Post by mikesnyder on Dec 14, 2022 17:33:30 GMT
As usual, I have concerns on this. I appreciate the added trees around the perimeter of the school site, BUT, when we approved the last variance, I offered several areas where they could put trees (most of the places where they are now putting trees) and was told by Henry that none of those areas would work out and that THAT is why they needed a variance. NOW, they want a new variance and will plant what is left in those areas. In my opinion, we should already have trees there and we should be talking about an OVERALL plan with what is going on here. This keeps getting piecemealed together and the only people losing are the taxpayers.
As I have been suggesting for the past couple of years, we all need to follow the Interlocal. In that interlocal, there is a part where AT THE START of a project, everyone is meeting and coming up with a list of items that are going to be a concern. That list is memorialized and made a part of applications. I don't see any of that. Without that, this all looks like poor planning on the city AND the ISD. We can and should be doing better.
The reference to HB2439 is a good try. Based on their interpretation (which no one has taken that I can find), Hutto needs to rescind all building standards. All of city council should read the law. What is commonly understood is that a municipality can no longer make a developer build a building using specific building materials, such as certain bricks, stone and such. BUT, a city can still require a certain amount of glazing on a building or that equipment on a roof is concealed. The law will not allow Hutto to dictate what materials to use to conceal roof top equipment, but we have all the rights to have it concealed. Lastly on this, when a developer comes in for a variance, you basically lose all ability to "use" laws like HB2439. The reason is that as part of a variance request, a municipality now has the right to approved "with conditions". So, unless you are zoned by right and need NO variances, HB2439 really doesn't help someone.
Life safety continues to be the reasoning for a lot of changes and variances requested, but when it came time to open up the press box and stadium, we all remember that the HISD failed their inspection. BUT, opened up anyway. So, the life safety argument only seems to be valid when it benefits the ISD and not when it is for following Ordinances and the UDC.
Parking reduction? I get a lot of complaints from the neighborhoods around the high school about the amount of cars parking on their streets and clogging up their roads. The HISD has been unable to find a solution and as far as I know, they have punted on a fix. So, while this is only 39 parking places, one could easily argue that they are needed. They added all of the seats and In my opinion, our UDC should be updated to require MORE parking as this is becoming a bigger issue.
The ILA that is in the packed is not the executed one, I think that staff should have that one in so that we don't have any questions on what each parties responsibilities are.
As I have been suggesting for the past couple of years, we all need to follow the Interlocal. In that interlocal, there is a part where AT THE START of a project, everyone is meeting and coming up with a list of items that are going to be a concern. That list is memorialized and made a part of applications. I don't see any of that. Without that, this all looks like poor planning on the city AND the ISD. We can and should be doing better.
The reference to HB2439 is a good try. Based on their interpretation (which no one has taken that I can find), Hutto needs to rescind all building standards. All of city council should read the law. What is commonly understood is that a municipality can no longer make a developer build a building using specific building materials, such as certain bricks, stone and such. BUT, a city can still require a certain amount of glazing on a building or that equipment on a roof is concealed. The law will not allow Hutto to dictate what materials to use to conceal roof top equipment, but we have all the rights to have it concealed. Lastly on this, when a developer comes in for a variance, you basically lose all ability to "use" laws like HB2439. The reason is that as part of a variance request, a municipality now has the right to approved "with conditions". So, unless you are zoned by right and need NO variances, HB2439 really doesn't help someone.
Life safety continues to be the reasoning for a lot of changes and variances requested, but when it came time to open up the press box and stadium, we all remember that the HISD failed their inspection. BUT, opened up anyway. So, the life safety argument only seems to be valid when it benefits the ISD and not when it is for following Ordinances and the UDC.
Parking reduction? I get a lot of complaints from the neighborhoods around the high school about the amount of cars parking on their streets and clogging up their roads. The HISD has been unable to find a solution and as far as I know, they have punted on a fix. So, while this is only 39 parking places, one could easily argue that they are needed. They added all of the seats and In my opinion, our UDC should be updated to require MORE parking as this is becoming a bigger issue.
The ILA that is in the packed is not the executed one, I think that staff should have that one in so that we don't have any questions on what each parties responsibilities are.