g para - TEXAS  CITY OF ROLLINGWOOD  COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE  MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024.  The CRCRC oft the City of Rollingwood, Texas held a meeting, open to the public, int the Municipal Building at 403 Nixon Drive in Rollingwood, Texas on May 28, 2024. Members of the public and the CRCRC were able to participate in the meeting virtually, as long as a quorum of the CRCRC and the presiding officer were physically present at the Municipal Building, in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act. A video recording of the meeting was made and will be posted to the City's website and available to the public in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act upon written request. CALL COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AND PUBLIC  WORKSHOP TO ORDER  1. Roll Call  Chair Dave Bench called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Marx, Jay van Bavel and Thom Farrell (virtually)  Present Members: Chair Dave Bench, Alex Robinette, Brian Rider, Duke Garwood, Jeff Also Present: Assistant City Administrator Desiree Adair and Development Services  Manager Nikki Stautzenberger  PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA  2. Discussion and possible action on the minutes from the May 14, 2024 CRCRC meeting Chair Dave Bench mentioned that there had been a few changes to the minutes for one Thom Farrell moved to approve the minutes as amended. Alex Robinette seconded  of the public comments.  the motion. The motion passed with 7 in favor and 0 against.  REGULAR AGENDA  Chair Dave Bench called up item 7 at this time.    Comprehensive Residential Code Review Committee - Minutes  Tuesday, May 28, 2024  3. Discussion and possible action regarding building height recommendations following the Alex Robinette discussed how the CRCRC has taken into consideration all of the comments from the last meeting and finds that the parallel plane is still generally considered the most effective at controlling building height on slope while still allowing for reasonable development. She discussed projects in Rollingwood that have been built under the current rules and would still work with the parallel plane method. She explained how the average grade and average of corners methods don't control for height. Ms. Robinette and Duke Garwood discussed how an 18% slope would provide for an extra five feet of building height along the side setbacks for bulk plane recommendations. Alex Robinette explained how the setback from the front Ms. Robinette suggested one amendment to measure from existing orf finish grade whichever Alex Robinette discussed how she likes the idea of using slope instead of feet because it takes into account the whole property and more accurately reflects the true character of the Duke Garwood discussed why they chose 18% as a slope in relation to feet of setback. Alex Robinette discussed the pictures in the agenda packet including height calculation and Thom Farrell asked questions regarding drainage and the flood plain, the number of lots in Rollingwood with 18% or greater slope, and a separate calculation for these lots with the Jeff Ezell, 4709 Timberline, does not think that these changes address his concerns. He would like to have something more gracious for people with the average slope change of 5 to 10 percent. He discussed the time that it takes to buy a lot and get it to permitting which he The CRCRC and Mr. Ezell discussed accommodations for these particular situations, slopes of lots and height, average measurements, and impacts of the proposed changes. Jeff Ezell would recommend relief but not being punitive. He suggested lowering the height to 30 feet on all lots and allow accommodation for residents that have a topographical challenge. The CRCRC discussed averages and parallel plane and which process is more punitive. Mr. Ezell described the parallel plane method as an architectural preterence.  April 17, 2024 City Council meeting Building Height discussion  property line and side setbacks were taken into account.  is lower for bulk plane recommendations.  site. Parallel plane is intended to protect the air space of the property.  parallel plane examples and bulk plane along setbacks examples.  greater slope.  believes is around 18 months.  Thom Farrell discussed one of his concerns regarding averaging with a low point in a dry creek, the history of a maximum building height of 30 feet, and issues with averaging in the Brian Rider explained what he thought the CRCRC is trying to accomplish with these building  past.  height restrictions.  2    Comprehensive Residential Code Review Committee - Minutes  Tuesday, May 28, 2024  Jeff Ezell explained that he appreciated their work but doesn't agree with the proposed The CRCRC discussed their reasons for coming to the recommended solution. The CRCRC and Mr. Ezell discussed the effect of more flat roofs.  solution.  Alex Robinette discussed the different types of homes and roofs that work within theirs solution. Mr. Ezell believes that this method will have severe impact and requested the CRCRC's The CRCRC and Mr. Ezell discussed the professional effort put in to this project sO far and Amy Pattillo, 3 Rock Way Cove, asked questions of the CRCRC regarding parallel planes including front to back planes and side planes and how a natural drainage way would be Amy Pattillo continued to ask about paragraph 2 including bulk planes and setbacks, grade, sloped lots that back upt toawooded area or City of Rollingwood boundary, and what qualifies Ms. Pattillo provided examples of wooded lots and the potential to take advantage. The CRCRC discussed what they are referring to with the wooded area language. Amy Pattillo asked for clarifications and definitions, and then thanked the CRCRC for the discussion. Wendi Hundley, 401 Vale, thanked the CRCRC for their thoughtful discussion and understanding. She asked questions about how this new proposal would affect her home and existing grade with contours or drainageways. Ms. Hundley appreciates the thoughtful approach of the CRCRC but thinks this is punitive for people with sloped lots. Wendi Hundley asked how do the CRCRC would define a basement. She would like to understand fully what is being proposed and how it will be applied. She discussed how people game the system to  analysis.  the complex nature of this analysis.  defined in 1b. The CRCRC and Ms. Pattillo discussed natural grade.  as a wooded area or greenbelt.  get an advantage.  The CRCRC discussed defining the term oasement.  Ms. Hundley applied the parallel plane to her lowest grade in her backyard and discussed this Chair Dave Bench stated that there. will likely be a manual that will depict every situation.. Ryan Clinton, 4714 Timberline, stated that the changes do not resolve the concerns because ito does more than solve the problem. The problem as he understands it is solved by tenting and he thinks that the parallel plane is not needed. He described the difference between a design preference and the building height problem in the community. Mr. Clinton stated why people want flat level first floors. He requested that the CRCRC not impose a design The CRCRC and Mr. Clinton discussed split level designs. Ryan Clinton described his motives and how they do not solve his personal home building issues. He stated that he is here tot find  with the CRCRC.  preference.  3    Comprehensive Residential Code Review Committee - Minutes  Tuesday, May 28, 2024  as solution that the community will embrace. Mr. Clinton would like the committee to solve the consensus problem in the least restrictive way. He stated multiple times that he is not Chair Dave Bench stated that they believe that what they are proposing causes no undue harm and that there are a number of answers to these questions but they have to pick one. He described how the solution being proposed is being used by other cities. The CRCRC discussed moving forward with these comments and adjusting the solution. Thom Farrell recommended considering the input that has been received. Brian Rider moved to adjourn. The motion failed for lack of a second.  advocating for the current rule.  Thom Farrell moved to table this item until the next meeting. Duke Garwood seconded the motion. The motion carried with 5i ini favor and 2 against (Bench, van Bavel). 4. Discussion and possible action regarding Tree Subcommittee recommendations following  the May 8, 2024 Planning and Zoning meeting The CRCRC did not discuss this item. The CRCRC did not discuss this item.  5. Discussion and possible action regarding Lighting subcommittee recommendations  6. Discussion and possible action regarding creation of Impervious Cover/Drainage Brian Rider, Thom Farrell and Duke Garwood volunteered to be on the impervious cover 7. Discussion and possible action on future meeting dates and agenda topics for discussion Chair Dave Bench discussed a training for Planning and Zoning and the CRCRC and the Board of Adjustment on July 10, 2024at6 6:00 p.m. He asked members to consider adding The CRCRC discussed future meeting availability. Alex Robinette, Jeff Marx, and Duke Garwood will not be available on June 11th. Chair Dave Bench and Vice Chair Alex Robinette will likely not be available on June 25th. Chair Dave Bench asked Brian Rider to chair the June 25th meeting. Mr. Rider agreed to chair the June 25, 2024 meeting. Chair Dave Bench moved to item 3 at this time and no action was taken.  subcommittee  and drainage subcommittee. Brian Rider will chair this subcommittee.  this to their calendars.  ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP  The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.  4    Comprehensive Residential Code Review Committee - Minutes  Tuesday, May 28, 2024  Minutes adopted on  IK the  Vene  day of  2024.  Dave Bench, Chair  ATTEST:  Desiree Adair, City Secretary  5