[00:00:01]
WEEKS AGO. [LAUGHTER] SO NOW I THINK WE ARE READY TO GET GOING. OKAY. OUR ITEM
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
THIS EVENING IN OUR WORK SESSION HERE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 77-508,[2A. Receive a presentation and discuss proposed amendments to Section 77-508 of the Rowlett Development Code regarding residential building standards. (30 minutes)]
WICH ARE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE BACKGROUND HERE, SO THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS DESIGN ELEMENTS STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. WHEN THE RALEIGH BUILDING CODE WAS UP IN 2006, THEY WERE IN PART AND PARCEL I GUESS IS THEY SAY AND THEY'VE NOT BEEN LOOKED AT SINCE. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 2006. AND SO, WE ARE NOW PROPOSING SOME AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT BOTH WHAT WE ARE SEEING WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO WHAT WE ARE SEEING ON THE HORIZON ONLY I GUESS INTENSIFYING TRENDS AND ALSO TO GAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SO THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS, IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BE AMENDED.THE FIRST OF THAT IS BUILDING MATERIALS. AS THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR A WHILE UNDERSTAND THAT WITH HOUSE BILL 2439, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, IN 2019, WE MOVED THE ABILITY FOR CITIES TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC BUILDING FAC'ADE MATERIALS. OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES FOR NEW HOMES TO BE 100 PERCENT MASONRY. AND WE CANNOT ENFORCE THAT PROVISION SINCE IT WENT -- STATE LAW BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2019. THEY ARE STILL IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE ARE PROPOSING FOR I GUESS HOUSEKEEPING MATTER TO REMOVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
>> A BRIEF QUESTION, IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO GET 2439
REVERSED? >> WE HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANYBODY THAT'S LOOKING.
>> I DID NOT RESEARCH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT BACK -- >> MALE SPEAKER: WE WERE PLANNING ON TALKING ABOUT OUR PENDING DISCUSSION ESSAY PENDING, BUT ACTIVE CODE UPDATE, OUR COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO DEVELOPMENT CODES OF WHICH THAT IS SOMETHING CONSULTANT THAT'S WORKING ON THIS IF OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE WORKING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT. HE SAID, YES, HE HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, THAT HE WOULD BE BRINGING FORWARD SOMETHING THAT WILL, AGAIN, HAVE SOMETHING IN THAT REALM OF BUILDING MATERIAL STANDARDS.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE] MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCLUDE.[INDISCERNIBLE] THAT SHOW GENERAL COMPATIBILITY WITH US. SO WE CANNOT ASK FOR IT, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY PROPOSE IT. AND SO, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WAITING FOR.
>> ,FOUR., TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO WEIRD REVERSAL.
>> MALE SPEAKER: SIR, NOTICE WE HAVE EXHIBIT A IN OUR PACKET, WHICH IS THE CURRENT
CODE, BUT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MARKUPS ON IT OR ANYTHING. >> CORRECT.
>> JUST CURIOUS, WHAT WE SEE A MARKUP BEFORE WE -- >> WE WILL HAVE THAT WHEN WE BRING IT FORWARD PROVIDED WITH THE OUTCOME OF THIS EVENING'S MOVEMENT IS, WE WILL DEFINITELY -- BEFORE -- IF THERE WAS A MEETING WHERE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONSIDER A NEW REVISION, WE
WILL HAVE THOSE IN YOUR POCKET PRIOR TO THAT MEETING. >> OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST --
>> IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION, YEAH. >> MY RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, NOT BEING NECESSARILY, IF YOU REMOVE THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS, I THINK YOU MAYBE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE TO WHERE THOSE MATERIALS NEED TO BE IN CONCERT WITH OR
WHATEVER THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE -- >> THAT'S PROBABLY PERHAPS A GOOD IDEA, BUT THAT ALSO BRINGS UP THE BACKGROUND THAT I DID NOT PROVIDE, WHEN THE BOAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE IT SAYS THAT WE CANNOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE ADOPTED BUILDING CODE ON THAT. I SEE WE ALL HAVE SOME CONCERN THERE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING CHANGES, WE THEN HAVE TO GO BACK OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
>> AS WE ADOPTED FOR BUILDING CODE. ANY CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF MASONARY AND BUILDING MATERIALS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE RBC AS WELL WE WOULD WANT TO ITEMIZE
THE NUMBER.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ARE YOU POINTING THEN TO THE
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, THEN? >> WE ARE JUST GOING TO -- WE
WILL NOT HAVE ANYTHING. >> WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE BUILDINGPERMIT, THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ARTICULATE TO THE PERSPECTIVE.
[00:05:06]
INSTANCE, THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OR WHEN WE HAVE OUR PRE- [INDISCERNIBLE] WE INDICATEWHAT THOSE ARE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME. >> THIS IS AND COMPLIANCE
RELEASE PAIRED UP WITH STATE LAW. >> THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE DOES SHOW A MASONRY MATERIAL AND THEN THEY SAY, WELL, WE HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SAYS. WE ARE TRYING TO TIGHTEN THAT UP. I GET THAT WE WANT TO DO THIS SOMETIMES, BUT WE KNEW THAT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.[INDISCERNIBLE] BUT WE HAVE ENDED UP FAST FORWARDING THIS AMENDMENT IN BOTH THE MEMOS TO THE SECTION IS A BIT OF A PREDICAMENT THAT WE ARE BEING IN TERMS OF THOSE.[INDISCERNIBLE] CHANGE
THE ENTIRE SECTION. >> JUST HOPE TO SOON COME IN WITH THE TOOTHPASTE.
>> THEN WE CAN SAY IT'S NOT IN THE BUILDING CODE. YEAH. >> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT ARE YOU SEEING IN TERMS OF MATERIALS? NOT THAT WE CAN REGULATE IT, I WAS JUST
CURIOUS.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> THIS WASN'T THE RULE 11, BUT I THINK YOU CAN LEGALLY BUILD
-- >>.[INDISCERNIBLE] STATE LAW, NOT OPPOSING IT, IT'S JUST
INTERESTING. >> THE IDC ARTICULATES WHAT IS MEANT BY MASONARY, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT'S BRICK OR STUCCO. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT DO WE GENERALLY SEE? MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN TO DEVELOP THIS ARE STICKING TO THE STANDARD MATERIALS. I THINK THAT THIS LAW WERE THIS 2439 KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT STARTED OFF AS ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO HAVE THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO MISS TICKET FOR THE SPECIFIC MATERIALS AND NOT.[INDISCERNIBLE] AND THAT'S HOW WE EVOLVED INTO THIS. BUT GENERALLY YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR DEVELOPMENT IN AND AROUND THE
CITY AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. IT'S PRETTY MUCH NOT DEVIATED. >> SO THE MARKET IS STILL
GEARED TOWARDS THE STANDARD MASONRY PRODUCTS? >> THE TYPICAL PRODUCT WE SEE.
SORRY. >> RIGHT. >> JUST CURIOUS. SOTO, NEW HOMES. WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE I COULD REMEMBER OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE HAD
PEOPLE COME -- >> THE SAME THING, TALKING ABOUT, CAN I USE THIS FOR HOME? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN STUCK IN THE SAME MODE FOR SO LONG AND WE ARE SEEING A
DIFFERENT FAC'ADE AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOMES. >> AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE, MEMBER WHO PLACED IN '66 WHERE THEY WANTED A DIFFERENT FAC'ADE WE AGREE TO THAT.
>> IT'S THE SAME KIND OF DEAL AND THAT THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW US TO ALSO DIRECT BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE.[INDISCERNIBLE] SO WE WILL ADDRESS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CODE, COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE. THE SECOND PIECE IN THE SECTION HAS TO DO WITH, AND THIS IS ENTITLED ORIENTATION OF BONUS TO THE STREET IS WHAT THE SECTION STARTS OFF WITH. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION ARE INTENDED TO DIMINISH THE PROMINENCE OF BRUSHES FROM THE STREET, IF THERE ARE GARAGE THAT ARE FACING TOWARD THE STREET ARE LOCATED TO THE STREET AND ALSO THAN TWO NOT OBSCURE THE FRONT MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE HOME. SO THERE IS A SECTION THAT HAS A STATEMENT WITHIN THAT THAT SAYS FRONT DOOR MUST BE WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE MOST FORWARD PLAN OF THE HOUSE. WE WOULD POINT OUT TO SAY THAT MOST OF OUR HOMES TODAY THAT WE ARE APPROVING, AS YOU KNOW, DO NOT HAVE REAR ALLEYS, COMES AS A THINK MOST OF A LARGELY A FUNCTION OF THE TYPES OF INFILL PROJECTS THAT WE ARE SEEING RATHER THAN THE LARGER SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PAST TIME. SO THE RBC DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THEY NEED TO DO A J OR L HULK GARAGE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE DOOR SPACE TOWARDS THE STREET. WHEN THEY DO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THE STREET . UNDER THIS SITUATION, COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARICULAR STANDARD WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE EIGHT-FOOT PLAN FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH IS DETERMINED TO BE THE GARAGE. THE IMPOSSIBLE.[INDISCERNIBLE] IN THE GARAGE AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I DON'T THINK MOST
[00:10:02]
PEOPLE WOULD BE PARTICULARLY KEEN ON, THOUGH I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME OBSTINATE TO CHOOSE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SAY, SURE, I WILL COMPLY WITH THE CODING PUT THIS ON THE FRONT DOOR. HOW FANCY DO YOU FRONT YOU WANT THE FRONT DOOR ON THE GARAGE? SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT WITHIN THAT SECTION THAT WE REQUIRE THE FRONT DOOR TO BE MORE THAN EIGHT FEET MOVING FORWARD BUILDING BUILDING PLAN. COTTAGE? OKAY. EASY.MORE ON GARAGES: SECTION 70 750 83 HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE LIST OF STREET FACING GARAGE DOORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE FAC'ADE, MAYBE NO MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE FRONT FAC'ADE. ALSO, WE ARE SEEING ARE TYPICALLY NARROW LOSS AS WELL AS STREET FACING GARAGES IN REAL IT TODAY. WE ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE A STANDARD THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR BY WHICH IS IT ONE GARAGE DOOR FOR A TWO BIG GARAGE. THEY WOULD HAVE A
WIDTH OF NO MORE THAN 20 FEET WHEN FACING THE STREET. >> IS THAT THE TYPICAL SIZE,
TWO CAR GARAGE? >> IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, I THINK 18 IS WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IF FOR SOME REASON WE GET WIDER CARS FOR THE PEOPLE DECIDE THEY NEED TO HAVE A BIT MORE SPACE TO PUT THEIR TRASH PARTS IN AND OUT OF THE GARAGE, THAT IS WHY WE WOULD HAVE THAT. WITH A GIANT TRUCK?
>> WE BUILT FOUR YEARS AGO AND HAD TO FIND A 20 FOOT WIDE GARAGE. IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO DO IT. I THINK I COULD EVEN FIND WHEN BIGGER IF WE WANTED. WE TALK ABOUT THE 20 FEET, IF YOU WANTED A 22 FOOTER, I'M SURE IT WOULD BE A CUSTOM-BUILT. IT WOULD DRIVE THE TWO TINIEST CARS ON THE PLANET. MY WIFE HAS A MINI COOPER THAT'S BIGGER THAN THE
CAR. >> WOW, WOULD YOU DRIVE? >>.[INDISCERNIBLE] ABOUT
ANCIENT BELOW EIGHT INCHES SMALL INTIMATE. >> WHY DID YOU WANT.[INAUDIBLE]
[INDISCERNIBLE] >> SO THIS WOULD ELIMINATE ALL -- COMMISSION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR, I GUESS HIERARCHY OR NESTING DOLL KIND OF THING, THE CODE SAYS ALLEYS WHICH THEN MEANS GARAGES FROM THE REAR IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN THEY ARE ON THE STREET FRONT AND THEN JAKE HOOK. THEN THEY BECOME, IF THEY CANNOT DO THE JRL HOOK, THEN IT'S A STREET FACING KIND OF THING. THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IN THE CASE OF GARAGE DOORS FACING THE STREETS. SO WE ARE NOT GIVING -- NOT SUGGESTING CARD BLOCKS.
>>.[LAUGHTER] >> THE DEFENSE. WE ARE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR --
>> SO YOU WILL NOT HAVE A MINIMUM? >> HOW DO YOU MEAN MINIMUM?
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE 20 FEET CANNOT COMPRISE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THEM?
>> SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION ON THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE HAD ANYBODY YET PROPOSE I GUESS WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT CALL A MORE STOUT TYPE HOUSE WHERE YOU HAVE TO SEE THAT MOSTLY GARAGE.
>> 20 FOOT GARAGE, 10 FOOT HOUSE? >> I THINK MAYBE QUANTIFY THE
NINE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] CROSS TALK] >> TO BE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BRINGING FORWARD THAT TYPE OF HOUSE. THAT'S THE TYPE OF HOUSE THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE.
>> WE NEED TO MAKE SURE. >> WE CAN QUANTIFY THAT. >> THE.
>> I WOULD ADD TO KEEP IN MIND.[INDISCERNIBLE] ALREADY APPROVED WAIVER. OTHERWISE,
[INDISCERNIBLE] AS PART OF THE NEW SUBDIVISION. >> UNLESS IT'S A JRL SWING,
CORRECT? >>.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFICALLY NARROW LOT THAT THEY.[INDISCERNIBLE] WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT CAN'T HURT TO DOUBLE COVER.
ON HOW TO PREVENT THAT TYPE OF.[INDISCERNIBLE] WE HAVE BUILDING PERMITS IN THE QUEUE
[00:15:12]
THAT.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> ON THE LAST ITEM ON HERE, I WILL PERSONALLY STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS JUST A QUIRK OF ALEX. OUR CODE HAS THAT LAST STATEMENT IN THEIR, THE MINIMUM GARAGE DEPTH SHALL BE 20 FEET PER VEHICLE SPACE. I TAKE -- WE HAVE NOT ENFORCED THAT DIRECTION, AND TAKE A VERY LITERAL READ ON THAT THAT WOULD SAY IF YOU HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE, WHEN COULD FIGHT FOR SAYING YOU NEED TO HAVE A 40 FOOT DEEP GARAGE BASED ON A VERY LITERAL READING IN THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I THINK WITH EVERYONE KNOWS WE HAVE BEEN FIRST AND HOW IT HAS BEEN TYPICALLY BAD, BUT I THINK THAT WE CAN, SINCE WE ARE IN, TINKERING AROUND HERE, TO ME IT MAKES SENSE TO SPECIFY THAT, JUST IN CASE WE HAVE SOMEONE
THAT WOULD WANT TO FORCE AN ISSUE ON HOW THAT IS. >> THINKING AHEAD.
>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR .[LAUGHTER] >> WE CAN ONLY HAVE JAKE OR L
HOAX? IT CANNOT BE A STREET IN? >> CORRECT. UNLESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR -- IN THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT FURNITURE GARAGES.
>> OKAY. EXPECTED WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN ASSET, THE SIZE OF THE LOT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN ASSET, 5, 1ST OF ALL, THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED US TO SHUT THAT'S WHAT I AM IN RIGHT NOW. EVEN THOUGH I COME FROM AN AREA OF NORTH,
MOST HOMES ARE BUILT THAT WAY, JUDD STREET FROM THE DRIVEWAY. >> YEAH. SO WHEN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE COULD -- 35 FOOT WHITE HOUSE, THE QUESTION CAME UP THAT FIVE MIGHT BE THE ONLY DISTRICT WHERE IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE THAT, BUT THERE IS STILL IS NOTHING IN THE EIGHTH ZONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD SAY WANT TO BUILD THAT HOUSE. THE DESIGNS I WANT TO DO OUR, SURE, I WILL MEET YOUR LOT REQUIREMENT, BUT I WANT TO HAVE
NERO HOOKS. >> EXTRA MONEY OUT OF AN.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> SO ARE
WE MOVING FORWARD TO GET RID OF THE ALLEYS? [LAUGHTER] >> THAT WILL BE -- I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE A DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL HAVE WHEN WE HAVE OUR CODE OF THE DAY CONVERSATION.
>> COME TO THINK OF IT.[INDISCERNIBLE] COULD BE.[INDISCERNIBLE] MAINTAINING
THE ALLEYS AND WHAT CAN WE DO? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> SHE'S HIDING UNDER THE MILLION-DOLLAR RAILINGS. SO I THINK WE ALL TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT THE REASONS WHY WE ARE BRINGING ALL OF THIS FORWARD IS TO ELIMINATE SOMEWHAT WE FEEL ARE NECESSARY DELAYS TO OUR APPLICANTS AS WELL AS OUR RESIDENTS WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING HOMES APPROVED IN THERE, ALSO TO REDUCE THE TIME THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THIS COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO PUT TOWARD REQUEST TO MODIFY THESE STANDARDS, AND, AGAIN, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS NOW RATHER THAN WAIT TO FOLLOW UP INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODES.
>> ANYONE ELSE PUSHING TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT? BEFORE THE RISKO DOES MAKE A STATEMENT, IT LIMITS HOURS CELLS.[INDISCERNIBLE] THE ONLY THRESHOLD IT DOES ALLOW FOR FREE YOU CAN CONSIDER FURNITURE GARAGES.[INDISCERNIBLE] PERHAPS THAT'S A CONSIDERATION THAT WE CAN START LOOKING INTO IN THE RDC WHERE WE CONSIDER THE GARAGE CONDITIONS, IF THE LOT IS A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET WIDE. SO THOSE ARE ROUGH CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN REGARDING THE ZONING DISTRICTS, TYPICALLY FIVE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THAT IF YOU'RE WORKING ON AT LEAST 100, 110, YOUR LOOKING AT THE 6000+ LOT DEPTH. SO, YEAH, 60 PEOPLE IS
THE THRESHOLD FOR HOW SIMILAR LANGUAGE COULD BE ADOPTED. >> AND I THINK PERHAPS.[INDISCERNIBLE] IF WE ARE THINKING ABOUT OWNING THE DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS NOT
[00:20:04]
ADDRESSING THAT SPACE CODE? >> CORRECT. >> QUESTION. HAS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE OPTION TO ALLOW, THE ADJACENT HOMES TO SHERIDAN DRIVE? IS IT
OFF THE RADAR? >> WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT. IT TYPICALLY IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT COME UP BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND ALSO THE LOT CONFIGURATIONS AND ALSO SIT BACK! OCCASIONALLY WE GET PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSING FLAG LOTS. BUT THAT IS A REALLY SPECIAL CASE ON THERE. ALSO, HAVING WORKED IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE SHARED DRIVEWAYS, IT'S YET ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE GOOD
NEIGHBORS AND GOOD NEIGHBOR SKILLS. >> UNTIL THE NEXT NEIGHBOR MOVES IN. THERE WAS A MASSIVE LAWSUIT IN DALLAS THAT THE GREATEST NEIGHBORS FOR 15 YEARS AND THEN THE CAR BROKEN A DROPPER IN HIS LEFT THERE AND IT BECAME THE COURT ISSUE.
>> TO KIND OF -- [INDISCERNIBLE] YOU GET ME TO TURN AROUND. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DOES IT ADDRESS DRIVEWAYS, IT DOES REQUIRE A LETTER, A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT IT DOES PERMIT IF THE REQUEST IS MADE OR SHARED AS PER THE DRIVEWAY.
IT DOES ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR IT TO TOTAL WITH THE DRIVEWAY TO INCREASE FROM YOUR TYPICAL 20 FEET TO 24 IN THOSE CONDITIONS, BUT IT IS UP THE SCENE AS IT BENEFITS AND
REDUCES.[INDISCERNIBLE] IT IS A CONDITION.[INDISCERNIBLE] >> IN THOSE SITUATIONS, DO YOU
HAVE MUTUAL ACCESS ENGAGEMENT? >> YES. >> JUST CURIOUS. AM NOT A
PROPONENT OF IT, JUST CURIOUS. >> THEY END UP GETTING SOMETHING THAT IS IN -- ON THE PLATFORM THAT IS REQUIRED SO THAT THE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND ALSO MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. SO PROCESS WISE, THIS IS FAMILIAR IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO. WE WOULD COME BACK, MOVE TO A COUNCIL SESSION, PROVIDED THAT YOU ARE GENERALLY SATISFIED WITH WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TODAY TO GET THEM THAT COUNSEL DIRECTION AND COME BACK AGAIN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THIS ALL FLESHED OUT, WRITTEN OUT AS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WE ARE PROPOSING, CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING. AGAIN, TRYING TO BECOME CONFORMANCE OF COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ABOUT BUILDING MATERIALS AND ALSO TO BE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE SEE IN THE WAY OF RESUME DEVELOPMENT HERE IN ROWLETT. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND PROCEEDING WITH THESE AMENDMENTS AND ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE.
>>.[INDISCERNIBLE] > I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. BECAUSE WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, EVEN THOUGH IT ARRIVES, IT CREATES CONFUSION FOR DEVELOPERS AND
THE CITIZENS AND I THINK YOU NEED TO DO THAT. >> OKAY.
>> WELL, WE WILL CONVENE. I'VE GOT 6:56 AND I GUESS THAT GIVES US FOUR MINUTES.
>> 6:56. >> FOR THE REGULAR MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.