:38:29] rightway. So your prop your property
line is 10 feet from the curb in most
[1:38:35] cases. It's crazy but that's what it is.
We don't own the first 10 ft from the
[1:38:41] curb of our of our Okay. You're saying
so it's not so this the setback begins
[1:38:46] at the property line
setback. The setback does but the where
[1:38:52] you can put the fence there's is and the
fence is where 15 ft from the curb right
[1:39:00] so it would be inside the property line
five feet within the property line.
[1:39:05] Okay, now I'm following. So, I just
wanted to make sure that the that you
[1:39:09] couldn't have a playhouse closer to the
street than you could have the fence.
[1:39:14] So, I just want So, it would be a foot
it'd be a foot inside the fence in that
[1:39:18] scenario if they put it as close as they
could. Okay.
[1:39:23] But I love the idea of letting planning
and zoning work though.
[1:39:27] [Music]
Got a fresh member. We do beat this up
[1:39:33] pretty good.
[1:39:37] on the on the mechanical
one.
[1:39:48] Um or the
the backyard. There's no distance. What
[1:39:55] line are you on, please? 36.
[1:40:00] This is required.
Um, line 36. Yes.
[1:40:08] Um, so you can put it all the way up.
The mechanical equipment ordinance.
[1:40:13] Yes.
[1:40:19] [Music]
So you can put it up up against the
[1:40:24] fence in the back. In the
[1:40:29] back. Yeah.
We did not specify
[1:40:36] and and we had talked before about
requiring all of this stuff to be in the
[1:40:42] buildable
area. And to me, that's a huge change
[1:40:46] from in the buildable area to right up
against the back fence. Um, and I am
[1:40:52] surprised that PNZ recommended this
because I thought one of the members of
[1:40:56] PNZ had a problem with somebody
somebody's a neighboring pool equipment
[1:41:01] that was up against the back fence that
was noisy. The side fence
[1:41:07] was it that their side? Side fence.
Okay. Yeah. And
[1:41:12] well, side fence, back fence doesn't
make any difference if it's up that
[1:41:16] close to your house. It's still going to
cause a problem. Okay. Not not all of
[1:41:20] these things
uh passed
[1:41:23] u by everybody. Okay. These these these
votes were not okay. I would I would not
[1:41:31] be in favor in allowing it to go all the
way with no restriction to the backyard.
[1:41:39] And if we make these
changes, our existing
[1:41:44] installations,
grandfather, because we do have, I've
[1:41:50] walked around the neighborhood just to
look and see where everybody's AC units
[1:41:54] and generators and, you know, stuff that
you can see from the street. And we do
[1:41:58] have a couple houses that have their AC
equipment in front of the house. Um,
[1:42:04] your generator's in front of your house
side. It's in front of your house.
[1:42:13] I don't know that I would define that as
the front of my house. I think it's in
[1:42:17] the defined side yard.
[1:42:22] Let's get a satellite image up right
now. Yeah. Yeah. No, I Anyway, I'm just
[1:42:28] I'm just wanting to make sure that we we
don't
[1:42:33] um penalize people who already have
their stuff installed and also that we
[1:42:40] are Yeah.
Um careful about the screening. We've
[1:42:44] got a lot of people that have AC units
on their sideyards. Sure.
[1:42:49] And so,
um, having to screen those if it's new
[1:42:55] equipment, but then if somebody has one
that's there and they replace it, they
[1:42:59] then have to screen it if it's this is
in zoning, so it's
[1:43:04] it's existing units would be
grandfathered. I don't I don't think
[1:43:09] unless it required a permit, would this
replacement does require a permit? Uh,
[1:43:14] because it's a zoning requirement, not a
[1:43:19] Um, a new AC unit requires a permit.
Okay.
[1:43:25] Really? Yes. Replacing one does. All
right. Can we get rid of that one? Yeah.
[1:43:32] Thanks for there's probably nobody in
the city that knows that.
[1:43:39] Yep. Oh, I didn't hear that. Electrical
alone. I mean, got to get an electrician
[1:43:44] to do it. It's going to require
the
[1:43:50] AC company does. They don't have to
connect the AC electricity. They do. It
[1:43:55] doesn't require electrician HVAC
contractor.
[1:43:59] It's got it's got a shut off that's on
your house typically and then a line.
[1:44:05] And what they're going to do is
disconnect the line and connect it to
[1:44:09] the
still mechanical building code.
[1:44:14] I've never had an electrician come out
when I replace my AC unit. You're
[1:44:18] getting a little a field.
[1:44:24] Oh, I'm trying to clarify who this would
apply
[1:44:28] to. And if it applies to somebody that
has an existing house and has an AC unit
[1:44:33] that's on their sideyard and they get a
new AC unit, are they going to then have
[1:44:38] to do the screening? Good question. It
is a good question. I would think no
[1:44:43] unless they were fully moving it if you
wanted to relocate it. But if you're
[1:44:49] from repair and replace legal
standpoint, what
[1:44:55] formal uses and structures and then see
what it says. Okay. All right. Well,
[1:45:01] we're not voting on it now. I just those
are the things that came to mind when I
[1:45:05] was reading this that we would need to
clarify. Well, I think the question
[1:45:09] would be, do you want it to come back
here
[1:45:12] uh for us for the council to address
those questions before we send it back
[1:45:17] or do you want to go ahead and send it
back or set it for public hearing and
[1:45:22] have and that that would that that's
what I think that's where I think we
[1:45:27] are. If you don't think it's ready for
prime time, we can take it back and look
[1:45:33] at some more.
I would suggest that since we don't
[1:45:36] really want to have a public hearing
before September anyway, why don't you
[1:45:40] guys work on it and take those notes and
see what you can do with it?
[1:45:53] I move we send build your playhouses
before the law changes.
[1:45:59] uh two draft ordinances in item 12 back
to planning and zoning for consideration
[1:46:05] of the council's comments and further
work with a public hearing to be
[1:46:10] considered in September. Second. All
right. Motion by Brook, second by Kevin.
[1:46:15] Any further
discussion? All those in favor say I. I.
[1:46:20] Any post say nay. Motion passes by
nothing.
[1:46:32] Okay. Agenda item number
13, discussion and possible action on
[1:46:38] addressing setback orientation for lots
with limited street
[1:46:42] frontage. Um, this is my agenda item and
the wording was tweaked from what I
[1:46:50] submitted. I said with no street
frontage
[1:46:54] and
[1:46:57] the issue that I think we need to think
about is there are and I haven't looked
[1:47:04] at a map to make sure that I have
counted
[1:47:07] all all of the various properties that
this impacts but we have at least four
[1:47:14] that Nikki and I have just thought of
off the top of our head.
[1:47:19] lots that the only street frontage is
the
[1:47:25] driveway. And so the driveway, you know,
our our code requires for a legal lot
[1:47:31] that it have a 100 foot street frontage.
And there are some that are back behind
[1:47:36] other lots. And so there's a driveway
that comes to the street, but there is
[1:47:43] no effective property line on the
street.
[1:47:49] And so I have a a neighbor who has one
of these lots behind them and she asked
[1:47:58] me about, you know, what they were going
to be able to do back there. And I said,
[1:48:02] "Oh, this is interesting." I said, "How
do you how do you
[1:48:05] set not what do you measure from for the
set setbacks, but how do you orient the
[1:48:11] setbacks when you don't have street
frontage?" Because right now we've
[1:48:16] defined the you know this the front of
the lot is the
[1:48:20] addressed lot the addressed
um side that faces the street. So that's
[1:48:28] where you have a 30- foot setback behind
it's a 20 foot setback and then you have
[1:48:31] the two sides that total 25 ft. But if
you're not on the street what
[1:48:38] orientation are those setbacks supposed
to be at?
[1:48:42] And because you're back in the middle of
things, you are going to be abuting
[1:48:47] other lots. Those lots are going to abut
other lots that
[1:48:51] are probably mostly backyards, but also
could be sideyards depending on how the
[1:48:57] lot is oriented. And I
just one of them. Did you look that one
[1:49:04] up on Inwood Cove to see how that one
was oriented?
[1:49:11] We there's one on Inwood Cove that was
the subject of a lawsuit a number of
[1:49:15] years ago because it
was separated off from a lot on
[1:49:22] Timberline and it had no street
frontage. So you couldn't access the lot
[1:49:26] at all and they the lawsuit was trying
to find a where they could put a
[1:49:31] driveway in so you could actually access
lot. So when that came up we didn't
[1:49:35] really worry about what the orientation
of the setbacks were. We're trying to
[1:49:39] get them to be able to actually get to
the lot. So, that one's already been
[1:49:43] rebuilt and that one is not likely to be
an issue, but there's um one where the
[1:49:49] home on this interior lot has been
demolished and so it is liable to come
[1:49:55] back at some point in the not too
distant future. And I just thought that
[1:50:00] we needed to address this before we
have somebody turning in a a plan um
[1:50:08] that we have to then say, "Well, we
don't really know what what you're
[1:50:13] allowed." And so I would recommend that
we send this to PNZ for y'all to PNZ to
[1:50:21] look at. But if anybody has any thoughts
on how we would orient that, if we if we
[1:50:29] want to make an exception on the
setbacks for those lots, if you if you
[1:50:36] do an
average all the way around instead of
[1:50:40] having the, you know, the 30, 20,
whatever, because right now a 30 foot
[1:50:45] street setback also has the 10 foot
rightway. So, those are really 40 feet
[1:50:51] from the um from the curb, but you would
not have the you would not have the
[1:50:58] rightway issue on those lots. So, they
would really be 30 feet from the
[1:51:03] property line and and not have extra
property on the you know around the
[1:51:09] Would there be any lot of any of these
lots that would be adjacent to a street?
[1:51:15] I don't think No, they're not. Yeah. No,
that's right. would be an issue, right?
[1:51:20] Okay.
But right now, if on on all lots that do
[1:51:25] have street frontage, you have the 10 ft
that looks like it's part of your yard
[1:51:29] that's not part of your property, right?
And the setbacks are from that that
[1:51:33] point. So, you you have a smaller
building area than what the property
[1:51:39] area would seem to allow. But when you
don't have the rightway, you you can you
[1:51:46] only have those the setbacks that you're
not able to build into. Yeah. the I'm a
[1:51:53] little
um I think the description in this one
[1:51:58] sheet is a little
bit less than clear because it says that
[1:52:05] the setbacks are based on street fun
frontage but the setbacks are based on
[1:52:11] the property
line. The orientation is based on street
[1:52:17] frontage. And so when we're asking
planning and zoning to look at this, are
[1:52:24] we asking them to address just the
orientation or are we asking them
[1:52:33] to change the size of the setbacks or to
review the size of the setbacks? Now,
[1:52:42] you know, in the residential zoning
code, and I think you're talking about
[1:52:46] residential properties here, all of the
setbacks are defined from the width of
[1:52:51] the setbacks are defined from the
property line.
[1:52:55] So, this is the intent the intention of
my agenda item was to address the
[1:53:02] orientation. Orientation. Okay. Which is
what it says in I just wanted to make
[1:53:06] that clear. Yes. And after I turned it
in, then I started thinking about how
[1:53:13] you would, you know, make this spare for
everybody and appropriate for everybody.
[1:53:20] Um, and that's when I said, "Well, maybe
you could change the the dimensions of
[1:53:26] the setbacks because there's there's not
really a front or a back or a based on
[1:53:34] the
street access for these lots.
[1:53:40] So, that would be something that PNZ
could look at and then give us a
[1:53:44] recommendation." So both the orientation
and the size of the setbacks. Yes. If
[1:53:50] you if you change the setbacks to make
them consistent all the way around for
[1:53:55] those interior lots, then the
orientation doesn't matter.
[1:54:01] Is is that what you just said? Is that
interesting to you to make it that way?
[1:54:07] I I think
that I don't have a good way to or I
[1:54:13] don't have a
um doesn't impact me personally. So I
[1:54:19] don't have any preference that I have
come up with. I think we just need to
[1:54:23] look at the all of the aspects of this
and decide what is most appropriate and
[1:54:29] and fairest to everybody. In some cases,
um, one of these houses it has it backs
[1:54:37] up to city of Boston at one point. So,
you know, we're not really as concerned
[1:54:42] about
[1:54:46] it's not backing up on that side. It's
not backing up to another Rollingwood
[1:54:50] resident. And then some of the other
ones are back up to the bluff over
[1:54:56] Becaves. So, there's not another there's
no other houses behind them there. So,
[1:55:01] Are there even five of these in
rollingwood?
[1:55:06] There's at least four. It's hard to
think of, you know, where these might
[1:55:08] be. Come up with even five
oversh that we have that Vicki and I
[1:55:14] came up with. And I, like I said, I have
not looked at the whole map and okay,
[1:55:18] identified all of them. But
yeah, there's what I what I would
[1:55:23] suggest is
identify the properties and then just go
[1:55:28] through them one by one. just kind of
put yourself in the
[1:55:32] in the shoes of the neighbor and of the
property owner. What would be fair? But
[1:55:39] there there are, excuse me, um there are
some codes that um get very specific
[1:55:47] about
addresses, not in our code, but I know
[1:55:50] other codes do that. And um I'm
wondering is that is that what you're
[1:55:55] looking for for this particular lot? Do
you want to establish what the
[1:56:00] orientation and setback requirements are
going to be or do you want a more
[1:56:04] general
uh houses that are off the street behind
[1:56:09] other lots? Uh general I don't I don't
want to do a oneoff for one property.
[1:56:16] Okay. Okay. All right. I don't I don't
think that's a good policy. All right.
[1:56:21] Okay.
I'm going to ask staff to identify where
[1:56:25] these properties are and Okay. So, and
we can ask planning and zoning to look
[1:56:30] at this, decide whether they think it's
something that needs to be addressed,
[1:56:33] and if it does, what they recommend.
Yeah, that what we're going to do. Well,
[1:56:38] I think I talked to Brooke about this
and you said that right now it says that
[1:56:42] if there's any any
um uncertainty that the building
[1:56:48] official gets to decide that that was
removed when we changed did the front
[1:56:54] yard requirement. Okay. But that's the
way we used to have it. And that to me
[1:56:59] puts Nikki in a bad position. And that's
that to me is where we are right now. If
[1:57:04] it comes in and we don't have this
defined, what would happen today if if
[1:57:11] the lot is not if you're not if it's not
if you can't apply the current setback
[1:57:19] requirements to that lot, then they
would need to seek a variance.
[1:57:25] And so it would go to board of
adjustment for approval of of
[1:57:30] any variance. Well, it's not that they
can't beat this the setbacks. It's like
[1:57:35] how do you orient the setbacks?
[1:57:40] Well, but you also talked about the size
of having them address the size of
[1:57:45] setback that would be a variance, right?
So that that if we decide to change
[1:57:51] that, if we don't change that, we still
have to address the
[1:57:54] orientation issue because right now
that's not really well defined and
[1:58:02] and nor we haven't given Nikki any
guidance on what we how we want to
[1:58:06] handle that. So,
we do have some words about, you
[1:58:12] know, the front entrance of the house
needs to face the street kind of thing.
[1:58:17] The addressed street, but she's saying
these lots don't abut an address street.
[1:58:23] Well, they do face the street, right?
The driveway. They're still behind. So,
[1:58:27] they would they would essentially take
the same orientation as the house in
[1:58:31] front of them. Yeah. It's like it's
still the driver. It's still there is a
[1:58:34] street they come from and the front
would still have to face that street
[1:58:37] even if it's set back 200 feet. Does it
have to? I think that's how it would be
[1:58:42] inter but we can make it so. Yeah. Yeah.
But that that may not make the most
[1:58:48] sense from decide this tonight. I don't
either. And I'm concerned about trying
[1:58:52] to solve problems in the abstract. But I
think it is a good thing for planning
[1:58:56] and zoning to think about. I I would
think there probably some of these where
[1:59:02] the the house is not facing the street
and the road Yeah. uh has access to
[1:59:11] um so I'm thinking anyway
yes this makes up very very good point
[1:59:18] that you brought up there's one house
two or three Ashworth you know the only
[1:59:23] access for it is from Ashworth you have
to go all the way you can't see the
[1:59:29] house no that's at least five then I
forgot about that is a very very unusual
[1:59:35] situation you can't apply any of these
compared to well and that house does not
[1:59:39] face the street. That's what I'm saying.
203 Ashworth. If you put it up, you have
[1:59:44] to go from Ashworth where there is 2011
Ashworth and there's a very long
[1:59:50] driveway and you wonder where it's
taking you. It goes all the way down and
[1:59:54] there's just that one house doesn't face
Ashworth doesn't face anything. It's
[2:00:01] right there. more toward I mean uh uhuh
no take take a look on your probably it
[2:00:08] probably does more face towards than it
does towards Ashworth which is the you
[2:00:12] know it brings up a lot of issues for
fire safety for access to emergency
[2:00:19] vehicles all kinds of stuff nobody has
talked about it so it's a good thing you
[2:00:23] brought up to take so anyway
[2:00:29] okay all right do we need a motion for
that or can we just let them
[2:00:36] I think we can go on the agenda.
Okay. Um All right. We will pass that on
[2:00:42] to
P&Z and move on to agenda item number
[2:00:53] 14. 14. Discussion and possible action
on installation of a valley gutter at
[2:00:58] the intersection of Veil
[2:01:01] Okay, this got changed too and it
doesn't make as much sense this way.
[2:01:07] Discussion possible action on
installation of a valley gutter at the
[2:01:10] intersection of Veil Street and Venice
Boulevard and other water diversion
[2:01:14] structures. It's not an and it's an or.
[2:01:20] We need to do something to address the
the drainage that comes from Bettis
[2:01:27] um down to Bettis and then crosses Veil.
Um right now the
[2:01:34] water
turns and then my directions in rolling
[2:01:39] order are always weird. So, it kind of
comes
[2:01:43] um
souththeast and then it turns around the
[2:01:48] corner and goes north northeast and then
it goes across the road in the middle of
[2:01:55] the
street. And if it's raining really hard,
[2:01:59] it goes over the curb and right down to
their front door. Whose front door? You
[2:02:04] said their front door. 305. Yes. For the
home on Veil.
[2:02:10] Um,
[2:02:15] you saying the one in the picture?
[2:02:20] Is there a picture?
Yes.
[2:02:29] In the public comment.
[2:02:32] Okay. Yeah. Yeah, there's a picture.
Well, I know there's a picture on the
[2:02:37] public comment. Okay.
No, that that is not right. That is not
[2:02:42] the picture of the house that's being
affected. Okay. Um, no,
[2:02:49] that's 305.
It is. There's a picture of it. The the
[2:02:54] house with the fire plug in front is the
house that's affected. 305 305 305 Veil.
[2:03:01] They have they have done
some grading and made
[2:03:06] changes, but they had water all the way
up to their front door um in a recent
[2:03:11] heavy rain and it goes rushing through
their sideyard and out um to the street.
[2:03:19] And we had talked about this a number of
years ago when we were doing some paving
[2:03:24] projects and I said we should put a
valley gutter in there because we want
[2:03:28] the water same as we talked about at the
same time we talked about the valley
[2:03:32] gutter at the end of Nixon at Hatley
which was put in but was not put in
[2:03:37] properly. Um because we have places
where the water is coming down the
[2:03:43] street and it instead of continuing on
to the final drainage point, it comes
[2:03:47] around a corner and then it impacts
other homes before it gets to the final
[2:03:52] destination. Can you tell us again where
the water's flowing now that I'm looking
[2:03:56] at this picture and I've got a map up?
Is it coming from Bettis? It's coming
[2:04:00] down most of it's coming down Bettis
mostly going west to east, right? It
[2:04:05] gets to Veil and and it doesn't cross
the street at Veil. It does not go it
[2:04:09] does not go straight. It does not go
straight across the because of the way
[2:04:13] the the better is curved. It goes around
the corner and then it goes across the
[2:04:19] street. There's also a hump and Bettis
crown. Well, there's some there's
[2:04:25] crowning in all the streets to try and
get the water to go to the curbs. So, it
[2:04:29] turns left in this picture that we're
looking at. Yes. Okay. And then it
[2:04:33] crosses the street like right near the
homeowner's front door. Right by the
[2:04:38] front sidewalk and it Okay. So, you're
saying it should go straight across um
[2:04:42] Veil on Bettis and stay in line with the
Bettis curb. Yes. Okay. Stay in the stay
[2:04:47] in the street and and then continue down
to because otherwise right now it's like
[2:04:52] turning north crossing the street and
then turning south again to get back to
[2:04:56] bed. Exactly. At the moment, there's
also a low spot in the picture there,
[2:05:00] right just to the right as we're viewing
it of the mailbox. So, it'll pull there.
[2:05:05] Then later on during the rain event, it
gets to jump the curb. So, it jumps the
[2:05:09] curb and it flows down those people's
front walkway right up to the house and
[2:05:14] and brings all kinds of dirt and debris
that it's deposits in front of their
[2:05:18] house. And we need to get an engineer to
design this for us.
[2:05:24] We when we are doing the repaving, it
would be best to take care of this
[2:05:29] before we do the repaving or in
conjunction with repaving. But we need
[2:05:34] to we need to address this drainage
issue. Um my question is how do we
[2:05:40] address it? Do we do it by hire
authorizing the city to engage the
[2:05:43] engineering firm to design a gutter? Is
that what we the first step?
[2:05:48] I would think that that would I would
think so. Yes, sir. Or
[2:05:51] or a diversionary structure or whatever
they recommend. Doesn't necessarily have
[2:05:56] to be a valley. A valley gutter would
make sense. It would also provide um
[2:06:01] traffic calming that people go ripping
down that street. What is a valley? It's
[2:06:06] a concrete swale they put in the middle
of the paving or crosses the road.
[2:06:10] Sometimes called a pilot channel like
old V of concrete. Okay. Wow. Surface.
[2:06:15] It's just a dip. Just a little concrete
dip. Yeah. Instead of a speed bump. And
[2:06:20] this would go take the water from
Bettis across Veil. Yeah. Yes. Just to
[2:06:28] keep it going straight down and not
curving around and then coming across
[2:06:32] towards there. Well, I make a motion we
authorize the city to engage the
[2:06:36] engineers to study drainage solutions
for this problem at Bettison Veil to be
[2:06:41] built in connection with our repaving.
Second.
[2:06:45] That's great. Um, the other potential
would be to do a a um
[2:06:54] not talk that much tonight. No, you're
doing great. I have no complaints.
[2:06:58] You're doing a great job.
Um, you could also do a speed bump,
[2:07:04] which I think is not as well preferred
by the emergency responders, but but
[2:07:10] something we just need something that
keeps the water going straight across
[2:07:14] and not around the corner. The comments
that were submitted to are across the
[2:07:21] street from this. So clearly we don't
want to make the water go across
[2:07:26] Bettis to the other side of the street,
but we just need it right to not go into
[2:07:33] their front door. And just in a little
history note, I was going through some
[2:07:40] boxes of Rollingwood files and I came
across a um memo. Was it 2006? Something
[2:07:48] like that, I think. So it was even
before I was on council. So clearly we
[2:07:51] got a copy of this memo when we were
talking something after I got on
[2:07:54] council, but this property was
identified as a problem for the drainage
[2:08:00] in 2006. So it's been a really long time
that this has been
[2:08:04] um an issue, the 305 property. Yes.
Okay.
[2:08:09] Yeah. Not not the same house, but the
previous house had problems as well just
[2:08:14] because of the lot and the way the
street is graded. So
[2:08:18] Okay.
Okay. We have a motion in a second. Um,
[2:08:24] any further discussion? Well, the
discussion to the comments that were
[2:08:30] submitted having having it go continue
down bed is which I think is what we're
[2:08:37] thinking. The
engineers the engineers will determine
[2:08:41] how best to deal with the water flow.
Correct. Right. Right. So it may be
[2:08:46] going straight down bed, maybe something
else. Okay, that's all. I just didn't I
[2:08:51] do want to take into consideration the
getting out of the driveway issue that
[2:08:56] was brought up by the
comments.
[2:08:59] So but
yeah, that's it. Well, we have no
[2:09:05] control over the volume of water that
comes down. I understand that. Yeah, we
[2:09:09] just want to make sure that it doesn't
[2:09:16] go or is this just one of se? We can't
help that. That's in one seven. It's one
[2:09:22] right now. It's one right now. Yeah. And
when you talk to Tom Farah, he'll often
[2:09:29] be um when you talk to Tom, he'll often
talk about when we we talk about
[2:09:36] drainage problems, he'll say, "Well,
there's really only about five houses or
[2:09:40] lots here that have really
problem with
[2:09:44] drainage in the kind that I think that
what you're describing. And I'm
[2:09:48] wondering if there are other addresses
here that if we were gonna if you're
[2:09:52] going to do something with one, if you
want to look at more than one, it might
[2:09:56] be worth I'll ask Tom what those other
places are.
[2:10:02] I mean, if there are other problems we
can do and one of the problems I have
[2:10:05] with like just city government in
general is we get one problem, we try to
[2:10:09] solve it and then we want to scale it up
and solve five other problems at the
[2:10:14] same time and then nothing ever gets
done and it's just it's very
[2:10:21] frustrating doing drainage projects
right now to address drainage issues
[2:10:24] that we have in other places. That's
right. Well, I'm only taking off of
[2:10:29] your, you know, following your lead and
that you know that things are going to
[2:10:32] get repaved here pretty soon and if you
were going to do something, this is the
[2:10:36] time to do it. It's a good point. That's
all just that like just ask the
[2:10:40] question, is there anything else out
there that you want to do?
[2:10:46] We can we can certainly look and if
anybody has any other issue, you know,
[2:10:51] we could fix the one at the end of Nixon
that should have the here been properly
[2:10:57] installed also, but the way I would cut
this
[2:11:01] is this can be fixed with
paving. We have a whole drainage study
[2:11:08] that identifies and
prioritizes our other drainage issues.
[2:11:13] And if there is another drainage issue
that can be fixed while we're doing the
[2:11:18] repaving and it we know about it, let's
do it. But uh I would not, you know, I
[2:11:25] think we if once we get into bigger
drainage, we need to go back and revisit
[2:11:31] that study and set our priorities and
they're very expensive. So if this can
[2:11:37] be done with repaving, I think we just
stick with is this a repaving issue?
[2:11:42] Yeah. To my knowledge in my short tenure
here, there are two places in the city
[2:11:46] that don't appear to be addressed by the
drainage work we're doing at the moment.
[2:11:49] This being one of them. The other one is
at 4824 Rollingwood Drive, I believe.
[2:11:53] Miss Shaw, and there's a a water like a
storm drain inlet by her home that we're
[2:11:58] trying to unclog the uh there's an
unusual arrangement of some sort of
[2:12:03] system on the one side. We're trying to
unclog the pipe between those. So that
[2:12:08] if that doesn't work for her as the
solution, that might be a more
[2:12:12] expensive, most certainly not covered by
repaving. But those are the only two
[2:12:16] that I'm aware of at the moment. And so
once once we try to unclog that pipe,
[2:12:20] which is he's been working on getting
like renting the right equipment for it,
[2:12:24] then we'll know more about her issue.
But I think that's the only other one I
[2:12:27] know about. This is the one that's I
think the easiest for us to fix.
[2:12:35] Okay.
Any further discussion? No. All those in
[2:12:40] favor say I. I. Post say nay. All right.
Motion passes five to
[2:12:48] nothing. Going to agenda item number
15. Um discussion possible action to
[2:12:55] clarify allowable times for construction
activities including defining activities
[2:13:02] impacted. And this one again got changed
a little bit. I was just saying
[2:13:07] including defining the activities that
are impacted and I had put in
[2:13:11] parentheses to include things such as
construction, landscaping, utility work
[2:13:16] and tree trimming. So Google Fiber has
been
[2:13:21] working for a while. They were working
seven days a week. Um I complained to
[2:13:28] the mayor when I had somebody outside my
house at 8 o'clock on Sunday morning
[2:13:32] making this noise and I said, "Really?
We're letting them work every day. This
[2:13:37] is really noisy. We
need how how is it they are working on
[2:13:42] Sundays
um and Saturdays because our code right
[2:13:47] now talks about construction hours for
construction which are only allowed from
[2:13:54] 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 at night
Monday through Friday and then indoor
[2:13:58] finish work from 10 to 4 on Saturday and
no construction work on Sundays or city
[2:14:05] holidays. So we have other
activities. First of all, I couldn't
[2:14:11] find a definition of construction in our
code. So what all is included? And then
[2:14:18] after that,
um, is landscaping. But somebody mowing
[2:14:24] their
yard, you know, people are going to do
[2:14:27] that on the weekends. I'm not I'm not
worried about that. somebody installing
[2:14:31] landscaping where you've got back hose
and you know big heavy equipment and
[2:14:35] stuff. Is that allowed on the
weekends? Um
[2:14:41] utility work which is what the case is
for Google Fiber. Um apparently they had
[2:14:49] been given authority to work on weekends
and then we had enough people
[2:14:54] complaining I think that Gavin told them
you know lay off on Sundays. Um, and
[2:15:00] I've also not tree trimming work. That's
also very noisy when you have a crew out
[2:15:06] there with tree trimming and, you know,
big chippers and all of that stuff. So,
[2:15:13] people don't know exactly what's allowed
and what's not. And so, they don't know
[2:15:18] when to call the police and complain
because they don't know if they just
[2:15:22] have to suck it up and deal with this
because, you know, it's just allowed to
[2:15:25] happen. Um, and we don't have good
definition on
[2:15:30] on what is construction. Um, is it just
when you have a contractor there or is
[2:15:36] it, you know, I don't think we want to
restrict something that a homeowner is
[2:15:39] doing on their own home. Um, if that
even still happens anymore,
[2:15:47] whatever. But, but we don't have we
don't have any um we don't have any
[2:15:52] definition on that. And so, and just
kind of our guideline that we've always
[2:15:57] used is that if that um property is
under a permit, um so if they're putting
[2:16:03] in landscaping onto a home that's not
occupied, we don't allow that. Um but if
[2:16:08] it's a homeowner who has a yard company
that's mowing their yard, we've never um
[2:16:14] we we've always allowed that to take
place. But what if there is an occupied
[2:16:18] house that is having a big landscaping
project done? They don't have a permit
[2:16:21] for that because we don't have a
landscaping permit. Correct. And so we
[2:16:25] have allowed that because it falls under
landscaping and landscaping is not part
[2:16:29] of the construction site. So that this
to me is another one of those things
[2:16:34] that I think that we need
to mle over, get some input from P&Z and
[2:16:40] see if there is any um any input and if
we need to make any adjustments to our
[2:16:46] code to
clarify when and
[2:16:51] um and
also for us to decide what we think is
[2:16:56] appropriate because right now the the
mayor is allowed to
[2:17:04] um allow the utility companies to work
whenever and
[2:17:11] um I personally don't like that idea.
It's like you kind of have to have one
[2:17:15] day a week where it's
quiet. Um but we don't we don't have any
[2:17:21] restrictions on that. So, um, because
that is up to the discretion of the
[2:17:25] mayor and you know, if it's a oneoff,
that's one thing, but if it's like every
[2:17:30] Sunday
for months, that gets really old. So,
[2:17:37] anyway, I just wanted to bring this up
for people to think about and then also
[2:17:41] I think this would be a good one to send
to PMZ for them to provide some input
[2:17:47] on.
Um, I took a look at this.
[2:17:55] Um, construction, the term
construction's used 171 times in the
[2:18:01] code in lots of different
situations. Uh, there is a provision
[2:18:08] there is a section that addresses work
done on weekends. Okay.
[2:18:13] uh and uh
101-247 it has an exception for minor
[2:18:22] construction that
um uh is defined as
[2:18:30] um maintenance and repair work normally
associated with home or business
[2:18:35] ownership and occupancy. Minor
construction and demolition associated
[2:18:40] with normally associated with home or
business ownership and occupancy,
[2:18:46] landscaping, mowing, fencing, painting,
provided that no such activity creates a
[2:18:50] nuisance condition related to noise,
traffic, odor, dust, or other conditions
[2:18:55] and is not in violation of any other
city ordinance. I would think that for
[2:19:00] purposes of what you're trying to get
to, you ask PNZ to look at this 101-247F
[2:19:10] and not the 170 other times construction
is used in the code, right?
[2:19:17] So that it can be defined for purposes
of nuisance and noise and
[2:19:23] weekends and then and and
uh we don't
[2:19:29] I think that would if that would address
the concerns you have. Yeah, that that's
[2:19:34] fine. I just when I was reading that
section and it said this is what you can
[2:19:39] do and I couldn't find a definition of
what was included in construction and so
[2:19:44] that that was my concern because like I
said, people don't know when when
[2:19:50] they're allowed to complain to the city.
So, I've I when when the Google Fiber
[2:19:55] was out there on Sunday morning, I was
getting texts from neighbors going, "Is
[2:19:59] this okay? Are they allowed to be doing
this? Why are they, you know, and I'm
[2:20:02] going, I don't know. They're not, you
know, not normally supposed to." So,
[2:20:05] which is why I texted Gavin and I said,
"Did we let them do this on Sundays?"
[2:20:10] But I I think we need to have better
clarity so people know what so the
[2:20:16] police know what to enforce. people know
when to call the police because
[2:20:20] somebody's doing something they're not
supposed to and that you know we have a
[2:20:25] right reasonable I know another issue
that we've always had too is sometimes
[2:20:29] on Saturdays uh roof repair that
requires the use of tools but it's home
[2:20:36] ownership too right so that's so we've
always allowed it to happen because it's
[2:20:40] home ownership and homeowner repair so
um it's kind of but it does fall under
[2:20:45] that the noise
where That's a That's a good one to
[2:20:49] consider
[2:20:53] also.
Okay, we need motion on that. Are we
[2:20:58] good for adding that to
see this docket?
[2:21:04] I think we can add it too. All right.
[2:21:11] All right. So, agenda item number 16.
Um this
[2:21:25] is discussion of possible action to
clarify the definitions of impervious
[2:21:29] cover in various locations in the
drainage criteria manual and the city's
[2:21:33] code of ordinances.
[2:21:36] So we
have a unique situation where we have
[2:21:44] definitions of impervious cover in at
least three places that I found in the
[2:21:48] code and then the drainage criteria
manual has a method of calculating
[2:21:56] imperous cover that is different from
the other definitions where in that case
[2:22:03] you are you are allowed to exempt or not
include this the horizontal area surface
[2:22:11] area of a swimming
pool which a swimming pool is by
[2:22:15] definition impervious cover because
that's the whole point of a swimming
[2:22:18] pool is not to allow the water to drain
into the ground. Right? So it is clearly
[2:22:24] impervious cover but for the calculation
of that
[2:22:30] um total area of imperous cover that is
exempted in the drainage criteria
[2:22:34] manual. When the drainage criteria
manual was prepared it was intended to
[2:22:42] address residential issues
um which residential issues do not have
[2:22:48] there is no impervious cover limit in
the residential area. The only reason
[2:22:52] you have to calculate the impervious
cover in the residential area is to
[2:22:56] determine whether or not you have to do
a water pollution um abatement plan
[2:23:00] under the TCQ
rules which is a 20% if you're above 20%
[2:23:07] impervious cover on a lot you have to do
um the water pollution abatement
[2:23:13] plane commercial properties have a
impervious cover limit but and I didn't
[2:23:20] look this up again But I'm pretty sure
that commercial properties are not
[2:23:23] allowed to have a swimming
pool.
[2:23:26] So the the exemption of that from the
calculation is not issued for commercial
[2:23:33] properties. So the only place that has
both an impur cover limit and the
[2:23:38] potential for a swimming pool is western
hills or park zone. So, park zone has a
[2:23:45] 50% impervious cover limit
and the park zone includes our park and
[2:23:53] the Western Hills Athletic Club. So,
they are supposed to meet the 50%
[2:23:59] impervious cover limit, but the way it
was
[2:24:03] interpreted in their um
plans, at least this last time they
[2:24:10] brought the plans in, is that they they
excluded the swimming pool um area
[2:24:16] because of this inclusion in the
drainage criteria manual, which was not
[2:24:23] intended to be
[2:24:27] Um it was not intended to exempt
um allowable impervious
[2:24:36] cover. Anyway, we need to clarify it so
that it is clear going forward that that
[2:24:44] the exemption for the imperous cover
area of a swimming pool is only excluded
[2:24:51] from the calculation of imperous cover
as it relates to the need for a water
[2:24:56] pollution abatement plant.
Relates to I say the last part is it
[2:25:02] relates to the the calculation of
imperous cover. um in determining
[2:25:08] whether or not you have to do a water
pollution abatement plan.
[2:25:17] Yes. Um
[2:25:21] um the reason why swimming pools are
excluded from imperous cover
[2:25:27] calculations or why they're not
considered whenever you're doing you
[2:25:30] know working out your impervious cover
requirements is because whenever it
[2:25:35] rains on a swimming pool swimming pool
fills up and then it drains off through
[2:25:39] some other means other than
runoff. So pools pool well pools are
[2:25:46] constant level and so you know if
there's a drainage system on the pool if
[2:25:52] it's an ingground pool then it
automatically felt takes care of itself.
[2:25:56] You don't see pools running over during
the rain. They always dispose in the
[2:26:01] regular sewer system.
Um, now if if if you want more clarity
[2:26:08] around that or requirements that like an
ingground pool needs to have drainage to
[2:26:13] accommodate that, then you can talk
about whether or not needs to be
[2:26:16] excluded from an impervious cover
calculation and maybe that's what you
[2:26:20] want. I don't know, but there is a
reason why pools are out of it. I I
[2:26:25] understand that. Okay. But there is I I
understand your your comments. There are
[2:26:32] also other reasons for having impervious
cover limits. We're over the recharge
[2:26:37] zone of the Edwards aquifer and so we
want to have make sure that there is um
[2:26:44] adequate recharge for the the the
aquifer um more green space more um you
[2:26:52] know less concrete right so it's the
reason that that area is excluded from
[2:27:00] the calculation for a water pollution
abatement plan is because the TCQ rules
[2:27:06] are designed to address water
quality and which is primarily um
[2:27:14] solids, you know, runoff of of solids
contaminating the the
[2:27:19] wershed. And if the water is falling
into a swimming pool, if it's washing
[2:27:25] anything into the swimming pool, that's
going to settle out in the pool and it's
[2:27:28] not going to be carried off. So
different purpose for the impervious
[2:27:33] cover limit in in that particular case
than from a
[2:27:40] um you know a recharge issue or
something
[2:27:45] else. And and we have a like I said the
park zone area is the only place where
[2:27:52] we have both the potential to have a
swimming pool and have an impervious
[2:27:55] cover limit. And so we just need to make
sure that we
[2:28:00] clarify that. Include that going
[2:28:11] forward. So the drainage criteria manual
is not zoning code,
[2:28:17] right? So this doesn't require public
hearing or PNZ.
[2:28:32] But we could make this change
[2:28:37] without having to
[2:28:41] go through PNZ or with
um public
[2:28:49] hearing.
[2:29:14] Actually, the definition in
the drainage criteria manual of
[2:29:20] impervious cover says means impermeable
constructed or installed coverage of
[2:29:24] natural ground surfaces and includes
only the the footprint on a horizontal
[2:29:30] plane. Vertical walls are not included.
So that part that definition doesn't
[2:29:33] even exclude the swimming pool in the
drainage criteria manual. It's just in
[2:29:39] the section where you're actually
calculating the impervious cover which
[2:29:42] is
in 7.2.1H.
[2:29:59] very last sentence of that where it says
water surface area of swimming pools are
[2:30:03] not considered impervious cover that's
in the drainage manual.
[2:30:08] Do you I would recommend maybe bring
this back at next meeting with that
[2:30:13] language and a recommendation on on
changing Yeah. Okay. That would be what
[2:30:19] I would
recommend. I can do
[2:30:27] that. All right. And we can no further
action on this
[2:30:33] one.
Um, agenda item
[2:30:38] 17.
Chief, this is discussion and possible
[2:30:43] action on the purchase of up to five
license plate readers in an amount
[2:30:46] thought to exceed $15,000 to monitor
roadways entering rolling.
[2:30:52] Correct. So, just to update you guys on
uh that current project is that I have
[2:30:57] spoken with Flock um and we and also
have spoken to other chiefs too to see
[2:31:03] how they're handling any type of PS and
things that are happening. And so it
[2:31:08] really kind of came to a head where it
was determined that so flock is the
[2:31:13] actual the guardian of the record and it
just to clarify is it is a license plate
[2:31:20] reader. It does not identify any type of
person who's inside the vehicle. So we
[2:31:25] don't have any issue with like any
racial
[2:31:28] profiling and it only captures that that
vehicle information. Um, so in order for
[2:31:35] it to become ours for that PIR, it was
we would have to pull the data from
[2:31:41] their
portal. And so when that data is being
[2:31:45] pulled from their portal is now being
used as an investigative purpose. That's
[2:31:49] the only way we we access it. Our our
policy would set out the parameters
[2:31:55] um that we just can't pull data just to
pull data. And so I think that's how we
[2:32:02] stay in line as far as the PI stuff
goes. And when I spoke with other area
[2:32:08] chiefs, they don't have any issues as
far as um the P stuff goes. I know
[2:32:13] that's the main major hurdle that we're
dealing with or that we're trying to get
[2:32:17] through. Um, but it's I kind of I was
talking to the city administrator and
[2:32:25] kind of referenced it to kind of like
the TET system that we use to run your
[2:32:30] driver's license, run your vehicle
information.
[2:32:33] It's owned by
DPS. We have to, you know, we request it
[2:32:38] and it has to be within perimeters only
for investigative purposes. We can't
[2:32:43] just run people's driver's licenses to
run them and and things like that. So
[2:32:47] this is kind of the same situation to
where but like I said our policy would
[2:32:51] also set place to be able to safeguard
um and create to where like a punishable
[2:32:59] um parameter too if if somebody was
doing that outside of our policy. So um
[2:33:06] like I said I think that helps. Um,
right now we do have it mapped out that
[2:33:11] we do have five cameras. Um, one being
eastbound
[2:33:17] Los, one being westbound on
Veil, one being northbound
[2:33:23] um at Edge
Grove, eastbound at Hatley and and Park
[2:33:30] Hills, and then one at southbound uh
Riley. And so that's just and also I
[2:33:38] want to let you know that there we do
have a grant opportunity out right now
[2:33:42] um that could possibly and the way I'm
looking at the grant is if we want to
[2:33:46] move forward at possibly applying with
the grant. It does cover the license
[2:33:51] plates or it would cover our project at
80% we would be responsible for
[2:33:56] 20%. And that would be for a year. And
so I kind of looked at it as is this
[2:34:01] something that we can trial run these
cameras for the year at that 20% rate to
[2:34:07] see if this is something that that we're
interested in that that we're finding to
[2:34:11] be useful. And if it's not, then we pull
the cameras at that at the year or we
[2:34:16] continue them. But I think it'll give us
a good opportunity to see if this is
[2:34:22] something that works for the city. Um,
and then but like I said, I think we've
[2:34:26] also worked through some of those
back-end hiccups that that were kind of
[2:34:30] coming up. And the other thing that I do
did talk to Flock about and kind of
[2:34:34] proposed is that if there are con more
questions that the council does have as
[2:34:41] far as like the privacy and and things
about the camera, we can create a kind
[2:34:47] of like a work meeting. And I've uh
spoke with council member Brown as far
[2:34:52] as our police liaison and also with uh
city legal and a flock representative
[2:34:58] would be uh present too. That way we can
iron out any issues that we possibly
[2:35:04] have. So I said we're kind of just
filling it out see how we would like to
[2:35:09] proceed. Um like I said I I think it's
in our best interest to to go ahead and
[2:35:15] apply for the grant. If we decide to
move on the grant, then we do. And then
[2:35:19] if but if we don't, we we don't have
to. But I think it it probably is best
[2:35:24] for us to secure that opportunity.
Who's providing the grant? Uh Texas DMV.
[2:35:30] Oh, and it's based off of off catalytic
converter crime. And and I did talk to
[2:35:37] Flock. I said, "We don't we've only had
one here. I think maybe two." I said,
[2:35:43] "So we don't have much of that." And and
they I I was going to say I know yours
[2:35:46] and then I know I had another one up in
in the um um so but they're seeing a
[2:35:54] high approval rate on this grant. So um
like I said I believe that it's in our
[2:35:58] best interest to to
try a map of those locations. I do say
[2:36:07] is is five enough to cover all of our
entrances? So, so that's kind of the
[2:36:12] thing is we did so we actually have more
mapped out than the five um to catch it
[2:36:20] going east and west if we did decide to
go that route. I'm also going to provide
[2:36:24] you like
a some other information from block that
[2:36:29] they did send me today to kind of get to
you guys. Um and then that way you can
[2:36:35] kind of reference those too. Um the
other thing that is A possibility is is
[2:36:43] also a 360 camera which would create
live feeding for the
[2:36:49] park. That is also something that we
want to um put onto as well.
[2:37:00] Go ahead. Uh what kind of feedback do
you get from the other uh chiefs about
[2:37:05] how useful the information is? If you
everybody's adding to their actual Flock
[2:37:12] system. So, nobody has pulled cameras or
just adding more to them. Um, there also
[2:37:18] is a transparency portal through Flock
that anybody can access. We were
[2:37:23] actually looking at some data today. Um,
tells you how many vehicles um pass the
[2:37:27] cameras, how many hits that that were um
from the cameras, who though that data
[2:37:35] is shared with as far as other agencies.
So it actually like I said it provides
[2:37:40] some transparency. So um but I I'm not
concerned about any type of
[2:37:46] um like privacy issues or or racial
profiling because like I said that data
[2:37:52] is not collected.
[2:37:57] But the other thing, and I know that you
you were talking about if five is enough
[2:38:02] with this grant, with the fact that we
would only be paying 20%. It would allow
[2:38:07] if we budgeted like the original cost
would have been
[2:38:11] $22,000. Um, but that includes that 360
camera. Um, that would allow us to be
[2:38:18] able to add more cameras and stay under
that $22,000 threshold if that's where
[2:38:23] because like I said, we would only be
paying the 20% for the for the first
[2:38:26] year.
Sounds like a great deal. So, like I
[2:38:31] said, I believe and I think it's a good
opportunity for like I said for us to
[2:38:36] test run these things and um and not
have that big of a cost associated. So,
[2:38:41] all we have to decide tonight is whether
to authorize to apply for the grant.
[2:38:44] Correct. All right. Excellent.
So move move to authorize the police
[2:38:50] department to apply for the grant.
Second.
[2:38:53] Any further discussion?
I I love the police department. I love
[2:38:58] what you guys do in service for me.
There's just something in me that is so
[2:39:02] against this idea. Like it really is
like the privacy thing. I can't get
[2:39:06] over. And some of the discussion about
like, okay, we have some cameras. Well,
[2:39:10] of course the police like them. We'll
have more cameras. We'll have a camera
[2:39:13] in the park. We're going to be like
surrounded by cameras. That's just my
[2:39:16] opinion. Maybe I can change my mind at
some point, but I'm going to have to go
[2:39:20] on. Well, I would point out that both
West Lake Hills and City of Austin have
[2:39:24] these cameras. Exactly. And so you're
driving through them every day. But it's
[2:39:28] not my city, you know. And the benefit
is that if a stolen vehicle enters
[2:39:33] Rollingwood, the police get a real time
alert on that issue. that vehicle will
[2:39:39] probably go through Westlake Hills and
be buy one and probably well they're not
[2:39:42] going to follow it into West Lake I mean
into like what are we going to do with
[2:39:46] it like how effective this is like 10%
like let you solve like 10% and so I
[2:39:51] think that's what we're determining
right and so that's what I'm and that's
[2:39:55] why I am trying to go above and beyond
that way we can get those questions
[2:40:00] answered for you and then that way it'll
kind of I like the test run too for that
[2:40:05] purpose but the other great thing about
them is that if somebody breaks into
[2:40:09] your car, okay, um and and robs your car
out of in the driveway, you might have a
[2:40:15] security v camera that identifies that
car that was that came to your house,
[2:40:20] right? But it's not going to read the
license plate. But you can go to the
[2:40:23] police department and say at 2 am a um I
understand this. I understand like the
[2:40:30] the sales from like that side. I get
that. My side is like different. I'm
[2:40:35] willing to like sacrifice some of the
things like that. Okay, maybe my car
[2:40:39] does get broken into or I lose something
for privacy and personal liberty. Like
[2:40:44] that's just sort of where I I But I
think I the the misconception is is that
[2:40:50] your data is not actually pulled unless
we're actually looking for that and
[2:40:56] you're trusting you're trusting flop and
you're trusting them to like secure the
[2:41:00] data and not do something with it too.
So, I mean, and there's just an ongoing
[2:41:05] cost. This isn't going to be like a
onetime $20,000 deal. It's going to be
[2:41:08] ongoing recurring. You're going to like
end up doing spend money. I mean, I
[2:41:13] don't know. Maybe I can change my mind.
And it sounds like there's enough votes
[2:41:17] here to approve the grant. But I'm like,
you know, to apply for it, but just
[2:41:22] telling you that's where I
stand. Maybe change my mind, but
[2:41:30] yeah. Yeah, one of the things that
brought up as far as like privacy and
[2:41:34] business privacy. You have a telephone.
I understand. But I purchased this. I
[2:41:40] control this. This is my personal thing.
I can decide. I can decide to leave it
[2:41:44] here and go somewhere. Now, what you're
saying is you cannot leave the city of
[2:41:49] Rollingwood without a camera taking a
picture of your license plate. That just
[2:41:54] sounds absurd to me. That's it. Cover it
up.
[2:41:59] Us. that to me like that's not where I
want to live. That's just not where I
[2:42:03] want to live.
I know that's not the toll roads. Good
[2:42:08] lord, they flash you at you every time
you go down there.
[2:42:13] Not right on that. I mean, I understand.
Hey, listen. This is like this is what's
[2:42:17] happening, right? I see that that's the
trend, but I'm not going to personally
[2:42:21] be involved in voting to like continue
that because I just don't think it's
[2:42:24] right. Let's say would
um in terms of aiding police
[2:42:32] apprehension you you're well I'm kind of
how how do you weigh that versus the
[2:42:40] privacy issue?
I mean, personally, I think get out at
[2:42:45] night, maybe try and do do best job that
they can do to like solve some of these
[2:42:51] things using the tools they have, not
having pictures of us leaving every
[2:42:56] single intersection and rolling. I see
one way I could get out of here without
[2:43:00] without being without being like I could
go down. Yeah, you can hike out through
[2:43:06] the nature center. So, yeah, that's just
get an Uber. That's a good way. Well,
[2:43:12] that's true. Well, I was thinking about
that with all the self-driving cars. I
[2:43:16] was like, how much longer is anyone
going to be driving? Actually,
[2:43:22] yeah, that's just let's just Okay. I
just want to kind of get a feel for your
[2:43:28] perspective,
right?
[2:43:32] Okay, Michaela, we have a motion, a
second. Yes.
[2:43:37] Yes. Okay. Any further
discussion? All those in favor say I. I.
[2:43:44] All those opposed say nay. Okay. Motion
passes 4 to
[2:43:49] one. I will say as somebody who had
their catalytic converter stolen
[2:43:54] probably in the middle of the night and
nobody had any pictures of it. So it was
[2:43:58] not it was not caught. So I am not
worried about somebody knowing if I
[2:44:04] leave the neighborhood.
um that I would like to be able to catch
[2:44:09] the people that are doing stuff they
shouldn't be doing.
[2:44:12] So, all right.
Move to Yay. All those in favor? Hi. Hi.