Residential Code Task Force

[Kevin Glasheen]

I started with the idea that we needed to move quickly and take on residential code issues one by one. I’ve changed my thinking somewhat.

I do think we need to close the loophole on setbacks and on building height. 35’ is a good height but our current ordinance increasing it up to 45’ on a slope is excessive - We have all seen some houses that are simply too tall for the neighbors. The idea that you could overhang a roof to the property line under current code is absurd.

We need to put a bandaid on those two issues.

I think we could address impervious cover and strengthen the tree ordinance and maybe look at other solutions such as building to lot ratios in a residential code task force. I think that if we could address these issues over the next 6 months with more community input that would be acceptable. If the height or setback bandaids need to be revisited in that process they could be.

If any of y’all are willing to serve on such a task force please let me know - or call me.

The only reason we would need a moratorium in my opinion is if we were unable to address the height and setback issues promptly.

I asked our legal counsel a question at the last meeting- “since P&Z needs to make a report one way or the other on these issues before council can take action, what do we do if P&Z refuses to act?” Counsel answered that we could replace the members of P&Z. Thats not something I have any interest in doing. I appreciate the work of our neighbors on P&Z and the idea of dismissing them seems dictatorial.

If we can bandaid the setback and height loopholes then I don’t think we need a moratorium on new permit applications while we do a more comprehensive residential zoning review. However - if P&Z does not send those issues back to council for action then we may need to consider a moratorium.

 

[Phil McDuffee]

If Council chooses to create a committee or task force to perform a comprehensive review of our Residential Building Code, then I would recommend that Thom Farrell chair that group. He did an exceptional job guiding the Strike Force.


I spoke with him this morning and he tentatively agreed to chair the group if one is created and Council requests that he chair it.

 

[Kevin Glasheen]

If Council chooses to create a committee or task force to perform a comprehensive review of our Residential Building Code, then I would recommend that Thom Farrell chair that group. He did an exceptional job guiding the Strike Force.


I spoke with him this morning and he tentatively agreed to chair the group if one is created and Council requests that he chair it.

Sounds great!

 

[Kevin Glasheen]

Before tonight’s council meeting I would like to float some suggestions to the rest of council about the proposed comprehensive residential zoning and building code review committee.

I would like to acknowledge that Sara Hutson and Brook Brown have led the residential code reform with their history on the council and their recent efforts regarding setbacks and building height. I will defer to them on these issues out of respect for their history and leadership - but I have some suggestions.

I would like to see Ms Hutson and Ms Brown both be on the committee - that way even if one can’t make a meeting there is a council rep. Again they have the most history and knowledge of the issues.

Phil McDuffee and I have talked to various community members about serving and Phil and so have consensus on the following list.

Duke Garwood
Brook Brown
John Hinton
Sarah Hutson
Ryan Clinton
Tom Ferrell
Tony Stein
Dave Branch
Alex Robinette

We propose Tom Ferrell for chair.

We think this is a balanced committee with plenty of diverse views. I would like to see a consensus from council on the make up of the committee - whether it’s this list or some modification of this list, or another list altogether. I think approving a slate is better than each council member appointing one or two people.

We think the committee should not be under time pressure. There should be several public meetings, and at least one survey. If it takes a year to get changes that council can vote on - that’s ok.

Also we think strong representation from planning and zoning is important.

The committee should take a comprehensive look at all residential zoning and building regulations.

We would like to see council put a “bandaid” on setbacks and building height by taking action on those two issues sooner rather than later - but the comprehensive review committee could revisit those issues and propose more permanent solutions in context of a comprehensive review.

I just wanted to float this ahead of the council meeting to give everyone a little time to think about it - so hopefully we could take some action and move forward. These are just suggestions for discussion. I ask the other council members to feel free to comment, and citizens feel free to email call or text.

 

[Kevin Glasheen]

Typo - Dave Bench

 

[Kevin Glasheen]

I would like city council to establish a task force with a limited assignment: to gather community input and measure public support for any residential building code reform, and recommend next steps, if any. I would expect the task force to have public hearings, do outreach and opinion surveys, and report back to council whether the public supports any further action.

When I ran for city council last Fall, I heard from many in the community who were concerned about a few houses in the community what seemed to be overbuilt for their lots. Some developers have built to the setback lines and to the maximum height to maximize square footage – maximizing their profits at the expense of their neighbors. It’s only been a few houses, and the problem has generally not been residents building their dream home, but developers building houses on speculation, hoping to sell them at a profit.

When I was first elected I believed that a majority of the community wanted us to address these concerns and do so quickly. After being elected I proposed that city council quickly pass ordinance to limit impervious cover as a way of addressing overbuilding. I learned building heights and setback incursions into setbacks were already being considered by planning and zoning commission. The planning and zoning commission had a few hearings and received very little public input. The issues are finally getting more attention, and we are hearing more from citizens with opinions on both sides of the issues.

After getting some feedback, it is clear to me now that there is some division in the community about whether we should even consider changes to our residential building codes. Rollingwood has traditionally been a place with relatively little development regulation, which has its benefits. Many are worried that the pendulum could swing too far and we could end up over-regulating development. Some worry that any new restrictions would lower the redevelopment value of their land. Some worry that changing the building heights are calculated would be unfair to people who have sloped lots.

People opposed to a quick fix have suggested that we slow down, and get more community input and consensus before making any changes to the building code. Some have suggested that we create a residential code review task force to take a comprehensive look at how all these codes work together. For example, an unintended consequence of height limits could be that developers may build more flat-roofed houses to maximize square footage. Developers may not build any roof overhangs if overhangs are not allowed to encroach on the setbacks. Should swimming pools be allowed in the setbacks up to the property line? The tree ordinance is an issue. Privacy in the setbacks is enhanced by trees, yet developers are allowed to clear cut lots, even the largest, oldest oaks, even in the setbacks.

Others have expressed concern that developers will continue to overbuild while we study the issues. They believe that over evelopment is a bigger threat to their property value than over regulation would be As one of our neighbors said in an email “The neighbor behind me built a huge house right on the property line with a balcony and windows peering into my backyard…Its too late to save my privacy and property but I encourage you to do everything you can to make people respect their fellow citizens and to protect others from my fate”.

Some are opposed even to the creation of a task force, cynically suggesting that any task force would be a sham, stacked with people who are anti-development to push a push a pre-determined outcome. That’s why I am now proposing a that the scope of the the proposed task force be limited: to investigate what issues are of greatest concern to our citizens; to measure public support for any changes; and report their findings back to council with a recommendation of next steps, if any.

The proposed task force is made up of very capable professionals with lots of relevant experience and diverse perspectives. Nobody could fairly say that this group is either anti-development or anti-regulation, they are a diverse group of highly qualified, fair minded people with a history of service to the community. Given the fact that the mission of the task force is to limited, to gather public input and gauge the community’s interest in code reform, it would be open and inclusive. The task force could add members as they see fit.

Jeff Marx

Ryan Clinton

Tom Ferrell, Chairman

Dave Bench

Alex Robinette

Duke Garwood

A Council Representative

I’d like to get the residential code review task force established at the next council meeting. Council Member Phil McDuffee has worked with me to study the issues and to make this proposal for a task force, We cannot speak for the other council members or the council as a whole. Open meetings laws prohibit more than two council members discussing an issue outside of the public meetings. I have posted this on the City of Rollingwood council message board so that other council members could see it and reply. You can see the message board here:

https://councilforum.rollingwoodtx.gov/threads/residential-code-task-force.7/

Many of you have sent emails about the subject, which is much appreciated. Your emails are all being saved and tabulated. They do make a difference. If you want to send an email that will get to the city council, the planning and zoning commission, please send your email to:

dadair@rollingwoodtx.gov

Thanks for your patience as we try to figure out the best way for the community to study and address these issues.


Kevin Glasheen

kglasheen@rollingwoodtx.gov



806-789-0734

 

[Brook Brown]

Thank you, Councilmember Glasheen, for your efforts to review our residential zoning code and your proposal to form a residential code task force. This work began some two years ago with the Comprehensive Plan Task Force and has continued under the current City Council, with the Council discussing both the need for a residential comprehensive plan task force and adopting a resolution to address two interim 'fixes" - an interim fix on projections of a residential buildings into setbacks and the second requests an interim "fix" on building heights.

I agree that a task force be formed to review the broad range of residential zoning code issues, but if it is your proposal to take back the two interim fix proposals from the P&Z and give those to the task force, then I ask that you consider two refinements:
1) permit the P&Z to continue its work on "projections" and return a report to the Council to address projections from residential buildings, and
2) have the Task Force prioritize the residential building height issues as its first task, with a requested date (suggest 30 days) to bring this important issue back to the Council.

As to setbacks, there seems to be a good consensus on language developed by the P&Z as an interim fix to curb unlimited projections from a residential building to 33% of the distance between the setback line and the property line. The proposal does not change the current code as to other structures such as swimming pools, or accessory structures, as some have suggested, but limits only projections from the residential building itself, so it’s an important but limited proposal. The P&Z's work on this issue should be recognized, and my assessment is that this issue could be reported to the Council fairly quickly, protecting neighbors from intrusive projections that reach to or nearly to, the property line.

As to building heights, it seems the current code is interpreted to allow excessive heights as it fixes the maximum height based on only one dimension of the structure, the shortest wall. There are several instances where this height allowance has had devastating impacts to adjacent properties. Under the current code, the greater the slope, the greater the "overlooming" impact to the downhill lot - more so, if projections are allowed to the property line. See attached diagram. It also encourages what has been called "gaming," by allowing a developer to "pick" any spot within five feet of the proposed structure to fix the maximum building height. In my book, we owe it to our neighbors to address this issue with the highest priority, as these impacts destroy our "community" for those neighbors losing their privacy and property values to an adjacent spec house builder.

These gaps in the code have permitted intrusive structures that destroy both the privacy interests and property values of adjacent properties. Given the impact to adjacent properties occurring today and that will continue to occur until these code gaps are revised, I propose that, if the height issue is taken back from P&Z and given to the Task Force, that the resolution forming the Task Force direct that first priority be given to this issue and set a date certain for the Task Force to report back to the Council on proposals for this issue. Let's get this fixed. Thank you again, and I look forward to our discussion on Wednesday.