[00:00:04]
OK, SO I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED HERE AND WE'RE CALLING TO ORDER AT 7:05.
[CALL TO ORDER]
OK, LET'S DO THE PLEDGES.OK. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO'S REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS? I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT WAS EMAILED TO US.
I DON'T WANT TO READ IT. THEY WEREN'T READ INTO THE RECORD.
OK. [INAUDIBLE] SO OK, SO WE'RE THE ONLY ONES HERE.
OK, SO TONIGHT WE'VE GOT TO CONSIDERATION APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM
[1. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 22, 2021]
APRIL 22ND AND I THINK THOSE ARE IN THE PACKET RIGHT? THEN WE'VE GOT TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING REGULATIONS REVISIONS AND THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY ACTION REGARDING ALL OF THOSE CHANGES AND EVERYTHING.SO I GUESS WE WILL TAKE A QUICK MINUTE TO REVIEW THE MEETING MINUTES.
DIDN'T MEAN TO DO ALL THAT. YOU READY FOR A MOTION? SURE.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 22ND.
OK GOT A MOTION FROM JR AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM JOE.
[INAUDIBLE] OK ANYBODY OPPOSED? OK, APPROVED.
OK, SO WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS WE GOT A CHANGE DOCUMENT RIGHT HERE AND BASICALLY THIS SHOULD KIND OF POINT TO US AND TELL US A LITTLE CHANGE OR A LITTLE NOTE AT EACH OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS [INAUDIBLE] A MOMENT WHILE I.
CAN MAKE ONE QUICK SUGGESTION? OK. SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES. OH. AND CLOSE IT AND THEN GO TO ALL RIGHT. SINCE THERE'S NOBODY HERE, I'M JUST KIND OF FORGOT ABOUT THAT.
OK, SO. SO, YEAH, WE WILL AT 7:09 P.M.
[2. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING REGULATIONS REVISIONS.]
WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC HEARING.BANG, BANG. AND SINCE WE HAVE NOBODY HERE THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK, WE'RE GOING TO [INAUDIBLE]. HE WANTS THIS ONE READ INTO THE.
WE DO HAVE FROM TODD [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE AN E-MAIL SAYS I'M UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING TONIGHT DUE TO A PRE-COMMITMENT TO MY LOVELY BRIDE OF 30 YEARS.
CELEBRATING OUR ANNIVERSARY THIS MONTH.
WOULD EITHER OF YOU, PLEASE READ MY LETTER INTO THE RECORD.
WHEN ATTENDED LAST MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO, I REQUESTED NO ONE READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
OK, SO THIS FROM TODD [INAUDIBLE] 1734, MOSS RIDGE, PARKER, TEXAS, 75002 DATED MAY 12,
[00:05:03]
2021.TO THE P&Z COMMISSION, THE CITY OF PARKER REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVING PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 156 DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING MEETING ON APRIL 27, 2021, RUSSELL WRIGHT MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT STARTING IN THE 33RD MINUTE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO BASICALLY TAKE THIS DOCUMENT, GO GET A CHANGE DOCUMENT MAPPING DOCUMENT CREATED.
SO WE HAVE BASICALLY THE ORIGINAL WITH THE MARKUPS ON IT, WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT SHOWS US WHAT'S BEEN CHANGED AND WE HAVE A FINAL THAT SHOWS WHAT CHANGES LOOK LIKE WHILE INCORPORATED. THE MOTION WAS THEN MADE AND PASSED BY THE P&Z COMMISSION.
PURSUANT TO YOUR OWN MOTION, ALL INCORPORATED WOULD MEAN THE OLD REGS, THE CHANGES TO THE REGS AND THE NEW REGS, ALL IN ONE DOCUMENT.
THIS ALL INCORPORATED DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING P&Z AND THE PUBLIC, FOR EASY REVIEW.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT YET EXIST AND IT WAS NOT POSTED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TONIGHT.
IF THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT READY NOW AND THEN THIS ITEM [INAUDIBLE] REGULATIONS SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL THE DOCUMENT IS READY FOR P&C AND THE PUBLIC AND BOTH HAVE BEEN GIVEN AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CODE.
I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED FROM AN EMPLOYMENT LABOR LAW SITUATION FOR THE CITY, AS I WAS AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING LAST NIGHT WHERE MULTIPLE CITY EMPLOYEES WERE THERE UNTIL LATE INTO THE EVENING. WE'RE NOW ASKING THEM TO COME BACK AGAIN TONIGHT AND AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT, WORKING A FULL DAY EACH DAY.
CAN WE LEGALLY DO THAT? IS THERE ANY CHANCE WE RETAIN PEOPLE IF WE TREAT THEM LIKE THIS? SINCERELY, TODD AND TRISHA [INAUDIBLE].
OK, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE A FULLY INCORPORATED VERSION FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT? THERE IS A VERSION THAT HAS ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE IN THE CLEAN VERSION.
THERE IS THE OLD VERSION [INAUDIBLE] THE CURRENT CODE AND THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET THAT MAPS OUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE THAT YOU RECEIVED.
OK, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S A DOCUMENT IN PROCESS OF BEING COMPLETED.
I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE REVISIONS.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY, I MEAN, FIRST OFF, WE'RE RECOMMENDING [INAUDIBLE], RIGHT? SO THIS IS STILL GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS IN A FORMAT WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES, MAP THEM TO A FINAL TO A FINAL DOCUMENT.
AND BY FINAL, I MEAN FINAL WITH THE REVISIONS IT'S PROBABLY I GUESS PERHAPS THE PUBLISHED DOCUMENT IS NOT CORRECT USING THE TERM PUBLISHED, BECAUSE WE WON'T PUBLISH IT UNTIL IT'S FULLY APPROVED.
OK, SO IF YOU KIND OF THINK ABOUT THIS PROCESS, WE'RE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE A DOCUMENT WHICH HAS ALL THE CHANGES.
WE HAVE A MAPPING OF ALL THE CHANGES INTO THAT DOCUMENT.
AND ONCE COUNCIL REVIEWS THAT AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD COME BACK FOR MORE CHANGES AT SOME POINT IN TIME, COUNCIL'S GOING TO REVIEW ALL THOSE AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, OK, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS, RIGHT.
AND I CAN YEAH, OK. OK, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT AT THE MOMENT. OK, SO, I CAN GO THROUGH A LITTLE DETAIL ABOUT THE PROCESS, THE CITY
[3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION/DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNING AND ZONING (P&Z) COMMISSION REVIEW OF PARKERS ZONING REGULATIONS.]
COUNCIL HAD A COMMITTEE MEETING THAT CONSISTED OF THE MAYOR AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER.ACTUALLY, AT THE TIME, IT WAS THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY DID A REVIEW OF CHAPTER 156 HAD SOME RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
THEY SENT THAT DOCUMENT TO A PLANNING AND ZONING FOR REVIEW, PLANNING AND ZONING FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW 156 INDEPENDENTLY AND CREATED THE DOCUMENT.
SO THERE WERE TWO DOCUMENTS, VERY SIMILAR, BUT SOME DIFFERING REVISIONS THAT WERE BEING SUGGESTED.
THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECONVENED ALONG WITH ME AND MYSELF IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WHERE THEY WOULD LOOK AT THE [INAUDIBLE] CHANGES, ASKED ME, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A LEGAL QUESTION AND THEN COME UP WITH WHAT THEY FELT THEY WANTED TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL OR BACK TO YOU GUYS.
[00:10:01]
THE REASON THERE'S THIS THIRD DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED OUT OF KIND OF COMBINING THE TWO ISN'T A RED LINE DOCUMENT IS BECAUSE I USED ONE OF THE TWO VERSIONS AND ACCEPTED OR REJECTED CHANGES AND THEN ADDED CHANGES, AND SO A RED LINE DOCUMENT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PURE RED LINE. AND SO INSTEAD OF I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE A RED LINE DOCUMENT AFTER ALL THAT PROCESS IS GOING ON.SO WHAT I DID SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AT THE LAST MINUTE, YOU GUYS ASKED FOR A CHANGE DOCUMENT. SO I TOOK THE ORIGINAL CODE AS IT EXISTS NOW AND THEN COMPARED IT TO THE VERSION THAT WAS THE COMBINED VERSION OF THE TWO SUBCOMMITTEES AND PRODUCED THIS CHANGE DOCUMENT, EXCEL SPREADSHEET THAT OUTLINES THE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL CODE TO THE WHAT [INAUDIBLE] BEING BEFORE IT WAS SENT BACK TO P&Z FROM THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE, THE SECOND [INAUDIBLE] ROUND.
IN THE EXCEL DOCUMENT, THE COLUMN LABELED ORIGINAL SECTION IS THE ORIGINAL SECTION OF CODE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
AND THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
I REALIZE NOW, THE COMBINED VERSION THAT EXISTS NOW, SOME OF THESE CODE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ALTERED--BE GONE GET A RENUMBERING OF THE DOCUMENT.
THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REMEMBERED.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL SECTION TO FIND WHERE THE CHANGES ARE MADE AND CREATING THIS CHANGE DOCUMENT ACTUALLY MADE ME REALIZE THAT A LOT OF THE CHANGES SUGGESTED ARE NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL SUBSTANTIVE.
THEY'RE LANGUAGE PREFERENCE--THEY'RE CLEANING THINGS UP AND MAKING IT CONSISTENT.
AND I DON'T EVEN PUT ALL THE TIMES THAT WE SPELLED OUT THAT WERE NUMBERS.
THOSE ARE A LOT OF THE CHANGES.
WE'RE JUST SPELLING OUT THE NUMBER TWO, AND I DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE IN THERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EVEN REALLY REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM A BODY OF CHANGES THE WAY A NUMBER IS WRITTEN, WHETHER IT'S 2 OR TWO, THAT THOSE CHANGES WERE KEPT AND MADE.
THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, REALLY, THE TWO VERSIONS, THE P&Z VERSION AND THE COUNCIL VERSION WERE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
A LOT OF THEM WERE WORD FOR WORD, ESPECIALLY IN THE DEFINITION SECTION, THE SAME.
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS COUNCIL DID NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE MOBILE HOME [INAUDIBLE] HOUSING DISTRICT SECTION, AND THAT WAS ON MY ADVICE.
THAT SECTION CAN BE SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL AND IT HAS NOT BEEN UNDER ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES YET. AND I'M NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES MIGHT INVITE A LEGAL CHALLENGE.
SO THEY LEFT THAT SECTION ALONE.
OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE MOSTLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TWO COMMITTEES.
AND I WILL END MY COMMENTARY THERE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY JOB TO CREATE POLICY OR DECIDE [INAUDIBLE] MY JOB TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
RIGHT AND TELL US IF THE IF THE WORDING IS CORRECT OR YOU WOULD SUGGEST A MORE APPROPRIATE WORDING.
RIGHT. OK, SO I GUESS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS, YOU GUYS ALL HAVE A COPY OF THE--WE DON'T HAVE THIS.
WE ALL HAVE A COPY, BUT WE CAN FOLLOW THE CHANGES.
SO THIS IS PAGES SEVENTY THREE THROUGH SEVENTY SIX IN THE PACKET.
AND WHEN IT GOT SWITCHED FROM LANDSCAPE TO PORTRAIT, IT MADE IT VERY SMALL.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE IT LARGER OR CAN YOU SEE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN? SO I GUESS I WAS GOING TO SHOW THAT THE CHANGED DOCUMENT UP HERE AND THEN I GUESS IF EVERYBODY HAS KIND OF A PAPER COPY, THIS IS ONE OF--YEAH ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I'LL JUST PUT A COMMENT ON THE CELL AND THEN BRANDON CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
AND WHAT IS THIS COPY AFTER THIS.
ON THE GREEN SHEET IT TELLS YOU THAT AFTER THE CHANGE DOCUMENT IS THE CURRENT CITY OF PARKER CHAPTER [INAUDIBLE] IS WHAT [INAUDIBLE].
[00:15:01]
THAT'S WHAT BRANDON PROVIDED.LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE LOOKING THE RIGHT THING FIRST.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME STRAY COMMENTS THAT DIDN'T GET--BUT WHAT IS THE [INAUDIBLE].
THIS IS THE MERGE ONE AND IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THERE WERE A COUPLE SPOTS [INAUDIBLE] SOME COMMENTS I WAS TOLD BY RUSSELL THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND YEAH.
YEAH, I [INAUDIBLE] NEXT TIME.
WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
YEAH. SO I'M JUST RIGHT NOW I'M JUST KIND OF SAYING, OK, WHAT, WHAT SHOULD I PRESENT ON THE SCREEN, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT JOE'S SEEING AS WELL.
AND JOE, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU? YES, I DO. OK, OK.
SO AND THEN ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING THEN AT STARTING AT PAGE 77, IS THAT KIND OF WHERE WE'RE? [INAUDIBLE] I WOULD SUGGEST USING THE ORIGINAL [INAUDIBLE] STARTS AT PAGE 19.
OK, YEAH, YEAH, THE SECTION NUMBER WILL BE THE SECTION FROM THE ORIGINAL.
OK, SO I WAS JUST GOING THROUGH THE CHANGE DOCUMENT AND IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT YOU THINK REQUIRES MORE DISCUSSION USE THE ORIGINAL REFERENCE AND THEN I CAN KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT CHANGE WAS MADE.
OK, IT'S NOW SEVEN TWENTY FOUR PM.
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN STAND THIS FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.
OK, SO WE'RE STARTING HERE AT 156.37 AND WE'RE CHANGING DISTRICT TO ZONING.
SO WE MADE A BUNCH OF CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION, WHY AREN'T [INAUDIBLE]? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
YEAH. SO WE GOT, IN FACT THE DEFINITIONS ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE CHANGE ACTUALLY.
ALL OF THE CHANGES TO THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY THE COUNCIL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE I THINK WERE ACCEPTED BY THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ADDED AND THE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS ADDED ARE LISTED IN THE CHANGE DOCUMENT.
I MEAN, HERE'S OUR DEFINITION.
SINCE WE'RE SUBSTITUTING WHOLESALE SOME DEFINITIONS, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE TEDIOUS FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT IN THE CHANGE DOCUMENT WHEN YOU COULD LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS SECTION IN THE CLEANED VERSION AND DECIDED IF THOSE DEFINITIONS SOUNDED LIKE ACCEPTABLE, I GUESS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT EXACTLY WHAT CHANGED.
YEAH, [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THEN IT'S NOT VERY TRANSPARENT WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED.
YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THE DEFINITIONS ARE THE THING THAT WE ACTUALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON. AND SO AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THINGS LIKE WHAT'S A LARGE ANIMAL, MEDIUM ANIMAL, SMALL ANIMAL, MICRO ANIMAL, SNAKE, SERPENT.
WELL, AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THE JUST SIDE BY SIDE, THE ORIGINAL, AND THEN INCORPORATED ONE AND COMPARE THE CHANGES.
YEAH. SO I MEAN SO RIGHT HERE I'VE PULLED UP KIND OF OUR MARKED UP VERSION.
AND SO YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS WE'VE DESIGNED ACCESSORY DWELLING RIGHT AND WE REMOVED SWIMMING POOL FROM ACCESSORY BUILDING.
OK, SO I GUESS SHOULD I JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS AND JUST KIND OF STATE WHAT'S
[00:20:01]
CHANGED HERE ON THESE? EXCEPT THE SWIMMING POOL IS STILL HERE IN THIS DEFINITION.[INAUDIBLE]. OK, SO THEN OK, OR WE COULD WE COULD FOREGO THE DEFINITIONS TONIGHT AND TAKE ANOTHER STAB AT THEM, IF WE GET A GOOD [INAUDIBLE] EXCUSE ME, WHO'S SPEAKING? WEI WEI. OH, OK.
MAYBE WHERE WE COME ACROSS A DEFINITION AND WE COME BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS.
AND THEN THERE'S A DEFINITION--WE CAN JUMP BACK TO IT AND GO LOOK AT THAT.
AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO PROVIDE SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE] ALL THE [INAUDIBLE]. YES. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT HERE'S WHAT THE OLD DEFINITION IS.
HERE'S A NEW DEFINITION. THAT COULD ACTUALLY CHANGE A LOT OF THINGS IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT.
SO, OK, SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS FOR TONIGHT, WE WILL KIND OF FORGO KIND OF LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE DEFINITIONS. IF WE HAVE TO JUMP BACK TO THEM, WE WILL.
BUT WE NEED TO GET, I GUESS, A COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE DOCUMENT THAT POINTS OUT HOW WE CHANGE THOSE? OK, SO THEN WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE, I'M GOING TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THESE AS GREEN WHEN WE HIT THESE UP HERE, SO.
YOU'VE BEEN THINKING THAT WE REMOVE THAT [INAUDIBLE] DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS [INAUDIBLE].
OKAY. BECAUSE, I DON'T [INAUDIBLE] OK, I JUST GOT TO GET THE RIGHT THING, WHAT WORKS BEST FOR EVERYBODY HERE.
WE COULD GO OFF OF WHAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN AND LOOK AT OUR COPIES THAT WE HAVE HERE AND COMPARE--IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WE NEED SOMETHING LIKE THAT [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE I'M ALREADY SEEING A DISCREPANCY, SO.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REASON I DIDN'T INCLUDE THE DEFINITIONS IN THE CHANGE DOCUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS SOME WHOLESALE CHANGES, AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD JUST BE EASIER TO COMPARE THE ORIGINAL AND THE CURRENT SIDE BY SIDE AND LOOK AT THE CHANGES THERE TO TRY TO READ THEM.
WE COULD GO THROUGH THE CURRENT VERSION OF IT.
AND IF WE HAVE ANY, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TO THE P&Z SUBCOMMITTEE, WENT TO THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE.
SO I THINK THE CURRENT VERSION IS WHAT WE COULD FOLLOW EVEN IF WE HAD TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN, AS RUSSELL [INAUDIBLE] COMPARE IT TO, AS WE KIND OF GO.
KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,[INAUDIBLE] JUST NOT SIDE BY SIDE ON THE DESK.
YOU'VE GOT IT HERE AND THEN ON THE SCREEN.
I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU CAN PUT BACK AND FORTH.
HERE--DO YOU HAVE BOTH DOCUMENTS ON YOUR, THE COMBINED SUBCOMMITTEE [INAUDIBLE] ONE? I DON'T KNOW WHO--BECAUSE IT TAKES HIM A SECOND TO [INAUDIBLE].
AND ACTUALLY, WE DID A COMPARE LAST MEETING.
I ACTUALLY BROUGHT THEM UP AND DID A COMPARE? I JUST I DIDN'T SAVE IT. OK, SO LET'S SEE WHAT DO WE GOT.
[00:25:01]
OK, SO HERE'S THE COMPREHENSIVE ... 2005? NO? SO AT THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD THE RED LINE VERSION THAT THEY'RE INDICATING, THE RED LINE VERSION THAT THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN A CLEAN VERSION OF WHERE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE WENT BACK THROUGH AND LOOKED AT THE TWO CHANGED VERSIONS AND BASICALLY CHOSE WHICH CHANGES TO USE.AND THE REASON THERE WASN'T A RED LINE VERSION OF THAT IS WHEN THEY MADE, I'D HANDWRITTEN THE NOTES THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE WHAT THEY WANTED TO ACCEPT.
AND I WENT THROUGH AND TOOK THE P&Z RED LINE VERSION AND THEN ACCEPTED OR REJECTED CHANGES AND THEN ADDED THE OTHER CHANGES THAT THEY CAME UP WITH.
AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE TRACK CHANGES ON BECAUSE I DIDN'T BECAUSE I WAS WORKING FROM AN ALREADY CHANGED DOCUMENT. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKED.
YEAH. AND SO I SENT A CLEAN VERSION, THIS IS THE CLEAN VERSION THAT YOU SENT.
SO, IS THAT A MERGE BETWEEN...
WELL, THAT'S A GOOD--IT IS A MERGE BETWEEN THE P&Z AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S ACTUALLY A VERSION OF THE CHANGES THAT THE P&Z COMMISSION MADE WHERE I JUST ACCEPTED, REJECTED, AND ADDED SOME OTHER CHANGES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL COMPARE.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKED AT THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS HEARING, I WAS ASKED TO GO THROUGH AND CREATE AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET THAT JUST COMPARED THE CURRENT CODE WITH THE MERGE DOCUMENT AND LISTED OUT [INAUDIBLE].
AND I DID THAT FOR EVERY SECTION EXCEPT FOR THE DEFINITIONS, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION, IT DIDN'T READ RIGHT. I STARTED DOING THAT AND IT LOOKED SILLY ON THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER JUST TO LOOK AT HERE'S ACCESSORY DWELLING.
[INAUDIBLE] JUST GO THROUGH, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY THREE PAGES OF DEFINITIONS.
AND IT WAS JUST EASIER TO COMPARE THEM SIDE BY SIDE, THE DEFINITIONS THAN, OK, SO HERE'S THE CLEAN ONE THAT BRANDON [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S THE ONE YOU SENT ME.
YEAH. OK, SO THAT SHOULD HAVE OURS IN IT? YEAH. THAT SHOULD HAVE CREATED AND ACCEPTED OK, SO AND THEN WE NEED THE ORIGINAL.
THE ORIGINAL UNCHANGED IS IN THE PACKET.
YEAH. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT HERE BUT I DON'T KNOW, RIGHT HERE [INAUDIBLE] DIFFERENTLY, THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT.
THIS IS THE ONE WE KIND OF STARTED WITH FROM TWENTY EIGHTEEN OR SOMETHING.
[INAUDIBLE] I DID, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE CAN ADD THIS IN HERE, BUT I WAS READING THROUGH, AND I MUST'VE MISSED IT [INAUDIBLE] UNDER LIKE SF AND SFP ZONING TALKED ABOUT EXISTING TREE DRAINAGE IN EXHIBIT H1, TALKS ABOUT UNDER THE CONCEPTUAL STAGE OF A PROJECT, A SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN MAY BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
I THINK SOMETHING GOOD TO BE ADDED IS A LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN, BECAUSE SOME DEVELOPERS DO IT BETTER THAN OTHERS.
THE LANDSCAPING DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
SOMETHING THAT P&Z AND COUNCIL SHOULD REVIEW WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN SIMILAR TO WHAT OTHER CITIES REQUIRE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A PLACE WE COULD PUT THAT IN THERE BETWEEN SFP, SF, AND EVEN AN ITEM IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS? THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER LOCATION, OK.
YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT--WE'RE GOING TO START LOOKING AT THAT TOO, PRETTY SOON.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'LL BE GOOD TO BE ADDED IN THOSE PARTS.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS A PLACE TO PUT IT, BUT IF NOT A SUBDIVISION, REGULATION
[00:30:03]
WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE FOR THAT.THAT WAS MY QUESTION, SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PROBABLY ADD WHEN WE GET TO THAT.
IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING, THIS DOCUMENT IS SUCH A LARGE...
THE FORMATTING OF THE TWO VERSIONS AND THE VERSION THAT COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND THE VERSION OF THE P&Z COMMITTEE WERE WORKING OFF OF WAS DIFFERENT SOMEHOW.
IT'S LAID OUT DIFFERENT NOT JUST ON THE SIDES OF THE LETTER, THE WAY IT FIT ON THE PAGE, [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CHANGE DOCUMENT WAS REQUESTED.
I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO [INAUDIBLE] WE GOT TO GET THE RIGHT ONES TO START WITH [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, YEAH.
SOMEWHERE, I PROBABLY HAVE THEM, BUT, YEAH THAT JUST IS, WE CAN'T, THIS IS SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFOREHAND SO.
WE GOT TO GET THAT [INAUDIBLE] I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE.
I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR VERSION, AND THEN WE HAVE THE MERGE VERSION.
OK, SO THE ONE YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT WERE WORKING ON WAS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
YEAH, SO IF YOU HAD THAT ONE PULLED OUT, WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH DEFINITION.
I HAVE THE HANDWRITTEN CHANGES, AND YOU CAN LOOK AT.
JUST START AT ACCESSORY DWELLING, THE CHANGE FROM YOUR VERSION TO THE COMBINED VERSION IS THE WORDS SERVANTS, YOU [INAUDIBLE] REPLACE SERVANTS WITH HIRED HELP.
AND THEY DELETED THOSE WORDS ALTOGETHER.
SO NOW, AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, THAT IS A SEPARATE DWELLING FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR USED AS GUEST QUARTERS BECAUSE I GUESS THEY FELT THE WORD SERVANTS OR HIRED HELP WAS A LITTLE DATED. AND GUEST QUARTERS COULD BE ANY GUEST.
YEP. DID WE DO THE ACCESSORY BUILDING [INAUDIBLE].
NOW IT READS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT IS A SEPARATE DWELLING FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR USED AS GUEST QUARTERS.
SO THEY DON'T WANT HIRED HELP TO STAY.
WELL, AND THE THINKING ON THAT WAS THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE PEOPLE ARE IF [INAUDIBLE] GUEST QUARTERS. IT COULD BE A HIRED EMPLOYEE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO--DEFINE IT.
[INAUDIBLE] AS TO WHO'S STAYING IN THE GUEST QUARTERS. ANY KIND OF GUESTS.
[00:35:05]
YEAH, AND YOU COULD SPLIT HAIRS ON THAT.SOME PEOPLE MAY DWELLING WHICH IS SUB CATEGORIZATION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BECAUSE A BUILDING IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU LIVE IN, BUT A DWELLING YOU ACTUALLY LIVE, I THINK, CORRECT? YES. RIGHT.
NOW, THE NEXT DEFINITION, THEY ADDED THE WORD ZONING AFTER CHARACTER.
DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OR ZONING THEREOF.
AND THEY PUT THAT IN SWIMMING POOL AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
AND THAT IS ONE CHANGE THAT, ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE P&Z VERSION AND THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE VERSION THROUGHOUT IS THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE ADDING AND CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE TAKEN UP BY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THEY FELT THAT THINGS LIKE SWIMMING POOLS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION.
SO THEY ADDED THAT BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
OK, SO AND THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WHERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD HAVE COMMENTS OUT TO THE SIDE THAT WOULD SAY WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND THAT WAS, BECAUSE I THINK WE WENT THROUGH A, I MEAN, AND MAYBE THERE'S A LEGAL REASON FOR--THERE IS.
I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST HAVING THE REASONING IN THERE BECAUSE IF IT'S LITIGATED DOWN THE ROAD, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE--WELL, NO NO, I MEAN, JUST A COMMENT FOR US SO THAT WE CAN REMEMBER--UNLESS IT'S IN A DOCUMENT I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T WANT IT IN A DOCUMENT.
YEAH. I THINK THAT'S WHY SO, IS THIS NORMALLY DEFINED [INAUDIBLE] I GUESS--IT HASN'T BEEN FOR ...THIS WAS DRAFTED 20 YEARS AGO. [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T REMEMBER WHY WE TOOK IT OUT.
WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING SO WHY, I GUESS WE WERE THINKING THAT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IS SOMETHING YOU GO INTO OR SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE].
[INAUDIBLE] SUGGESTED THAT. YES, I THINK SO.
I THINK WE WERE THINKING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS SOMETHING ABOVE GROUND.
[INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE IF WE USE A SWIMMING POOL TO CALCULATE LOT COVERAGE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DENIED A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF.
RIGHT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
BUT THEY'RE COVERING THEIR YARD.
I MEAN, I THINK--YEAH, BUT NOBODY I WOULD ARGUE THAT NOBODY SEES IT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THAT--IT'S NOT JUST SEEING IT.
IT'S THE COVERAGE OF YOUR YARD.
I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT SWIMMING POOL, YOU'VE GOT THE POOL DECKING AROUND THE POOL [INAUDIBLE] OR WATERFALL STRUCTURE.
AND DO WE INCLUDE DRIVEWAYS ON LOTS COVERAGE? I DON'T THINK SO.
BUT, I THINK A DRIVEWAY AND IN THE BACK YARD OF THEIR ENTERTAINMENT AREA, I THINK THE SWIMMING POOL SHOULD BE COVERED [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE] CERTAIN STUFF [INAUDIBLE] A LOT OF TIMES THE HOA DOCUMENTS WILL COVER THE SWIMMING POOL AS PART OF THEIR CALCULATION OF THEIR COVERAGE.
BUT MOST LOTS OUT HERE ARE BIG ENOUGH THAT IT WON'T MATTER UNLESS SOMETHING GETS REALLY CRAZY WITH THEIR BUILDINGS, THEIR POOLS, THEIR GUEST HOUSE, WHICH IN THAT CASE, IF THEY'RE COVERING TOO MUCH OF THEIR YARD, THEY PROBABLY SHOULD'VE PICKED THE BIGGER LOT.
YEAH, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY THAT BECAUSE I JUST GO BACK TO WHEN I THINK OF A STRUCTURE, A BUILDING, I GUESS I DON'T THINK OF SOMETHING THAT'S JUST CONCRETE ON THE GROUND OR SOMETHING THAT'S FLAT THAT NOBODY SEES.
BECAUSE IF I GO BACK TO WHY YOU WOULD EVEN HAVE ANY OF THIS, I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE, WELL, YOU DON'T WANT A LOT TO BE COMPLETELY CONGESTED.
SO WHEN SOMEONE GOES BY, IT'S LIKE JUST GIANT BUILDINGS FROM STEM TO STERN RIGHT.
BUT IF SOMEBODY HAD A YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY HAD A POOL THAT'S TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S BEHIND THEIR HOUSE, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S DOWN ON THE GROUND.
JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, YOU TALKING ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] IF SOMEONE PUT A LET'S SAY A FORTY THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT COVERAGE POOL, A HUGE POOL, IT'S NOT JUST THE VISUAL OF IT; IT'S
[00:40:04]
WHEN YOU START CALCULATING OF THE ACCESSORY AND STUFF LIKE THAT, IT'S ALSO COVERAGE WHICH AFFECTS THE DRAINAGE.YOU COVER YOUR WHOLE BACK YARD WITH CONCRETE THAT THEN AFFECTS THE DRAINAGE IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE POOL SHOULD BE PART OF THAT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
SO THOSE ARE CALCULATING ACCESSORIES THAT IS IN CONSIDERATION.
NO MORE PROVISIONS FOR DRAINAGE.
YEAH. OR IS IT A RETENTION POND.
BUT WE'RE NOT COUNTING DRIVEWAYS OR PATIOS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
PATIOS ARE PART OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? PATIOS AND SIDEWALKS, CONCRETE IS NOT CONSIDERED.
DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS THAT'S. AND THAT WOULD BE MORE OF AN IMPACT, I THINK THAN A POOL.
BECAUSE A POOL IS MORE LIKE A RETENTION POND IN SOME RESPECTS.
I PERSONALLY THINK SWIMMING POOLS SHOULD BE CALCULATED BECAUSE SWIMMING POOLS AND POOL DECKS THAT I THINK IT COULD BE A LARGE AREA.
SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, BIG POOLS.
NOW ANY STRUCTURES THAT ARE ACCESSORY TO THE POOL, LIKE THEY'VE GOT A LITTLE CABANA AREA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS CONSIDERED.
BUT THE POOL ITSELF WE HAVEN'T.
NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ABOVE GROUND POOL WE HAVE IN PARKER, BUT.
NOT TOO MANY. THAT I THINK 2 THAT I KNOW OF AND THEY'RE I THINK SEASONAL.
AND THE CALCULATION COULD WE CALCULATE THE POOL DECK? I MEAN, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE SIDEWALK.
I MEAN WE'LL START CALCULATING STUFF.
I MEAN, I JUST THINK THE SWIMMING POOL IN THAT AREA IS IN THE BACKYARD SHOULD BE COVERED BECAUSE MOST DRIVEWAYS JUST GO FROM YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOOP DRIVEWAY, BUT MOST DRIVEWAYS GO STRAIGHT FROM THE STREET TO THE GARAGE AND THERE USUALLY A TWELVE, TEN OR TWELVE FEET WIDE. AND MOST POOLS ARE NOT REALLY THAT BIG EITHER, I MEAN, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
SO, I MEAN, WHEN YOU START USING I GUESS MY PROBLEM IS IF YOU START USING THE WORD MOST.
I MEAN, MY DRIVEWAY IS TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET LONG, YOU KNOW, AND THEN YOU SEE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, DRIVEWAYS AND THEN THEY HAVE A BIG ROUND THING IN THE FRONT OF THE YARD WITH, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF CONCRETE OR SOMETHING. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, I STRUCTURE I MEAN, TO ME, IS A STRUCTURE ALWAYS IS A STRUCTURE BELOW GROUND, ABOVE GROUND DOES IT MATTER.
I MEAN STRUCTURE IS A STRUCTURE.
I MEAN IT'S A CONSTRUCTED ITEM.
SPEAKERS]. AND ONE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED THAT ELIMINATING SWIMMING POOLTHE OTHER COMMITTEES SUGGESTED LEAVING IT IN.
AND ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL SAID LEAVE IT IN.
SO THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA LEAVE IT IN SO.
IF YOU TAKE THAT ONE WORD OUT OR LEAVE IT IN.
WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK IS, CAN WE SEE WHERE THIS TERM TURNS UP? AND KNOWING TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS.
IT TURNS UP IN CALCULATING YES. AND THERE'S A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN CERTAIN.
RIGHT. AND WHAT IS THAT LIMIT? ONE PER ACRE. ONE PER ACRE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A POOL, IF YOU HAVE AN ACRE AN LESS THAN TWO ACRE LOT, YOU PUT A POOL IN YEAH. GOING TO BE A LOT OF SCREAMING OVER THAT, OK, HERE, WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF LOT COVERAGE, AN AREA OF A LOT COVERED BY BUILDINGS USUALLY EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
YEAH. SO WE COULD LEAVE A SWIMMING POOL IN THERE, BUT WE HAVE LOT COVERAGE THAT'S DEFINED AS COVERED BY BUILDINGS.
WHILE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, THOUGH IT'S THERE'S NO CONFLICT RIGHT.
BECAUSE SOMEWHERE IT SAYS, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AFFECTS THE LOT COVERAGE THEN IT'S INCONSISTENT. AND THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT, AS I SEE WE ADDED BACK ALL ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES.
YEAH. AND WHAT SECTION OF THAT.
BECAUSE I MEAN, I REMEMBER US GOING THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE AND THIS
[00:45:06]
IS WHY NOW TWO YEARS LATER, I HATE TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE STARTING OVER. RIGHT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY IT'S ALREADY TEN MINUTES UNTIL 8.AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT DEFINITIONS AGAIN.
[INAUDIBLE] READ THE OPENING RIGHT THAT TO HAPPEN. IT'S GROUNDHOG DAY.
[INAUDIBLE] HERE JUST TAKE POOLS OUT.
IT'S NOT I DON'T I'M NOT I'M JUST GIVING IT MY TWO CENTS.
SO IT'S. WE CAN TAKE IT OUT AND COUNCIL IS PROBABLY GONNA PUT IT BACK IN.
YEP, I THINK WE STICK WITH WHAT WE DID.
THE REASON WHY WE DID IT THIS WAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY THOUGHT IT THROUGH.
AND I'M SAYING THIS AND I KNOW NOBODY WANTS TO PUT AND DOCUMENT THIS, BUT THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU MAKE A CHANGE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS OVER HERE TO THE RIGHT TO TRY AND REMIND US WHAT OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS.
WHAT'S THAT. WE JUST MAKE A COMMENT FOR THAT THOUGH.
THE SWIMMING POOL. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE MADE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ON THIS AS WENT THROUGH. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB OF MAKING MORE COMMENTS.
NEXT TIME. THE 120 SQUARE FEET FLOOR AREA.
SO THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO SWIMMING POOLS EITHER RIGHT. I MEAN, HOW BIG ARE YOU TRYINGI MEAN 20 BY 40 IS 800 SQUARE FEET.
IS THAT YOUR POOL SIZE? YEAH, ROUGHLY.
YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, THEY'RE A LOT SMALLER AND I GOT KIND OF A LARGE POOL.
YOU KNOW. AND THEN WHAT WOULD YOU CALCULATE THE POOL AS.
THE WATER SURFACE AREA OR THE DECK AROUND THE POOL TOO OR THAT COULD SEE SWIMMING POOL AS POOL AND DECK.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY BECAUSE POOL AND DECK I MEAN, WITH POOL AND DECK.
YEAH, THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT WOULD TAKE SOME PEOPLE OVER A LOT COVERAGE.
YEAH. AND LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, [INAUDIBLE] THEY CAN ONLY HAVE ONE.
I MEAN, MY INTENT IS NOT THE LIMIT OF NOT HAVING A SWIMMING POOL AN THE CABANA HOUSE.
IT'S JUST I THINK WHEN THEY'RE POPULATING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SO IT DOESN'T GET LOST, I MEAN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A SWIMMING POOL AND A CABANA HOUSE. AND THAT'S I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE IN THAT. BUT THAT'S HOW THEY.
AND DON'T FORGET, THE WORD SWIMMING POOL HAVE BEEN IN THIS DEFINITION FOR 25 YEARS.
AND I THINK THAT'S HOW COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT IT.
IF THE TEST WAS IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS, THEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TOUCHED ANYTHING.
WE COULD HAVE GONE HOME. YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND ALL THAT KIND OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES AND EVERYTHING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE SOMETHING, WE OUGHT TO STICK BY OUR.
YOU CAN'T SWIM ON THE DECK YOU CAN ONLY SWIM IN THE POOL. SO THE DECK SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED JUST THE SWIMMING POOL. GO AHEAD YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY THIS IS GOING TO GET STRAIGHTENED OUT, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M SAYING THIS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN P&Z AND COUNCIL.
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE VERSIONS, THEY'LL HAVE VERSIONS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY.
AND THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH THE P&Z COMMITTEE, IT WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
BEFORE IT SAT THERE IN COUNCIL COMMITTEE IT WAS REFERRED TO P&Z COMMITTEE IT WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE. AND THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE LOOKED AT BOTH VERSIONS AND IS PRESENTING A COMBINED VERSION FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO SEND TO COUNCIL AS THE FINAL VERSION. OK, AND HERE'S WHAT I'M GONNA SAY.
AND MAYBE WE SCREWED UP A LITTLE BIT HERE, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO HAVE JUSTIFICATION FOR EVERY CHANGE.
OK, SPELLING ERRORS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, THAT'S EASY.
[00:50:01]
BUT ANY TIME AND WE KIND OF STARTED BY SAYING THIS DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE BUILDS OFF OF THE DEFINITIONS. SO IF WE DON'T HAVE A REASON BEHIND EVERYTHING WE CHANGE ON THE DEFINITION, WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, WE MADE CHANGES.
THEY ACCEPTED SOME CHANGED SOME BACK AND LIKE, THEY'RE THINKING. RIGHT.
COUNCIL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO.
RIGHT. AND THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THE SAME THING.
WHAT I'M SCARED OF IS THAT THEY ACCEPTED SOME OF OUR CHANGES AND NOT SOME OTHER ONES AND IT MAY BECOME INCONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE CHANGES WE MADE AND IT'S NOT JUST ONE LOCATION IT'S THE RIPPLE EFFECT A LOT OF TIMES.
AND SO BASICALLY WHAT WE NEED IS HERE'S THE COUNCIL'S WHAT THEY THINK IS THE INCORPORATED ALL THE INCORPORATED CHANGES.
HERE'S OUR DOCUMENT WITH ALL OUR CHANGES.
AND WE NEED TO DO THE COMPARE AGAINST THOSE TWO RIGHT.
LIKE I SAID, I REALLY THINK THE ONLY WAY I THINK EVERYONE IS GONNA BE HAPPY AND EVER GET THERE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING WHAT COUNCIL IS SAYING IT'S ALL THE SAME WHATEVER.
I'M SURE COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOU ALL WANT TO HEAR THAT, BUT I'M JUST DOCUMENTS GOING BACK AND FORTH, HEY, WE NEED SIDE BY SIDE WHEN, YOU KNOW, JUSTIFICATION, ALL THE NOTES OF WHAT COUNCIL IS TRYING TO SAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN.
RUSSELL I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF THE COMMENTS ALREADY.
WE JUST NEED TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE WE COMMENTS.
SO THIS SORT OF BACK AND FORTH IS THE REASON THIS PROJECT HAS TAKEN FOUR YEARS, BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO TACKLE THE JOB OF RECONCILING ALL THE DIFFERENCES AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE.
THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, WAS RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES AND PRESENT A VERSION FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER.
AND YOU CAN RECOMMEND THE CHANGES THAT THEY RECOMMENDED.
YOU CAN RECOMMEND THE CHANGES.
YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION YOU GUYS DID AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS THE VERSION WE WANT TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL. YEAH.
AND THEN LET COUNCIL DEAL WITH IT AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY WAY THAT ANYTHING'S EVER GOING TO BE RESOLVED IF IT KEEPS GOING BACK AND FORTH AND HAVING I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR OVER AN HOUR AND WE'RE STILL IN THE SECOND DEFINITION.
I MEAN BRANDON BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT, RUSSELL.
WE CAN JUST SEND OUR CHANGES THAT WE DID A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHATEVER IT WAS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE SUGGEST, COUNCIL WILL DEAL WITH IT WHAT THEY WANT.
YEAH, I MEAN, HERE'S THE THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE AND WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS AND WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THESE THINGS.
AND I'M I DON'T KNOW AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I MEAN, I JUST PUT IN HERE WHAT WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT THIS SWIMMING POOL, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOVE GROUND, DOESN'T SHOW UP FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE, HAS GOT A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS.
THERE'S THOUGHTS ABOUT COVERAGE, INCLUDING FOR DRAINAGE RUNOFF, BUT NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. YOU KNOW, IS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF OF INCLUDING THAT FOR DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF PURPOSES, OR IS IT JUST BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST MAKING A DEFINITION OF SOMETHING AND, YOU KNOW, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT I GUESS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE KIND OF SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT IS ABOVE GROUND SHOWS IS A STRUCTURE [INAUDIBLE].
SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AND THEN AND THEN THAT GETS INTO.
OK, SO THEN DO WE DO WE PUT DRIVEWAY'S IN HERE? YOU KNOW, DO WE PUT PATIOS AND DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME KIND OF COVERAGE? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT LOT COVERAGE, THIS IS JUST DEFINING ACCESSORIES OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
SO I GUESS I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE NEED OUR JUSTIFICATION ON ALL THESE THINGS AND.
THE [INAUDIBLE], THE ONE MAIN THING THERE IT SAYS ACCESSORY USE, MAYBE IF WE DELETED THAT, IT WOULD KIND OF HELP TO GIVE A REASON WHY WE TOOK OUT THE SWIMMING POOLS.
[00:55:12]
I DON'T KNOW.WHERE? YEAH, LOOK WE MOVED SO WE MOVED ACCESSORIES AND WE REMOVED THE ACCESSORIES.
YEAH. AND THAT'S AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO PLACES ACCESSORY USE EVEN SHOWS UP.
YEAH. STRUCTURE THAT IS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL AND SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE, WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER THEREOF.
I MEAN, BECAUSE AGAIN, AGAIN WE GO, WE GO TO LOT COVERAGE, WHICH IS A KIND OF A SEPARATE TOPIC, MAYBE [INAUDIBLE] A LOT COVERED BY BUILDINGS, USUALLY EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
BUT IF YOU I MEAN, ON THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, WE BASICALLY SAID ADDED BY ALL ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES. RIGHT.
YEAH. [INAUDIBLE], HERE WE GO.
THE NON RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE NO MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE WHOLE LOT AREA MAY BE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
SO WHEN YOU IF YOU INCLUDE A POOL AND DECKING.
I MEAN, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THIS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT NAUSEUM, I REMEMBER.
YEAH. AND SO I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO TRY TO AVOID TONIGHT IS DOING A FOURTH REVISION.
NO WE'RE NOT. YEAH, I LIKE WHAT WE DID.
YEAH. [LAUGHTER] AND [INAUDIBLE] REALLY LIKED WHAT THEY DID.
AND YOU GUYS ARE RECOMMENDING BODIES.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH HERE AND CHANGE IT BACK TO WHAT YOU GUYS DID ON EVERY.
NO, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT WE WHAT WE SUBMITTED.
WE'RE JUST NO, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS IF WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE CHANGES YOU GUYS MADE COMPARED TO WHAT THE COUNCIL MADE AND TRY TO DO A FOURTH OR FIFTH REVISION, AND THAT'S JUST GOING TO MUDDY THE WATERS.
I THINK THAT THE WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS SENDING THE VERSION YOU GUYS MADE TO COUNCIL AND THEN LETTING COUNCIL MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT YOUR CHANGES OR [INAUDIBLE]. WELL IT SEEMED LIKE THEY DID NOT ON THIS POINT.
RIGHT THEY. I THOUGHT THEY ALREADY DID THAT.
AND THAT'S THE COMBINED VERSION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
BUT WITH THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST YOU EITHER ACCEPT THE, EITHER SEND YOUR VERSION TO COUNCIL OR YOU'VE HAD A MONTH NOW WITH THE WITH THE COMBINED VERSION TO COMPARE [INAUDIBLE] DOCUMENT, YOU COULD DECIDE TO SEND THE VERSION OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE CAME UP WITH WHEN THEY TRIED TO COMBINE THE TWO.
BUT I WOULD NOT SUGGEST GOING THROUGH AND MAKING AND THIS WOULD BE A FOURTH VERSION, A FRANKENSTEIN VERSION AND SENDING IT TO COUNCIL.
WELL, WELL, IT'S A IT'S A COMPARISON.
WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT THE CHANGES THAT WE SUBMITTED TWO YEARS AGO.
RIGHT. RIGHT? AND THEN THEN THEY'VE GOT THE COUNCIL'S SUBCOMMITTEE CHANGE DOCUMENT.
RIGHT? THE COUNCIL'S SUBCOMMITTEE DID IT FIRST AND SENT IT TO YOU GUYS AND THEN YOU GUYS, I THINK YOU USE SOME OF THE CHANGES THEY MADE AND SOME OF THEM YOU DIDN'T.
RIGHT. AND SENT THAT BACK AND THEN THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE.
TOOK THAT, YOUR VERSION AND LOOKED AT WHAT THEY HAD SUBMITTED AND BASICALLY SAID, WELL, WE LIKE WHAT THEY DID HERE, BUT WE LIKE WHAT WE DID HERE AND SENT BACK THIS THIRD CHANGE DOCUMENT. THIS THIRD VERSION, WHICH IS THE CLEAN COPY THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS IF IT'S A CHOICE BETWEEN GOING THROUGH THIS CLEAN VERSION AND CHANGING EVERYTHING BACK TO WHAT YOU DID OR EVEN WORSE, MAKING ANOTHER FOURTH ITERATION OF THIS, IT WOULD BE A LOT CLEANER TO JUST SEND YOUR ORIGINAL CHANGES TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AND LET THEM DECIDE, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY CAN DECIDE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
[01:00:02]
IF I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE.YEAH. AND AGAIN, AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WE GET INTO WITH THIS PING PONG IS KIND OF LIKE JR SAID, WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME ROOM.
SO IF WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE GOOD JUSTIFICATION, GOOD COMMENTS ON WHY WE'RE CHANGING IT BACK AND FORTH.
THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING NOT DOING THAT.
I'M SUGGESTING. JUST SEND OUR YEAH. YEAH. WE'LL JUST SEND OUR ORIGINAL ONE.
WITH BETTER COMMENT. YOU GUYS HAVE COMMENTS [INAUDIBLE].
WELL, WE DON'T BUT NO. WE DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING.
RIGHT. BUT IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS AND I'M SUGGESTING IT'S TIME TO MOVE FORWARD AND LET COUNCIL DEAL WITH THE CHANGES YOU MADE AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.
YEAH. OK, SO OK? THE PROBLEM I PERSONALLY HAVE WITH THAT IS THAT WE SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS AND HASHING THROUGH THEM.
AND SO I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH TIME THEY SPENT HASHING THROUGH THAT WITH TWO PEOPLE.
THEY SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.
OK. AND THEY'VE DONE IT TWICE NOW.
OK. AND THEY HAVE THEY HAVE THEY WRITTEN ANY COMMENTS AT ALL AS TO WHY THEY CHANGE THINGS ? A SINCERE ATTEMPT WAS MADE WAS MADE TO RECONCILE THE TWO DOCUMENTS.
BUT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TONIGHT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE.
BUT I'M KIND OF GETTING BACK TO IF THEY DON'T IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND OK I GUESS WE COULD WE COULD BE ROBOTS AND WE COULD JUST SAY, OK, THAT'S FINE.
YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR WE COULD ASK THE QUESTION, OK, WE CHANGED IT ONE WAY, YOU CHANGED IT ANOTHER. NOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE IT IF WE HAVE A COMMENT, WHY WE CHANGE IT, WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT FOR WHY YOU UNCHANGED IT? AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN CONVINCE US THAT'S BETTER.
OR WE JUST BASICALLY SAY I'M A ROBOT.
I GUESS THEY'RE CITY COUNCIL, THOUGH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE US.
YEAH,CAN THROUGH THEM IN THE TRASH OR LOOK AT THEM.
RIGHT.AND SO AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS THAT DO THEY KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW? OR THEY PROBABLY JUST VIEW IT A DIFFERENT WAY, JUST LIKE WE WERE DISCUSSING TWENTY MINUTES ABOUT [INAUDIBLE]. THEY JUST LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY.
YEAH. WELL, THEN AGAIN, IS THAT WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT IT DIFFERENTLY? RIGHT? I WOULD THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT OR NOT.
YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM SEE IT OUR WAY.
BUT I WHAT I WOULD HAVE IDEALLY I WOULD HOPE THAT SINCE THIS COMBINED VERSION HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER A MONTH, I WOULD I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT IT WOULD BEEN, THAT THE DIFFERENCES COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT.
WE COULD HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN A MORE SUCCINCT MANNER.
BUT WHAT I SERIOUSLY WANT TO AVOID IS HAVING A FOURTH VERSION OF IT.
I THINK IT'S JUST CLEANER TO SEND YOUR VERSION TO COUNCIL.
AND LET COUNCIL WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO ACCEPT YOUR CHANGES OR TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHANGES.
I COMPLETELY I CAN THAT BE AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY.
I GET THAT. WHAT I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO KIND OF RECONCILE IN MY MIND IS THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY OK, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE THE WORLD'S SMARTEST PERSON THAT KNOWS ALL ABOUT THIS STUFF AND THEY MAKE A BUNCH OF CHANGES AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON'T THEY KNOW THAT BASICALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OR SOMETHING AND THEN THEY MAKE CHANGES. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.
BUT THEN WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONVINCE ME THAT I'M WRONG OR, YOU KNOW, CONVINCE ME THAT I THAT I'M NOT SEEING IT CORRECTLY.
I MEAN, AND THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN CONVINCE SOMEONE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS IF YOU GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF A JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY YOU'RE DOING IT.
I MEAN, THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO JUST ACCEPT THINGS AND JUST GO ON AND JUST SAY, OK, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. I GUESS SOME PEOPLE CAN DO THAT.
I HAVE A HARD TIME. I HAVE A HARD TIME DOING THAT BECAUSE I WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME LOGICALLY WHY THEY'RE DOING THE CHANGE.
SO, YEAH. AND I'M GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE LAST MONTH OR TWO THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, THIS DOESN'T COMPARE TO THE NUMBER OF WEEKS THAT WE PUT IN TO LOOKING AT THIS TO BEGIN WITH. RIGHT.
AND I KNOW I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME DOING THE
[01:05:01]
SAME THING.WITHOUT YOU GUYS JUST SENDING YOUR VERSION TO COUNCIL AND THEN HAVING THEM HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
YEAH. YEAH, I'VE BEEN THROUGH TOO MANY OF THESE, YOU KNOW, GO OVER AND REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS AND SUBMIT CHANGES AND THEN THE COUNCIL JUST WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING YOU DID. I MEAN, THAT WAS THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO US ON WHEN WE WENT OVER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEN I GUESS SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT ANY CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THE WAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE DID ALSO DIDN'T GET INCORPORATED.
SO WE'VE GOT SOME OF THE ZONING CHANGES BEFORE AND MADE CHANGES OR RECOMMENDED CHANGES. AND YEAH, THEY DIDN'T INCORPORATE EVERYTHING THAT WE THAT WE SUGGESTED.
THAT'S [INAUDIBLE]. WHICH IS [INAUDIBLE] THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS.
AND JUST LIKE RUSSELL SAID, IF THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE, THEN THEY SHOULD BE WORKING WITH P&Z.
AND SO WE CAN AVOID GOING THROUGH THIS THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW.
THE PROCESS IS P&Z IN THE RECOMMENDING BODY.
THEY RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE ZONING BOARD AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL HAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THOSE CHANGES.
THIS PROCESS WAS THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE TWO VERSIONS, BUT I DON'T HEAR THAT HAPPENING. SO NOT ONLY IS THE ONLY WAY, I THINK TO KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD IS TO EITHER AND I I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO THIS BECAUSE I'M HEARING AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.
EITHER ACCEPTING THE CHANGES MADE BY THE ON THE SECOND REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OR JUST SENDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING INTERVIEW NEXT WEEK.
OK, AND I'M GOING TO MODIFY THAT BY SAYING WE'RE THE ONES WHO STARTED THE RECOMMEND.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW, DID WE OR DIDN'T WE? NO THEY WENT FIRST. OK. THEY HAD.
WE LOOKED AT THEIRS AT THE SAME TIME WE DID OURS.
RIGHT. SO WE INCORPORATED ALL THE THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT MADE SENSE.
RIGHT. SO THEY THEY HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE.
SO NOW IT'S UP TO THEM TO TELL US WHY THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT WE WHAT WE DID.
SO THEY HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE AND SENT A CHANGED, SENT A RED LINE VERSION TO P&Z TO CONSIDER . P&Z FORMED THEIR OWN SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THAT AND PRODUCED YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE'S DOCUMENT. THAT DOCUMENT WAS THEN RE-REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL'S SUBCOMMITTEE TO PRODUCE THIS CLEAN VERSION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS INSTEAD OF RE-REVIEWING THAT, MAYBE IT'S EASIER OR CLEANER, NOT EASIER, NO DEFINITELY NOT EASIER, CLEANER TO JUST SENT THE PLANNING AND ZONING SUBCOMMITTEES DOCUMENT TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
THAT HAS ALL YOUR CHANGES THAT YOU MADE.
AND LIKE YOU SAID, YOU CONSIDERED THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES.
OK. AND THEN IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE NEED TO WE NEED TO WE NEED TO STATE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE P&Z WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME SOME CHANGE THAT WE MADE THAT'S BEEN UNDONE OR SOMETHING.
AND I DON'T AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LITTLE DEFINITION CHANGE OR SOMETHING, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, WE STRUCK SOMETHING OUT.
THEY PUT IT BACK IN WHAT YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE REASON IS, YOU KNOW WHY I MEAN.
BECAUSE HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET BETTER? HOW ARE WE EVER GOING GET BETTER IN DOING ANY OF THIS IF WE HAVE NO FEEDBACK AS TO WHY, YOU KNOW, WHY WHY THEY THINK THAT IT'S A BETTER IDEA TO LEAVE IT THE OTHER WAY, YOU KNOW [INAUDIBLE] DOES THE PROCESS ALLOW US TO MEET WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO HASH SOME OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES BECAUSE WE NEED SOME BUY IN, WE CAN'T JUST SAY WE TOTALLY IGNORE WHAT YOU DID. RIGHT.
[01:10:02]
AND HERE'S OURS.WE NEED WE NEED I MEAN, NONE OF THE OTHER TWO OF US NEED TO CONVINCE THE OTHER ONES OF WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
SO THAT'S KIND OF MY, MY TAKE ON IT.
RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE BUSINESS WAY THAT YOU WOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS.
EXACTLY. AND INSTEAD OF JUST SENDING DOCUMENTS BACK AND FORTH.
WELL, BUT THE GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT'S HOW TO DO IT.
THE P&Z HAD PRODUCED A DOCUMENT, RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] AND THE COUNCIL.
YOU COULD YOU COULD HAVE FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT INCLUDED BOTH MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND . OK. WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT, BUT WE DIDN'T.
BUT WE DIDN'T. WE HAVE WE HAD TWO SEPARATE SUBCOMMITTEES.
WE CAN'T HAVE TWO SUBCOMMITTEES MEET? OF COURSE YOU COULD.
BUT THAT'D BE RESTARTING THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN.
NO, NO, NO, IT'S NOT NOT RESTARTING THE PROCESS.
WE'RE JUST. IT'S HASHING OUT A FEW DIFFERENCES.
IT'S HASHING OUT THE DIFFERENCES.
SO BASICALLY WHAT WE NEED IS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED THAT CHANGE DOCUMENT TO THAT CHANGE DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS WHAT THEY WHAT THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FINAL.
AND THEN WHAT WE SUBMITTED WITH ALL OURS AND LOOK AT THE CHANGES THAT THEY MADE.
AND THEN WE JUST NEED TO SAY, OK, WHAT WHY DO YOU WHY DO YOU WANT TO PUT THAT BACK THIS WAY OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, THAT'S.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT UNDER A DEADLINE TO DO THIS, ARE WE? A SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINE OF THE COUNCIL THEY WANTED TO BE HEARD [INAUDIBLE].
SO. NO, NO. I MEAN, IT'S BUT THEN THEN DO.
THEY IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA ON TUESDAY, NO MATTER WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS HEARING TONIGHT OR TOMORROW.
OK. ON TUESDAY, THEY ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER.
OK. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO IF YOU DON'T SEND THEM ANYTHING TO VOTE ON, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A THING. BUT IT WILL BE DISCUSSED ON ON TUESDAY.
IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THAT SUBCOMMITTEE MADE TO YOUR DOCUMENT AND WANT TO HEAR IT EXPLAINED, YOU COULD SEND THEM YOUR CHANGES AND HAVE THEM, BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULD BE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS IT UNTIL.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DISCUSS THAT AND WILL THEY HAVE TIME TO REVIEW EVERYTHING? THEY'VE THIS COUNCIL'S SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE ALREADY THEY SPENT MONTHS REVIEWING YOUR CHANGE DOCUMENT.
BETWEEN NOW AND TUESDAY. THAT THEY'LL LOOK AT INDIVIDUALLY.
MORNING, RIGHT? FORTY HOURS. THEY CAN'T, BUT THEY CAN'T WITHOUT CALLING ME [INAUDIBLE].
RIGHT. JUST LIKE YOU GUYS ARE.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING ON.
OK, SO WHAT? I MEAN. YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN DO HERE IS IF WE'RE HAPPY WITH WE'RE STILL HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES WE MADE, THEN WE BASICALLY SAY, HEY, COUNCIL, WE HAVE A MOTION HERE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUR CHANGES, HAVE A COMPARISON DOCUMENT WITH WHAT YOU ALL FEEL IS THE CORRECT IMPLEMENTATION.
AND THEN WE NEED A MEETING OF SUBCOMMITTEES TO RESOLVE WHY WHY THOSE CHANGES WERE UNDONE OR REDONE OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A REDO OF THE WHOLE THING.
IT'S JUST RESOLVING THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOU KNOW WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE CHANGED AND WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK SHOULD BE CHANGED.
I MEAN WHICH COULD BE COULD BE AN HOUR LONG MEETING, IT COULD BE [INAUDIBLE] . BUT OR WE GOING TO DO THE LAZY THING AND SAY, I DON'T CARE.
SO. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FOR YOU GUYS TO SEND SOMETHING TO COUNCIL FOR THEM TO REVIEW, IF IT DID.
YOUR VERSION FOR THEM TO JUST BECAUSE THEY WON'T HAVE IT ON THE MEETING ON TUESDAY.
YOUR VERSION AND YOU CAN SAY IN YOUR MOTION THAT YOU SUGGEST AN ANOTHER SUBCOMMITTEE WITH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND P&Z ON IT.
OK, SO WE SEND IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'LL HAVE A P&Z MEMBER REPRESENTING THE P&Z
[01:15:06]
AT THE MEETING TO HELP EXPLAIN OR ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE COUNCIL MEETING? IT'S AN OPEN MEETING.WE WANT WE WANTED A MEETING IN ADVANCE OF THAT.
WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE. NOT THE ENTIRE [INAUDIBLE].
CORRECT. SO SUBCOMMITTEE TO SUBCOMMITTEE. RIGHT.
BECAUSE YOU GUYS CAN'T NOTICE ANOTHER MEETING.
RIGHT. YEAH, CAN YOU [INAUDIBLE] THERE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, PEOPLE COULD BE HERE TOMORROW NIGHT AND ARE MEETING.
IF THERE IF THERE. WE'VE ALREADY GOT OUR AGENDA POSTED.
WELL, THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT [INAUDIBLE] COME IN A MEETING.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ALL GOING TO GET HASHED OUT IN A MEETING, A ONE NIGHT MEETING.
IT'S THAT I, I CAN TELL YOU THE SUB THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE SPENT MONTHS TRYING TO RECONCILE THE TWO AND.
IT'S NOT YOU CAN'T JUST DO A MONTHS WORTH OF WORK IN A ONE THREE HOUR MEETING.
WELL, WASN'T THE ORIGINAL THE SUBCOMMITTEE FROM COUNCIL IN THIS FORMAT? YES. THEY SENT THEIR ORIGINAL.
THEY WENT FROM THIS FORMAT AND THEN WE USE THE SAME FORMAT, SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, AND NOW THERE'S SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND NOBODY CAN MAKE HEADS OR TAILS OF.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
AGAIN, I'LL STATE THIS AGAIN, THE IDEA IS NOT TO GO OVER EVERYTHING ALL OVER AGAIN.
THE IDEA IS TO GO OVER AND LOOK AT THE CHANGES THE CHANGED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WE SAID AND WHAT THEY BASICALLY THINK SHOULD BE DONE.
AND THEN AND THEN JUST LOOK AT THOSE CHANGES AND SEE WHO'S RIGHT AND WHY, YOU KNOW, WHO'S WHO'S WHO'S CHANGE REALLY MAKES MORE SENSE AND WHY? IT'S NOT THE WHOLE IT'S NOT THE WHOLE THING.
IT'S NOT GO EVERYONE. BECAUSE BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING SOME OF THEM, THEY JUST SAID, OK, THAT'S FINE. MAYBE JUST SOME OF THE MAJOR ONES.
RIGHT. WELL THE SPREADSHEET IS THE CHANGE.
THOSE ARE THE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL THE AS IT EXISTS TODAY TO WHAT THE SECOND ROUND THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE CAME UP WITH.
YEAH, IT DOESN'T THOSE DON'T THOSE DON'T GIVE US THOSE DON'T GIVE US A VIEW OF WHAT WE ARE, WHAT DISCREPANCIES WE HAVE BETWEEN OUR TWO SUBCOMMITTEES.
AND I JUST I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, I SAY USE A ONE K RESISTOR AND THEN YOU MARK IT OUT AND YOU PUT A FIFTEEN HUNDRED [INAUDIBLE] RESISTOR IN THERE AND IT'S LIKE, WELL BUT I HAVE A CALCULATION WHY I DID THAT. WELL SO DO I.
WELL WHOSE CALCULATION IT RIGHT? SO I CAN MAYBE EXPLAIN IT THIS WAY, IF WHEN YOU GUYS FINISH WITH YOUR YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE'S VERSION AND IF YOU'D HELD A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINISHING IT AND SENT IT TO COUNCIL, THEN COUNCIL WOULD HAVE VOTED.
WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT UP AND I GUESS LOOKED AT IT AND PROBABLY ASSIGNED IT TO A SUBCOMMITTEE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CHANGES TO ACCEPT AND WHATNOT AND MAYBE COME UP WITH WHAT THE VERSION THAT WE HAD IN THE THIRD VERSION THAT IS IN EXISTENCE NOW.
AND I THINK AN ATTEMPT WAS ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ASSIGN THAT WORK TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO AVOID A MARATHON MEETING OF COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THE CHANGES.
YEAH. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING NOW IS IF YOU WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND SEND THOSE CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL AND LET THEM GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT IS A CHOICE YOU CAN MAKE.
YOU COULD ALSO, AGAIN, THIS VERSION, THE COMBINED VERSION'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS NOW AND IT'S BEEN AVAILABLE.
YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT.
RIGHT [INAUDIBLE] I, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT'S BEEN WHEN ANYBODY'S LOOKED AT IT.
OK. SO WHEN DID WE SUBMIT OUR WHEN DID WE SUBMIT OUR PROPOSED CHANGES TO COUNCIL? NOVEMBER OF 19.
2019? THAT'S WHEN YOUR FINAL VERSION [INAUDIBLE] WENT BACK TO THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].
[01:20:02]
SO A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, YEAH.[INAUDIBLE] AND THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS AS TO WHY IT'S BEEN DELAYED AND WE.
WE'D HAVE TO RECESS TO DELAYED. BUT I'M NOT INTENDING TO RUSHING INTO LOOKING AT THE CHANGES THAT THE COMMITTEE MADE. I'M SAYING I'M SUGGESTING YOU SEND SOMETHING THE COUNCIL FOR THEM TO CONSIDER.
IF THE ONLY THING YOU'RE COMFORTABLE SENDING IS THE VERSION.
OK, WE HAVE WE HAVE ANOTHER WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ON THE AGENDA TOMORROW, RIGHT? COMING TOMORROW. SO AT THAT SO FROM THAT MEETING, WHAT I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO IS KIND OF DO THAT COMPARISON OF OUR RECOMMENDED CHANGES ALONG WITH THEIR RECOMMENDED CHANGES, AND THEN BASICALLY HASH THROUGH THAT TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, DO WE DO WE AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT, AND THEN COMMENT ALL OF OUR REASONS WHY WE THINK WE'RE RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION FOR TOMORROW'S MEETING, AND IF ANY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE PEOPLE ARE FROM THE FROM THE COUNCIL WANT TO COME, THAT WOULD EVEN BE MORE MORE PEACHIER.
MORE WELCOME. MORE PEACHIER. I MEAN, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT I MEAN, UNLESS UNLESS WE AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO DO THAT, I MEAN, AND MAYBE MAYBE BY THE TIME WE'RE DONE, I MEAN, WE JUST WE BASICALLY JUST SAY, OK, WE'RE WE'RE SUBMITTING WHAT OUR CHANGES ARE.
AND SO THE REASON THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE DIDN'T COME TO, WEREN'T MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIDN'T COME TO ALL THOSE MEETINGS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE DECIDING BODY.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO POLLUTE US.
[INAUDIBLE] RIGHT THERE, WANT TO WITH THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS.
I THINK THEY ALREADY DID AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS HERE.
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU WRITE, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE THINK YOU SHOULD WRITE.
I MEAN, THAT'S YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF HOW YOU COULD IT'S A TYPICAL PROBLEM ANYWHERE, YOU KNOW? RIGHT.
AND THAT'S THE FEELING OF THE GROUP.
AND YOUR JOB IS TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO COUNCIL.
AND YOU HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT YOU WORKED HARD ON.
YEAH, CRITICIZING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE VERY BEGINNING. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, HEY, WE WANT YOU TO WORK ON THIS.
BUT, OH, BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW, HERE WE THINK YOU OUGHT TO START WITH WHAT WE THINK TO BE DONE. AND, YOU KNOW, OK, THAT'S FINE.
WE DID WE ACTUALLY TOOK THOSE AND WE LOOKED AT THEM AND WE CREATED OUR OWN DOCUMENT.
AND NOW IT'S KIND OF LIKE, OK, NOW BEFORE WE BEFORE WE SUBMIT THIS DOCUMENT AGAIN, WE JUST NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT COMPARISON OF THE TWO AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE FROM THEIR RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND OURS AND THEN JUST JUSTIFY OURS ONE MORE TIME OR ACCEPT WHAT THEY DID. SO.
SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO GO ITEM BY ITEM? I'M SUGGESTING WE RUN A COMPARE, WE RUN A COMPARE ON THE DOCUMENTS IN WORD.
WELL, THAT'S AN EASY THING TO DO.
BUT WE AS LONG AS WE HAVE AS LONG AS WE HAVE THEIR DOCUMENT IN WORD THAT BASICALLY THEY, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T LIKE, REFORMAT EVERYTHING.
THERE'S SIGNIFICANT REFORMATTING BECAUSE THINGS WERE REMOVED.
NO, NO, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I HAVE THE RIGHT IF I HAVE THE RIGHT DOCUMENT, OK? I MEAN, WE NEED OK, WE STARTED WITH THIS DOCUMENT AND WE RED LIGHT IT, NOW.
THEY SHOULD HAVE STARTED WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT.
THEY DID. THEY DID IT BEFORE YOU GOT TO IT.
YEAH. OK. AND SO NOW SO THEY HAVE A THEY HAVE A VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
WE HAVE A VERSION. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO A COMPARE.
AND THEN THEY DID A THIRD VERSION BY COMPARING THE TWO VERSIONS YOU DID AND CHOOSING WHAT THEY THOUGHT. YEAH.
AND THAT'S ONE WE WANT TO COMPARE AGAINST.
WE WANT TO COMPARE AGAINST WHAT THEY THINK IS OUR ONLY CHANCE.
BUT I MEAN. NO NO, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT SPEAKERS]. YEAH, TOMORROW.
LOOK THROUGH IT. AND THEN WE'LL LOOK THROUGH IT AT TOMORROW'S MEETING.
[01:25:02]
I WILL LOOK THROUGH IT BEFORE THEN. YEAH.BUT Y'ALL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF JUST SENDING WHAT WE SPENT TIME ON BEFORE AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS OUR VERSION OF. WELL TOMORROW, TOMORROW WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.
I MEAN, TOMORROW'S NO I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE WE GOT TO MAKE THAT DECISION TONIGHT.
YOU KNOW. I DON'T WANT US TO BE SEEN TO HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED WHAT THEY CHANGED.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE.
HOW MUCH [INAUDIBLE]? I JUST I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S WHY THEY WANT A COMPARISON.
I DIDN'T HAVE THE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTS TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT WAS CHANGED WHAT WAS NOT CHANGED. YEAH, I MEAN, WE JUST WE JUST WANT TO.
AND I'M SORRY I PRODUCED WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS INSTRUCTED TO PRODUCE AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS [INAUDIBLE].
NO, NO, NO, NO. IT'S JUST IT'S THE WHOLE THE WHOLE PROCESS IS SOMETHING WE JUST GOT TO, OK. AND BUT AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT IS THEY HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT THEY THINK HAS ALL THE RIGHT CHANGES IN IT, WE HAVE A DOCUMENT WHERE WE THINK WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHT CHANGES.
WE NEED TO COMPARE THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHERE WHERE THEY ACCEPTED OUR CHANGES, WHERE THEY, YOU KNOW, UNACCEPTED THEM OR WHATEVER [INAUDIBLE].
I MEAN, IN A PERFECT IN A PERFECT WORLD, ALL OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH TRACK CHANGES AND TRACK CHANGES WITH EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE SAME DOCUMENT.
RIGHT. BUT IT DIDN'T START OUT THAT WAY.
SO THIS IS THIS IS A COMPARE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND [INAUDIBLE]. YES, WHICH THEY TOOK IN CONSIDERATION [INAUDIBLE].
RIGHT, WHICH RIGHT, BUT WE DON'T BUT WE DON'T KNOW, [INAUDIBLE] THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT OUR CHANGES [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT THERE.
I MEAN, WE LET'S LET'S SAY WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, WE HAVE OUR MARKUPS AND WE HAVE THEIR INCORPORATED MARK UPS.
RIGHT? WE HAVE THE CHANGE DOCUMENT BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THEIR FINAL.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE CHANGED DOCUMENTS BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND OURS.
OR NO BETWEEN OURS AND THEIRS. OURS AND THEIRS RIGHT.
YEAH, BUT WERE GOING TO END UP THE SAME POINT IS YOU'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THEIR COMMENTS, BE LIKE, HEY, I WONDER WHY THEY PUT SWIMMING POOLS BACK IN? FOR EXAMPLE.
LOOKED AT THIS AND I LOOKED AT OUR CHANGES.
I'D BE FAVOR JUST SENDING WHAT WE DID BACK IN 2019 AND LET COUNCILS DEAL WITH [INAUDIBLE]. OK, SO OK, SO OK, SO I'M OK. SO I THINK I THINK WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
I THINK ONE OF ONE OF THE MOTIONS IS AROUND DOING A COMPARISON BETWEEN OUR CHANGES AND THEIR FINAL CHANGES AND THEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WHY THEY DID OR DIDN'T KEEP OUR CHANGES PARTICULAR AND BASICALLY JUST MAKING COMMENTS TO THEM, SENDING THEM, SENDING OUR DOCUMENT AGAIN, BUT WITH COMMENTS OF WHY WE THINK OUR CHANGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT.
AND THEN AND THEN THE OTHER ONE, THE OTHER POTENTIAL MOTION HERE IS TO SAY, OK, WE ARE JUST GOING TO SEND YOU WE JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME IS GOOD.
WE'RE GOOD WITH IT. AND, YOU KNOW, GO DO YOUR THING.
I MEAN, IT'S THAT KIND OF OUT OF THE TWO? IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY AND RECONCILE, RECONCILE THEIR CHANGES AND OUR CHANGES TO DETERMINE WHO MIGHT HAVE THE BETTER CHANGE.
AND I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO A COUNCIL MEMBER TO.
COME TO A MEETING AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU GUYS WHAT THEIR MIGHT OF THOUGHT WAS BECAUSE THAT MAY INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION AND ULTIMATELY YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY COUNCIL TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM AND THEN FOR THEM TO DECIDE HOW TO ACT ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. RIGHT AND.
BUT HERE'S THE THING IS THAT IF AT THE TIME THEY LOOKED AT OURS AND THEY DECIDED YES OR NO TO KEEP THAT CHANGE, IF THEY MADE A COMMENT THAT SAID NO, WE THINK SWIMMING POOLS SHOULD BE PUT BACK IN BECAUSE OF THIS, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'D SAY, OK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, THEN FINE.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST KIND OF TAKING IT ON BLIND FAITH, BLIND FAITH THAT THEY HAVE A
[01:30:04]
GOOD REASON.WELL WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAYS.
EVEN IF WE MAKE THE PERFECT DOCUMENT AND LOOK AT ALL THEIR CHANGES, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ON FAITH THAT WHATEVER THEY DECIDE IS BEST, THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT.
WELL. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW.
THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW WHY WE WHY WE DISAGREE WITH A PARTICULAR CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO WE RECOMMEND OK, FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE OUR CHANGE OUR OUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WITH THESE FOLLOWING CHANGES THAT YOU MADE.
WE WOULD WE ACCEPT THOSE BECAUSE YOU HAD BETTER REASONS.
BUT WITH THESE OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU MADE THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER REASONS, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ULTIMATELY RECOMMEND.
AND YOU WOULD BE YOU YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT STATE REASONS WHY WE NEED TO LEAVE THAT ONE IN? YEAH.
ISN'T THAT WHAT BRANDON SAID BEGAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO? WELL, I YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD CAN YOU CONVINCE SOMEBODY OF WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG WITH SOME LOGIC? BUT I MEAN I MEAN, EVERYBODY USES LOGIC RIGHT? I MEAN, NO, I GUESS NOT.
NOT EVERYBODY. I MEAN BUT I MEAN, THE WORLD THE WORLD RUNS ON LOGIC AND ACTUALLY THE MOST LOGICAL USUALLY COME OUT ON TOP, YOU KNOW, BUT IF YOU IF YOU JUST KIND OF IGNORE IT AND SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST RIGHT A BUNCH OF WORDS THAT DON'T MATTER, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO DO A STRAW VOTE OR MAKE [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK WE SEND WHATEVER THE DATE, OUR LATEST RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL THE FIRST TIME IN 2019 WE SEND TO COUNCIL, LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WISH WITH IT.
IF THERE'S PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE THAT THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT CHANGES TOMORROW NIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING ULTIMATELY.
END OF THE DAY. THAT'S MY OPINION.
SO OK, SO IF I'M ON [INAUDIBLE] BY MYSELF OR.
OK, SO I GUESS WE JUST NEED TO WE NEED TO PUT THE MOTIONS FORTH AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE CAN SAY, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY DONE FOR TONIGHT.
WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION. OK, MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE MOTION THAT WE SEND ON THE 2019 VERSION TO OF THE CHANGES OF THE ORDINANCES TO COUNCIL.
[INAUDIBLE] SECOND. SO CAN I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION? WELL, DO WE HAVE IT? I GUESS, FIRST OFF, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? WHAT WAS THE MOTION AGAIN? TO JUST SEND THE 2019 VERSION OF CHANGES AND UPDATES THAT WE SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL.
WE WILL SUBMIT THE COUNCIL AGAIN.
DID YOU HEAR THAT? OK. YEAH, I GOT IT.
OK I GUESS THAT MOTION CARRIES.
OK, SO THEN WHERE WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US FOR TONIGHT? ADJOURN.
AND NO MEETING TOMORROW. [INAUDIBLE] YES, SO WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 8:39.
WHEN THEY GET TO THE COUNCIL, [INAUDIBLE] IS THERE NO MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT? NO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.