[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FOR THURSDAY AUGUST 13TH 2026.
ROLL CALL. COUNCILOR RENYOLDS.
[4.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-164 calling and setting a public hearing on September 3, 2026, at 7:00 PM and September 10, 2026, at 7:00 PM on the proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2026-2027 and determining the proposed tax rate to be included in the hearing notice; providing proper notice and meeting, and providing an effective date. (Alberta Barrett)]
>> WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT. FIRST ITEM UP IS ITEM 4.1, CONSIDERATION ON POSSIBLE A ACTION, R-2026-164 CALLING AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEMENT 3RD 2026 AND SEPTEMBER 10TH 2026 AT 7 P.M. ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND DETERMINING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HEARING NOTICE; PROVIDING PROPER NOTICE AND MEETING, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
ALBERTA BARET. TONIGHT YOU'RE NOT ADOPTING THE TAX RATE BUT YOU'RE TAKING A RECORD VOTE AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET IS IS NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET AND TAX RATE.
IN THE PORTION OF THAT RATE IT WILL GENERATE 16, 348 -- AND IT WILL GENERATE 6, 804,504 TO PAY INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR TOTAL RATE WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 23,152, 198. IT CANNOT BE CHANGED OR RAISED BUT IT CAN BE LOWERED AND THEN DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU SET THE RATE AT WILL DEPEND ON HOW MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS YOU NEED TO HAVE. SO THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE SCHEDULED WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 3RD AND THAT RESOLUTION IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AND WE ALSO INCLUDED AN ALTERNATE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD CALL FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS SO IF IT'S OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, ONE ON THE THIRD AND ONE ON THE 10TH. JUST DEPENDS ON WHICH WAY YOU
THANK YOU. SO WHAT YOU NEED OUT OF US IS WE NEED TO PICK A RATE NOT TO EXCEED UP TO TONIGHT AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS GO DOWN BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF RATE IN
TONIGHT TO PROCEED. >> RIGHT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO
AND WHAT WAS THAT NO NEW REVENUE RATE, 3997.
>> PROTOCOL, DO WE HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS? WE NEED A JUSTICE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS, MAKE A MOTION AND THEN DISCUSS A MOTION.
THERE'S NO QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
IF WE CHANGE THE RATE TO 0 0.397012 HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD THAT GENERATE APPROXIMATELY. I DON'T NEED IT DOWN TO THE
CENTS. >> SO CURRENTLY ONE CENT WOULD RAISE -- I BELIEVE IT'S A LITTLE OVER ABOUT 580,000.
>> SO 0.01 IS 80K. >> YOU'RE TALKING.001.
>> YOU'RE TALKING LESS THAN ONE CENT.
>> RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING FOR 0.01 CHANGE
SHE SAID ONE CENT CHANGE WAS 580.
>> SO DO THAT BY 1,000. OR WHATEVER THE -- IT DON'T WORK ON THAT ONE BUT WHATEVER THE MATH IS.
>> HE'S THE ENGINEER. >> I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD.
MY HEARING IS BAD. >> 580,000 AND YOU'RE WANTING TO
>> YOU'RE WANTING TO CHANGE IT BY 0.0001.
SO YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE THAT BY 1,000.
>> 10,000. >> 10,000, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO THAT'S 5 TIMES TO THE --
THE FIFTH. >> HOW MANY DECIMAL POINTS ARE
YOU TRYING TO MOVE IT. >> HE WANTS TO DO 0.397012.
>> SO YOU'RE TRYING TO MOVE IT 6 DECIMAL POINTS.
[00:05:01]
580,000 AND MOVE IT 4 DECIMAL POINTS IN.SO 580,000 WOULD BECOME 58,000. SO ONE DECIMAL POINT.
58,000 BECOMES 5800 WITH TWO DECIMAL POINTS.
580 WITH THREE DECIMAL POINTS AND $5.80.
>> THAT WILL COVER SNACKS FOR A WEEK UPSTAIRS.
>> THAT SAID, ALBERTA, DID YOU DELIVER TO THEM THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT THEY COULD ADOPT? WITHOUT TRIGGERING A VOTER
ELECTION. >> NO, SIR BUT I CAN DO THAT NOW. SO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE SO YOU COULD GO UP TO THIS RATE BUT WELL ACTUALLY JUST BELOW IT SO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS 0.
0.428517 IN TOTAL THAT WOULD BE ALMOST 25 MILLION TO THE GENERAL FUND THAT WOULD BE 17, 735, 744 SO ALMOST 1.3 OVER THE NO NEW
REVENUE RATE IN THE GERNL FUND. >> WHAT IS IT RIGHT NOW?
AS TODAY? >> CURRENT TAX RATE?
QUESTIONS? WE READY FOR ACTION?
>> ACTION. >> YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE A A AT.
AT.397011 OR DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY.
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.
>> SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PORTE PORTERFIELD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? SO THIS MEANS JUST TO CLARIFY FOR YOU GUYS ARE NEW, IT MEANS WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE BUDGET, WHATEVER WE FIND, WHATEVER WE DECIDE WE WANT TO DO, WHATEVER WE DO IT CANNOT GO ABOVE THIS RATE SO ANY ADDITIONAL VALUE SPEND YOU GOT TO BASICALLY CUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. GET THIS TO PASS.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.
>> PASSES, 6-0. >> SO MAYOR BEFORE YOU LEAVE THIS ITEM CAN I GET YOU TO ALSO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
WHICH WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 3RD. >> AND THAT'S IT, WE DON'T DO
SEPTEMBER 10TH. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
IF YOU KEEP IT AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE UFTR JUST THE ONE
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 3RD. >> I MAKE A MOTION WE SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 3RD AT 7 P.M.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING NONE.
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILOR KING.
[4.2. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2026-037 calling a bond election to be held in the City of Hutto, Texas on November 3, 2026; making provision for the conduct of the election; and resolving other matters related to that election. (Legal)]
NEXT ITEM 4.2. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. O-2026-037 CALLING A BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION; AND RESOLVING OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THAT ELECTION.
>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILLOR.
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR THE RECORD.
TONIGHT WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL CALL FOR A BOND ELECTION FOR VOTERS TO DETERMINE IF WE SHOULD ISSUE THAT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW JUSTICE CENTER.
I DO HAVE MEMBERS FROM THE DESIGN TEAM AT PBK AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK CORE.
HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUES QUESTIONS AFTER THEIR INITIAL COST ESTIMATION AND REVIEW, IT DID COME IN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER WHICH YOU HAVE NOTICED IN YOUR PACTET AT ABOUT 47 MILLION. THANKFULLY WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A
[00:10:03]
FEW DIFFERENT COST SAVING MEASURES THAT WE CAN DO INTERNALLY SUCH AS INSTEAD OF USING A FULL AIR CHILLER SYSTEM FOR THE HVAC SYSTEM USING ROOFTOP UNITS THAT DOES SAVE MONEY, LONG TERM I THINK IT'S ABOUT YEAR 15 THAT CHILLER SYSTEM DOES START TO OUTWEIGH ON COST VERSES A ROOFTOP UNIT BUT IF KEEPING THE BOND PRICE DOWN IS THE PRIMARY MOTIVATOR THAT IS A COST SAVING THAT WE CAN DO. AS WELL AS YOUR PREVIOUS BOND THAT WE ISSUED FOR 5 MILLION WE STILL HAVE 3 AND A HALF MILLION LEFT IN THAT BOND SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A PRICE IS RIGHT AT 43 AND A HALF MILLION. RATHER THAN THE 47.>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL WAIT -- WE HAVE OTHER TIME TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION THINGS.
>> YEAH, THERE WILL BE TIME THROUGHOUT THE ACTUAL.
>> I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED IF WE'RE GOING BACK KIND OF HIGH TECH TO WHERE WE CAN PLUG A 3 MILLION DOLLAR DEAL BY CHANGING OUT SYSTEMS SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READY FOR THE HIGH TECH STUFF SO ALL RIGHT IF WE CALL FOR 44 MILLION THAT'S MORE THAN ENOUGH TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW USE WHAT WE NEED AND THEN WHAT ABOUT I THINK JAMES IS TELLING ME THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE ROAD THAT'S
WE'RE LOOKING AT ANYWHERE BETWEEN 300, 200, 300,000 FOR THE BUILDING OF THAT ROAD AND WE COULD HAVE INTERNAL STAFF BUILD THAT ROAD. THERE'S SEVERAL COST SAVING MEASURES THAT WE CAN DO THROUGHOUT THIS PROGRAM BUT TEAM CORE HAS ESSENTIALLY ASSURED US THROUGH SOME OF THESE COST SAVING MEASURES THAT 43 AND A HALF, 44 MILLION WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THE JUSTICE CENTER THAT EVERYONE HAS SEEN AND DESIGNED
THUS FAR. >> THAT'S A CHALLENGE ON 200 -- WE CAN'T FIX A POTHOLE IN THE CITY FOR LESS THAN A COUPLE
HUNDRED. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE HE'S ANSWERING THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING.
THE QUESTION HE'S ASKING ACM IS THE BUILDING THE ROAD TO CONNECT
ALL THE WAY DOWN. >> SO THE QUESTION I'M ANSWERING IS TO ENSURE THAT A DRIVEWAY EXISTS AND THEN ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT TO CONNECT THAT ROAD ALL THE WAY TO MEGAER ALL
DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. >> SO WHAT IS THE COST ESTIMATE TO BUILD THE ROAD FROM LIMER TO MEGER SO THE PD CAN SALLY NORTH
AND SOUTH. >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT OFFHAND AT
THE MOMENT >> DOES THE CORE TEAM KNOW WHAT IT IS? DID Y'ALL LOOK AT IT.
>> CAN ANYBODY GUESS HOW MANY LINEAR FEET THAT IS.
>> I DON'T HAVE TO GUESS. I'LL JUST LOOK AT THE MAP.
IF WE PASS IT AND BUILD THE STATION AND NOW WE HAVE TO PASS NO NEW REVENUE UNLESS YOU BRING IT BACK UP AND THEN WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE ROAD MONEY FOR THAT SO TO ME IN MY OPINION IT'S PART OF THE POLICE STATION IT CAUGHT TO BE -- OTHERWISE, CHIEF IS GOING TO WANT DIFFERENT TIRES AND DIFFERENT TRUCKS HE'S GOING TO BE GOING OVER ROADS AND THE LAND AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LINEAR FEET. I SEE THEM DOING MATH ON THEIR PHONES. FROM LIMER TO MEGER IS 2,000.
>> 5 TIMES 300. SO COUPLE MILLION.
>> I WOULD SAY 4 MILLION. >> ALL RIGHT, SO 44 BUILDS A POLICE STATION AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND TO GET TO WHERE THEY WANT TO GO. WE CAN OBVIOUSLY FIGURE THAT OUT. SO 48 MILLION, IT SHOULD GET THE POLICE STATION. WE COULD STILL VALUE ENGINEER IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME THINGS AND THEN HAVE A ROAD THAT -- ALL RIGHT.
[00:15:07]
SO YOU GUYS NEED THAT OF US. A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCEWITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN IT. >> CORRECT.
AND I WOULD LEAN ON OUR BOND COUNSEL ON THE SPECIFIC MOTION LANGUAGE BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIFIC STEPS WE HAVE TO TAKE.
>> ANYBODY GOT ANYWHERE QUESTIONS? ARE WE IN DISCUSSION? WE SQUEEZED ANY PENNY OUT OF
>>> THE DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT. WE'RE PUTTING IN A ROOFTOP UNIT.
>> YOU MISUNDERSTOOD. THE ROOFTOP IS CHEAPER THAN THE
BUT THE CHILL SENIOR IN THERE SO IF WE ALREADY CUT THAT OUT SO THAT LEAVES ME TO BELIEVE WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE THAT'S IN THERE DO WE REALLY NEED THAT BELL AND WHISTLE.
>> WE CAN CALL CORE UP AND HAVE THEM ANSWER WHAT THEY CUT OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL IF YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW.
>> I'M OKAY BECAUSE WE CAN SET IT AND SET IT AT 48 AND THEN USE 42 MILLION AND NO ONE IS GOING TO GET UPSET WE SPENT LESS.
BUT YOU GUYS CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION.
>> TWO FLAG POLES, $16,500 EACH. THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE FLAG POLE.
JUST THINKING. >> I LIKE THEM.
I LIKE THE WAY HE'S THINKING. ALL RIGHT.
SO BART, DO YOU WANT TO TELL US EXACTLY HOW WE GOT TO WORD THIS? 16,000, WE GOT TO FIND LIKE 1.6 MILLION.
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE A NICE STATION, CHIEF.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR THE RECORD I'M BART, AND I WORK FOR THE CITY AS BOND COUNSEL. THE MOTION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED IS MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER O2026037 PLUS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE MOTION WHATEVER YOU DETERMINE THAT TO BE JUST MOTION APPROVING O-2026-037 WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AS PART OF
YOUR MOTION WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. >> OKAY.
YOU GUYS HAVE ACTION FOR THIS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BOND STUFF.
IF WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WE HAVE TO GIVE THE AMOUNT IN THE ORDINANCE SO WHAT'S THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO SET IT AT 44, 48 FROM A BOND PV.
>> IT CAPS THE AMOUNT OF BONDS YOU ISSUE.
THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS TO INCLUDE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE POLICE STATION AND POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BUT IF IT COMES IN LESS FOR SOME REASON YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE ANY HEEXESS AS YOU WORK THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AS YOU DETERMINE YOU MENTIONED THE ROOFTOP UNITS VERSIONS THE OTHER OPTION, IF THERE'S HEEXCE MONEY YOU CAN WORK WITHIN THAT ON WHAT YOU NEED TO DO YOU CAN'T EXCEED THAT AND WITHIN THAT YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION ITEMS IT'S PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES HAS TO INCLUDE THE JUSTICE CENTER.
>> OKAY AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT IS THE FACTORING IN OF THE ROAD WASN'T FACTORED INTO THIS ORIGINAL PROJECT OR WAS THIS AN AFTER THOUGHT?
>> I THINK IN TALKING TO JAMES I THINK IT WORKS WITHOUT THE ROAD.
THAT'S JUST NOT THE BEST CASE SCENARIO.
>> OKAY. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW FOR ME IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS THING WE NEED TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING.
>> THAT'S WHY I TOLD THEM I THINK THE ROAD BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO POLICE STATION WE WOULDN'T NEED THE ROAD.
FOR A WHILE. AND SO TO ME WE GO AHEAD AND WE CAN STILL CHOOSE NOT TO DO THE ROAD BUT AT LEAST THE BONDING CAPACITY IS THERE SO WE CAN TELL THE VOTERS IT COULD INCLUDE A PUBLIC SAFETY STATION, THIS, THIS AND THE ROAD BLAH, BLAH, BLAH AND THEN AS WE GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF MONTH FROM NOW HEY DO WE REALLY NEED TO DO THAT AND WE DECIDE NOT TO LIKE BART SAID TO ME WE JUST WE DON'T SPEND THAT MONEY WE DON'T ISSUE IT. THIS IS GOING TO PUT TO THE VOTERS AND THEY HAVE TO DECIDE IN NOVEMBER AND THEN MY GUESS IS WE WILL ISSUE BY THEN AND START CONSTRUCTION AND WE MAY BE ISSUING DEBT DECEMBER, JANUARY WHICH GIVES US ANOTHER TWO OR THREE MONTHS TO DIAL IN COSTS. THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT NOT ONLY -- YOU KNOW, AS A COUNCILOR MEMBER BUT AS A RESIDENT AND A VOTER. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I'M -- YOU
KNOW, PAYING FOR. >> YES, SIR.
>> NO BLIND SPOTS. >> YES, SIR.
[00:20:01]
>> SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW I'M FORWARD-THINKING OF IT AS A
RESIDENT AND A VOTER. >> YEAH.
THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS TO GET THE BOND ISSUANCE AMOUNT DOWN TO THE LEVEL THAT COUNCIL HAD BASICALLY SIGNALLED.
SO IN DOING SO THE SOLUTION WAS WELL WE CAN'T BUILD THE ROAD BUT WE CAN MAKE A DRIVEWAY INTO WHERE THE POLICE OFFICERS NEED TO PARK AND ALL THAT OTHER SORT OF STUFF AND WE CAN MAKE IT FUNCTIONALLY WORK. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER YOU'RE VOTING TONIGHT THAT YOU'RE COGNISANT OF THAT AND IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE ROAD THEN IT WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT THAT YOU SIGNAL THAT YOU WANTED TO STARTING AS THE BONDING AMOUNT. SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHY YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF 44, 48. IF YOU DO -- BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD 42 SO 48 WOULD HAVE BLOWN 42 WAY BEYOND WHAT I WOULD HAVE SIGNED OFF ON. 44 IS AS CLOSE AS WE COULD GET IT THAT'S USING OTHER DOLLARS RIGHT BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THE ROAD NOW IS PROBABLY THE TIME TO DO IT AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WAS
>> MAY I OFFER SOMETHING, KATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES, WE JUST FURTHER CONFIRMED GENERALLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS BOND DETERMINED NUMBER THAT YOU WOULD MOTION FOR BOND 4.
THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND MYSELF HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CONSULTANTS ON ROAD PROJECTS TO GET UPDATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH DID WE ACTUALLY MAYBE ALREADY HAVE THAT WOULD INFORM THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR WHEN WE DO GO OUT TO BOND FOR THE ROAD THAT'S WE MOTIONED AND MOVED UP TO FISCAL YEAR 27. SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET ESTIMATED UPDATED COSTS FROM OUR CONSULTANTS TO DETERMINE WHAT
THAT ADDITIONAL NEED IS. >> OKAY.
>> WE'RE VOTING ON THIS BUT WE'RE VOTING ON THIS TONIGHT.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> ALL RIGHT WE'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER.
>> I'M SORRY, MAYOR, ONE LAST COMMENT THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING JUST TO EMPHASIZE, UNDER TAKES US ALL YOU HAVE TO HAVE SINGLE PURPOSE PROPOSITION. YOU'VE INDICATED THIS ROAD IS PART OF THE SAME PROJECT I DON'T HAVE ISSUES INCLUDING ACCESS TO THE FACILITY AS PARTING TO BUILD BUT IT RAISES A QUESTION TO THE POINT MADE THE ROAD ITSELF WOULD FIT BETTER WITHIN YOUR ROAD STREET CO THAT'S ANTICIPATED SOME TIME NEXT YEAR ONCE YOU KNOW IT'S PASSED OR NOT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T DO IT BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, IT'S CLEANER, LEGALLY A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF YOU INCLUDED IT IN THE OVER ALL STREET ROAD CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION LATER BUT YOU HAVE DISCRETION ON WHAT YOU WANT TO
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2026-037 AS PRESENTED WITH A BOND AMOUNT OF 48 MILLION.
>> SECOND. >> MAY THOUGHT IS I DO LIKE IT CLEANER WITH THE ROADS BUT WE CAN ALWAYS FIX THAT LATER.
I DON'T SEE THIS AS A WAY TO SPEND THE MONEY I JUST SEE IT AS A WAY IN CASE WE END UP NOT DOING THAT WE STILL HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED TO BUILD A POLICE STATION THAT FUNCTIONS
PROPERLY >> MAYOR TO YOUR POINT AND MULTIPLE COUNCILOR MEMBERS HAVE SAID THIS THIS SHOWS THE TAX PAYERS WHAT THE TRUE COST IS ARGUABLY WITHOUT THE ROAD IT'S NOT FUNCTIONING. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF SIGNALLING IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS IT'S GOING TO COST HERE EVEN THOUGH WE COULD DO 44 HERE AND 4 LATER.
>> WE GOT TO RUN WASTE WATER TO THE SITE I DON'T WANT THAT TO
COME OUT OF THE UTILITY FUND. >> CORRECT.
>> THE ACTUAL COST OF THIS IS GOING TO BE X.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILOR MORRIS.
>> AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM PORTERFIELD.
>> AYE. >> IF YOU GUYS COULD EMAIL US TOMORROW JUST SO WE KNOW BEFORE IT HITS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AS COST TO THE TAX PAYERS. IT WILL COME OUT TOMORROW AND
[4.3. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2026-038 amending the budget for FY 2026 for various expenditures of the City of Hutto's General Fund, Capital Replacement Fund and Utility Fund. (Alberta Barrett)]
THEY'LL HAVE IT FIGURED OUT. NEXT ITEM.4.3. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO.
O-2026-038 AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FY 2026 FOR
[00:25:01]
VARIOUS EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF HUTTO'S GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND AND UTILITY FUND.>> YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL.
ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD.
SO HERE WE'RE BRINGING AN AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO DO SOME ONE-TIME PURCHASES FOR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT THAT VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS HAVE STRESSED THAT THEY NEEDED.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE OFFSETTING WITH SAVINGS THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE GENERAL FUND AND UTILITY FUND FOR THOSE EXPENDITURES. MAINLY THE GENERAL FUND.
AND THOSE COME FROM SALARY SAVINGS AND TAX SAVINGS ON THE SALARIES. SO TO THE GENERAL FUND AFTER THE EXPENDITURES WE'LL HAVE A NET INCREASE TO THE FUND BALANCE OF RIGHT ABOUT 40,000. THE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND THERE'S NO EFFECT, THERE'S A TRANSFER IN AND THE EXPENDITURES EQUAL THE SAME AMOUNT. IN THE UTILITY FUND WE'RE ADDING HERE IN BOTH CASES WE HAVE A SAVINGS GREATER THAN THE
EXPENDITURES. >> AND THE DIGITAL SIGN BOARD, CONCRETE MIXER WILL THAT COME BACK BEFORE US OR LOW ENOUGH WE
WON'T SEE IT AGAIN. >> YES, IT SHOULD BE LOW ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE TO COME BACK FOR COUNCIL.
SO THEN WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS A DIGITAL SIGN
>> OTHER THAN THE NAME I'M THINKING IT'S A SIGN BOARD
THAT'S DIGITAL; RIGHT? >> IT'S THE TEXT DOT SIGN THAT IS SAY ROAD CLOSED, DETOUR HERE, IT'S THE ORANGE TEMPORARILIES WE
HAUL OUT AND DROP OFF. >> HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW.
>> 4. >> AND THIS BUYS US ONE MORE.
>> YES. >> AND WE'RE USING ALL FOUR
>> OKAY. >> CONCRETE MIXER, HOW MUCH WE SPEND ON A CONCRETE MIXER? LIKE HOW MANY CONCRETE ARE WE GOING TO DO LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO POUR LIKE A PAD SOMEWHERE ARE WE GUBUYING LIKE A 40,000 CONCRE MIXER TO USE ONCE A YEAR.
NORMALLY I WOULD ASK THIS WHEN AN ITEM CAME OUT AND IT'S 18
>> FOR ALL THE ITEMS. >> CORRECT.
>> IT'S ABOUT 240,000 FOR EVERYTHING IN TOTAL.
>> SO 30,000 IN THE CONCRETE MIXER HOW MUCH CONCRETE ARE WE POURING? WHAT'S THE PLAN? ARE WE JUST BUYING IT BECAUSE WE HAD SALARY SAVINGS? IN OTHER WORDS I'M BRINGING THIS UP I TALK TO CITY MANAGEMENT ALL THE TIME I HEAR DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBER GOES WE HAVE MONEY IN THE BUDGET. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO GET SPENT AND I WAS TELLING MAYOR PRO TEM PORTERFIELD WE MISS SOME STUFF THERE'S AN AWARDS CASE OUTSIDE THAT LOOKS GREAT THAT WAS MONEY IN THE BUDGET I DON'T KNOW WAS IN THERE AND THERE'S STILL TRIMMINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND TOWARDS THE END HEY WE GOT EXTRA MONEY AND LET'S GO BUY EXTRA STUFF LIKE AN ARMORED CAR INSTEAD OF MAYBE A CONCRETE MIXER.
>> PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION CURRENTLY THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WHEN WE ORDER CONCRETE IT'S A 7 OR 8 -- 7 YARD TRUCK AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF DOING THAT WORK LOCALLY IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO A LOT OF THE TIMES A LOT OF THAT MIX WILL HAVE TO GO BACK THIS ALLOWS US TO BE MORE EFFICIENT IN THE SIDEWALKS, CURB AND GUTTER, ANY OF THE RAMPS THAT WE CURRENTLY DO YEAR ROUND TO BE MORE EFFICIENT AND ALSO EXTEND THE -- NOT ONLY THE QUALITY OF OUR PRODUCT BUT ALSO THE DURATION ON WHICH WE DO THIS
WORK WILL ALSO GET SHORTENED. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU GOT TO POUR LIKE A PAD OF SIDEWALK, A COUPLE OF PANELS OR SOMETHING,
THIS WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. >> IT WILL MAKE US -- IT ALSO ALSO DO SMALLER JOBS AND WITH QUICKER TURN AROUND THAN HAVING TO SCHEDULE ALL THESE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
>> HOW MANY YARDS IS THIS TRUCK. >> IS THIS A TRUCK OR A HAND HELD THING YOU THROW BAGS OF CONCRETE IN.
>> THIS IS A CONCRETE MIXER THAT'S ON A TRAILER MOUNT THAT YOU ATTACH TO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE SO IT'S LIKE 3 YARD
VERSES A -- YOU KNOW, ORDER. >> BECAUSE IF YOU ORDER SAY YOU NEED 5 AND A HALF YARDS, YOU GOT TO ORDER THE WHOLE 7 SO YOU'RE PAYING FOR 7 BUT ONLY USING 5 AND A HALF, MAYBE 5.
[00:30:04]
>> I ORDER 4 YARDS FOR A PATIO, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW NOWADAYS YOU CAN'T JUST ORDER WHAT YOU NEED. I MEAN IT COSTS MORE.
>> THERE'S A MINIMUM. >> ALL RIGHT AND WE'RE GOING TO POUR ENOUGH CONCRETE SPENDING 37,000 DOLLARS.
>> 38. >> IS THIS GOING TO BE USED ENOUGH OR THE STREET SWEEPER WHERE WE NEVER SEE IT BUT WE
SPEND MONEY ON IT. >> WE HAVE THE NEED TO DO THIS YEAR AROUND SO WE HAVE TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO DO THESE SMALLER JOBS BECAUSE WE GET THEM PERIODICALLY WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TURN AROUND TIME THAT WE NEED TO WITH THE LARGER -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PLAN THEM OUT. SO IN THE LAST TWO YEARS I WOULD SAY THIS WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF. SO YOU'RE LOOKING COMING FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE CONCRETE BUDGET KIND OF DIP DOWN JUST A TOUCH. TO OFFSET.
>> OUT TO THE PUBLIC, BEFORE ABOUT THE CHRISTMAS TREE WE GOT CRUCIFIED FOR THAT AND THIS IS LIKE A ONCE IN A LIFETIME PURCHASE BEFORE WE BUY THAT AGAIN EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL THINGS EVERYBODY WHO HAS A BAD PIECE OF SIDEWALK IS GOING TO GO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO MY SIDEWALK AND I THINK IF WE TELL THEM IT PAYS FOR ITSELF IN A COUPLE OF YEARS THAT'S GOOD.
>> SO WITH THE CONCRETE MIXER AND THE.
WHAT ELSE WE GETTING? >> SO THE MAJOR ITEMS WOULD BE SOME SOFTWARE THROUGHOUT VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, A PRESSURE WASHER AND TRAILER WHICH WAS REALLY A REQUEST THAT WAS IN 27 THAT WAS NOT BEING ABLE TO BE FUNDED SO WE FUNDED IT OUT OF 26 SAVINGS.
A DUMP TRAILER, SOME ATTACHMENTS THROUGH THE VENT.
A SAND PRO. SO THOSE ARE YOUR MAJOR ITEMS.
>> POWER BI FOR STRATEGYING OPERATIONS.
WATCH OUT. START DOING SOME METRICS DAILY.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> ON THE NEW SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT DOES THAT INCLUDE ANY MAINTENANCE OR SOFTWARE LICENSE? YOU KNOW IS IT A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OR ONE-TIME COST.
>> MOST OF THEM ARE ONE-TIME COST.
IT'S LIKE A CAPITAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SOFTWARE.
ALSO LOOKING AT A PACKAGE FOR CLEAR GOVS WHO MAKE SOME OF OUR
BUDGETING PROCESSES EASIER. >> THAT'S FINE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ORDINANCE O-2026-038 AS
>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE. >> COUNCILLOR MEMBER THORNTON.
>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM PORTERFIELD.
>> AYE. >> LOST TRACK, IS THAT SIX.
[4.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-165 approving a joint election agreement and contract for election services between Williamson County Elections Administrator and the City of Hutto for a special bond election to be held on November 3, 2026; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. (Laura Hallmark)]
>> YES. >> MOTION PASSES, 6-0.
NEXT WE HAVE 4.4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. R-2026-165 APPROVING A JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR ELECTION SERVICES BETWEEN WILLIAMSON COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR A SPECIAL BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT.
I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE WITH THE CHANGE IN PARAGRAPH 4, THAT THE CITY OF HUTTO IS FINDING THE VOTING LOCATIONS.
>> SECOND. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE CHANGE?
>> WHERE IT SAYS THAT THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR SHALL SELECT AND ARRANGE THE USE OF THE ELECTION DAY VOTING THAT THE CITY OF HUTTO. IT'S THE FIRST LINE OF PART FOUR OF SECTION FOUR IT SAYS VOTING LOCATIONS.
>> RESOLUTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSING SECTION
4. >> THEY SENT US AN EMAIL AND SAID WE COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT CAN WE USE CITY HALL.
IF WE'RE THE ONES WORKING ON IT I THINK GOING FORWARD WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT AND LET YOU FGUYS KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE AND THEY CAN TELL US IF IT WORKS OR NOT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE
>> AYE. >> COUNCILLOR RENYOLDS.
>> AYE. >> COUNCILOR THORNTON.
>> AYE. >> THAT MEANS HALF THE ROOM CAN
[00:35:02]
GO NOW. TRY TO GET YOU GUYS OUT OF HERE BEFORE DINNER. NEXT.[4.5. Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission - Call to Order & Roll Call]
THE MOMENT WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR OUR JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO THE CHAIR FOR ROLL CALL.
IT IS 6:36 P.M. SO I WILL CALL THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR AUGUST 13TH, 2026 TO ORDER. ROLL CALL.
WE HAVE RICK HUDSON, I AM HERE. JOSE DELACRUZ J JOELLE DAN AND BRENDAN DALEYON.
VICE CHAIR IS NOT PRESENT AND CORY HALL IS NOT PRESENT.
FROM THERE WE WILL MOVE ON TO 44.59, DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> FOR HOWARD TO PRESENT? >> IT IS HOWARD TO PRESENT.
MY NAME IS HOWARD AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE RECORD I DON'T HAVE A LENGTHY SET OF PREPARED REMARKS FOR THIS ITEM. THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT STARTED LONG BEFORE MY TENURE.
WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING ARE TWO VERSIONS OF WHAT ARE EFFECTIVELY THE SAME DOCUMENT, THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE IS ONE VERSION THAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT WAS FORMED OF COUNCILPERSONS WHO WENT THROUGH OUR 470 PLUS PAGE UDC AND SUGGESTED EDITS. THE SECOND DOCUMENT WHICH STARTS ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH OF THE NEARLY WHAT IS IT 800 PAGES OF ATTACHMENTS THIS EVENING. ROUGHLY HALFWAY THROUGH IS A VERSION THAT WE HAVE TERMED THE WORKING VERSION OF PNZ.
THE PNZ LOOKED AT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MADE THEIR OWN EDITS TO THAT SAME DOCUMENT AND THIS MEETING I UNDERSTAND IS TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST THOSE CHANGES AND HAVE DISCUSSION ON WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD READ MOVING FORWARD.
PROBABLY BETTER TO HAVE AVAIL MYSELF TO QUESTIONS RATHER THAN TRY TO MAKE ANY PRESENTATION SO ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK.
>> ALL RIGHT SO THE FIRST RED LINE, THAT'S WHAT WE CAME UP
WITH ON THE SUB COMMITTEE. >> YES, THE FIRST DOCUMENT, THE FIRST -- DID YOU DO THE COUNT, IT'S LIKE THE FIRST 300 AND --
>> IN THE PACKET. >> WHO MADE WHICH RED LINES BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE -- THE SECOND VERSION STARTS, I HAVE IT ON PAGE 368. I WOULD SAY THAT THE FIRST 364 SO PAGES NOT COUNTING THE AIR AT THE BEGINNING, 364 PAGES WOULD BE THE DOCUMENT THAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THE PRODUCT OF
THE AD HOC COMMITTEE'S EDITS. >> THAT STARTS AT 368.
>> THAT STARTS ON PAGE 4 IS THE AD HOC VERSION.
>> I'M LOOKING AT IT AND IT HAS A COMMENT THAT I HAD ON THERE AND THEY'VE ADDED A COMMENT I THINK ON TOP OF THAT.
>> WHO MADE WHICH RED LINE. YOU GOT RED.
YOU GOT GREEN. LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT A PINK.
YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? >> WE MADE CHANGES AND STAFF MADE CHANGES. I SEE THE FORMATTING CHANGES BUT
THIS TELLS US WHO MADE. >> THIS IS A PDF AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK CHANGES WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT SIDE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS TURNED ON. I DON'T BELIEVE IT MADE IT TO
[00:40:02]
THIS MOTION. >> I WOULD JUST I COULD HOVER OWN IT AND TELL ME EXACTLY WHO DID IT.
WHO HAS THIS RED LINE. WAS IT RECORD THAT DID IT?
ASHLEY WHO DID IT. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT
INFORMATION. >> YOU'RE TALKING PAGES THOSE AREN'T THE SAME PAGES IN THE PACT.
>> ON PAGE 457 IT SAYS WORKING DRAFT AND IT SAYS ADDITION BY RICK HUDSON. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHERE YOU NEED TO BE. 457.
THAT'S THE SECOND ONE. >> THE SECOND VERSION.
>> MIKE, I'M ON PAGE 94. CHAPTER 2, LAND USE STANDARDS.
I SEE NO COMMENTS BUT I THINK I HAVE STUFF SCRATCHED OUT AND THEN STUFF SCRATCHED OUT IN BLUE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT PAGE 94 OF
>> THERE'S A RED, RED LINE, A BLUE RED LINE AND A GREEN RED LINE. WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE ACTUAL RED LINE CAN TELL US WHO MAKES WHAT CHANGES.
THE WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN KIND OF CONFUSING FOR ME AT WORK I COULD BE ON TEN REVERISIONS OF DOCUMENT WE ALWAYS SEND REVISION AND IT'S ALWAYS MARKED AND WHEN WE GET THE STUFF BACK IT'S LIKE THIS AND IT'S IN A FORMAT THAT I IDENTIFIED EARLY ON THAT IT WAS NOT ONE SINGLE FILE THAT WAS BEING USED AND REUSED BY ALL VIEWERS. IN THE CITY SHARE POINT THERE'S NO LESS THAN PROBABLY 6 DIFFERENT FOLDERS OF VARIOUS AND SUNDAYRY CHANGES THROUGH THE YEARS AS THIS PRODUCT HAS MOVED ON ALL WITH THE ACUTE ANNOTATION FOR REAL, FINAL, FINAL VERSION.
SOME OF THEM ARE ANNOTATED BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO MADE THE EDITS TURNED ON TRACK CHANGES SO THEIR NAME OR THEIR INITIALS WOULD BE ON THERE. SOME OF THEM ARE PDF DOCUMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS A SCAN OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE HAD PRINTED, MADE HAND COMMENTS AND THEN SAVED AS A PDF.
>> YEAH THAT'S OURS. THAT IS WHAT WE DID SO WHAT WE DID ORIGINALLY IS WE TOOK THIS IS ORIGINALLY PASSED SO THIS YEAR WAS PASSED BY PNZ. AND THEN AS IT CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT, AS IT CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT SO WES SAT UP HERE AND READ SOME STUFF AND WE'RE CHANGING THE WORD NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAMLET AND TO ME IT APPEARED WE'RE JUST MAKING CHANGES TO MAKE CHANGES SO I TOLD THE CONSULTANT YOU KIND OF AUSTINFIED THE CODE AND SOME KIND OF AUSTINIZED THE CODE.
WE VOTED NOT TO ACCEPT IT AND WE WENT THROUGH AND READ EVERY SINGLE PAGE AND MADE COMMENTS ON NEARLY EVERYTHING AND IT WAS LIKE WE WANTED TO JUSTIFY WE WANTED STAFF TO JUSTIFY WE DIDN'T REALLY -- I THOUGHT THE TIME WITH PNZ WAS OVER BUT WE WANTED TO JUSTIFY BASICALLY WHY BASICALLY EVERY WORD IS IN THIS DOCUMENT. WHAT'S THE POINT OF IT.
AND THEN FROM THERE, WE KEPT SIT SITTING BACK GOING HERE'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE AND THE REASON WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM IS IT'S IN THE CODE.
I'VE HEARD THE TERM WE -- SOME PEOPLE THINK WE MIGHT BE LOOSEN THE STANDARD BUT YOU GUYS TELL ME ON THE COMMITTEE IF I GET OFF ON THIS WE HAD A COUPLE -- WE HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS AND ONE WAS WE WANTED IT TO WHERE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE VOTES AND THE BIG ONE WAS WE DIDN'T WANT STAFF TO QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT IT IT USED TO BE EITHER YOU OR THE CITY ENGINEER AND WHOLE BUNCH OF ITEMS WOULD COME UP AND ONE OF THE CHALEXAMPLES IS YOU COULD H THE SETBACK UP TO 25% OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER IS OKAY AND I WAS LIKE HERE'S WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENS, DEVELOPER COMES IN AND WE ALLOW UP TO 25% AND THEY START PUSHING 35 OR 40% AND IF STAFF GO IF YOU DO 40% YOU DO IT OVER THERE AND PEOPLE START COMPLAINING AND THEN THEY COME BACK TO US AND STAFF IS MAKING US DO THIS OVER THERE AND THEY NEVER TELL US THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THAT INTO BUILDING SETBACK AND DEVELOPERS WILL GET BY WITH WHAT THEY CAN AND PUSH THE ENVELOPE.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND YOU GUYS LOSE YOUR LEVERAGEABILITY TO NEGOTIATE ON OTHER MEASHTS AND WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN BEING DISCRETION AND IT SHOULD JUST GO CLEAR AND SIMPLER WE KIND OF WENT THROUGH AND EVERY TIME WE SAW -- BLESS YOU AND I THINK IT STARTED GOING TO DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND EVERY
[00:45:03]
TIME IT WAS DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER HAD DISCRETION WE TOOK IT OUT AND IT WAS LIKE NO. I THINK A COUPLE OF TIMES WE KEPT IT AND WE HAD THAT AND THEN WE HAD THINGS LIKE WE TOOK THINGS THAT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE TO US LIKE REGULATING PARKING AND I DON'T KNOW HAVE YOU GOT THOSE PICTURES UP YET, LAURA. I TOOK A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.THIS IS -- EVERY TIME I SEE JAMES OUT HE HATES SEEING ME IN PUBLIC. THERE YOU GO JAMES.
THAT'S YOU THEY SEE. WHAT I DID IS I TOOK A COUPLE TODAY ONE OF THEM IS WE REGULATE MO MOTORCYCLE PARKING AND SCHOOL DISTRICT COMES UP EVERY TIME ASKING FOR A VARIANCE AND OUR CODE REQUIRES THEM TO BUILD MOSTER CYCLE PARKING AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HIGH SCHOOLERS TAKING MOTORCYCLES. WHAT SHE'S GOING TO SHOW YOU AS I'M TALKING WE MADE THEM PUT MOTORCYCLE PARKING IN AND MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN IT TUCKED UP ON THE SIDE THERE'S FOUR SPOTS AND NICE SIGNS WITH MOTORCYCLE PARKING AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT'S LIKE A JOKE. THAT'S IT ON THE SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE THE STORE. IF YOU'RE DRIVING A MOTORCYCLE UNLESS WE TELL YOU IT'S THERE THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PUT TA IN A PRIVATE SPOT AND NEXT PICTURE, THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS I DIDN'T GIVE YOU EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT BUT KIND OF SOME BIG ONES.
SO HERE'S WHAT THE CODE THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT TO DO PER CODE AND WE DON'T TELL WHERE TO PUT IT AND WHY ARE WE DETERMINING WHY ARE WE DETERMINING EVEN IF THEY NEED PARKING HOW MUCH THEY NEED PARKING AND HOW MANY SPOT YOU'RE IN CENTRAL TEXAS WE LIMIT YOU ON THE PARKING AND NORTH TEXAS THEY TELL YOU NOT ENOUGH PARKING AND ACADEMY KNOWS HOW MUCH PARKING YOU NEED AND IF WE'RE DETERMINING ALL THIS THAT'S WHY LOWS HAS CAR SHOWS IN THEIR PARKING LOT IT'S SO DAMN BIG THEY HAVE TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY ON DETENTION POND AND AS CAR SHOWS.
AND THIS PICTURE IS IRONIC BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE STREET AND TREE CODE SO WE MAKE EVERYBODY PLANT I THINK THE PROPER TERM IS CANOPY TREES. CANOPY TREE AT MATURITY AN 80 TO 110 FEET. BASED ON THE TEXAS A&M, 80 TO 100 FEET IN DIAMETER. YOU HAVE TO PUT TWO CANOPY TREES IN PLUS ORNAMENTAL TREE IN BETWEEN.
RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE EVERY 50 FEET, 2, 100 FOOT WIDE TREES WHY ARE WE MAKING PEOPLE PLANT TREES AND WE THINK IT'S BECAUSE WE WANT A CANOPY AND TO LOWER THE HEAT OF THE CITY AND FOR AESTHETIC REASONS AND IF WE'RE RIGHT WE'RE TELLING PEOPLE PLANT ALL THE TREES BUT THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO GROW TO MATURITY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT DOWN HALF AFTER THEM OR MORE AND WHAT IS THAT, 6 INCHES FROM THE BUILDING I GOT A LIVE OAK IN THE FRONT YARD AND I ALREADY HAD TO TRIM IT OFF MY HOUSE AND SO OUR CODE KEEPS TELLING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS AND ALL THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO IS GET IN AND GET THE HELL OUT OF HEWUTTO.
IT'S NOT JUST HUTTO BUT CENTRAL TEXAS ISSUE.
HOW DO WE GET THE TREE CANOPY OH BECAUSE IT WAS LITERALLY AFTER 2 YEARS IT WAS GROWING ON TOP OF THE BUILDING SO I THINK WE MADE A CHANGE LIKE ONE CANOPY TREE EVERY 50 FEET WITH AN ORNAMENTAL TREE AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY STILL TOO MUCH BUT IF YOU OPEN UP A COUPLE OF OTHER PICTURES YOU'LL SEE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE DATA CENTER OR WHATEVER IT IS, THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE SO THAT'S A LITTLE ISLAND.
TWO CANOPY TREES IN THAT ISLAND AND ARGUABLY AND THEN IF YOU WANT A LIVE VOTE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT IF YOU SEE THESE BRANCHES WHEN THEY COME DOWN IT'S GOING TO KILL SOMEBODY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT TREE TO PUT THERE BUT THEY ARE PLANNING WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THEIR PERMIT AS FAST AS IT IS AND SO THIS IS TODAY AND EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO TRIM THIS BACK BUT I THINK THE WAY THE CODE WORKS THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE THREE TREES THERE GOING FORWARD AT SOME POINT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND CODES PEOPLE ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THEY
[00:50:01]
COME IN FOR A VARIANCE AND HEY CAN I PLEASE CUT DOWN A TREE BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE GROWING INTO EACH OTHER OR THE DATA CENTER OR INDUSTRIAL ACROSS THE STREET AND THOSE GUYS THAT'S WITH THE VARIANCE WE GAVE THEM A VARIANCE ON TREES THEY HAD SO MANY TREES THEY HAD TO PLANET AND THEY SAID THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DIRT AND THEY PLANTED THEM FEET APART FROM EACH OTHER SO LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE CODE AND SERVICE IT LIKE WHY DO WE CARE WHAT A THE FACADE OF A HOUSE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT IN THE HOME BUILDING BUSINESS WE HAVE GERALD I USED TO SAY NONE OF US HAVE BUILT A HOUSE AND SOLD IT.WE'RE TELLING HOME BUILDERS HOW TO BUILD THEIR HOMES AND WE DON'T KNOW THE MARKET AND WE WANT IT TO BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING FROM THE STREET BUT FT. NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE CRAPS ON THE OUTSIDE I WOULD IMAGINE THE HOME BUILDER KNOWS WHAT'S RIGHT AND IF YOU DRIVE BY LIMER, THE FACADES LOOK DIFFERENT.
WE DO SO MUCH IN CODE AND THEN WE LOOK BACK AND WE GO, WE DON'T REALLY LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BUT WE'RE THE ONES THAT MADE IT LOOK LIKE WAY BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER IS HAVING TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS EVERYBODY -- NOT EVERYBODY BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE'RE HERE SAY WE MISS SMALL TOWN HUTTO AND START SAYING WHAT IS A SMALL TOWN IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH RURAL TEXAS WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY SEE AND A LOT OF TIMES YOU SEE LIKE THE STAIR STAIRO TYPICAL, YOU GOT THE DAIRY QUEEN AND ASHIES AND ALL THE THINGS WITH SMALL TOWN AND THE OTHER BIGGER THINGS IN THE CITY WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE, EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME. EVERYTHING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IS THE SAME SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? WELL THE BIGGER CITIES HAVE THE CODE THAT REQUIRES ALL THIS SO THE DEVELOPER THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD THEIR BUILDING SO THE CODE IS WHAT'S MAKING EVERYTHING BEING THE SAME WE KIND OF TOOK THE STANCE OF YOU KNOW WHAT IF THEY WANT TO BUILD A PROTO TYPICAL BUILDING THEY ARE A BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY THEY KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT LET'S JUST LET THEM DO THAT.
WE DON'T WANT LANDSCAPING OR ALL THIS OTHER STUFF BUT WE DON'T WANT TO TELL WHATTABURGER, WE JUST THOUGHT IS IT REALLY THAT IMPORTANT? AND SO WHEN YOU GUYS WENT THROUGH THERE THAT WAS KIND OF OUR MEANING WHEN YOU SEE THE CHANGES WE MADE IT WASN'T ALL OF A SUDDEN TO BE ANARCHY NECESSARILY BUT AM I MISSING ANYTHING WE CAME UP WITH.
>> I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM. >> WHAT?
YOU SAID ONE OF THEM. >> YOU MENTIONED BASICALLY WHO'S RESPONSIBILITY IT WAS WITH THE STAFF.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THEM AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THEM.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF HANDOFFS TO A SPECIFIC PERSON AS OPPOSED TO A GROUP AND I THINK LEGAL ALSO MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS.
INTERIM DEPARTMENT OR DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT.
THERE WERE AN AWFUL LOT OF THINGS THE TABLE AND THE PICTURES WERE OPPOSITE AND SOME OF THEM WERE SAYING A DRIVE THROUGH HAD TO BE AWAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD TO GET THE PICTURE OF THE APPROVED WAY WELL THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE
MAIN ROAD. >> THE EXHIBIT SHOWED THE
OPPOSITE OF THAT. >> A LOT OF THIS IS KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY TRICKY TACK BUT IT WAS JUST AN INCONSISTY.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH WHAT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT WHATEVER IT SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECT IN ALL LOCATIONS AND THEN ALSO REPRESENTING TO THE ENGINEERING MANUAL NOT HAVING DUPLICATION AND WHAT WAS IN THE UBCS IF WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE AND IT WOULD JUST REFERENCE THEM SO LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> WE DID THAT LIKE GOING BACK TO THE TREES INSTEAD OF SAYING THESE TREES WE SAID WHATEVER WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TEXAS A&M AGRICULTURAL WHATEVER FOR TEXAS THAT WAY IF THAT CHANGES WHATEVER WE HAVE AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES.
>> I KNOW WE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES ON SIGNS.
>> WELL THERE WAS TWO THINGS WE LEFT FOR STAFF.
ONE WAS IF YOU GO TO LIKE PAGES IN THE MANUAL IF YOU START OFF ON SO IN THE EXISTING -- EXISTING OR THE ONE RECOMMENDED
IT DIDN'T GET CHANGED. WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO LOT SIZES THIS IS HOW CRAZY I THINK IT GETS.
WE HAVE 23 PAGES JUST DEVOTED TO LOT SIZE AND AS SETBACKS OF LOT SIZES SO IF YOU HAVE A LOT YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE IN THE
[00:55:03]
AGRICULTURAL WORD DISTRICT THERE'S A SETBACK, SIZE OF THE YARD, MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND WE WENT THROUGH THE LEGACY SINGLE FAMILY ANDED NEIGHBORHOOD HAMLET, I DON'T KNOW WHY LAML HAMLET HAD TO BE CHANGED SO IT GOES THROUGH AND THEN THE SIZE OF THE YARD DEPENDS ON ENTRY AND ALL THESE THINGS AND IT'S JUST LIKE GOOD GOD LIKE THERE'S 23 PAGES JUST TO LOT SIZES AND WE'RE LIKE AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU LOOK AROUND AND AS LONG AS I'M NOT BEING FACETIOUS AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HEAR YOUR NEIGHBOR YELLING AT THE HUSBAND OR HUSBAND YELLING AT THE WIFE, LITERALLY YOU HAVE TO GO IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD TO CUT THE GRASS AND WHY DON'T WE SET 5 FOOT SETBACKS.WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE BUILDING IT CAN'T BE LESS THAN 7 AND A HALF FEET IS WHAT YOU CAME UP WITH SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN A MOWER ON THE SIDE OF IT.
NOW WE GOT 23 PAGES DEVOTED FOR ANYTHING AND SOMETIMES IT'S 10 AND SOMETIMES IT'S 5 AND WE'RE LIKE WE KIND OF LEFT THAT TO STAFF AND TO THE SIGNED DEAL, HOWARD WOULD LOVE THIS ONE, NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THE SIGN CODE.
AND I THINK SIGN PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT OR THE STAFF WE HAD DEBATES ON THE SILOS ABOUT THE SIGNS.
DO THEY MEET CODE OR NOT MEET CODE.
WE TOLD MATT AND ASHLEY TO SIMPLIFY THIS.
AND THEY ARE LIKE OH MY GOD YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AND IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG. IF YOU'RE BUILDING A CHICK-FIL-A PULL SIGN, IF YOU SEE A DISCOUNT TIRE THAT'S ON A CHEAP POLE LIKE I DON'T LIKE IT, DRESS IT UP AND STAFF AFTER A FEW MONTHS CAN GO HEY, YOU CAN PAY YOUR 5,000 DOLLARS TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION BUT I CAN TELL YOU NO THEY KEEP SAYING NO AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO DRESS IT UP A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE SIGN CODE, I PERMITTED SIGNS FOR A LIVING AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR SIGN CODE AND SO WE'RE LIKE SIMPLIFY IT OR WE'LL JUST CUT IT ALL OUT SO I THINK THAT WAS THE TWO BIG ONES WE LEFT FOR STAFF TO FIGURE THIS OUT OTHERWISE LIKE WE CAN ALWAYS ADD CODE BACK IN BUT WE CAN START WITH BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT LED.
WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT FLASHING BUT WE'RE LIKE WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO I THINK JAMES SAYS IT HOW DO YOU SAY IT THERE'S ALWAYS A LOOPHOLE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE AND DEVELOPERS ALL THEY DO IS SPEND MORE TIME AND ENERGY AND THEY STILL FIND A LOOPHOLE.
>> A LOT OF THE REASON THAT CODES EXIST IS BECAUSE DEVELOPERS WERE BAD PARTNERS AND CAME TO TOWN AND RULES GOT PUT IN PLACE. THAT'S GENERALLY HOW IT WORKS.
NOW SOME OF THIS STUFF IS JUST WELL HEY IF WE'RE FIXING ALL THE LOOPHOLES AND ALL THE WAYS PEOPLE CAN SNEAK THROUGH THE RULES AND GET SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T PREFER, OKAY LET'S GO AHEAD AND ADOPT OTHER RULES. CERTAINLY THERE'S SOME OF THAT THAT HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF HE HUTTO'S HISTORY. THE DEVELOPERS, MOST OF THE DEVELOPERS THAT COME TO HUTTO AT LEAST IN THE BEGINNING STAGES OF GROWTH ARE NOT THERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY.
THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE MONEY, MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT AND GET OUT AND YOU MIGHT THINK IT'S PERFECTLY COOL BUT THAT'S HOW YOU END UP WITH ROADS TOO NARROW AND HOUSES ARE FALLING APART AND TURNING INTO RENTAL PROPERTIES AND THERE'S NO TREES AND PARKS AND NONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALLOW THE PROPERTY VALUES TO STAY STABLE AND/OR INCREASE IN VALUE WHICH IS SUPER IMPORTANT TO A CITY BECAUSE IF YOU'RE RESIDENTIAL STOCK IS JUST CONSISTENTLY DEPRECIATING THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM.
SO NOW OVER CORRECTIONS, SURE, THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME OF THAT.
THE 23 PAGES, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE 23 THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT BUT ESSENTIALLY GOING THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT ZONING DEZZING DESIG DESIGNATIONS, THAT IS MEANT TO FIELD DIFFERENTLY AND EACH TIME YOU GO FOR A FEEL THAT IS HOW BIG ARE THE LOTS, HOW FAR IS THE HOUSE BACK FROM THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THE TREES PLANTED AND THAT SORT OF STUFF THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENED. SO YOU COULD HAVE FEWER OPTIONS AND THEREFORE REDUCE -- REDUCE THE RULES THAT PEOPLE CAN APPLY TO OR COMPLY WITH. GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT'S WHY.
FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU'RE LIKE HEY, SMALL LOTS -- HOW BIG ARE THE
[01:00:02]
HOUSES -- Y'ALL BUILD BIGGER HOUSES.SO 35 FOOT LOTS AND THAT'S GENERALLY LIKE THE SMALLEST I'VE SEEN THAT ISN'T ATTACHED SOMEHOW SOME WAY.
35 FOOT WIDE. THAT'S THE SMALLEST.
I'VE SEEN. SO 35 FOOT LOT AND YOU PUT A GARAGE ON IT THAT'S 20 FEET SO YOU GOT 15 FEET LEFT AND YOU GOT AN ENTRY DOOR THAT'S 5 FEET SO YOU'VE GOT 10 FEET LEFT.
5 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THERE'S THE HOUSE AND THAT'S WHAT EVERY HOUSE WITH LOOK LIKE, A GARAGE FRONT AND A DOOR. AND THAT'S WHERE THE REAR ENTRY COMES IN TO FORCE THAT LOOK TO BE ON THE SIDE WHERE PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY SEEING THE HOUSE SO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THEN HAS NO GARAGE, NO DRIVEWAY, AND IT ENDS UP WITH LIKE A FRONT PONCHY OR SOMETHING THAT LOOKS MORE QUAINT.
THAT'S THE SORT OF STUFF THAT HAPPENS WITH THE WAY YOU DEVELOP YOUR CODES BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY WELL WE DON'T CONTROL THIS AND YOU GET THIS PRODUCT LIKE OOPS AND NOW THE PRODUCT IS BUILD, IT'S ON THE GROUND AND YOU COULD SAY WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD JUST DEPRECIATING IN VALUE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND YOU HAVE THE CODE TO SET UP TO A SMALL LOT BUT YOU GOT TO HAVE AN ALLY AND REAR ENTRY TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE CONTINUES TO LOOK LIKE A FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND PROPERTIES HOLD THEIR VALUE. THAT'S GENERALLY LIKE THE STUFF AND THAT'S WHY -- AND MAYOR, I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS AND THIS IS WHY IT'S SO FRUSTRATING IT'S NOT JUST TWO OR THREE LEVERS IT'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, 500 LEVERS THAT YOU CAN PULL UP AND DOWN ALL THE THINGS AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE PROCESS COMPLICATED AND TAKES A LONG TIME AND FRUSTRATING THE DEVELOPERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING TO
FIT. >> THAT'S WHERE JAMES AND I AND I THINK YOU WERE THERE BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT JIM.
THAT'S WHERE OUR BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THAT'S GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU HOW THE HOUSE LOOKS AND WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT AND YOU'RE ASSUMING VALUES GO DOWN BUT THE SOUGHT OUT OF HOMES ARE THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE THE GARAGE AND SET UP A CERTAIN WAY.
SO TO ME, ONE THE STATE IS NOT -- I THINK IT'S OVER 100,000 PEOPLE WHICH TELLS ME IN TWO YEARS WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATIONS EITHER AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE HAVE TO COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT THE HOME BUILDER KNOW WHAT IS THE MARKET IS AND WE MAY LOOK AT IT THAT'S ODD LOOKING HOUSE I DRIVE TO THE AIRPORT AND AUSTIN HAS AN ODD -- IT LOOKS LIKE A FOREIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S ALL FILLED UP AND CARS EVERYWHERE.
I WOULDN'T BUY THAT HOUSE. I THINK THAT'S ODD BUT THERE'S PEOPLE FROM ALL ACROSS THE WORLD LIVING HERE AND SOMETHING TELLS ME -- I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE HOUSE THAT IS ARE GARAGES AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T PARK IN THE GARAGE IT'S SO SMALL AND THEY JUST STORE STUFF BUT WHY DO THEY HAVE GARAGES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT TOLD THEM YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE IMPLEMENTED THAT AND EVEN WENT AS FAR AS TO SAY SNO SHOULD WE BE REQUIRING TREES IN YARDS, NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A TREE IN THE YARD BUT WE DON'T THINK SOMEONE WOULD BUY A HOUSE WITHOUT A TREE IN THE HOUSE BUT IT'S NOT UP TO HOUSE IT'S IN THE MARKET. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US SO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS AND I'M SITTING THERE WE WERE TALKING LIKE AT ONE POINT I THINK YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSE MAY GO VERTICAL LIKE IN SAN FR FRANCISCO.
IS THAT A BAD THING? THERE MAY BE A MARKET FOR THAT
BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW THAT. >> WE DEFINITELY DO ALLOW IT.
>> BUT WE DON'T ALLOW 30 FEET LOTS RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL YOU WOULD HAVE ZERO LOT LINES SO YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO
ZERO LOT LINES PRODUCT. >> I THINK MINIMUM WE CAN HAVE A
40 FOOT LOT. >> WE HAVE ZERO LOT LINES, DON'T WE, HOWARD. WHAT'S THE MINIMUM WIDTH ON A ZERO LOT LINE? WELL ANYWAY, SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, I AM MINDED TOWARDS OPEN AND FREE MARKET.
UNTIL OPEN AND FREE MARKET FAILS.
AND OPEN AND FREE MARKET FAILS WHENEVER YOU DON'T HAVE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE ON WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE PARTICULARLY IN NEIGHBOURHOODS BECAUSE YOU END UP GETTING THE TYPES OF DEVELOPERS THAT ARE PREDATORY THAT COME HERE TO STRIP AS MUCH VALUE OUT OF THIS COMMUNITY AS THEY CAN AND FLEE AND THEN WE'RE LEFT WITH ALL THE ILLS. WE'RE LEFT WITH THE CRIME.
WE'RE LEFT WITH THE LOWER PROPERTY VALUES.
[01:05:01]
WE'RE LEFT WITH THE -- YOU KNOW, THINGS LOOKING BAD AND ALL THAT OTHER SORT OF STUFF WE'RE AS A COMMUNITY AND I'M LOOPING MYSELF IN BUT THE COMMUNITY IS LEFT WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.SO THAT'S WHY I DO THINK YOU CAN MAKE RULES SIMPLER, LEANER, THI THINNER, MORE STREAMLINED BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I VEH VEHEMENTLY WOULD OPPOSE THE NOTIONS NO CONTROLS WHATSOEVER FOR RESIDENTIAL SPECIFICALLY IS A VERY BAD IDEA. THE MARKET DOESN'T REWARD THAT IT ACTUALLY PUNISHES THE COMMUNITY FOR THAT.
>> WE DIDN'T PROPOSE THAT. >> I KNOW.
YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT FRONT OF PHOTOILOSOPHIES.
>> WE SAID WE DON'T WANT TREES BETWEEN SIDEWALKS AND STREETS.
WE WANT OUT OF THE CODE THE ABILITY TO BUILD REAR ENTRY.
WHAT DO YOU CALL IT. ALLEY WAY HOUSES WE TOOK IT OUT OF THE CODE WHERE THERE'S STILL THE OPTION I THINK IS WHAT WE SAID YOU COULD GET IT IN BUT YOU HAD TO DO IT THROUGH A PUD AND ONE OTHER ONE WE TOOK. SOME Dā EBATES, STAFF WAS VERY MUCH AGAINST AND SO WE TOOK THE VOTE AND SAID LIKE SETTLE IT AND SO I THINK THAT WAS TWO -- THERE WAS THREE THAT NIGHT BUT THAT
I MEAN, I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THE ALLEY WAYS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE. SO I REMEMBER THAT ONE BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE OTHER ONES WERE.
>> TREE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND STREET.
>> ARGUABLY THERE'S VALID REASON FOR HAVING THE TREE BUT IT ALSO DOES CAUSE ISSUES. YOU WERE RIGHT EARLIER, I LIKED THE WAY YOU ARTICULATED A LOT OF REASONS THE TREE CANOPY IS THERE IS TO COOL AND HOLD MOISTURE. SO THE TREES BEING IN THE STRIP OVER LAY THE STREET WHICH IS A BIG HELP IN THE HEAT INDEX AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'RE GENERATING BY HAVING ASPHALT EXPOSED TO THE SUN. THAT'S WHY GENERALLY THEY GET THERE IF YOU HAVE THE TREES AND TREE WELLS THEY ARE OKAY AND IF YOU DON'T THEN OVER TIME YOU HAVE HEATING SIDEWALKS AND I THINK ALL THE THINGS THAT Y'ALL WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.
YOU MOVE THEM BACK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK YOU PROBABLY WILL STILL HAVE HEATING SIDEWALKS BUT LESS OF THE COOLING EFFECT ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND MORE ON THE
YARD AND ON THE HOUSE. >> ANOTHER ONE WAS I FORGET WHAT THEY ARE CALLED, NOT PRIVACY FENCE BUT PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, THE HEIGHTS INK THERE WAS SOMETHING
THERE WE LOOKED AT. >> WE BUMPED THAT UP TO 8.
>> I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK IT'S A WIND LOAD ISSUE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY 8 FEET TENDS TO BE THE CAP.
>> IT WAS 6 BUT WE SAID CUT OUT ALL THE STEPS.
I DO AGREE, DEVELOPERS GO FOR THE CHEAPEST WAY AND WE'LL MAKE IT 8 AND THAT WAY THERE'S NO GALT GATE SO THEY CAN EITHER
BUILD OR NOT BUILD. >> I DON'T THINK EVERY DEVELOPER IS LIKE THAT BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE AND NO
>> YEAH. >> BUT THE REST OF THEM RNARE.
>> WELL THE ONES TARGETING A SPECIFIC CLIENTELE AND MARKET THEY ARE GOING TO DO ABOVE AND BEYOND BUT THAT IS NOT GENERALLY THE HOME BUILDERS THAT GET ATTRACTED FIRST TO A COMMUNITY LIKE HUTTO THAT IS SMALL AND GROWING AND HAS LOTS OF OPEN SPACE. IT'S USUALLY PRODUCTION BUILDERS. AND THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED AT ALL IN DOING ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THEIR STUFF BUILT, SELL IT, TURN IT OVER AND GET OUT. THAT SAID I WAS LOOKING AT -- Y'ALL WERE ASKING ABOUT THE FIRST ONE WITH THE RED LINES, THAT'S THE EXACT PDF THAT WAS POSTED INTO THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD JANUARY 15TH. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT PDF COMES FROM. NOW WHO THE MARKUPS ARE AND WHICH COLOR, I CAN'T TELL WHO THAT IS.
>> YES YOU CAN, IT'S ON PAGE 46. THERE'S NO MARKUPS IN THE FIRST.
>> NO, THERE'S MARKUPS. >> THERE'S DEFINITELY MARKUPS STARTING ON PAGE -- STARTING ON PAGE 94, CHAPTER 2 LAND USE
STANDARDS. >> THERE'S NOE SOME COMMENTS
THERE. >> I HAVE RED LINE, BLUE LINE.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHO DID THE RED LINE.
>> WELL, I'M SAYING I CAN'T TELL WHEN I OPEN UP THE PDF THAT WAS UPLOADED TO THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD IN JANUARY, IT DOESN'T
INDICATE WHO THOSE ARE. >> BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE 446.
[01:10:01]
>> 446 IT STARTS THE SECOND VERSION AND THEN IT THEN IT DOES SAY AT THE TOP RED IS THIS AND BLUE IS THIS.
SO IF YOU OPEN UP THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD JANUARY 15TH, UDC, EVERY ONE OF THE PDF FILES THAT WERE UPLOADED CHAPTER 2 LAND USE STANDARDS THIS IS THAT FILE, EXACTLY.
EDITION BY RICK HUDSON. >> RICK, SO YOUR COMMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS?
>> NO MICROPHONE. 2026 UDC WORKING GRAPH IS WHAT I PUT TOGETHER IS WHAT I REEFED FROM THE UDC SUB COMMITTEE.
I DID NOT RECEIVE THE HAND WRITTEN NOTES I DID NOT GET A
COPY OF THAT. >> LET ME BACK UP.
SO THE GREEN COMMENTS THAT ARE YOU, IS THAT JUST YOURS OR
COMPILATION. >> THAT IS JUST ME.
>> HAVE YOU GUYS ALL READ ALL 900 PAGES OR WHATEVER THIS IS.
>> I WENT THROUGH AND I DID -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE LINK BUT I DID MAKE RED LINES AND COMMENTS.
>> AND THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE WORK SESSION THAT WE DID TWO MONTHS AGO. YEAH.
>> HERE'S WHAT SOME OF THE THINGS WE DON'T WANT TO DO.
AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS ARE, THIS IS BASED ON THE HUTTO 24-40. WE TRIED MTAKING OUT THINGS THE MINUTE WE CHANGED THAT PLAN, WE STARTED TAKING OUT ALL THOSE LITTLE CALLOUTS TO BE ABLE TO SAY INSTEAD OF GOING LIKE -- LIKE HE SAID WITH THE TREE INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE TREES EVERY TIME A TREE CHANGES IN FIVE YEARS THEN WE GOT TO UPDATE IT SO WE SAID WHATEVER THE TEXAS A&M SAYS SO THINGS LIKE THAT WE
TOOK OUT IN EFFORT. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH LIKE REFER TO TEXAS A&M TREE GUIDE, THE AGRICULTURAL GUIDE FOR THE SMALL PLANTS AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT WHAT I WAS GETTING AT WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS IS I'M OPERATING OFF OF WHAT I'M GIVEN AND I DID NOT GET THE WANTS OF THE UDC SUB COMMITTEE.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE THEM. SO I WAS GOING BEST GUESS WHAT I RECEIVED WERE 8 PDFS THAT DID NOT HAVE COMMENTS, DID NOT HAVE RED ANYWHERE AND DID NOT HAVE ANY STRIKE THROUGHS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WAS OPERATING ON BEST GUESS.
AND I SPENT 60 HOURS COMPILING THAT AND PUTTING IT INTO A WORD DOCUMENT THAT EVERYBODY CAN LOOK AT -- EVERYBODY CAN LOOK AT AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SAY ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE CHANGES AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE COMMENTS THEN SOMEBODY TAKES CHARGE AND SAYS WE'RE TURNING ON COMMENTS,
HAVE AT IT. >> JAMES, THAT'S PRETTY -- IF WHAT HE'S SAYING IS TRUE, THAT IS LIKE BEYOND FRUSTRATING FOR ME BECAUSE I SPENT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SATURDAYS WRITING IT UP AND THEN WE WROTE IT UP AND HANDED IT OUT TO PDFS AND
MARKUPS AND THEN WE WENT IN. >> THOSE WERE SHARED.
>> AND WE ACTUALLY MADE THE RED LINES AND SENT THEM AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER HERE AND P&Z GOES HERE'S THE UDC CODE AND IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.
>> IT WAS SHARED ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2025 THERE WAS A SHARE POINT FILE, THAT I STILL HAVE A DIRECTORY ON MY CITY FILE.
>> WAS IT SHARED WITH RICK AND THE P&Z.
>> IT WAS SENT FROM MATT TO MIKE AND JAMES.
>> I'M SAYING IF THEY DIDN'T GET IT WE BASICALLY WASTED 8 MONTHS
[01:15:01]
HERE AND I'M ABOUT TO SAY WORDS I SHOULDN'T SAY IN PUBLIC.>> THERE'S LIKE 8 OR 9 DIFFERENT FILES.
IT'S NOT JUST ONE GIANT FILE. >> 8 FILES, ONE -- NOT ONE CHAPTER PER THERE WERE -- SO ONE IS 5 TO 7 AND ONE IS 8 TO 9.
>> I DON'T HAVE ALL THE CHAPTERS BUT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO CHAPTER 1 AND 8 AND 9 IS VERY LITTLE.
BUT THESE HAND WRITTEN NOTES WERE GIVEN TO CITY STAFF AND THAT'S WHAT MATT AND THEM PUT INTO THESE FILES AND WAS SHARED TO US BY THE SHARE POINT DIRECTORY ON OCTOBER 1ST.
AND THERE'S NOTHING CHANGING IN THAT
>> WE DID NOT GET THAT. >> THAT'S SO DISAPPOINTING AFTER WE GOT THAT WE MET WITH THEM, WE MET WITH STAFF AND WE WENT THROUGH AND WE HAD ONE MORE MEETING AND WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE DAMN THING ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AND WE MADE CHANGES AND THEN WE WERE LIKE WE'RE DONE AND THAT'S WHY WE GOT TO A POINT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I'LL PASS THE DAMN THING WITH A LED LINE IN IT AT THIS POINT WE'RE LOSING CREDIBILITY WITH DEVELOPERS WE'RE TELLING THEM LAST YEAR WE'RE ALMOST DONE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN MATT LEAVES AND HOWARD GETS HERE AND WE GIVE EVERYBODY TIME. YOU GUYS HAVE NEVER SEEN THE
EMAIL >> HERE'S ANOTHER EMAIL, MARCH 18 FROM MATT TO MIKE AND EVAN PORTERFIELD AND IT'S AN ADOPTION SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION. SO BACK IN MARCH, THE REST OF MARCH AND MARCH 25TH, FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE LEGAL COMMENTS WHICH WE JUST GOT THIS WEEK. APRIL 2ND TO REVIEW THE DRAFTS AND COMMENTS AND APRIL 7, P&Z MEETING AND OVER VIEW OF THE AND INFORMATION OF THE ACTION, MAY 7TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
AND MAY 12TH AND MAY 21ST AND HERE WE ARE, AUGUST 13TH.
>> NOW ON APRIL 7 I HAD JOINT MEETING I DID SAY AND IT IS ON THE RECORD THAT I'VE GOT THE PDFS WITH NO RED LINES.
I NEED THE RED LINES. >> APRIL 7 WAS NOT A JOINT MEETING. IT WAS JUST P&Z.
>> I'M SORRY. NOT A JOINT MEETING BUT THE AD HOC, UDC SUB COMMITTEE WAS PRESENT, DID GIVE A PRESENTATION AT THAT MEETING AT THAT TIME, I SAID WE DON'T HAVE WHAT WE NEED.
>> I BELIEVE THERE WERE ACTIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED BY STAFF AT
AT THAT TIME I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IN 3 WEEKS AND I SAID WE CAN'T DO IT IN 3 WEEKS.
>> AND STAFF HAVEN'T GIVEN IT TO YOU AFTER THAT.
AS ASSUMING THIS IS ALL TRUE WE BLAME DEVELOPERS FOR DELAY AND INTERNALLY WE CAN'T EVEN CYCLE THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN A TIMELY MANNER SO I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT DEVELOPERS BUT WE GOT AN HELL OF A MESS ON OUR SIDE BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN NON CHALAT AND I MAY WANT TO MAKE MORE CHANGES AND NOW I GOT TO GO BACK AND CUT MORE CODE OUT.
>> IF WE DO TAKE A SECOND CRACK AT THIS.
>> THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD. WE ALREADY TOOK A SECOND.
YOU GUYS PASSED THE FIRST. WE SAID NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND IN ALL FAIRNESS WE GAVE JIM A LOT OF TROUBLE IN THE FIRST MEETING BECAUSE JIM WAS LIKE YOU VOTED FOR THIS AND I SAY I WAS LIKE DID YOU READ EVERY SINGLE PAGE. HE VOTED ON P&Z BECAUSE WHEN THE COUNCIL SAID NO TO THIS IT WAS A LITTLE.
>> OKAY. SO WE'LL CALL IT THIRD CRACK.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A THIRD CRACK AT THIS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THE UDC SUB COMMITTEE INCLUDES A MEMBER OF
COMMITTEE. >> WE ALREADY DID IT RICK
>> THERE'S SOMETHING VERY CLEARLY IN MY MIND A COMMUNICATION GAP BETWEEN THE WORKING ELEMENTS OF THIS.
>> BUT WE ALREADY DID IT. SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU GUYS NEED WHAT WE DID. AND LOOK AT IT AND GO CAN YOU LIVE ITW -- WITH IT. I ALREADY SPENT ENOUGH WEEKENDS AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BURN SOME WEEKEND HOURS.
YOU GUYS WANT TO GO AND HAVE STAFF MEMBERS SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AND CHEW THROUGH TILL MIDNIGHT.
I READ THROUGH THAT BAD BOY ONCE.
>> I GOT 60 ONCE. >> THE MORE I GO THROUGH IT THE MORE FRUSTRATED I GET. IF WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE CODE
[01:20:01]
WE JUST CUT THE SECTION OUT. IF IT'S TOO COMPLICATED FOR US TO FIGURE IT OUT IT'S SURE AS HELL COMPLICATED FOR THE DEVELOPERS. THEY GET SO FRUSTRATED AND TELL ME WHAT I GOT TO DO TO GET OUT OF HERE AND I'LL DO IT AND WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO IS GO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS -- SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE TERRIBLE BUT SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE FLEXIBILITY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.THERE WAS THE THING I WAS LOOKING AT IN HERE AND IT'S IF YOU GET SECTION 3-0, 10.303-7. YOU START TELLING PEOPLE LIKE WE HAVE ANY BUSINESS DOING THIS. WE START TELLING PEOPLE WHERE THE PATHS OF TRAVEL GOT TO BE AND HOW YOU WALK TO THE PARKING SPOT AND IT'S SO COMPLICATED AND SOMETIMES YOU GET SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT AND WHEN IT'S DONE YOU'RE LIKE WHO THE HELL DID THAT AND IT'S CODE. IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING IT AND RIGHT PAST THAT YOU START GETTING 10.303.8 IS SIGNATURE ELEMENTS. A
I'M TRYING TO GET A MOMENT TO SPEAK.
>> AND OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK AND SHOPPING AND AT LEAST 10 ACRES SMALL INCLUDE ONE OR MORE SIGMATURE ELEMENTS AND A CISIGNATURE ELEMENT THE HUTTO HERITAGE AND CULTURE AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPER OF CULTURELING SERVICES.
SO EXAMPLES, IT'S GOT TO BE PART OF HERITAGE AND CULTURE SO YOU GOT A PICTURE IN OUR -- WHATEVER THE REASONS THOSE GUYS PAINTED OVER THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID THAT AND GRAIN SILOS, HERITAGE AND CULTURE, AND THEN IT'S GOT A HIPPO FOR THE LIBRARY HIPPO WE'RE ASSUMING YOU GOT TO PUT A CONCRETE HIPPO AND CALL THAT A DAY AND THEN IT'S GOT LIKE A WATER FEATURE AND I WAS LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT COMES INTO HERITAGE AND CULTURE BUT IF YOU BUILD A WATER FEATURE AND IT'S JUST A PICTURE OF AND THEN THEY GOT A BELL TOWER AND SO WE'RE LIKE WHY DID THEY PICK IT IF -- IF YOU GUYS WANT SOME KIND OF FEATURE JUST SAY A FEATURE BUT DON'T SAY IT'S PART OF HERITAGE AND CULTURE YOU START LOOKING AT BELL TOWERS.
AND WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
>> AS AN EXAMPLE IF WE WERE IN ROUND ROCK AND WE SAID YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A MINIATURE WATER TOWER LIKE THEY HAVE DOWNTOWN, A MINIATURE VERSION THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR THING, OKAY, GOT IT, CHECK. THAT IS HERITAGE, CULTURE.
>> WE'RE AGRARIAN AND RAIL ROOD BUT THEN WE'RE KIND OF LIKE YOU'RE DRIVING INTO A THING AND HOW MANY GRAIN SILOS DO YOU NEED POPPED UP IN A DEVELOPMENT AND HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED LIKE A TRAIN AND THEN WHAT'S FUNNY YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN IN SENORA, THEY JUST BUILT A BANK, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY SPENT TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT BELONGED HERE AND IT'S GREAT FOR YOU GUYS AND ANOTHER GUY BUILDS A BANK AND IT LOOKS LIKE A SQUARE BOX OF BRICK. THEY BOTH SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE BUT I DON'T KNOW. YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING JAMES. WE'RE GOING TO DRAG THIS OUT.
>> YEAH, YOU SURER. >> I'LL GO LINE BY LINE HERE IN
A MINUTE. >> HONESTLY I DON'T CARE IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO I'M HAPPY TO GET IT DONE AND OFF OUR PLATE BUT I DO WANT TO CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FILES WERE NOT SHARED. OKAY.
SO HERE'S THE WAY THAT I RECALL BUT I CAN'T CONFIRM BUT HERE'S WHAT I RECALL. MATT ROCKETER TOOK THE HAND WRITTEN NOTES THAT COUNCIL SUB COMMITTEE DELIVERED AND MADE A RED LINE, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY THE FILES THAT ARE IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S MESSAGE BOARD UPLOADED FOR THE UDC REWRITE THAT WAS UPLOADED JANUARY 15TH RIGHT BEFORE -- WELL I GUESS RIGHT AFTER HE LEFT. IT'S UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL TEAM FOLD SORE ON TEAMS YOU GO DOWN TO CITY COUNCIL TO SHARED -- OH I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT THERE.
I APOLOGIZE. IT'S THE MESSAGE BOARD, THE CITY COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD WHERE Y'ALL CHAT.
YOU GO TO THE MESSAGE BOARD AND JUST SEARCH UDC AND THEN YOU'LL SEE CLICK, RIGHT THERE THERE'S 7 OR 8 FILES, CHAPTER 1, 2, 3, 4, SO ON AND SO FORTH AND THAT HAS ALL THE RED LINES IN IT.
SO EFFECTIVELY THE RED LINES THAT Y'ALL SEE IN THE PACKET THAT YOU WERE ASKING WHO'S RED, WHO'S BLUE ON PAGE 46.
THOSE ARE THE ORIGINAL FILES THAT MATT RECTER TOOK.
[01:25:03]
THAT GOT SHARED TO RICK BUT THE RED LINES WERE SHARED WITH YOU IN MAY. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE COMING IN AND NOW DOING THE COMMENTS AS FAR AS I CAN TELL TO THE REDLINES OF THEIR RED LINES. >> RIGHT.
I'M COMPARING THE CONSULTANT'S DELIVERED.
>> SO THE CONSULTANT'S DEL DELIVERABLE COMPARING THAT TO WHAT THESE 8 FILES WERE. SEEING WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.
>> AND PUTTING THAT ALL IN ONE FILE.
>> THAT MUST BE THE RED LINES SO I MERGE ALL OF THAT INTO A SINGLE FILE, CONVERT IT TO A WORD DOCUMENT SO THAT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A 900 DOLLAR ADOBE LICENSE CAN USE AND DISTRIBUTE IT THAT OUT AND SAY HERE'S WHAT I THINK THESE RED LINES SHOULD READ. BUT HERE ARE THE RED LINES.
>> SO EFFECTIVELY Y'ALL'S WORK GOT --
>> BLUE COUNCIL, THE SECOND DOCUMENT, THE 2026 WORKING D DRAFT, THE BLUE ARE I GUESS COMPILED FROM COUNCIL AND MATT RECTER'S WORK AND BOUNCED AGAINST THE CONSULTANT AND THE
CHANGE IS THE CONSULTANT. >> HOW DO I GET BECAUSE I'M READY TO GO THROUGH THIS LINE BY LINE TODAY SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT BUT HOW DO WE ALL GET THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS WHAT WE SAID WE WANTED WITH MATT AND AS
ASHLEY'S EDITIONS. >> THAT'S ON THE MESSAGE BOARD.
I CAN DOWNLOAD IT. >> I CAN'T REMEMBER MY PASSWORD.
>> AS FAR AS I CAN TELL IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S WHAT'S ATTACHED IN THE PACKET. THE FIRST DOCUMENT.
>> OKAY. IF THAT'S THE FIRST DOCUMENT STARTS AT PAGE 45 OR SOMETHING. YOU GUYS AS FRUSTRATED AS I AM? I HAVEN'T CUSSED ONCE. I THINK I'M DOING PRETTY GOOD.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE UPLOADED DOCUMENT, CHAPTER ONE HAS NO CHANGES IT'S ADMINISTRATION AND IT'S BASICALLY DEFINITIONS.
AND THEN I OPENED UP CHAPTER 2 AND THAT'S EFFECTIVELY THE FIRST THING THAT'S IN THE PACTET ON PAGE LIKE 46 OF THE PACKET.
>> WHERE WAS I GETTING 46. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, HOWARD, HAVE YOU GONE THROUGH AND SEEN WHAT WE WROTE? AS A COUNCIL WHAT WE WANTED? CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR US NOT TO BE AN, AN ARCISTS. WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU EXCITED AND WHERE DOES THAT MAKE YOU CRINGE AS A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE? >> I CAN PUT THOSE TOGETHER.
YOU KNOW, I'LL ALWAYS HAVE COMMENTS ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE EVEN THINGS THAT YOU DIDN'T TOUCH.
>> I'M THE SAME WAY. I ALWAYS GOT A COMMENT.
>> AT SOME POINT YOU JUST HAVE TO DECIDE ON WHICH HILL DO YOU PREPARE FOR BATTLE AND WHICH ONES DO YOU KEEP WALKING ON BUT I WOULD ECHO A LOT OF WHAT CITY MANAGER HAS SAID THIS EVENING.
I AM OR AT LEAST CONSIDER MYSELF A QUALITY OF LIFE PRACTITIONER AND I HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AND THE MOST AMOUNT OF MARGIN AND REVENUE IS THE GOAL, 100% THE GOAL.
I SAW SOME THINGS THAT I THOUGHT DETRACTED FROM THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN HUTTO BECAUSE THE PEOPLE I KEEP IN MIND WHEN I MAKE DECISIONS ARE PRIMARILY THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T PRESENT TO SPEAK UP FOR THEMSELVES AND MOST OF THAT IS THE RESIDENTS AND VOTERS HERE I LOOK FOR QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVES AND I'VE WORKED IN THE GREEN INDUSTRY SINCE LATE LAST CENTURY SO THE TALK I HEAR ABOUT TREES AND LANDSCAPING I AGREE THAT IT'S NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE HERE, JUST HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE MEETING TODAY WITH ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDER WHO'S CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIT ALL THE PLANTS ON HIS SITE AND I SHARE THOSE FEELINGS.
I ECHO THAT. I HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT ALL SORTS OF THINGS BUT ABOVE AND BEYOND I WANT THOSE AFFECTATIONS OF QUALITY AND I WANT THE THINGS THAT CREATE NICE AND USE AABLE SENSES OF PLACE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MOVING TREES AWAY
[01:30:02]
FROM THE CURB AND SIDEWALK WHICH SOME PEOPLE REFER TO AS A TREE LAWN AND SOME PEOPLE CALL IT A BEAUTY STRIP BUT THE THING ABOUT THAT IS CITY MANAGER ALLUDED TO IT, IT DOES SHADE THE FAVORITE AND IT DOES SHADE THE SIDEWALK AND IT GOES A LONG WAYS.ANOTHER THING THAT IT DOES IT CREATES A VISUAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIAN SPACE AND AUTOMOBILE SPACE.
WHEN YOU REMOVE THOSE BARRIER THEN THE PEDESTRIAN IS NOW AN ACTOR IN THE VEHICLE SPACES. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATED FROM THEM. SO IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THIS WE LIKE TO HAVE TREES OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF BUFFER.
THE BEST HONESTLY IS ON STREET PARKING.
PARALLEL ON STREET PARKING AND PEOPLE WILL WALK ALONG THE SIDE OF THE CAR THEY SEE THAT AS A BUFFER TO THEMSELVES BUT ABOVE ALL THE SHADE IS THE TYPE OF THING YOU WANT AND WE'RE TRYING TO ENTICE PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR CARS SO ED SCHMIDT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IF WE CAN REMOVE 10% OF THOSE TRIPS BY PUTTING SOMEBODY ON A BICYCLE OR HAVING THEM WALK BECAUSE THERE'S NO PEDESTRIAN FACILITY THE CHAIR OF ZBA IN OUR LAST MEETING ASKED HOW HE COULD GO ABOUT GETTING THE SIDEWALKS BETWEEN LIMER AND 79 ON 1660 COMPLETED ON BOTH SIDES NOT EVEN FOR HIMSELF, HE SAW SOME PEOPLE WHO USE WHEELCHAIRS NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT TRIP I'M GOING TO GUESS I HATE TO SAY OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT DRIVING AUTOMOBILES AND THEIR MOBILITY IS A WHEELCHAIR AND THEY HAVE TO GET INTO THE TRAFFIC LANE ON
SOUTHBOUND 1660. >> SO YOU HAVE CONCERNS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU PLAN ON SHARING THOSE WITH THE COUNCIL.
>> I EXPECTED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE -- WELL MY PLAN WAS TO GO.
>> YOUR COMMENTS YOU GOT, BECAUSE I'M READY -- I DON'T KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO CAN WE PASS THIS TONIGHT?
HOW SOON CAN WE PASS THIS. >> SEPTEMBER 17TH.
>> IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR ADO
ADOPTION. >> WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WHEN DO WE GET YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL WAITING AND I'M THINKING IF YOU GOT A CONCERN, MARCH OR APRIL OR MAY.
>> JULY 14TH WAS OUR SECOND OF TWO SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE P&Z AND I HAD ONE IN JUNE AND ANOTHER IN JULY.
EITHER WAY I THINK THEY WERE CHARGED WITH IT IN MAY AND MY EXPECTATION WAS TO TAKE ONE CHAPTER TO P&Z AND THEN TAKE THAT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THEN NEXT MONTH DO ANOTHER CHAPTER AND NEXT MONTH DO ANOTHER CHAPTER RATHER THAN TRY TO TAKE DOWN 400 PAGES IN ONE NIGHT I THOUGHT WE COULD DO 40 PAGES IN 10 NIGHTS BECAUSE IT LEADS TO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION ON EACH ITEM AND SHOULD WOULD GO QUICKLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTIONS WOULD GO QUICKLY.
>> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. NOT THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS AND YOU GUYS AND DISCUSSION BUT WHAT -- WHEN DO WE GET YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE JAMES WE HAD A DOCUMENT AND WE HAD THEM ON MONDAY AND THIS IS 5 PAGE DOCUMENT AND THIS IS 500.
I DON'T HAVE TIME OR THE PATIENCE TO GO THROUGH AND SPEND ANOTHER 10 MONTHS ON SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN HERE 8 MONTHS AND TO ME THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANGED OUT THIS SCHEDULE IN APRIL WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLICKING WE DO THAT NOW A CHAPTER A MONTH I'M STILL WAITING TO KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS AND YOU SAY YOU HAVE CONCERNS AND WHAT ARE THEY AND THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOU TO TALK TO THEM AND WE SPENT 8 MONTHS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ROUND OF REVISIONS WE ARE ON AT THIS POINT AND ALL THE WALK IS ABOUT THE DEVELOPERS AND YOU KNOW DEVELOPERS ARE LISTENING RIGHT NOW THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I DON'T LIKE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE 8 MONTHS AND STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND YOU'RE PROPOSING ANOTHER 6 MONTHS OF GOING THROUGH THIS AND I'M LIKE WHAT'S THE FASTEST ROUTE, HERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM WE HAVE WE HAVE AN ISSUE GUYS ARE BUILDING A NEIGHBORHOOD NOT EVEN WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND SOMEHOW WE'RE DICTATING WHAT TYPE OF STREET LIGHTS THE GUY NEEDS TO PUT IN AND I'M NOT EVEN IN THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU'RE HOLDING UP APPROVAL AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE REASONING WAS? WE HAVE A CHANGE COMING, IT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED YET BUT IT'S COMING AND IN ANTICIPATION OF COUNCIL PASSING IT WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START MAKING YOU DO THIS NOW AND I WAS LIKE NOTE TO SELF I'M VOTING AGAINST THAT WHATEVER IT IS I'M GOING TO TRY TO KILL THAT REGULATION BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE GOVERNMENT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TYPE OF STREET LIGHT TO PUT IN BUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT PUTS IN THEY PUT THE CHEA CHEAPEST DAMN THING YOU CAN FIND BUT PRIVATE GUY THEY MAKE YOU
[01:35:03]
PUT IN ORNAMENTAL THING BUT WE HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULB LATER THAT'S WHY I WANT TO HURRY UP AND GET TO SOME SORT OF WHERE WE'RE AT WE'RE ACTIVELY TELLING PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO START DOING THINGS NOT CODIFIED BUT YOU GOT TO DO IT ANYTHING BECAUSE WE THINK THE CHANGE IS COMING AND THERE'S SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY IN THE MARKET NOW THAT I'M COMPLETELY CONFUSED.THERE'S GOING TO BE A VOTE COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE ALL FRUSTRATED.
IT'S NOT ALL YOU. IT'S PART OF YOU.
>> SO WHEN I GOT HERE IN THE WINTER, EARLY SPRING, I WAS ASKED WHAT WAS MY PLAN TO GET THIS PROCESS FROM WHERE I GOT IT TO FRUITION. AND I PUT TOGETHER A SCHEDULE WHERE I THOUGHT THE END OF THIS WOULD BE ROUGHLY AUGUST SEPTEMBER-ISH TIME FRAME. THE SCOPE CREPT A LITTLE BIT ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO THIS GOING TO P&Z BEGINNING IN APRIL TIME FRAME. I HAD NOT PLUGGED IN THOSE MONTHS FOR P&Z TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT LOOK UNTO THEMSELVES BUT IT'S A GOOD IDEA. AND I HAD NO OBJECTION AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PROCESS WENT WELL FOR THEM SO WE HAD INTERMIDENT WORK SESSION TO GO OVER ANY OPPORTUNITY THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T AND WHANTED TO HEAR FROM US AND HAD SOME HELP THAT ARRIVED IN THE FORM OF PLANNING MANAGER BACK IN MAY WHICH WAS FANTASTIC. IT WAS GREAT.
A LITTLE BUSY UPSTAIRS RIGHT NOW WE NEED A BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PLANNING MANAGER. DON'T HAVE THOSE RIGHT NOW BUT WHEN HE CAME ON HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE A LOT OF THE SLACK OF JUST THE DAY-TO-DAY AND IT MOVED FORWARD AGAIN WELL AND HE LEFT BY EARLY JULY. SO NOW I'M KIND OF BACK TO WHERE I WAS BEFORE. SO ANY EXPECTATION AFTER SEEING THE VOLUME THEY PUT FORWARD YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN STAFF'S COMMENTS IN EACH AIR AS THEY MOVED FORWARD THROUGH A REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS. THEN BY THE TIME ALL THOSE WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED YOU WOULD HAVE HAD COMPLETED PROJECT.
I HAD NOT EXPECTED THAT THIS MEETING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
I HEARD ABOUT THIS PROBABLY IN LATE JULY.
AND REALIZED THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO GO THROUGH 400 PAGES AND PUT ALL MY COMMENTS TOGETHER WHICH I DON'T -- I BROUGHT SOME, I'VE GONE THROUGH ABOUT PROBABLY THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS WHICH I THOUGHT WE COULD TALK ABOUT TONIGHT OTHERWISE I WAS JUST GOING TO TALK ON THE FLY BUT THIS IS AN ACCELERATED SCHEDULE COMPARED TO WHAT I HAD BEEN
PUTTING FORWARDS ON MY MIND. >> DID YOU EVER COMMUNICATE THAT
SCHEDULE TO THE COUNCIL. >> NO, SIR.
>> SO YOU UNDERSTAND OUR FRUSTRATION, WE'RE MEETING IN OCTOBER AND GRANTED WE'RE NOT HERE YET AND THE REASON IT GOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE I TOLD DAVID I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAD TO HAVE ANOTHER JOINT MEETING. THEY PASSED WHAT THEY LIKED AND THEN LEGAL SAYS WE GOT TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THEM AGAIN AND I'M LIKE HOW SOON CAN WE DO THAT BECAUSE AT SOME POINT WE GOT TO GET SOMETHING PASSED OTHERWISE WE GOT SO START ALL OVER BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING LIKE YEAR TWO COMING UP.
ACTUALLY PROBABLY YEAR THREE BECAUSE THEY SPENT A YEAR AND WE EVEN RED LINED AND COMPARED. I WOULDN'T EVER HIRE A FIRM TO DO THIS BECAUSE WHAT WE FOUND THEY MOVED CHAPTER THREE TO CHAPTER 2 AND CHAPTER 3 TO CHAPTER 5 AND MOVED SOME WORDS AROUND AND WE CUT ALL THAT CRAP AND SO WE PAID HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND I'M SHOWING JIM WE PAID ALL THIS MONEY AND ALL I DID WAS MOVE STUFF AROUND AND CHANGE THIS THING TO A HAMLET AND I'M LIKE WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT TO A HAMLET AND HOW DOES THAT BENEFIT ANYBODY EXCEPT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LEGAL WORLD, A TERRIBLE ATTORNEY ALWAYS TELLS YOU HOW MANY CHANGES THEY MADE SO THEY CAN TELL YOU HOW VALUABLE THEIR SERVICES WERE SO WE WENT THROUGH ALL THAT AND FIGURED OUT ALL THE LITTLE THINGS, WE'LL JUST DO IT OURSELVES SO IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS AND YOU GOT YOUR STUFF WITH YOU, THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE THAT WAS A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WE HAD THERE. HAPPY TO DO THAT.
YOU GUYS ON COUNCIL MAY VOTE DIFFERENTLY I'M NOT WILLING TO WAIT CHAPTER BY CHAPTER AND PUT SIX MORE MONTHS.
I'M WILLING TO ADOPT AND LET THE WHOLE WORLD KNOW WE SCREWED SOMETHING UP HERE BUT IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS BUT TO SHOW THE WORLD WE SKCREWED UP, THIS RED LINE AND GOT HAND WRITTEN NOTES ALL OVER THE PLACE BECAUSE ANOTHER COUNCIL GOT SO
[01:40:02]
FRUSTRATED WITH STAFF WE SAID YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY CAN ALL WORK ON THIS AND THEN WE CAN AMEND IT EACH MONTH AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN DEAL WITH THE PRODUCT AS WE HAND WROTE IT.I LITERALLY WOULD VOTE FOR THAT TODAY.
JUST TO KIND OF SEND A MESSAGE TO HONESTLY TO JAMES AND UNFORT UNFORTUNATELY UCM WE GOT TO START MOVING QUICKER ON THIS STUFF AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE BEING UNREASONABLE SAYING WE'RE AT 10 MONTHS INTO THIS WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. IT'S ON US TOO, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEATING A DRUM BACK IN MAY GOING HEY, I JUST WOKE UP IN A
BAD MOOD IN JULY. >> WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN.
THE P&Z CAN RECOMMEND TO US FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AT A LATER DATE. THAT'S IT; RIGHT? ONLY ACTION IS P&Z TONIGHT AND WHAT YOU GUYS CAN RECOMMEND.
>> I GUESS IT'S TRUE. WHAT'S YOUR GUY'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN WE'LL GO HOME.
>> FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THIS IS WE CAN MOVE FORWARD I THINK AND START DOING AMENDMENTS CHAPTER BY CHAPTER. I THINK THAT IS VERY DOABLE.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS WANTED. AND WHAT YOUR HAND WRITTEN NOTES WERE, ET CETERA. IF THAT HAS BEEN CAPTURED, WE NEED THAT. IF THAT HASN'T BEEN CAPTURED, GO TO THE COPY MACHINE, MAKE A COPY, WE NEED IT.
END OF STORY. IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO MATCH WITH WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR.
>> WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT THE PDF THAT HAD THE RED LINES ON IT INCLUDED THEIR HAND WRITTEN COMMENTS.
SO THEY TOOK WHAT THEY WROTE AND INTERPRETED IT AND PUT IT INTO THE RED LINE THAT YOU WORKED FROM
>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T ALSO UPLOAD THE FILE THAT HAS THE HAND WRITTEN NOTE. BUT YOU'RE NOT WORKING FROM A STANCE OF IGNORANCE BECAUSE IT WAS INCORPORATED IS WHAT YOU ARE
AND I HAD TO DECIPHER THAT AND I SAID IT BEFORE, THERE WAS NO RED INK IN THE PDF THAT ANY OF THE 8 PDFS THAT I RECEIVED.
THERE WAS NO RED INK, AT ALL. >> WELL WE CAN SEE WHAT WE SENT YOU AND WHAT WE SENT YOU HAD THE RED LINES IN IT SO I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU COULDN'T SEE IT. WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT AND IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU INCORPORATED IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT. >> I THINK I DID A PRETTY GOOD
JOB, YEAH. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, RICK FROM YOUR COMMITTEE, WAS THERE ANYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME STUFF WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT STOOD OUT TO YOU GUYS YOU GET HEY THAT WAS A BAD IDEA OR WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS, GOOD IDEA, TOP
THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE THINGS. >> AGAIN, I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.
THE TREE AMENDMENT TO -- LET'S STOP THROWING A LIST OF TREES IN THERE. I THINK THAT WAS A VERY SOLID MOVE. LET'S JUST MATCH IT UP.
IF IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, YOU MENTIONED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE REASON I CHANGED THAT IN THE WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS CALLED THE GENERAL PLAN ORIGINALLY AND I SAID NO IT'S NOT A GENERAL PLAN.
WE DON'T HAVE A GENERAL PLAN. WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> OKAY SO FTHERE'S SOME WORDIN IN THERE.
>> THERE'S SOME WORDING IN THERE.
I REMEMBER A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS I DID CONTROL F WORD SEARCH AND THE ONLY PLACE I'LL USE COPING BECAUSE THAT ONE STICKS IN MY MIND, COPING IS A TYPE OF ASH ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT THAT APPEARED WAS IN THE DEFINITIONS.
THAT CAN GO. WE DON'T NEED THAT.
JUST KIND OF THE FLUFF STUFF. >> SO OKAY SO THERE'S SOME CLERICAL ERROR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AS FAR AS LIKE
THE CODE GOES. >> FOR INSTANCE, ZONING DISTRICT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WE ADDED A BUNCH OF THINGS PERMITTED BY RIGHT WE ADDED AS SUPS. SO STAFF FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU GUYS WERE THERE IN APRIL AND SOM SOME OF YEAH, STAFF HAD PUSHED TO STAKE DATA CENTERS NOT TO BE AN ISSUE AND PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND INDUSTRIAL AND WE PUT THAT BACK IN. AND THERE'S STUFF LIKE AND I'M LOOKING THE FIRST IN OUR PACKET WE GOT FOR TONIGHT, THE FIRST RED LINE THAT IS A COMBINED RED LINE, JAMES OF WHAT WE PUT IN AS COUNCIL WITH THE CHANGES FROM RECTER BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH THE ZONING CODE AND WE HAD LIKE RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY DWELLING
[01:45:04]
UNITS N1 AND N2 PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND WE SAID SUP AND WE SAID ASSISTED LIVING NURSING HOME THEY WERE CONDITIONAL AND WE SAID SUP. WE WENT THROUGH AND SOME OF THIS STUFF IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WERE ALLOWING USES IN THERE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, WE DON'T KNOW WE WANT THAT WE WANT DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC ABOUT IT AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT UNLESS IT'S SUP. A LOT OF PS WENT TO SS.CONDITIONAL WE TOOK AWAY LIKE MANUFACTURED HOMES LIKE N1 AND N2 WE TOOK IT AWAY ONLY ALLOWED IN R1 DEPENDING HOW MUCH OF THIS IS LEGAL. SO STAFF CAPTURED ALL THAT BUT THINGS LIKE THAT, DID YOU GUYS LOOK AT THAT? DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? DID ANY OF Y'ALL DISAGREE WITH OUR VIEWPOINT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING? IS IT OVERALL LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW, A THING.
>> MOST OF WHAT I SAW WERE DR MOST OF WHAT I SAW WAS TRYING -- THERE WAS A LOT THAT WAS LEFT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF STAFF.
AND SO I WAS SOMEWHAT ALIGNMENT THERE THAT I THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULD HONE IN ON SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS.
'CAUSE IT GAVE LIKE THE LAND USES AND THE PERMITTED USES GAVE STAFF A LOT OF DISCRETION THAT I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT IS KIND OF TAKE THAT OUT AND MAKE IT MORE DEFINED.
SO NOTHING REALLY THERE SPECIFICALLY.
THERE WAS -- WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THERE WAS MOST OF IT WAS LIKE VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR, STUFF LIKE THAT BUT OVERALL I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS ALARMING THAT WE SHOULD PUT IN OR TAKE OUT. SO I WAS OKAY WITH PUSHING IT WHEN I -- WHEN WE HAD OUR SPECIAL CALL TO GO OVER IT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE COUNTER CHANGES THERE AND ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS, I HAD TO LEAVE EARLY FOR A LITTLE BIT BUT THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE MEETING.
SO I JUST WANT TO -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT EDITION I BELIEVE.
AND SO I WAS OKAY WITH IT. >> HOW MANY CHANGES -- SO WE'RE -- WE'LL JUST SAY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE THE CORRECT RED LINE EDITION.
HOW MANY CHANGES TO THAT RED LINE DID YOU MAKE?
>> I THINK HE SAID HE NEVER GOT >>> THE I INFERRED WHAT THE RED
LINES WERE. >> HOW MANY CHANGES DID YOUR
COMMITTEE MAKE. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CHANGES WERE MADE. AS AN EXAMPLE OF KIND OF A BIGGER CHANGE ONE OF THEM THAT I CAME ACROSS IS REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING. YOU KNOW, THE SIGNS AND THE -- YOU KNOW, WHO DOES WHAT AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF THING.
I SAID IT GOT CHOPPED, APPARENTLY.
AND IT GOT CHANGED AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR-CUT
WHO DOES WHAT AND WHAT. >> I THINK WE CHANGED THAT FROM STAFF DOING THAT AND THIS A GOOD PROBLEM, STAFF GETS PAID A LOT OF MONEY AND IF STAFF IS OUT THERE GOING WE'LL GO PUT THE SIGNS OUT AND KEEP TRACK OF THIS WE'RE LIKE NO, YOU GUYS MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY AND THAT GUY NEEDS TO SEE IT IN GEORGETOWN IF YOU DO A ZONING HEARING YOU HAVE TO DRIVE UP PAY YOUR FEE AND YOU DRIVE UP AND PICK UP THE DESIGN AND YOU GO PUT THE SIGN DOWN AND FILL OUT THE AFFIDAVIT AND TO ME IT TAKES THE CITY PERSON 5 MINUTES TO LOOK AT AND THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT CITY PERSONNEL, REMEMBER THAT DATA CENTER WE HAD TO GET THE STAKES LIKE THEY DIDN'T PUT THE SIGN OUT ON TIME I'M LIKE YOUR BAD GETS KICKED TO NEXT MONTH AND MEANWHILE WE HAVE PEOPLE MAKING 6 FIGURES INSTEAD OF REVIEWING PLANS THEY ARE OUT POSTING SIGNS SO WE DON'T WANT OUR STAFF BEING RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE EVERY TIME IT GETS M MESSED UP THE DEVELOPER BLAMES US.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION THAT WAS
>> I'M OPERATING OFF OF THE WORKING DRAFT WHICH IS
>> WAIT A MINUTE, 201. >> IT CAN'T BE 201.
[01:50:01]
>> OURS IS 10.203.1. >> I'M SORRY, SAY AGAIN?
>> THERE'S A 10.203.1. >> WHAT'S THE SECTION?
>> IF YOU LOOK JUST LOOK AT PAGE 96.
>> I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FALL VERSION.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FALL VERSION OF THE SECTION.
>> CODE IS 10.201.110.202. SO WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING CODE WE'RE LOOKING UP THE ACTUAL CODE.
WHAT SECTION IN THE CODE WAS IT? >> IT IS CHAPTER 2.
>> LAND USE STANDARDS. >> 10.2.
>> 10.201. >> THAT'S JUST INTENT.
THAT'S ALL 10.201 IS. >> 10.202.
>> WHAT'S THE NEXT HEADING? WHAT DOES IT SAY.
>> ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED? WHAT'S THE NEXT HEADING? WHAT DOES IT SAY? WHAT'S THE WORDS?
>> ALL RIGHT. APPARENTLY WE'VE GOT TWO
DIFFERENT VERSIONS. >> JUST GIVE US A CODE.
SO THIS IS OFF OF THE WORKING -- THE SECOND DOCUMENT NOT THE FIRST ONE. AND IT IS 10.201.2 WHICH IS PUBLIC NOTICE. I'M SORRY?
>> IT'S NOT PUBLIC NOTICE. >> IN THE FIRST DOCUMENT.
RIGHT. >> YOU'RE PAGE 94 OF 918.
>> I AM NOT ON THAT PAGE. >> THAT'S CRAZY -- SEE THAT'S WHAT BOTHERED ME. WE HAD ONE DONE, WE RED LINED IT AND NOW -- HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE ON OURS, 10.201 IS INTENT.
10.202 IS ZONING MAPPED AND YOU HAVE 10.202.1 IS ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEONE HAS ADDED A WHOLE OTHER NEXT SECTION IN THERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHO DID THAT THIS IS THE LAST ONE WE GOT. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS START WITH THIS ONE HERE THAT'S THE ONE I THINK WE CAN AGREE IS A COUNCIL ONE, YOU GUYS LOOK AT IT, HOWARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO -- HE'S GOING TO LOSE HIS WEEKEND BUT HE GETS IT AND THEN SOMEHOW THIS THING HAS GOT TO BE FINISHED UP BY SEPTEMBER 12TH IT
SOUNDS LIKE. >> I MAY OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS WHEN I SAY THIS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GEORGETONE, UDC, THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION RECRUITED THE HELP IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR AND ASKED THEM TO GO THROUGH THE UDC AND HELP ON WORKING REWRITING GROUP AND IN FEBRUARY IT WAS FEBRUARY 6TH AND BY THE TIME THEY GOT DONE BY IT MARCH 6TH AND THEY COMPLETELY
REWROTE IT IN ONE MONTH. >> THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
>> MET EVERY WEEK. >> WE DIDN'T ASK THE BUILDER ASSOCIATION. I FORGET THE ORGANIZATION, CIVIL ENGINEERS? WENT THROUGH AND CHECK THROUGH AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK AND THEY SAID MAKE A FEW CHANGES.
AND I SAID THAT'S WHAT WE GOT AND I SAID WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO THROUGH THE ENTIRE CODE. AND THEN WE WENT THROUGH LIKE PLATTING FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT BUT WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ON THAT TO SIMPLIFY THAT AND MAKE THAT FASTER AND REORGANIZE IT AND SO WE HAD MET WITH A LOT OF THOSE INDUSTRY PEOPLE TO GO LIKE LOOK, BE REVOLUTIONARY DON'T THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO IN CENTRAL TEXAS THINK ABOUT WHAT THE HELL MAKES SENSE AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL FILL IN BUT RIGHT NOW WE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T FILLED HOMES FIGURING OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WE NEED TO FLIP IT AROUND AND GO TO THOSE PEOPLE WE WANT TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF THE CITY AND INVESTMENT AND ALL THIS HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT AND WE DIDN'T TALK TO THE BOTTOM FEEDERS WE TALKED TO THE GOOD DEVELOPERS AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WERE LIKE DO THIS AND DO THAT AND I WOULDN'T DO THIS AND YOU MIGHT MAKE A CHANGE HERE AND WE DID THAT IN EFFORT THEY WOULDN'T GET SIDEWAYS WITH STAFF NOT THAT OUR STAFF NECESSARILY WOULDN'T WO BUT SOME STAFF MEMBERS WOULD GET BENT IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE TELLING THESE GUYS WHAT TO CUT.
>> MAYOR. I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE.
SOAL FILES THAT Y'ALL HAD THE RED LINES TO, THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 8, NOT 2.
IT'S PAGE 392 OF THE PACKET WHICH IS THE COUNCIL'S RED
>> UNDER GENERAL PROCEDURES. >> CAN I THROW OUT ONE THING IN
[01:55:08]
TERMS OF SCHEDULE FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU ASKED WHAT OUR PROCESS IS, RIGHT NOW FOR NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA Y'ALL HAVE TO CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT YOU WANT TO ADOPT AND SO IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR Y'ALL TO ACTUALLY DO THAT NEXT WHICH WOULD MEAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VERSION THAT WOULD ADD TO THE AGENDA THAT IS WHAT YOU INTEND TO ADOPT. IF YOU AREN'T THERE YET WE CAN PUSH THAT OFF BUT THAT WAS THE FIRST STEP TO CALL THAT PUBLICHEARING. >> HOW DO WE GET A VERSION TO
PUT ON THE AGENDA. >> I UNDERSTAND.
YOU HAVE THE DRAFT. >> WE DON'T HAVE THE VERSION
YET. >> NO, YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH A VERSION YOU CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON.
>> HOLD ON, THAT'S THE QUESTION. WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT. RIGHT?
>> IT'S UP TO P&Z ACCORDING TO THE AGENDA.
>> THAT'S HOW I READ IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. IS THAT HOW IT'S WRITTEN?
>> ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IT'S JUST FOR THE P&Z TO CALL THE
TO COME UP WITH THE VERSION. >> THE ONLY ACTION THAT CAN BE AITKEN SO THE VERSION FOR NEXT WEEK WILL HAVE TO COME FROM THEM WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON IT IS THE WAY I READ IT.
>> SO TO HER POINT, TO JAIME'S POINT, SECTION 8, WE DID NOT, THAT'S PROCEDURE GENERAL, PUBLIC NOTICE, WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW.
SUB DIVISION. WE MADE A COMMENT, SPEED UP.
LEAVE IT UP TO STAFF. SPEED UP BASICALLY THE MESSAGE IF WE DON'T SPEED THIS UP WE'LL KEEP CUTTING THE CODE UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT PIECE OF THE CODE IS JAMMING UP THE SYSTEM BECAUSE ONCE WE CUT THAT AND OKAY IT WENT QUICK.
HOLD ON. FIRST COMMENT UNDER 10.084 -- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE SAID FENCES, WE SAID NOT OVER 8 FEET AND WE CIRCLED ORAL DER I CANS AND I THINK THAT WAS A MATTER OF WHEN THAT CAME IN TO, I THINK WE'RE QUESTIONING DO WE HAVE TO GIVE COS AT OIL DERICKS. AND WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT IT WAS BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED IN OUR CITY.
I'LL SAY THAT. >> SO CAN WE -- MY OPINION, YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE THE EDITION OR THE UDC THAT YOU WANTED TO APPROVE FOR NEXT WEEK CAN WE NOT APPROVE IT NEXT WEEK AND THEN WE AMEND WHATEVER WE HAVE AND IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.
>> SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND BY LAW WE GOT TO MEET AND GET A RECOMMENDATION SO THEY GAVE US A RECOMMENDATION. WE REVISED THE RECOMMENDATION AND THEY SAID WE GOT TO GO BACK TO THEM AND THAT RUBBED ME THE WRONG WAY BECAUSE IF WE KEEP DOING THAT WE'LL GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN TWO BODIES. AT WHAT POINT DO WE GOT THEIR OPINION AND THEN MOVING FORWARD. IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL REVISION OR WHAT CAUSES A SECOND JOINT MEETING?
>> WELL I THINK IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MANY CHANGES AND TO HAVE A DRAFT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEM REVIEW WHICH I'M NOT SURE IT KIND OF ALL GOT CONFUSED BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE REASON BECAUSE Y'ALL MADE SO MANY CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT THAT HAD BEEN WORKED ON BEFORE.
>> THERE WAS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OR WERE YOU JUST DOING IT FOR
DUE DILIGENCE. >> IT WAS SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTUALLY HAD TO SPEAK ON THE VERSION THAT YOU WERE LOOKING ON ADOPTING. YOU HAD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES A FAIR WAY TO LOOK AT IT TO WHAT THE CONSULTANT PROVIDED SO THAT'S WHEN YOU NEED TO HAVE P&Z
LOOKING AT IT AGAIN. >> SO WE HAVE TO -- SORRY.
>> SO, IS IT A LEGAL-- I WAS STILL UNCLEAR-- CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ALREADY HAD THE ADDITION? AND WE HAVE GIVEN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THAT WHAT WE DID?
>> DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION... >> THE ONLY OTHER CHANGE THAT WE MADE IN SECTION 8 WAS UNDER CONDITIONS, WHEN IT CAME TO HOUSES, MATERIALS INCLUDING ASBESTOS, SHALL BE REMOVED OR
[02:00:02]
EXPOSED-- DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. IT EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS... WE JUST REQUIRED WHAT IS THE LAW. BECAUSE STAFF IS TELLING US WE ARE PUTTING HERE WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN.BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS? SO WHY ARE-- I THINK THERE IS A PROSPECT-- PROCESS FOR ASBESTOS ANYWAY.
SO WE ARE LIKE WIRE WE TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THE PROCESS IS? IT CHANGES IN TCA Q, NOW WE HAVE A CONFLICT.
>> I BELIEVE YOU ALSO HAVE TO GO TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I
BELIEVE. >> THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SAYING.
YOU NEED TO FOLLOW STATE LAW OVER HAZARDOUS REMOVAL.
THAT'S WHERE THE AUTHORIZATION COMES IN.
WE ARE TRYING TO DICTATE HOW TO DO THINGS WHEN THERE ARE ALREADY STATE AGENCIES THAT TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT.
AND READING-- DO NOT KNOW HOW SOMEONE REMOVES THIS PESTIS, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A TCAQ, OR IF WE COULD ENFORCE THAT.
-- ASBESTOS. SO I DON'T MIND IF WE WANT TO SIT BACK A WEEK, AND YOU LOOK AT THE ONE THAT WE DID AND SAY OKAY THIS IS THE LAST ONE. GRAHAM, SKIMPIER-- CRAM, SKIM THROUGH IT. THE RED LINES.
MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING HOLY CRAP, I HAVE TO DO THIS.
THEN WE MEET AT THE END. WE KICK IT BACK A WEEK MOVING FORWARD. AND IF THERE ARE MAJOR CHANGES WE GO TO AMEND A SECTION. BUT I DON'T THINK-- I'M TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING-- MAYBE I CUT AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH OUT.
PARKING WAS ONE. >> ONE WAS MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS? WHAT WAS THAT? I THINK THAT WAS ALSO CUT, CORRECT?
>> NO. BECAUSE SOMEONE-- WE HATE THE SIGN. IF I HAD IT MY WAY-- WE WOULD DO IT LIKE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BECAUSE IT IS A NIGHTMARE.
I CAN'T EVEN FIND HARDLY-- MOST OF OUR COMMENTS WAS HONESTLY ADDING THINGS... LIKE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE SHOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED. BECAUSE WE THOUGHT, OKAY-- SO YOU HAVE A BRAND-NEW BUSINESS, AND THEY COULD HAVE A COMING SOON SIGN, BUT THEY CAN'T ELIMINATE-- ELIMINATED FROM BACK, BEHIND, SPOTLIGHT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN EXACTLY-- ILLUMINATED. AND WHAT IS ELIMINATED.
IT MEANS A SIGN INCORPORATES ILLUMINATION.
THIS IS WHERE I SAY WE CUT A LOT OF IT TO DEFINE THE WORD.
SIGNAGE ILLUMINATED. MEANS ANY SIGNAGE THAT INCORPORATES ILLUMINATION ON OR AROUND THE SIGN THAT WOULD DEFINE ELIMINATION. OR THE DIRECT ILLUMINATION TOWARDS ALL OR PART OF THE SIGN OTHERWISE CREATED BY THE PROJECTION OF ILLUMINATION ON TO A SERVICE OR A WALL.
AND WE HAVE A QUESTION, WHERE DOES L.E.D. FIT IN? TO ME, L.E.D. WOULD BE ELIMINATION-- ILLUMINATION.
WE USE THE WORD ILLUMINATION SO MANY TIMES IN THERE, HOW DO WE FIND ILLUMINATION. -- HOW DO WE FIND ILLUMINATION.
-- DEFINE. >> I THINK THAT MY SOLUTION SKILLS HAVE FINALLY PAID OFF. MAYOR, HERE IS WHAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE. WE ARE EFFECTIVELY GOING TO TAKE THE FILE WHERE WE COMBINE ALL THE CHAPTERS FOR THE UPLOAD FOR THE AGENDA. AND WE WILL SHARE THAT BACK TO BRICK-- RICK. RICK, I THINK WHAT YOU DID IS YOU TOOK THE EXISTING UDC, AND YOU COMPARED THE RED LINES AGAINST THE EXISTING UDC, CREATING YOUR FILE.
THE PROBLEM IS, THE CONSULTANT REWROTE THE EXISTING UDC, AND IT IS NOT THE SAME DOCUMENT AT ALL, WHICH IS WHAT HAS GENERATED THE CONFUSION. YOU WERE ALL NOTING, SECTION TWO WENT TO SECTION WHATEVER, AND THE SECTION FOUR-- WHILE HE WAS TAKING THE COMMENTS THAT YOU WORK FROM AND IT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL UDC, NOT THE FREEZE AND NICHOLS DRAFT.
AND THAT IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THE DISCONNECT AND ALL THE CONFUSION THAT HAS CONSPIRED HERE TONIGHT. SO WE WILL GET YOU THIS FILE, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS YOU HAVE DONE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE WORK. SO GO BACK THROUGH THIS FILE LOOKING FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU NOW KNOW TO BE LOOKING FOR, SO YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, COUNCILS VERSION, HERE ARE THE 15 THINGS-- THE REST OF THE PNZ SHOULD BE DOING THIS AS WELL, ARGUABLY, BUT RICK AND BRANDON ARE THE ONES WHO SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH IT. AND THEN, THAT WAY, YOU CAN
[02:05:02]
COMMENT ON-- OKAY. SO DON'T BE COMPARING IT AGAINST THE OLD UDC. BECAUSE THE DRAFT THAT WE ARE WORKING FROM IS THE DRAFT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY FRIESEN NICHOLS, WHICH IS A COMPLETE REWRITE OF THE UDC.>> UNDERSTOOD. SO MY QUESTION THEN IS IF I RECEIVE THAT TONIGHT, OUR NEXT PNZ MEETING, THE FIRST ONE IN SEPTEMBER, WE GO THROUGH-- LET'S SAY, CHAPTER 1.
SECTION ONE, WHATEVER IT IS. CHAPTER 1, SECTION ONE, WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I'VE DONE A LOT OF LEGWORK, LIKE YOU SAID. WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OKAY, HERE IS OUR RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
AND WE-- THERE ARE TEN SECTIONS. HERE IS TEN AMENDMENTS.
OVER THE NEXT TEN MONTHS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE? BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE YOUR WORK THAT THE COUNCILS APPROVED, THE ONES THAT YOU GUYS RODE UP, WITHOUT OUR ADDITIONS, BUT YOU HAVE THAT, IT IS READY TO GO.
THE CONTRACTORS, THE DEVELOPERS. THEY HAVE THEIR MARCHING ORDERS.
IT MAY CHANGE OR IT MAY NOT. IT MAYBE A CLERICAL ADMINISTRATIVE GRAMMATICAL TYPE CHANGE.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? OR DO YOU NEED IT PASTOR?
>> SO WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. >> SEPTEMBER 12.
>> SEPTEMBER 12TH. >> I'M TELLING YOU NOW.
AGAIN TACKED DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY, THE FIRST TIME YOU PASSED IT, YOU DID NOT MEET EVERYTHING IN IT.
YOU GUYS PASSED IT, ZERO CHANGES FROM THE CONSULTANT.
WHICH REALLY UPSET ME. SO I WENT THROUGH IT AND READ EVERY SINGLE PAGE AND EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE.
AND NOW YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH AND READ IT ALL AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS. AND I'M LIKE, TOO LATE.
BECAUSE YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE IN SEPTEMBER.
YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS. YOU SAID IT'S GOOD THE WAY THE CONSULTANT DID IT. GOOD.
AND WE WENT THROUGH AND SAID WE HATE THE DOCUMENT.
WE ARE GOING THROUGH IT. SO NOW YOU WANT TO DO ALL THAT, TO ME IT'S LIKE, FOR ME, TO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
SO YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE OUR COMMENTS, YOU DID NOT MAKE THEM, AND NOW YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM.
AND WE HAVE BIG-TIME CHANGES. HERE IS ONE FOR YOU GUYS.
I HAVE A MERIT BADGE FOR THAT, I'M AN EAGLE SCOUT.
BUT IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IF YOU OWN AN ACRE, THAT TREE DOES PROVIDE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. THE PUBLIC CHARGES YOU A TAX ON THAT LAND, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, BUT YOU WANT TO GET A PERMIT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON'T GET PERMITS TO REMOVE A TREE, AT A DISEASE, HAZARDOUS, HEALTHY, IT'S YOUR TREE, YOU CUT IT DOWN IF YOU WANT. THAT IS YOUR PROPERTY.
I THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA IF YOU CUT THE TREES DOWN IN YOUR YARD.
IF THE HOA ALLOWS IT, THAT IS FINE.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO COME BY AND SAY YOU CANNOT CUT DOWN THIS TREE WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL AND OUR PERMITTING PROCESS. I DON'T LIKE TREE SURVEYS, I DON'T LIKE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT WE GO THAT ROUTE, WE START PAYING HOMEOWNERS AND LAND OWNERS WHO HAVE TREES FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT A REBATE ON THEIR TAXES. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS, THEY HAVE PROPERTY TO DISPOSE OF.
SO WE HAVE CHANGES LIKE THAT IN HERE.
THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE I AM PROMISING DEVELOPERS WE ARE GOING TO GET THIS DONE, GET THIS DONE, TEN MORE MONTHS.
IF YOU SAID GOOD-- TWO WEEKS, I COULD GET BEHIND THAT.
WE WILL HAVE IT DONE. BUT OCTOBER...
>> MAYBE I WAS NOT COMMUNICATING CLEARLY.
IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND TONIGHT THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2026 WORKING DRAFT, THE COUNCIL ADOPT ONE THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET IF WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THAT TONIGHT, SEPTEMBER 17TH, I BELIEVE, 12TH, YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU VOTE ON IT, YOU APPROVE IT, THAT IS WHAT IS GOING FORWARD.
OVER THE NEXT TEN MONTHS, IF THERE ARE CHANGES, WE WOULD PROVIDE YOU CHANGES ONE SECTION AT A TIME.
ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> WE ARE GOOD WITH THAT.
>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.
FIRST PART, YOU ADOPTED, THEN WE COME THROUGH OVER THE NEXT TEN
[02:10:02]
MONTHS AND SAY, HERE IS OUR SECTION ONE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT YOU CAN VOTE ON THOSE CHANGES TO WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADYADOPTED. >> I THINK CENTRAL TEXAS IS SO SCREWED UP WITH THE WAY THAT THEY ARE DOING THINGS COMPARED WITH THE-- SOUTH CAROLINA. THEY HAVE GREAT DEVELOPMENTS OUT THERE. THAT IF WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A CODE THAT SATISFIES WHAT HOWARD AND THE PROFESSIONALS THINK ON THE DEVELOPER ASIDE, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. IF WE DO NOT, WE COULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES IN THE AREA TO GO WHY DON'T YOU DO IT LIKE HUTTO DOES. AND OTHER CITIES CAN ADOPT WHAT WE DO, INSTEAD OF TAKING THE SAME CODE, JUST MOVING SECTIONS AROUND, CHARGE $150,000, SAY YOU ARE GOOD TO GO, WE COULD HAVE A CODE WHERE THE PROFESSIONALS AND EVERYBODY CAN SAY LOOK WHAT HUTTO DID. IT TOOK THEM FREAKING FOREVER TO DO IT, BUT THEY GOT IT DONE AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
AND DEVELOPERS ARE LIKE, MY GOD, THIS IS FANTASTIC.
WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, YOU GUYS HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET, THE VARIANCES THAT COME THROUGH, IT'S RIDICULOUS WHAT COMES THROUGH.
WHERE THE BUILDERS ARE LIKE LOOK, I WANT TO PLANT TREES.
THERE ARE SO MANY DANG TREES TO PLANT ON THE PROPERTY, THEY CAN'T EVEN GET TO IT. AND STAFF WILL SAY YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR BEST. AND I SAY DO YOUR BEST, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I LOVE THAT IDEA.
BECAUSE THEN IT IS PROGRESS, IT PUTS TIME ON STAFF, WHERE I COULD TELL JAMES, IF THERE IS A SLOW DOWN IN A PROCESS IT'S EITHER A REGULATION, IT'S A STAFFING ISSUE, WE NEED A CHANGE, OR WE NEED TO HAVE STAFF.
>> AND MIND THING IS THAT THERE ARE TWO MEMBERS OF PNZ THAT SAW THE 2024 UDC. THAT IS IT.
THERE ARE TWO MEMBERS, BRAND-NEW, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE EVEN SEEN THIS. SO THEY NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED.
WE NEED TO GET FIVE MEMBERS OF PNZ UP TO SPEED ON WHAT WAS AND WHAT SHOULD BE. AND WE CANNOT DO IT IN A MONTH, I DO NOT THINK. I REALISTICALLY DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN DO IT IN A MONTH. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> I WILL ADD THAT I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS ANY CHANGES AT ALL.
EIGHT AND NINE ARE MINIMAL. CHAPTER 3 HAD A LOT OF CHANGES.
I THINK SEVEN AND EIGHT-- NINE WAS HARDLY ANY.
POINT BEING, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO DO A CHAPTER A MONTH.
I THINK CHAPTER 3 MIGHT TAKE YOU SIX WEEKS, OVER TWO MEETINGS, BUT CHAPTER 1 AND SOME OF THE OTHER ONES MAY COMBINE A COUPLE
CHAPTERS. >> WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO EAT
THE ELEPHANT. >> BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE TEN WEEKS. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> I THINK STAFF WILL PUSH YOU GUYS A LONG HARD TOO.
IF THIS THING GOT PAST LIKE IT IS NOW, WE WILL NEED TO EITHER HURRY UP AND MEET, OR WE WOULD SUGGEST CHANGES.
AND THAT ALONE WOULD BE A DEPENDENT US ON GETTING ALL THIS
MOVING FAST. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD A
TIMELINE TO IT? >> I AM TELLING YOU.
I'M CONFIDENT. IF IT PAST LIKE THIS, STOP WOULD BE ALL OVER YOU ALL. WE HAVE TO START READING AND DOING STUFF. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT ON COUNCIL BECAUSE STAFF IS GOING TO BE COMING TO US.
WE CUT SOME STUFF OUT OF THERE, THE WHOLE TREE THING, THAT IS UNUSUAL AROUND HERE. SO WE TOLD JAMES, WE CUT IT AND WE PROBABLY WENT TOO FAR IN SOME WAYS, BUT IT WAS IN A MANNER TO GET-- IF YOU WANT TO MOVE US OVER A BIT THIS WAY, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY OVER HERE TO MOVE US A LITTLE BIT.
IF YOU TRY TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE YOU NEVER GET TO WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO. SO WE WENT OVER HERE AND HE SAID YOU HAVE KIND OF A LIBERTARIAN VIEW.
[02:15:02]
AND I SAID THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN.WE HAVE SMALL BUSINESS, PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE THING.
YOU GUYS CAN LOOK AND TALK TO PEOPLE THAT HAS A SMALL BUSINESS AND SAY WHAT DID YOU ENCOUNTER WHEN YOU DID IT.
I WENT THROUGH THIS. AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH ā-DASH PROFESSIONALS, IS THIS REALLY THAT IMPORTANT THAT IT HURTS THE SMALLER GUY? I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THESE THINGS WE CAN ALWAYS ADDRESS THEM.
BUT YOU GUYS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT-- DAVE IS ALREADY READING TO IT. HE'S ALREADY STARTED.
>> MAYOR AND PNZ, I WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DID SEND A MEMO WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES. THEY ARE NOT VERY EXTENSIVE, DID YOU ACTUALLY GET THAT MEMO? THE PNZ? IT WAS DIRECTED TO YOU ALL TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED A.
IT WASN'T VERY LONG, BUT THERE ARE CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO THE DRAFT IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADOPTED TONIGHT.
>> I DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WAITING ON. AUGUST 10TH.
>> THE ONE WE ARE WORKING ON HIS MAY 15TH, 2015.
>> THE ONE WE-- AUGUST 10TH IS FROM DADI.
>> I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING FROM AUGUST 10TH.
I AM CHECKING. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
I DO NOT HAVE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO WALK THROUGH THOSE, MAYOR?
IT'S AUGUST 10TH. >> SHE IS SAYING AUGUST 10TH.
>> OKAY. >> I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE PNZ. LEGAL WAS NOT CHANGING MATERIALLY. NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO RUN IT
THIS WAY. >> AND THINGS THAT ARE IN THE STATUTES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO TALK ON.
>> YOU GUYS IN GENERAL GOT THE ATTORNEYS TO CHANGE THE DOCUMENTS TO BE WHAT THEY THINK IS A BIG DEAL.
AND THE ATTORNEYS TO CHECK FOR LEGALITY.
AND THAT'S MORE WHAT I TYPICALLY SEE FROM THAT GROUP.
I CAN FORWARD IT TO THEM. >> DID WE GET IT?
OR WHO SENT IT TO US? >> WE SENT IT TO--
[INDISCERNIBLE] >> IT IS AUGUST 10TH.
>> IT IS CALLED "MEMO FOR UDC." CHAPTER 245, CHECKLIST.
>> WE GOT IT TUESDAY 1:52 P.M. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> OKAY. >> IT WAS SENT TUESDAY AUGUST
11TH. >> THAT I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT.
BUT IT SAYS THESE DISTRIBUTE TO COUNCIL.
SO IT GOT DISTRIBUTED BY LAURA PROBABLY.
>> YOU DID NOT GET IT TO DOTTIE? OKAY.
>> DOTTIE'S EMAIL SAYS DISTRIBUTE TO COUNCIL, NOT PNC--
>> ALL GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES. SHE SAID TEMPORALLY 26 1.0.
AND PUTTING IN THE TEXAS MANUFACTURER'S HOUSING ACT AND THE TEXAS OCCUPATION CODE 1201. DO NOT INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES DEFINED IN CONSTRUCTION AS CONSTRUCTED.
AND SHE GOES ON, THESE THE CAN PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION OF A MOBILE HOME FOR USE OR OCCUPANCY WITHIN IT'S REMEDIED SINCE THE CORPORAL LIMITS. BUT BECAUSE OF THE MOBILE HOMES CONSTRUCTED BEFORE JUNE 15TH, 1976 ARE NOW CERTIFIED AS BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS, THE CITIES MAY COMPLETELY PROHIBIT THESE DWELLINGS BY CITY ORDINANCE, A GENERAL PROHIBITION MUST BE PROSPECTIVE, IT CANNOT APPLY TO A MOBILE HOME. SO SOME THINGS I THOUGHT THAT SHE PUT IN BECAUSE SHE SAW WERE TRYING TO SAY, WHAT WE DID IS LEGAL FIGURED OUT TO BUILD MOBILE HOMES.
HOW DO WE BUILD MOBILE HOMES. IN DIFFERENT HOUSING CLASSES.
[02:20:03]
AND THEY CAME IN AND TOLD US OKAY, THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT.YOU JUST HAVE TO DO THAT, ARE LIMITED OR EXCLUDED.
>> THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS HERE THAT-- WHAT IS THE STATE LAW DEFINITION OF THE HOTEL? IN A HOTEL, THERE IS FOUR VISITATIONS A DAY, HOW DOES THAT ENFORCE RESTANDING CISTERNS? WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUILDING REGULATIONS.
A LOT OF THESE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THESE ENERGY SYSTEMS, WHAT ARE THE BUILDING REGULATIONS? ELECTRICAL RADIO INTERFERENCE IS, HOW WILL THAT BE MEASURED? ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE, OR ELECTROMAGNETIC IOC, NOISE SPECTRUMS THAT CREATE ALL THAT STUFF. SO YOU CAN JUST REFERENCE STUFF, YOU DON'T NEED TO PUT THE CODIFICATION IN HERE.
SOME THINGS LIKE, THE, SIGNS, BUILDING SIGNAGE IN SEVERAL PLACES, IT'S AN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS. HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS I HAD.
SPECIFICALLY I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANT.
IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING ANY CONTENT, IT'S JUST-- NOT TO BE A LITTLE, BUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE--
>> THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THERE ARE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT ARE LISTED. SO...
>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF YOU GUYS ARE INCLINED TO ADOPT, WHAT WE WOULD PUT BACK, LET YOU ADOPT THAT WITH THE PROPOSED LEGAL SPECIFIC CHANGES, AND PART OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING BACK TO THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS OUR QUESTIONS LIKE PRESTANDING CISTERNS, DO THEY HAVE BUILDING REGULATIONS, THE ENGINEERING ANGLE, OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE CODE ON IT, AND KEN WE-- IF YOU GO TO THE VALLEY, I DON'T KNOW THE THINGS ARE, BUT THERE IS LIKE THESE EIGHT-FOOT TALL THINGS, THESE PIPES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CODE REGULATIONS DOWN THERE. SO WE CAN COME UP WITH REGULATIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT A CISTERN IS, BUT I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH WATER, DOESN'T IT? LIKE A WIND ENERGY SYSTEM. IF THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS, AND I PUT A WINDMILL IN MY BACKYARD? AND IF IT IS, AS LONG AS THE BLADES ARE IN MY YARD, THAT'S FINE?
MY NEIGHBOR MAY NOT LIKE THAT. >> THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE THE CONSTANT CREAKING EVERY TIME IT BLOWS.
AND WITHOUT US HAVING NOT IN FRONT OF US, AT ANY POINT TO REVIEW AND INCORPORATE, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SAY, O'CLOCK YES, WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT, OR WE SHOULD DO THAT.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT EMAIL. >> THIS IS SORT OF FINE TUNING YOUR PROPOSAL AFTER WE PUSH SOMETHING THROUGH ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, THE PNC FINE-TUNING, AND LESS LEGAL TELLS US WE NEED TO
HAVE IT DIFFERENT. >> SO IF THEY ADOPTED, BUT THEY DON'T DO THE LEGAL PART, CAN WE ADD IN EAGLE PART AND CALL IT A
DAY? >> WHAT WILL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING IS WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD CHANGE THAT.
I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT WHEN WE ARE ADOPTING IT.
YOU WOULD CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED TO YOU, AND AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING YOU CAN MAKE
A RECOMMENDATION. >> WE COULD AMEND IT AND PUT
>> WHY NOT JUST DO IT NOW? BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL
CONFIDENT HAVING NOT SEEN IT? >> WE HAVE NOT SEEN INTO.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE REDLINED COUNCIL VERSION.
>> YOU HAVE SEEN THAT. THAT WAS THE PDF FILES THAT WERE SHARED. SO YOU HAVE SEEN THAT.
THIS, TO ME, SINCE IT'S JUST LEGAL CLEANUP, THAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND BETWEEN NOW AND THE ACTUAL PUBLICATION WE WILL HAVE TO GET IT CLEANED UP INTO ONE DOCUMENT, NO REDLINES, TABLES, ALL THE THINGS. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER.
I THINK WE CAN GET WELL OVER 90% OF THE LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS FIRST PASS. AND WE CAN DO THE FINE-TUNING--
>> AND THEN YOU SAID THERE WERE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN THERE? WE CAN
TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE-- >> THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS IN
[02:25:02]
HERE ALSO. >> WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS. THAT GIVES US TIME TO LOOK AT THAT. CLOSE THE AMENDMENT, FIRST
BATCH. >> SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED SOME ACTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> IS THERE SOME TYPE OF DOCUMENT.
[INDISCERNIBLE] >> THAT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET, BRANDON. [LAUGHTER]
>> WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS TAKE THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE THAT IS REDLINED. LOOK AT THAT, AND THEN HOW I WOULD DO AT WORK IS THEN HAVE A CLEAN VERSION OF THAT, AND BASICALLY YOU ACCEPT ALL OF OUR CHANGES, AND ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE TO THAT, THAT IS YOUR REDLINED.
AND AT THE BOTTOM I'VE PUT THE DATE.
AND YOU CAN THROW OUT THE ONE FOR THIS TIME THIS TIME, WE ARE AT AUGUST NOW. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WHEN YOU GUYS SEND IT TO US WE SHOULD BE ACCEPTING ALL CHANGES. HAVE A RED LINE, MAKE EXCEPTED CHANGES AND THEN MAKE CHANGES TO THAT.
THAT WAY YOU ALWAYS GO INTO IT CLEANED.
WHEN IT GETS MESSY IS IF YOU REDLINED AND RED LINE OVER AND OVER. AND THEN IT'S LIKE I'M MAKING CHANGES BASED ON A CHANGE THAT YOU MADE FROM A PREVIOUS COMMENT. AND IT'S CONFUSING A BIT.
IF YOU TAKE IT, ACCEPT IT AND MAKE A CLEAN AND REVISE IT FROM
THERE YOU HAVE A COPY WITH DATA. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS, I'VE NOTICED THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH TURNOVER.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTARY ON WHAT THE CHANGES WERE?
>> WE HAVE THE SAME THING FROM LAST YEAR.
IT'S A LIVE DOCUMENT. WE HAVE AMENDED IT.
AN HOUR SAYING MAKE IT, DATED, GIVE IT TO US AND WE WILL MAKE CHANGES BASED ON THAT. CONTINUING TO HAVE 20 DIFFERENT
VERSIONS. >> WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING I THINK IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT, BUT IT'S NOT NOTICED AS AN ACTION. BUT I THINK IT IS A VALID POINT.
>> I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING IS LET'S GET THROUGH THIS THING, AND STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS ALL THE TIME AND CONTINUING
TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
IS THERE A REDLINED VERSION THAT IS IN THE PACKET THAT IS NOT A
PDF? >> I HAVE ALL WORD DOCUMENTS REDLINED. I WILL HAVE TO CHECK WITH I.T., BUT MY BELIEF IS THAT YOUR CITY LOGIN WOULD ALLOW YOU TO USE THE BASIC VERSIONS OF ALL THE SOFTWARE IS THAT WE HAVE.
SO IF YOU WERE LOGGING IN. >> WHO HAS A CITY LOGIN ON PNC--
>> NONE OF US DO. >> YOU DON'T HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING EMAIL ADDRESS? YOU HAVE A PERSONAL ZONING EMAIL ADDRESS? WE WILL FIX THAT.
>> I CAN LOOK AT THEM BUT I GUESS CANNOT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT'S LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL.
BUT THE MESSAGE BOARD WAS FREE TO TALK ABOUT.
WE TOOK THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THAT IS WHAT WE SHARE TO PANDZ.
WE DIDN'T SAY GO LOOK AT THE MESSAGEBOARD.
WE TOOK THE PHYSICAL FILES AND GAVE IT TO THEM.
>> THE USER THAT PUT THOSE FILES ON THEIR DELETED IT.
SO I HAVE SOME ISSUES DEPENDING-- DEPENDING ON WHICH PLATFORM THAT'S ON. IT CONSIDERS ME A GUEST AND I CAN LOOK AT THOSE FILES. BUT IF I DO IT ON A LAPTOP I CAN
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. >> I CAN EDIT, I CAN ADD IN.
[02:30:05]
>> BACK TO MY QUESTION. AND WE GET SOMETHING THAT WE CAN EDIT? SOMEHOW? IF IT IS THROUGH A CITY LOGIN, GREAT.
IF IT'S A DOCUMENT EMAILED TO OUR PERSONAL EMAILS, GREAT.
>> YES, BUT... >> WE CAN GIVE UP WHAT WE HAVE, GIVE UP THE WORD DOCUMENT, NOT THE PDF.
>> THAT I CAN'T DO. BUT I CAN ACCEPT ALL THE REDLINES AND FROM THERE GENERATE A WORD DOCUMENT.
IF I CONVERT FROM PDF TO WORD FROM COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE THE WORD DOCKS THAT MATT SENT ME IN OCTOBER.
>> WE HAVE THE WORD DOCKS. WHAT SHOULD WE CONVERT THOSE TO PDF? -- WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU
HAVE IT. >> CHARITY WORD DOC VERSIONS.
I HAVE THE PDF'S. SO YOU CAN CONVERT TO PDF.
WHEN YOU TRY TO CONVERT PDF BACK TO WORK IT JACKS EVERYTHING UP.
>> TO YOUR POINT, IT WAS 2005, 1001.
THE SHAREPOINT FROM NOT OCTOBER 1ST EMAIL.
BUT WHEN YOU CLICK ON THAT EMAIL THAT SHAREPOINT LINK IS DEAD.
>> SOMEONE DELETED THE FILE ON THEIR.
>> WE ALL HAVE THE WORD DOCUMENTS.
I HAVE EIGHT FILES. AND THEY GO FROM CHAPTER ONE,
CHAPTER 2, CHAPTER... >> I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO BE-- BECAUSE IT WAS MATT THAT SHARED IT MOST LIKELY, AND WHENEVER HE GETS THERE THE ACCOUNT GETS SIDELINED AND THEY MOVE ALL THE FILES TO ACCESS, AND NOW THE SHAREPOINT LINK WILL NOT WORK
ANYMORE. >> WE WILL GET THAT COMPILED
BEFORE HE LOGS OFF TONIGHT. >> OKAY.
>> THE ONLY ONE IS CHAPTER 3, WHICH IS ABOUT 33 MEGABYTES.
CHAPTER 1, 2, 3. >> AND WE FIGURE OUT THE FILE ISSUE OUTSIDE THE MEETING? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE
THAT OUT RIGHT NOW. >> YOU WOULD THINK AFTER YEAR WE
WOULD NOT HAVE TO. >> HERE IS WHAT I AM DIRECTING STAFF TO SHARE WITH COUNCIL AND P&Z.
THE FRIESEN NICHOLS PROPOSED DRAFT.
THE COUNCIL REDLINED VERSION WITH THE HANDWRITTEN NOTES.
THE COUNCIL AND-- THE COUNCIL REDLINED VERSION WITH THE STAFF EDITS NOW IN WORD FORMAT. THE LEGAL CHANGES FROM DOTTIE.
AND WE WILL TAKE ALL OF THAT, CLEAN IT UP SO IT CAN BE PUBLISHED FOR ADOPTION WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 12TH.
>> IF YOU DON'T WANT THE REDLINED VERSION BEING PUBLISHED-- I DON'T MIND THE CLEAN VERSION BUT--
>> SORRY, COUNCIL MAN, IT IS NOT YOUR MOTION.
>> NEW GUY ALWAYS TRYING STUFF. >> WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOUR VERSION HAVE A TABLE OF CONTENTS AND AN INDEX IN THE BACK AND PAGE NUMBERS ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT.
THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY ARE OFF OF OUR AGENDA BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PAGE NUMBERS ON THE DRAFT THAT WE
>> I GUESS I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR THE PNC.
-- THE P&Z. DOES EVERYONE HAVE ACCESS TO SOME FORM OF WORD DOCUMENT? EITHER OPEN OFFICE, OR...
>> THEY HAVE A WORD VERSION FOR MAC.
>> AND THERE ARE FREE VERSIONS OF THAT OUT THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT EVERYBODY HAS GOT THE ABILITY TO THEN READ THESE FILES THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD REDLINED EIGHT OR SEVEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS-- YOU ALMOST HAVE TO DO WHAT WE DID, WHICH IS TO HANDWRITE, ON ONE OF YOU AT THE END WILL HAVE TO REDLINED IT. IF YOU JUST PRINTED OFF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR NOTES AND SCAN IT AND YOU CAN HAVE A MEETING.
IF YOU TRY TO COMBINE SEVEN, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK OUT GOOD.
[02:35:04]
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS NOBODY REDLINED AND EVERYONE INSERT COMMENTS.
AND ONE PERSON BECOMES RESPONSIBLE GOING THROUGH THE
COMMENTS AND RECONCILING IT. >> I KNOW.
I GOT IT. >> I THINK WITH THE FOUR ITEMS FROM STAFF THAT ARE DUE TO COUNCIL AND TO P&Z, AND WITH OUR ABILITY TO REVIEWED, READ, EDIT THOSE, I AM COMFORTABLE THEN SAME THAT THAT VERSION SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE WILL GO THROUGH, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, MAYBE MULTIPLE CHAPTERS IN-- IN ONE SWIPE, BUT WE WILL GO THROUGH CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, AND WE WILL EDIT AND PROVIDE AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> I THINK THAT IS REALLY UP TO COUNCIL.
DO THEY WANT HOWARD TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM? DO THEY WANT ME TO GET UP ON THE PODIUM AND SAY HERE IS OUR STUFF? I THINK IT'S KIND OF UP TO THEM.
I AM NOT GOING TO DICTATE HOW COUNCIL DOES BUSINESS.
>> I WILL TAKE A MOTION, RICK. >> SO, THAT IS THE MOTION.
>> SECOND. >> SO IT IS ON THE RECORD.
THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH. MY NOTE-TAKING IS HORRIBLE.
ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO PUT DOWN MOTION BY DELAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOOD.
THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT. SORRY, WE ARE LACKING SOME MICROPHONES. ALL RIGHT.
AND I GUESS PART OF THAT IS-- THAT IS THE UDC.
DO WE WANT THE SAME MOTION FOR THE ENGINEERING CRITERIA MANUAL?
>> I WOULD ASK, HAVE YOU READ ALL THAT?
>> I WOULD ALMOST HOLD OFF ON THAT ONE.
HERE IS WHAT I WOULD SAY ON THAT ONE.
THINGS LIKE THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US, DRAMATIC CHANGES WERE MADE. WE HAD THE ISSUE OF NO PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE TOO NARROW.
THAT CHANGE WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED TO WHERE THE NEW DESIGN MANUAL STILL HAS THE SAME THING.
IF YOU MAKE THE ROAD 2 FEET WIDER YOU CAN PARK IT ON BOTH SIDES. AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE SO NARROW OR SO SHORT YOU CAN'T PARK A F-150 IN THE DRIVEWAY. SO JUST REQUIRED TO BE MINIMUM EX LENGTH. AND THE DRIVEWAYS ARE NOW SO NARROW THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE ADDING AN PERVIOUS PAVEMENT OR STONES ON THE SIDE OF THEIR DRIVEWAY, SO WHEN THEY GET OUT OF THEIR CAR THEY STEP IN THE GRASS.
BUT IF YOU MAKE A DRIVEWAY A FOOT WIDER, ALL OF A SUDDEN, BECAUSE WHAT IS HAPPENING IS IF YOU ADD THE PAVEMENT TO ONE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, NO BIG DEAL. YOU'RE NOT CAUSING FLIGHT IN TO THE CITY. BUT EVERYONE'S BUILDING A HOUSE TO JUST BARELY FIT WITHIN THE RATIOS ON THAT LOT.
IF YOU DO TO ONE HOUSE, NOT A BIG DEAL.
YOU DO TO TALK-- 2000 HOMES, YOU MAYBE CAUSING AN ISSUE SOMEWHERE BECAUSE THE RATIO IS OFF. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE 60-40, ARE MORE LIKE 55-45. ALL THIS BECAUSE THE DESIGN MANUAL. SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM. I HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN ONCE.
A DRIVEWAY, IT OUGHT TO BE 8 FEET WIDE.
RIGHT NOW IT SEVEN. THE LENGTH THOUGHT TO BE 27 FEET. THAT GIVES YOU A F-150.
THE DRIVEWAY IS CURRENTLY 8-FOOT WIDE.
[02:40:04]
LENGTH IS 27 FEET. IT SHOULD BE THE GARAGE IS 17 FEET DEEP, BUT YOU CAN BARELY PARK A FORD EXPLORER IN THE GARAGE. THE REASON THAT YOU PARK IT ON THE STREET THAN IN A DRIVEWAY IS BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS SO SMALL YOU CAN'T FIT THE VEHICLE IN THE GARAGE.SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A GARAGE? EVENTS TO PUT A VEHICLE IN THEIR THEN WE OUGHT TO PUT A VEHICLE IN. IF IT'S A STOREFRONT, YOU NEED A DOOR ON THE SIDE OF IT AND YOU MAKE IT A HOUSE.
AND I PUT IN HERE-- >> ASSESS FOR THE ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING. >> I DID NOT REALIZE THOSE THINGS WERE IN THE ENGINEERING MANUAL.
>> SO THE LENGTH IS 19 FEET LONG.
SO YOU CANNOT PARK-- YOU CANNOT PARK A BASIC TRUCK IN THE GARAGE BECAUSE THE GARAGES 2 FEET LESS DEEP.
SO THINGS LIKE THAT, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING MANUAL, RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO IMPORTANCE IN CHANGING IT, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE WILL BE CHANGING IS OUR CODE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> SO THERE IS NO DEADLINE LIKE THERE IS FOR THE UDC?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. WE DON'T HAVE DEVELOPERS COMING THROUGH. THE STREETLIGHTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE WE CAN IMPLEMENT TO HABIT. STAFF SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DESIGN MANUAL IS NOT DRIVING DEVELOPERS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
THE UDC IS WHAT IS TIME SENSITIVE.
>> AND KIND OF THE SAME ISSUE. DO WE HAVE THAT CAN BE GIVEN THE COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THE ENGINEERING CRITERIA MANUAL? DO WE HAVE COUNCIL COMMENTS ON NOT?
THAT CAN BE SENT TO US? >> JIM WENT THROUGH IT.
WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH IT A WHOLE LOT.
IT WAS JUST A QUESTION TO STAFF TO MAKE THE ROADS WIDE ENOUGH.
AND WE BROUGHT UP SHOULD OUR ROADS BE MADE OUT OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT. WEEKEND FOR SOME OF THAT AND SAY FOR NOW WE DO CONCRETE. I THINK AN ASPHALT ROAD LAST MY SEVEN YEARS, JAMES? WHICH NOW WE DO, OTHER THAN WHAT THAT ONE GUY SAYS. CONCRETE MAYBE ADDS ANOTHER 15 YEARS. SO THESE ARE CHANGES NOW THAT WE CAN MAKE. SO COSTS MORE TO BUILD THAT STUFF. BUT THEN EXISTING PEOPLE WON'T HAVE TO HAVE MAINTENANCE AS MUCH.
SO WE POSE A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO STAFF LIKE LOOK AT ALL THIS. BASICALLY ADOPTING THE SAME ENGINEERING MANUAL WE HAD BEFORE.
BUT THINGS LIKE SIDEWALK-- WE HAD AN ISSUE WHERE SIDEWALKS ARE CRACKING LIKE GRAHAM CRACKERS. WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE UNDERCUT OF THE SIDEWALK? FOR THE BASE? WE SAID OKAY, YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE ROBUST SIDEWALK, BOOM, TECH STOP ROAD STANDARD. THE NEW STANDARD FOR SIDEWALKS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE RUN INTO THAT ON OLD SIDEWALKS, AND THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU BACKFILL THE UTILITY LINES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S CALLED, THE CONTRACTORS WANT TO DO IT ONE WAY.
THE WAY WE ARE DOING IT IS ALMOST LIKE A CONCRETE.
LIKE A HARD BASE. ALMOST LIKE CONCRETE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE CONTRACTORS SAY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT. IF IT SETTLES, ONE IS MORE EXPENSIVE. BUT WHEN IT SETTLES, INSTEAD OF THAT ONE LITTLE AREA OF SETTLING, IT PULLS THE LINE DOWN. WHICH CAN CAUSE ISSUES WITH WATERLINES BREAKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU HAVE INSTEAD OF A LITTLE BIT OF AN AREA YOU HAVE A-- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? IT SINKS.
THE WHOLE THING SINKS. SO WE REALLY GO INTO THIS TO FIND OUT. THIS IS A UDC THING.
THE SIDEWALKS, TO WE WANT THEM T WIDE.
EVERYTHING WE DO, IS A CITY-- BUT I WOULD SAY, IF YOU GUYS GO THROUGH A DESIGN MANUAL AND LOOK AT IT ALL AND QUESTION WHY WE ARE DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING, IF YOU DON'T MIND PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, THAT'S DESIGN MANUAL.
EVEN JIM AND I WERE TALKING, IF YOU GO TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BYLAW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO STOP BEHIND THE WHITE LINE.
BUT DRIVE AROUND AND NOTICE EVERY TIME YOU STOP AT THAT WHITE LINE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
SO YOU HAVE TO PULL UP. >> BECAUSE THE SIGHTLINES ARE
SCREWED UP? >> THAT'S ALL DESIGN MANUALS.
SO WE CAN FIX SOME OF THIS FOR THE REST OF THE CITY, AND THE
EXISTING-- >> SO IS THERE A COUNCIL
[02:45:03]
REDLINED ENGINEERING MANUAL? OKAY.>> THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ENGINEERING MANUAL EXCEPT GARAGES. AS FAR AS WITH, THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF-- THE MAXIMUM WIDTH IS 20 FEET, WHILE THE MINIMUM WIDTH IS 12 FEET. BUT THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF STUFF ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS AND THEIR.
>> I THINK SINGLE-FAMILY IS 12. >> IT'S ONE AND TWO.
>> WHAT DOES IT SAY FOR A TWO CAR.
THAT'S WHAT A BUILDERS SAID. I TOLD A BUILDER THAT WE ARE GETTING RID OF THAT LOT SIZE. HE WAS LIKE THANK GOD.
WE ARE MEETING RIGHT? AND I WAS LIKE HERE SOME OTHER THINGS WERE TALKING ABOUT. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTHS.
AND THIS GUY SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, I CAN'T DO 40-FOOT LOTS ANYMORE.
I SAID THAT'S UP TO YOU. FIGURED OUT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET MEANS.
MAY VIEW GO VERTICAL LIKE SAN FRANCISCO.
BUT HAVING DRIVEWAYS, OUR RATIOS ARE OFF, AND THEN IT'S LIKE OKAY, YOU CAN'T BUILD 40-FOOT LOTS.
AND I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT A HOMEBUILDER.
WERE LOOKING AT MINIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTHS, AND YOU CAN'T ON WAKE.
SOME OF THEM DID NOT GET IT, AND ONE OF THEM DID.
[INDISCERNIBLE] >> BUT THEY ARE DETACHED.
THEY ARE DETACHED. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> THEY ARE JUST FRAMES AT THIS POINT.
BUT LOOKING AT THE FRAMES, WE ESTIMATE THAT THEY ARE BETWEEN 20 AND 25 FEET WIDE. THE HOUSE.
IT'S LIKE WHAT IS THIS? [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> TO ME I THINK THAT'S WEIRD, RIGHT? BUT THEN I'M LIKE SOMEHOW I HAVE TO GET A CHEAPER HOME, AND THE STATE-- CITIES WITH 100,000 PEOPLE OR MORE, IF I WAS YOUR NEIGHBOR, I COULD BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING IN THE BACKYARD. AND I'M LIKE OKAY, IT'S COMING.
SO WE TALK ABOUT HOW DO WE ADJUST THE CODE? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS LOT SIZE DRIVEWAY LENGTH DOES IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WITH THE OTHER CITIES DO, THEY FIND A LOOPHOLE.
AND THE LOOPHOLE IS POTENTIALLY YOUR MINIMUM DRIVING WITH HAS TO BE ASKED. [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> HE KNOWS HOW TO CUT ALL THE CORNERS.
THANKFULLY HE GOT ON COUNCIL. SO HE CAN SAY WHAT ARE THE LOOPHOLE SO WE CAN CLOSE THEM ALL?
>> WRAPPING IT UP. WERE NOT DOING THE ENGINEERING MANUAL AS PART OF THIS AGENDA TONIGHT?
>> AND LESS YOU READ IT AND THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE THINGS,
MAYBE GO THROUGH-- >> SO IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH NOT DOING THE ENGINEERING MANUAL ON THIS? AGENDA? [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> SO UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT ENGINEERING MANUAL THERE IS NO ACTION FOR THIS AGENDA.
IS A RUN OKAY WITHOUT? ANY OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SORRY? OKAY. NEXT, 4.5 SEE.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ADJOURN.
AND I HAVE 8:50 P.M. WE WILL CALL IT ADJOURNED AT 850.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.