Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 6.11.26

001comments from myself. >> Well, if you ask Pete heads if he's a Christian, you're going to get a different answer. [laughter] >> Probably zero audience today. >> Captive audience. >> So, we can do what we want. >> It is. [laughter] >> Is that what we do anyways? >> Oh, you [laughter] >> within the constraints of uh >> ready. Yes, sir. All right. call to order the regular meeting of the planning and zoting commission. Today's June 11th, 2026. Uh we'll start if we could rise for the invocation uh followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> All right, let's pray. God, we thank you for the day. We just thank you for the beautiful summer you've given us. And God, I just pray tonight as we meet that you'll give each uh member of this commission wisdom

002as we talk about future ordinances from the city. Help us to be thoughtful and to make just really great wise decisions as we move forward. God, for the members not here, I lift them up to you and I thank you for this day. Here we pray. Amen. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible andice for all. Assuming there are no remarks of visitors. >> Actually, we have quite a few. It's good. [laughter] >> Read them out. >> All right. Item four, conduct a workshop dis discussion on chapter 10 subdivision regulations and chapter 14 zoning regulations related to proposed language amendments. >> All right, Mr. Chair, just picking we're really just picking back up where we left off

003about a month or so ago. Uh we've already tackled two of the bullet points that council tasks planning and zoning with. One of them being parkland regulations and the other being the drive-thru standards. I know Conniey's watching. She she's nodding her head. Yes, we took care of that. Uh there was a few more outstanding. Uh there's one that's that's been added to our list just really because of necessity of an impending deadline um for regulation that's going to be effective in September 1st. And so what I put together is just a brief presentation on really summarizing what you have in front of you um in a little bit briefer manner and then once once we go through the presentation we can you know y'all can stop me at any time of course um and we

004can go back and touch on any of the topics that we go through and I'll uh I'll kick it off with um really again the the purpose is really just to for us to get some direction at the staff level from you guys on um what what ordinance amendments uh we would like to have and which ones maybe we don't and we keep what what rules we do have. Uh the topics we're going to cover tonight are street light spacing standards, uh curve linear street and street layout standards, accessory dwelling unit regulations, and lastly that Senate Bill 785 related to manufactured homes. Um and so again, we'll from from a summary perspective, what we're looking at is street light regulations. Uh 300 feet is what the city currently has. We did some research and there

005are some other cities that maybe even go a little more than that depending on what kind of roadway it is. Uh for example, in a traditional residential street where you have a lots of homes and lots of driveways, you know, that's probably where you want the lights at every 300 ft versus a collector or arterial road that's meant to move people pretty quickly. Maybe in those areas you have a little bit more spacing. Our current ordinance doesn't really um differentiate. It's always 300 in our current rule set, but other cities have u have increased a little bit, but generally the norm is about 300 feet. Uh at least in at least in our general neighboring cities. Um curve linear streets. This was a unique one. There's really not a lot of cities out there that

006are saying, you know, you shall do a curve linear street. They're really focusing more on block length. Uh if you do do curved streets, that they're designed um in a way that's in a safe manner. you know, you don't want to have, you know, you don't want people out there driving through their neighborhood and it it looks like an F1 course, right? It's it's supposed to be meandering. And so, um, not a lot of, you know, black and white, uh, rules out there for it. More of guidance on, um, block lengths and things like that that focus on character. Um, ADU regulations, this one was probably the most just all over the place. It's really depends on a community case by case basis. Um, our our regulations today is uh you can have an ADU,

007but it's really meant for your relatives or someone that's working on the property for you. It's really not meant for leasing or renting, you know, like these Airbnbs and things of that nature. Uh, and then lastly, the Senate Bill 785 uh topic. Again, that one is is to be effective September 1st. And really the the legislation is just saying we have to pick a zoning district in Navasota and say this is where manufactured homes are allowed by right. There's a few policy uh options that we've laid out here for you guys to consider and we'll get into that uh when we when we get to that point. So we'll start with the street light street light spacing. Again, ours is 300 ft. We also require them at every intersection. Um, Lupe, when was that when

008was that put into the code? What year >> would be 300 ft? >> I want to say 2010 when the original subdivision ordinance was implemented. Um, and our current regulations, it requires them at every intersection. Um, yeah. Oh, okay. Uh, it requires them at every intersection, at every end of the culde-sac, and of course at every 300t intervals. Um Brian and College Station, they had very similar spacing requirements. Brennham as well. Um and again that they they have a little bit more discretion like Brennham, they have 600 ft uh when it's a low density rural type street. So if we had a subdivision, let's say, and all the lots were acreage lots. Um in those situations, there's discretion there, at least in Brennham, for for maybe the lights to be spaced out a little bit

009further. Um our our really our findings are that the 300 foot is standard and it's pretty defensible of what we have today. Even though it was adopted in 2010, you know, Todd mentioned it's been a while, but it's it's still pretty the the pretty much the standard practice. Dark sky regulations and and recommendations out there, they don't they don't really they don't really dictate the spacing. It's more of cut off shields and making sure that you know you're not putting bright bright blue LEDs on street lights and you know you're you're shining down towards the street. And so I think our current ordinance accomplishes that. Uh but obviously that's up for uh discussion as we go through these. Another thing to consider is our old historic neighborhoods in the city. They're about 250 foot block

010length um versus our current regulations and our subdivision ordinance allows up to 1,200. Right. So, sometimes it's it's also a visual thing of, you know, if a street light goes out in our current older neighborhoods, you may you may only have a street light then 500 feet apart versus our new neighborhoods, it doesn't matter if that block is 1,000 feet or 500 feet, you're going to have one every 300 feet. Um, so that's just something to consider. I know that that's sometimes we get calls about street lights out in in the older historic parts, you know, the McNair edition or out here behind Church Street and Holland Street. Um but again those if you have a street light out then you're looking at you know 500 feet before your next street light. So um just

011something to consider as we're talking about this and and maybe we go about this is uh would y'all would y'all rather pause at each each of the uh languages before we jump to the next one? Okay. >> So >> questions. I I have a couple. >> So when when when you say things like low low density residential streets are you talking R1C >> correct? Okay. Now, now our ordinance today doesn't it doesn't matter. Those would also be every 300 ft. Um but something to consider if we wanted to allow some more spacing for those lower venting. >> Um in 2010, the ordinance was probably mostly about mercury vapor lights versus >> they were le they were discussing LEDs in 2010. And we were not looking. >> Yeah. a whole lot of kind of >> but

012[clears throat] the ordinance doesn't really contain language about >> no >> that um the uh your number five with dark sky regulations talking about shielding brightness colors glare um I know we we we definitely talk about down lighting with when we're talking about all the parking lots and stuff. This isn't parking lots. This is city street lights. Um so uh do we want to incorporate specific language about that? My other question is um can you define what a phototric plan is >> and who pays for it? >> Yeah. So and you know these regulations apply to new subdivisions. So any anything that we're looking at it it would be paid for by that engineer that's designing that neighborhood. a phototric plan to I don't have the technical terms but in a nutshell it's if you

013if you looked at a plat map of all the streets every light that is uh put on the subdivision has almost like a glob around it a globe and it tells you how far that light source emits and what is lighted and ideally you don't want a lot of dark spots right as you go through or or not as many >> so is is the plan written that um that each light has a radius and that the radi must touch or that they're allowed to have x amount of space between the radi. What? So that's where if you adopt a standard where you want a phototric plan, uh that becomes one of the bullet points you have to consider when you're when you're writing this new uh regulation is do you do you want them

014to overlap so then there is never a dark spot as you're walking through or do you want some interval and some gap? Um because sometimes the flip side is true. Some cities maybe they don't want the entire street to be lit up at night. So they require a phototric plan that shows they do have gaps between street lights because they don't want, you know, the entire street lit up at night. So it could go either way. It just depends on on preference. Obviously for us today, we don't require a phototric plan. We just say every 300 feet because generally with 300 feet, you're going to be pretty far away from each other where you're not going to overlap. >> We have a or be overbearing. We have a height a standard height for a street

015light in in those neighborhoods or do they have to be they can't be taller than because that makes a difference to the amount of area covering based off the based off the light. >> There's no current height requirements on our in adopted regulation now since I've you know I've been in this role for a while we pretty much just use a standard 25 foot as a baseline even though even though that's really that really lives in our commercial zoning district that's what's generally been applied. No, most of I think a lot of the stuff we're talking about is straight up puds. >> Correct. Most of them have been puds. Yeah. Um, but I'd say the 25 foot >> height is probably the more common. >> That's what most of them are using. >> What's the

016radius of a street light? I mean, if you had to, >> you know, I'm thinking of Panon Lakes because that's where I live and that's where I walk a dog every night. Those street lights, I'd say the globe the globe of of light is probably three lots wide. three to four lots. So 150 >> 150 because [laughter] it's easy out there. It's easy math because Lakes is all 50s. Um >> and there's no trees. >> Well, that's the thing about our neighborhoods. When we lose a street light, we lose a lot of light and it's because they're blocked by trees to begin [clears throat] with because you know >> the street light is probably already blocked by trees. >> It already Yeah. And then and then when one goes out or I mean the city

017doesn't have any plans to replace the old ones. This is about new ones going in. There's no there's no initiative to replace old street lamps with newer street lamps. >> I will say Energy does have, you know, all all the street lights in in the old part of town and even the new subdivisions. Um, Energy does have an app where you could actually report that light that's out and they will come out and and fix it. And the city, my understanding is the city pays that that light. >> Yeah. What I mean is they're not using newer technology and putting in like a, you know, some sort of downfacing LED light. >> No. No. Because they just replaced one on my street >> doing like for like >> it matches everything else. Yes. >> And

018you and that would probably be more preferable. I think some people might be upset if all of a sudden there's a bright white LED where there used to be a orange glow, you know? >> Right. Because when the um >> You like the orange >> the church? I don't think about >> you know [laughter] >> do do you does anybody have a a a light that they pay for that's kind of on the street like me? I I pay I pay extra money to have a a light on my my electric pole has a light on it and I pay an extra like five bucks a month to have that lit up because I don't trust the because the street lights Bill put it in you know Bill so um so I just continued it

019because I have you know so you can you can pay for >> I think we had we talking about our church on the corner of Manley and Church Street when uh the existing church now bought the Church of Christ. They lit that thing up. It looked like a space center. And I mean it was blinding, very blinding, very bright. And I mean, we just talked to them and they took some of those out. So now it's not >> so blinding. >> Not as bad. >> But I don't think we need, >> you know, contiguous light >> like touching >> radiuses, you know what I mean? To light things up that bright. But I just was wondering about the lumens and the height and the 300 feet because if you you know from a construction standpoint

020well if I put it up another five feet and add another 500 lumens I can get the same amount of of of light and in the same distance and go 375 feet and that's going to save me $20,000 lighting up this neighborhood. You know what I mean? So, I don't know if we need to build a little leeway in that way, like you know, or or just say, >> but the height >> works both ways, right? Like I don't want these monstrous things because then you do get um encroachment into neighbors houses and stuff like that. If you build them up too high, they're going to come into houses. So, so although we just kind of have a standard, yeah, we usually do 25 feet, we might want to codify that nothing more than >>

021nothing to exceed 25 or something like that. >> So, I'm curious, have we had any issues with our current standards or have there been complaints from builders or developers or anything? >> From my recent memory, I I don't recall anyone saying that that's an issue. I >> mean, I I've driven around town some. I've looked at, of course, I'm in Pan Lake, so I'm seeing the same things you are every day, but I mean, I I like the way ours looks. It's not overly bright. It's not too dark. It seems to be a very workable standard where we're at now. And so, >> you know, I didn't know kind of what had happened that made us want to look at this ordinance. Has there been a specific issue or >> This was just one of

022the things that, you know, the council had a a list of of things that they've brought up over the years and they just wanted planning and zoning feedback and workshop. So, you know, I think I mentioned it a little bit before the meeting, but you know, just because we're workshopping it, it doesn't mean that we have to decide on a change. You know, it's really planning and zoning discretion. >> For me, it's not so much about the change. It's it it's potentially adding specific language to make sure that some developer doesn't say, "Well, I can do whatever I because it's not in the ordinance, so this is what I'm going to do." >> So, you know, the 300 is amendable, you know, because like I said, it aesthetically pleasing. you still have some some unlit

023places, but then you like Todd's bringing up with the height and then the lumen, you know, that's going to be the variable. If we can set the distance, then the height, uh, you know, what do we want to do with that? >> Yeah, I think >> we want to cap it at 25. >> Maybe the good approach is limiting it Yeah. not to exceed 25 with cut off shields. And you're, you know, with a cut off shield kind of the same language that mirrors in our commercial districts. Um, so you know, you don't have a situation where you're shining it up and you know all of a sudden there's a glow around. >> Does the photoometric plant account for trees? >> It would if you require it. The the problem is most new neighborhoods >>

024don't have, you know, they don't have any trees. >> They clean everything. They clean. >> I just wonder like moving forward does it make sense to just make everyone have a phototric plan? But the but the lights the lights are always in the curb cut. And I are you are you allowed to plant trees in the in the grass between the sidewalk and the curb in in these puds or or they don't they people plant trees in their front yard but there's no >> Our ordinance does allow plantings in the rideway and that is in the city rightway. So that's not an issue. Um >> there's no height restriction in the right away because all these new puds everything's buried. >> Right. Yeah. Because I've lived in a neighborhood where if you planted a tree

025in the rightway that they had a list of trees that you could plant there because they didn't want anything that was going to grow up into the into the power lines. So if you planted a tree in the rightway, you were restricted to trees who canopied out at like 20 25 ft. >> Dwarf trees. >> Well, they weren't dwarf, but they they they go up and then canopy, right? So >> yeah. No, there's there's no >> but we don't have it. >> There's no such limitation. you could plant. >> I think there's the only only when you get near intersections because of sight triangle issues, there is some language that kind of points that direction of, hey, don't don't plant a large shrub and bush right at the intersection. It's going to cause visibility issues.

026But >> other than that, like I live in mid block. I could I could plant an oak tree if I wanted to. Ethan, you think a plan is not a bad idea? >> Well, because I'm >> to be consistent or >> So, obviously, I guess if you go online and buy a street light, there's not just one street light to buy. There's 10,000 different street lights, right? >> So, to me, I mean, they already have to do a plan for everything else. >> Yeah. >> So, why don't we just have them do a phototric plan that include the lumen and the height and all this stuff? So then we can see cuz I mean what if what if they do one every 300 feet but it's half the lumens that it's supposed to be, right?

027>> So like how do we but we wouldn't know that without a phototric plan, >> right? >> Because I I've never seen anybody have >> and how are you going to go out and say, "Hey, those lights aren't bright enough. You got to swap them out." I mean that's not like something that you're going to sign off. >> No. By the time they're on, they're >> Yeah. They're well beyond controlling that. Yeah. >> Not to push more for everything to go up, but like they have to do it for everything else. >> They can stand allows the developer to know what to expect. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. I think the standards, but there's 300 feet, but they still have to include a phototric plan, >> right? >> My concern is if you're over

02825 ft um on a pole and you have these heavy storms come through, that's more possibility of it falling onto a house to vehicles. >> Sure. Well, it also requires a wider base and heavier pole. And I think you got a good point there. So >> yeah, I mean I'm all in my opinion. I think the 300 ft seems the standard, but I still think they should submit a phototric plan regardless >> because then we can control the color tone, the lumen, >> right? >> And and and not to say we want this tone and this lumen, but you bring it to us and and we'll Yeah. >> I think if anything else, um it at least shows what areas are going to be lit up with the proposed lights. Yeah. >> I mean, you

029can get crazy. You say warm color LED. Okay. Is that 3200, 3,300, 3,400, 2,800? Like >> not all of us see color the same way >> and we and we don't and we don't today regulate that color anyway, >> right? So I mean it's like I mean maybe we should, but we could go into the weeds in this all day all night. >> Carolyn wants to m [laughter] >> the others lighting change lighting technologies changing rapidly, you know, and so what we dictate today may be out of date two years from now. So we've got to be careful how we write that. Yeah, I think we're gonna maybe the city will have an app where we can just control all the street lights in the city and for Fourth of July we make them all

030go red, white >> LED we [laughter] can just make go red, white and blue and green and red for Christmas. >> Yeah, I can control the light bulb in my kitchen. So why not the street? >> There's an app for that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, what I have here is 25 foot maximum cut off shields and I'm just going to what I'm going to do instead of cut off shields, I'm just going to say meeting the requirements of dark sky recommendations. There's probably a few more that we're not thinking of. And we'll we'll bring back the ordinance formally and then a phototric plan just to just to show the the area. >> Yeah, >> we need to just say standard 25 foot height. I mean, is there a minimum? >> Well, I I would

031I would cap it at 25 because let's say we get a neighborhood that wants to come in and put in street lights like we have downtown. >> You know, we don't want to force that poll to be high because it might be a a shorter pole that's like that's like in our downtown district. So I think a not to exceed is maybe give us a little bit more flexibility. >> So then is there a standard of how much light you need in that space? >> Well, it goes back to the phototric plan, right? >> But then like how you know >> Yeah. Like >> I think it's all subjective. >> How many of these decorative lights do you need to get the same light you would get from the pole light? >> Well, we're saying

032they they can't be more than 300. If they put decorative pole lights in with low lumens and they wanted to put one every 65 ft, >> they could. They could. >> That's right. Right. it would and it would make the neighborhood look a lot different than 25 foot poles with three times the loom. >> And I don't object to that. I mean, I'm just saying >> if we're asking for these lights for safety, security purposes, or whatever, then is there a how do we >> how would you write that to make sure that if they used an alternative light? >> I bet I I wonder if there's an ADA standard for night vision or something like that. I can we can look into it and see if there's if there's something that dictates the amount

033of light and what's safe. At a minimum, we want safety. Um, so we can we can look into that further. >> And then that that unit of measurement would be in lumens >> probably. Yeah. Lumens or foot well they call them foot candles typically on how far. Yeah. >> Because you have if you're going to do that need to have some unit of measurement. So, >> so some of these other cities have a phototric plan or something we could template with. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. We'll [clears throat] we'll find we'll find something to build off of. We love copy paste from other cities that already done it. [laughter] >> Any other discussion on that one? >> Oh, that's good. I like it. >> All right. Our next topic is curve linear streets. Um again this

034is another one that we think uh a little bit different. So from from the regulations we could we researched our neighboring neighboring communities and even a little bit beyond we really couldn't find a city that said you have to have curveal linear streets. Um they were more encouraged. Our ordinance does encourage it. Now granted, it's one line item, one sentence in a in a document probably that's, you know, 20 pages worth. Um, but other cities are encouraging it, and it's really just limiting the culde-sac length. Um, the block the block length um, and if you do put in curves, just making sure that those curves are safe. Um, and so I think for at least from staff's recommendation on this, maybe there's a way to revisit our block lengths and see what what is in

035more of character of Navasota. And that's and that gives a little bit more involved. It involves a little bit more engineering. And so we think incorporating that into our unified development code that's probably going to be delivered in second quarter of next year. I don't I don't anticipate, you know, or getting a 20 subdivisions between now and then, but it's just a little bit more involved and I think it would take a little bit more finetuning for this. And I don't I don't necessarily think that, you know, putting a black and white rule of saying it has to be curved. Um because that's just not really the the the norm and the standard. Um, one of the things that we noted here is our comprehensive plan and even our commercial design guidelines. They all reference

036the historic character of Navasota and, you know, keeping Navasota kind of honoring the the design aesthetics of of the city and our neighborhoods and and really I think most people would probably argue that our prettier neighborhoods or the older ones that are more the traditional street grid pattern. Uh, and so I just put a picture up there of what that's actually an image of near Brozig and um Bro Elementary versus another neighborhood in another city that shows the curve. And I I think there's just some discussion there about do we do we require it black and white? SAP's recommendation is probably not just maybe more encouraging and maybe fine-tuning the block lengths to be a little bit more pleasing than, you know, these 800 blocks where you have, you know, 25 homes on each side,

037right? Um, that's probably the that I I imagine >> that's written now though, number of houses per block is in the code. >> It's it's not that a block has or can't be more than X or less than X. It's that x amount of houses per block is the limitation, >> right? There's a there's a there's a andor there's an andor statement in there. It says >> this long or x amount of frontage times your lot width, right? >> Um most of the neighborhoods where where I see those longer blocks have been puds. >> Yeah. >> So, there's a little bit of flexibility there, but I think maybe putting putting a hard stop on that block length could be an option. But again, I think that gets a little bit more into the weeds and

038we probably want some professional opinion on on those standards as a part of the UDC. >> Most of the developments over the past couple years have haven't had an issue with curvish streets, right? Well, there hasn't been many, >> but I mean I know there hasn't been many, but maybe like the past three or four that have come through us >> seem to have some kind of movement in the roadways. >> I mean, Altameir certainly does. >> Stone Ridge has no choice, >> right? >> That one that we that one that got panned last week was just square as all get out. Um, I would say, um, you when you try to use language like emphasis on maintaining Navasota's character, um, in no way have I seen any PUD development in the time that I've

039been here try at all to maintain any sort of historical character in their layouts. I mean, if you tried to get these guys to to even reduce things down, say we were like, okay, historic character square blocks, so let's take our 250 and extend them out to 350. the increased number of roads and the loss of lot development property. If they were taking 80 acres is that they would just they they'd say, "I'm gonna I'm going to lose 65 houses. I'm going to have to put in another mile and a half of concrete roads." You know, I I don't I don't see anybody saying, "Well, I'd be happy to develop squares that were, you know, 350 to 400 feet." Uh, >> right. No, I think the the main point of that was it's probably it's

040probably a better approach to leave it on a sight by sight, case by case basis versus just saying all streets have to be curved or all streets have to be grid. You know, I think there's a >> I think that's probably the one where you want to be more more flexible. But we should probably add more language than just one sentence that says >> so do think is an issue. You know, I look at River Way there in Panon Lakes. That is a real that back part back there is just really long. I don't know what the >> the length of that is, >> but >> yeah, I think that one was over I think it was over 800 feet and that's why there was that midblock sidewalk. Um >> I wondered about that >>

041to break it to break it up and that that was actually a requirement because it was so long. It it needed a midblock crossing for pedestrians. >> To me, that seems excessively long to for what they've done. And I also think that's resulting in, you know, if you go, I guarantee if you drive through there at night, just all the cars parked on the side, it just gets crazy. And >> you say that's about 800 feet because the ordinance says up to,200. So add another half to that length, >> which is too long in my opinion. >> Yeah. Right. >> I mean, I I'd love to see that cut down. You know, I think it's from a quality of life issue, from just ability to navigate the roads issue, speed. Yes. I think that's all

042of those issues. >> Uh I think it reduces some congestion when you break the block up with a through street >> because you can always turn the corner instead of going to the end >> as long as they're not all >> culdeacs. >> And you talk about the historic nature of Navasota that does honor the historic nature. >> I never drive the same way twice in this town. I always drive. >> You got a [laughter] must be a creature of habit for that. >> You what? You take the same two streets. >> You do a right in a concrete street. name two and a half minutes of music. [laughter] >> I can never get I can never get to the second to the second song of the album, unfortunately. [laughter] >> Heritage Meadows, you know,

043there's just straight >> Yeah. >> streets in there. And I mean, people just zip >> like a rac. >> Yes. >> Yeah. If you can even drive down it, they go fast. >> Well, I will say the parking >> make that block length longer and it makes it easier to justify stop signs. I mean, less long. makes it easier to justify putting some stop signs in which does control you know as we talk about curve linear if we're trying to slow traffic down the best way to do that is a traffic control device so >> right >> speed bumps >> I hate those but yes you're right [laughter] >> so does everybody >> you know if you hit them just at the right speed you don't feel it right >> haven't figured that >> sometimes

044it's 37 miles an hour but it [laughter] is and you can tell when somebody comes through that doesn't live on our street are not familiar with it because they'll come out of their car every time. >> Yeah, we we don't need speed bumps. We got enough gullies at the intersections to slow you down. [laughter] >> Unless you want to lose your car speed. >> So again, I'd love to see us talk about at least restricting block >> the block line. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And right now it's 1,200. >> Maximum is 1,200. And I believe that is where you have to put in some kind of midblock. >> Is there um do you know if if if there's data on uh like car pedestrian incidents versus block lengths and stuff like that. I wonder

045if there is some traffic safety, you know, deep data dive >> that shows that there's because that I mean to me that's like Bert says that's important. I mean, if we saw that we reduced block length, you know, to a certain distance and we had a 10% decrease in in traffic injuries or vehicular incidents or whatever, that would that's good. That's good stuff. >> Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, the when cars do park like that and it gets all congested, that's also a natural slowdown because people people don't want to lose their mirrors. [laughter] Yeah. Okay. So, what I'm hearing on this is maybe maybe do a little bit of research on um block length versus traffic safety and then consider what is the ideal number out there for a for a block length to reduce

046it down from 1,200. I would almost cut that number in half and just say like, you know, my thinking is like 600. >> No, more than Well, a good a good example in [clears throat] PCON would be like links. >> Those those stretches are about 600. >> Well, and that's 12 50 foot houses, right? >> Well, I think no, in that in that neighborhood in that phase, there were still 60 foot lots. So, >> so it' be 10. So, >> yeah, about 10. >> Yeah, >> 10 12. So, >> that's a reasonable amount of houses. >> Yeah. you know, I don't think you're putting an undue hardship on a developer at that point, >> right? >> Okay. We'll do some research and we'll maybe we'll bring this back for another workshop um just to hone

047in on those details versus a versus an ordinance ready. [cough] >> All right, next one is our accessory dwelling unit topic. Uh again, this one was probably the most just it was all over the place. Uh it really depends on the city. It really depends on the population of that city. And you know, if you look at a city like Fredericksburg, obviously they have ADU short-term rentals all over the place because it's a very tourist town with uh lots of short-term rentals. College Station obviously has Texas A&M. And so there's a lot of regulations on those mainly on how many can occupy the the uh those rental spaces. I know recently the state did away with some of that oversight. Um, and so I think for Navasota specifically, it really is just a discussion, you

048know, from planning and zoning of is there an appetite to make a modification to the current regulations. Today, you allow accessory dwelling units, but they're only meant for basically people that work on the property or relatives of the primary house. And if there's a desire to change it, staff would recommend that we do put in some guard rails. Um, for example, one of them being a size limitation. You know, no more than 50% of the main house, so you don't have two houses on one lot. Maybe requiring that the property owner has to reside in one of the two, either in the small cassita or the main house, right? To have a little bit more um accountability and, you know, a little bit more skin in the game. that way it doesn't turn into a

049double rental with maybe some potential issues for for the neighborhood. And so if if planning and zoning goes that direction, we've obviously come up with a few few ideas that would maybe put some some guard rails in place for it, but this really is open-ended on what y'all what y'all's thoughts are. Um, another idea was actually some cities have this where it's a conditional use permit, right? If you want to have unrelated persons and it's going to be a rental, then you go through a conditional use permit to have a little bit more oversight with planning and zoning and council, right? Both both bodies get involved and it's a very public process. That's one idea, too. So, again, this one's wide open on what you all think is a good policy direction for this. >>

050I like the idea of the conditional use. So questions. Um the current ordinance as is with either being secondderee relatives or or employee enforced. >> That was question. >> No, >> there's no enforcement, right? >> How how would you enforce that? >> Well, I know. Let show me your >> The neighbor calls Lupe and says they're not related. [laughter] >> Yeah. So I think the enforcement today takes place number one if Joe Bob is just started renting out his shed code enforcement needs to come take a look at this we will absolutely >> so okay so here's the other >> or if someone or if someone calls and says hey I want to I want to rent out a small little building can I the answer is going to be no unless >> so here's

051so I guess that's the other questions that I have so if someone wants to lease an ADU on their property Are they required to get permit? Is it a is it now a commercial piece of space because they're, you know, profiting from it? Are they paying different tax on that space? You know, if none of that happens, right? >> Well, is is this a new ADU that they're building? >> My neighbors have a garage apartment. >> It's been there for 40 years. >> Mhm. >> It's just a garage apartment. The city has no control over whether they lease it or not except that they meet the ordinance which is >> well at that point. >> Does the city inspect the leased property to prove that it meets >> code after it's constructed or when it's

052constructed? Yes. But but after No. >> Yeah. After it it's no different than any other, you know, zoning zoning code violation, right? Like if if I decided tomorrow I'm going to, you know, open up Lupe's >> Takaria in my garage. Well, I can start it tomorrow, but the moment someone complains and the city looks into it and now that's a zoning violation. These are no different. They would be zoning violations. >> If somebody builds a a twocar garage and and um roughs in the upstairs >> and then five years later comes in and finishes out himself and then starts leasing it. >> The city is never well only the electrical inspection and the plumbing inspection is the only inspection that the city would do on the property. >> But when is that done? at the

053time that the structure was built or at the time they try to finish it out. >> When you finish it out, you're supposed to pay for your permit and then >> sometimes, you know, you could follow you could follow steps A through Z and check all your boxes and then as Todd mentioned, then someone could decide, you know what, I think I want to I want to rent that garage that I did for my kid. Um, at that point the enforcement mechanism is either, you know, city staff beycomes aware or someone complains and says, "Hey, I think my neighbor is leasing out their garage." >> But leasing leasing leasing space doesn't violate any sort of business code. >> No, but it's the occupancy. It's it's if if staff can prove that >> at our current

054with our current ordinance. >> Current ordinance is correct. >> It's not the leasing that's the issue. >> No, leasing is not the issue. It's the occupancy. Correct. So is there something that defines in an ADU what the electrical and plumbing standards are and all these >> same construction standard? >> Yeah, it's the same standard as a home >> Bubba in his garage and he roughs it in and then later finishes it out >> with or without a permit. >> Yeah. How do we I know because there's plenty of non-permitted work that goes on. We all know >> Yeah. a lot of fly by nighters out there and and it's no different than someone finishing out their garage and putting in their own bedroom or just remodeling their house, you know, just >> would you guys

055have the ability to go into Bubba's garage and say, "Oh my gosh, you you're renting this ADU out and the plumbing substandard or your electrical doesn't meet code or >> if we had a regulation that allowed them." Um, it it would then involve like a certificate of occupancy inspection, right? where our building official would walk through the building >> if somebody tells the city that they're leasing out the space. >> Correct. Or if it, you know, it comes organically because >> because the neighbor calls. >> So, is that something that we need to think about with this? >> I I think in terms of building code, I think the city already has the proper tools and ordinances in place to make sure that structures are safe. >> I agree. >> We we we we're not

056going to be able to prevent everything out there because, you know, I could go home right now and rewire my whole kitchen and no one would know. No. And the only time it would the only time it would become an issue is if he went to sell it and he signed off and said that no work was done that wasn't permitted. Then he'd be lying on the >> The disclosure, right? So the only time that you really notice that Bubba did his own work is if he bothers to claim it on the disclosure or if somebody says, "Well, look, this wire all has date on it." Because, you know, wire's got date. And it's like the date on this doesn't match the date of the house. When was it done? you look up the permit

057and nobody pulled a permit on it, now you know it's been unpermitted work. So there's there's ways to to find somebody, but most again it happens at sale, you know, >> and there and there is there is some cities that have a rental registry process where if you're going to rent your property, you have to register with the city. Well, the city, >> but again, it comes back to then someone just doesn't register it and they >> But short short-term leasing here, if if people are doing it through um VBO or or um or Airbnb, they're required to register with the city to do that because the city's supposed to get a piece of that action. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Because there's not a [clears throat] whole lot of difference with a lease. It's

058just you get 12 months instead of two nights, [snorts] >> right? >> You know what I mean? >> You don't have to pay hotones with a lease, >> right? Well, then some people just move out of their house and still >> move back in when they leave. >> Yeah. >> Um, what's the minimum dwelling size? 7 something. >> 750 today. >> 750. So, if we were to take the minimum of 750, which is 3 what? 375. Whatever it is, >> 375. So you could end up with a 750 foot dwelling with a 300 and whatever foot ADU on one piece of property. >> Mhm. Right. And that's again that's up for y'all's discussion on >> size size is a bit of an issue. I mean when >> well everybody's written so I mean everybody is

059like lesser of 50% max and this this but like yeah well if if our minimum is 750 then our minimum needs to be 750 for 80 if it's going to be habitable. >> Okay but then you're ruling out like tiny homes u a room with maybe a kitchenet and the bathroom I mean >> but that's this is for ADUs. Yeah, I think well okay so I think if you're gonna if you're going to adopt a a regulation that says ADUs are okay to to lease unrelated I think at that point you would almost have to reduce that square footage just because it's it's supposed to be a subordinate use of the main but here's here's my argument with with that is um >> the standard twocar garage >> is is a 24 by 24 that's

060575 square ft anybody who drives a fullsize pickup truck is built 24x 28 or 24 by 30 which is 670 or 720 ft right so I I mean you can build smaller a 24 a 20 x 20 is a really small garage for you right but a 24 by 24 is pretty standard that's 576 square feet right there and you know so when you talk about an ADU you can talk about a standalone you can talk about a carriage house you know with a apartment over a garage or even you know in your pictures an attached structure can still be an ADU, right? And that's an extension of the house. So, that becomes a little weird because it's like, well, it's not a standalone. I'm putting addition on an addition on my house that's got

061a mother-in-law suite. And if you're going to call that an ADU, you're going to tell me that I can't build my mother-in-law suite who's in a wheelchair, you know, and needs extra wide doors and bigger bathrooms, anything more than 375 square, you know, or seven, whatever, whatever, you know, whatever number you come up with. So, you got to be really careful when you start talking about square footage. And then there's a world of people that are like, "Yeah, I can live in 300 square feet." And there's a world of people that are like, "Hey, if I can't put my king-size bed in here, I'm not renting it." You know, and and so now you've got people that have to have, you know, I mean, we've all lived in small apartments at some time in our

062life, probably not in a house or >> I have. Yeah. I guess. >> But, you know, it's it's a it's a it's a fine line with some of this stuff. What I'm trying to avoid is is is the not that it would happen, but the overpop populousing of these tiny structures on every lot that can fit one. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> To rent them out. >> I think controlling it by lot size. So that was my next question. Yeah. Is is is you know like No, >> but then you But that becomes a home ownership thing. Like you can't tell one owner he can do it, another he can't just because he's got a smaller wall. >> Yeah, you could. I mean that's zoning. >> I know. Yeah, it is zoning but it's a little

063>> I just like that's my prevention point. It's like I don't you know >> you don't want one behind every house like PCON Lakes, right? 50 foot lots. We probably don't want ADUs in every single yard in Pon Lakes. >> We have setback requirements. Plus in Pon Lakes. >> Well, ADUs have a 5 foot set back. They're only required to be 5 foot off the property line >> just like a garage. >> well, just like most homes now. Yeah. >> Well, yeah, I guess that's a good point. Um, >> but no, but >> yes, but if I wanted to put a if I wanted to put a garage on my property, I get a point44 and I want to put a 24x 24 garage on, I can put it 5t off of both fences in

064the back corner. >> Correct. >> If I put an apartment above it because it it would be five foot off the fences. So, >> right. >> And it's an ADU because it's above a girl, you know, >> detached. That's a And I think I think these I think these pictures are a little bit >> probably not the best. It wasn't the best choice to show some that are attached. This conversation is for def. >> Yeah. If you had if you were building your ADU like a mother-in-law suite attached to your property, you wouldn't be able to get 5 ft without going through a >> Well, at that point, I don't think it would even be an ADU. I think it would just be >> a home extension. >> It would be an extension. >> All

065I got to do is make the last touch then. >> Why are you giving out all the secrets? Well, my house is already built that way. I have I have a building [laughter] I have a building that was roofed over from the from the porch >> to to be engulfed into the house. It's an entirely separate structure that I got a wraparound porch and a roof that goes all the way to the other one. So, so it it is a separate space, but it's not, you know, it doesn't have a kitchen. Yeah. I mean, I'm, >> you know, a lot of those things can be addressed as a conditional use permit, >> right? Yeah. >> Which goes into that >> to where >> and then and then you know who's putting them in, not just

066I built this thing, I got a garage, I roughed it in, three years later I finish it out, now I'm leasing it, nobody knows if you >> that I mean all of that can be addressed at that time. maybe put some guidelines about. >> Yeah, you're going to have to have some objective standards because you can't just make it make it up from the DIS. So, you have to have at least something to point to, but at least a conditional use has a process for it. >> Does the conditional use though create any uniformity in standards though or are we going to have >> that? Depends on the verbiage we put to it. >> Yeah, and I think that's going to be key. I mean, I'm not a big fan of puff and subex, but

067>> Oh, me either. I think they should be much larger, but >> but that's a that's a whole other ordinance to deal with, right? Or are you going to say or a conditional use ad an accessory building accessory dwelling requires a 15oot setback that would put it on bigger lots or people would have to come and get um a BOA and then BOA could turn them down, right? Say >> they would How big a setback you want? >> Our residential standard. >> Well, it depends on the zone. >> Yeah. >> Seven. If you're an R1A, >> R1A is seven. seven foot or 10% of the lot width is pretty standard >> which always defaults to seven because it's usually >> and the and the reason the where the five foot comes from it's not just

068for ADUs ADUs are considered or accessory structures in our current ordinance it also applies for you know if you want to have a little shed for your mower your weed eater or your tools um you want to put that little shed five feet off the property line >> right but right now it treats both of those the same >> so if you wanted differentiate and say, "Okay, no, for habitable ADUs, we want more. We want 10 instead of five." >> But I think I think Ethan's right because, you know, if you're going to put a shed for a lawn mower on 5 foot against my property, I'm not so worried about it. But, you know, you're going to put your 22year-old son that doesn't have a job in there and he's going to be 5

069foot off my fence line. You know, that might be something that bothers me a little more than the lawn mower. You know what I But then they could also have this thing that was built to hold a lawn mower. Then they had a garage apartment on top and now you're still five feet. >> Yeah. The idea of coming back to a structure and and modifying it later is >> Well, then I Yeah. Whatever. >> Yeah. No, no, no. I mean, it's it's >> that's when I think maybe a variance would would be required, right? If we had that rule, >> the setback is only >> they would have to ask for a variance before they could change the use of that structure to something else. I want a relief of the 10- foot rule because

070the city now requires 10 for for living quarters. >> I only have five and it's an existing structure. They'd have to go to the BOA and say, "Hey, I want a relief of the five." Um, >> so yeah, if you put some guardrails in place and there's a process or you and you go back to >> rules are only for honest people. >> Yeah, sure. >> Because how many of them are going to just do whatever they I mean, they're handyman, >> right? makes it tough. >> But rules also give us the the leverage to say no or yes, >> right? >> With the same. >> But come come back to lot size. >> Maybe >> larger is not a size. Maybe the baseline is the the smallest lot size that's a part of our

071current ordinance, right? You have to have 4,000 square feet. >> I think it's I think it's 7,000. >> 7,000 in the ordinance. 4,000 on our PUDS. >> Yeah. Well, those are always, you know, those are those are unique and everything. >> Yeah. On the ordinance, >> but our current ordinance is seven. So, you have to have 7,000 or more square feet of lot. You know, that would be an option. That way, you don't end up with ADUs on 5,000 square foot lots. you know, it just becomes too too cramped. I think the original point of the zoning ordinance in many years ago was >> Well, how what's the what's the how big's your backyard square footage wise? >> Uh mine's larger than most, but I don't know what the square footage is. >> But I

072mean, if you put a 20 by 20 back there, you you wouldn't you you'd lose most of the yard, right? >> It' be a decent piece. >> It'd be twothirds of what's behind the house probably >> with a 7 foot. It's about most most most yards are about a thousand >> be attached to that. [laughter] >> See? >> So >> yeah, most are about a thousand 50 across 20ish deep. So about 1,000 square feet >> in the back. >> The back. >> So if you put a 24 Yeah. If you put a 20 by 20 in there, you >> So you couldn't do a 20 by 20 because most of the setbacks are 20. >> Most setbacks are already at 20. So the back of your house is already 20 feet away from the >>

073Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So it' have to be more like a like a 10 by 15, >> you know, kind of like that picture that's up there, you know. >> So if we allowed them that small, I'm not necessarily against renting them out, but if you rent them out to me, then it has to be a minimum. You know what I mean? Like >> minimum like you can't make them so small that it's some Japanese. >> Yeah. Somebody will rent anything, right? On both on both sides. Somebody will rent something. Somebody will pay to rent something, >> right? >> Of any size. >> Well, I mean on Airbnb you can rent a bedroom in someone's home, >> right? I mean, >> no, I get it. Anything. Yeah. >> So, it's like how do you

074how do you find that sweet sweet spot that that makes sense? Yeah, >> I still think it needs to be a use permit, >> but >> needs to be what? >> Special use permit. It's specific use per, however we say it. >> Conditional use. But you know, like College Station has on here rental allowed, but no more than two under unrelated persons may live in the accessory living quarter. So now you're limit who's going to police it. Who knows? But you're saying only two people, not a family of four and a 500 foot, you know, ADU. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but then those two have a baby. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Then the neighbor would have to report them, right? >> They got 2.5 over there now. Yeah. [laughter] But I mean it's you

075know it's all you know. >> So if we require the specific use permit what I guess what reg what regulations can we put that go with that specific use permit? So, I think um it's important to to spell out specific use permit. If we go down that route, if it's approved, it only applies to the current lot owner. The moment that the property sells or changes hands, it it goes away. A conditional use permit will run with the life of the property forever. So, that's the first thing. You know, maybe that's maybe that's another mechanism to to ensure that every time a property changes hands, you you have to go through that process. But it it does add a lot of >> but if you if you build if you build a structure that's specifically

076housing, >> right? >> It has no other use >> with an SU then the day that the day that that house sells now it reverts back to it can't be someone unrelated, right? The moment it sells. >> Yeah. Um because it's only tied to that first property owner that applied for the SUP. >> I think you have to keep it conditional and not specific. >> Not not specific. >> So So [clears throat] in terms of what rules >> I mean that's the way you sell the it's it's harder to sell that the ADU is a sellable value. It has inherent value in the property and to not be able to sell the property with it because well I can't promise you that the city's going to let you keep that thing as a rentable unit.

077That's you know that's gonna that's that's hurting the homeowner. No, that's valid. Yeah. >> Yeah. In terms of the what rules you could apply for either either permits, conditional uses, you really the leeway that you have is only rules that are already applicable generally of that character of use, right? So like for a conditional use for ADU, you know, you couldn't say we need 20 parking spaces, right? because it's because our standard residential rules only have two parking spaces per dwelling, right? >> So, they have to be proportionate to the use that you're doing um and in general in line with what they're wanting what they're wanting to do. >> And a lot of these other city codes require that there was a single parking space. >> Right. Right. >> What defines a single parking

078space? A driveway. >> I'd say where you probably a standard size parking space 9 by you know 9 by 20 >> but not on the street. No, not it has to be off the street and has to be out of the rideway. >> Yeah. >> You know, I guess for me with this >> paved currently because all all of our parking spaces are required to be paved for a new new home. >> You know, for me, if there's conditional use >> paving is a strange concrete ribbons like this that the grass grows up, >> you know, so that we're not approving >> the drains instead of making more hardcape, >> right? you know, >> so that would be like setback something off to the sides of >> setbacks. The driveway standard's a good one. Um,

079>> you know, there's there's probably several we can think of, but uh, you know, it just on a permitted basis, you know, there's always all these exceptions, and I'd like to see us create some consistency with this somehow. >> Is there a way to require a CO to get a permit? Yeah, that would be inherent. If we're going to allow these to be dwellings, they have they would have to get a co >> whether it's like a rem whatever it is, >> whether it's for unrelated or related. Yeah, even today, I mean, we've had we I think we've had at least maybe one or two that I can recall that they did the formal process and it was for somebody related. Um, and they had a CO inspection because it has, you know, kitchenet facility,

080a restroom and and all that. So, it's already built into the system. >> Okay. So, what I have is conditional use permit, at least one additional parking space, >> paid. >> Um, >> right. >> But be careful with the word paved. What's What do you mean by pave? So, gravel is not good enough for you. >> non-p permeable sections, >> rigid. >> No, I don't like that. I would what if I wanted to put those um lattice hatchmarked concrete squares in so that I could grow grass up in between it and make my yard permeable so that I'm not generating hardcape for more water runoff. And you're going to tell me I have to generate water runoff. So I'm not going to agree to that. You can you can do it. I'm going to vote

081against it the minute you [laughter] say that. >> Tell us how you really >> I'm just you know I mean semi-permeable. I can't wait to see develop on that corner. [laughter] >> What's that? >> I can't wait to see what you're going to develop on that corner. >> On my corner. >> Yeah. >> What you don't see in the backyard? That's why I'm trying to grow those big fast growing trees so you can't see what I'm doing back there. Goodness. [laughter] >> What about What about size? >> Size limitations. Do we like uh I think it was Brennham that has the no lesser than 50% or >> I like that. >> Yes. See, I worry about the no. I mean, if you're putting a minimum size limit, I kind of >> let's just set or

082set a basement. Yeah. A minimum of it can be less than >> What are you thinking, Ethan? >> Well, if you set it up, >> it's an average one-bedroom apartment size. 600 700 square feet. 8. >> That's actually pretty big. >> Yeah. Studio A studio is about 5 550 560. >> I mean, you can you can make studios that are 350 and you can make them work. If you're talking about New York, sorry Nancy, go ahead. >> On the tiny homes, they're usually 399 square feet and that's a onebedroom with living room, bathroom. >> Well, I have a plant in Mansfield that builds tiny homes and some of them are in the 3 to 400 foot range and they have kitchen, living, utility, >> but they're small, >> but people live in them. >> They

083do. Yeah. I'm not judging anybody who does, but >> yeah, that's probably probably less than 400 square feet in the picture. I mean, you know, 20 >> end up with a 400 square foot and a 750 square foot. >> Yeah, I know. Because it's like which what's the main house, >> right? There's no there's no variance. I mean, there is, but >> yeah, >> on a different scale. >> I don't know. Maybe I'm just wrong. I There's that, too. Well, what what's the what's the concern about the two structures being close in size that you don't have a primary residence anymore? Because if I wanted to build an ADU and live in it and lease out the manor, then you know that's the primary owner is living in the smaller residence, but doesn't matter. So

084I >> Well, there's one. >> What are you wor What are you worried about? I guess is it just feels weird or >> I guess I'm worried about someone buying five lots and putting 10 structures on the >> two at a time >> and >> one's they build a 700 main structure and a 400 secondary structure and now they've got two rental units. I think I think the ownership takes care of takes care of that where you have to have >> don't have two rental unit >> one of the the owner has to live in one or two on site >> right I get it but what if a developer has six lots of land and they're developing it specifically to put two dwellings on each lot and >> so once somebody buys it they

085know they're going to live in one and least six different owners with the same you know what I'm saying >> could you say that the owner has to live in a primary residence and you're only allowed to have one ad you for lot >> but to me it's not about that it's about the developer. >> Yeah, you're seeing >> it's not I'm seeing it as a developer selling six lots with two units on >> six different but that developer wouldn't be able to do that from the from the getgo >> only the people that bought those lots could then apply. >> Yeah. If the owner has for the lot the owner would have to >> they can only have one ADU per lot. >> They can't live in all six lots. >> No, I'm talking

086about after the fact that they're sold. >> But if it was if it was if it was an own Yeah. But if it if you had a conditional use and the owner would have to even if you built the two of them, he'd have to >> it's not a neighborhood. It's just I own six lots on Water Street and I want to build this and I'm gonna sell them and >> and Yeah. And my and my market my marketability is that I'm going to sell a unit that you have rental income to pay your mortgage. So I'm going to build both units, but >> you have to go apply for the permit after you buy it from me. Yeah. But now I've got six lots in a row that are the same exact thing. >>

087Yeah. And what does that look like? >> And you've made more money, right? >> So the developer selling to a different owner. So you got owner. >> Yeah. Yeah. But you're but you're selling to an owner that's looking for income property. >> Sure. >> I don't know if that bothers me. >> I mean I mean it all depends on your outlook. I mean >> you're increasing density without taking up farmland. >> Well, day one day one they could utilize that ADU if it was someone related. Right. Right. Right. >> So it you're just speeding up the you're speeding up the process um for density, but >> yeah. Otherwise, the homeowner buys it and it takes eight months for him to decide he's going to get a construction permit and build his own ADU, but >>

088rather than buying it pre-built, right? >> And that is a very that is one of the reasons why a lot of folks are just across the country, they do that. It's someone that's downsizing that has a manor, right? >> And they wanna they wanna they want some income either they want to they want to live in the manor and and have a young couple renting and giving them income, you know, supplemental or social security, especially if they're retired. So, that is a very common thing of ADUs is or is or is ros reverse, right? A person that's retired that just wants a little space, they're renting that ADU um as as a part of a larger property. So, I think you you have both both use cases. But I [snorts] I I know what you're

089saying from a from a development standpoint, like I can build these and double up the, you know, housing density on this street as long as I got the parking space and and the setback and everything. I can put two structures on here as long as they meet the But but he wouldn't be able to. There's a difference between getting the permit to build it in a conditional use to use it for something. That's >> But even if they don't rent it out, it's I mean I don't I don't know. >> Yeah, >> maybe I'm >> No, I mean I think it's a legitimate >> I'm just thinking like ahead. >> Yeah, I mean that's when you go 10 from near 10 years from now and you're like >> I wish we wouldn't have said that

090>> because someone did something. >> Well, that that scenario that you described they could do today, >> right? today someone could come in built six houses with six ADUs right >> all at >> and as long as as long as long as a person living in it was a second degree family member would be okay >> you know in I have a cousin of the Dallas area prosper they're living in a multi-generational home there's a the ADU is part of the home structure but >> you know the way you can either open doors between the two the main house and the ADU or you can close them but But to get back to the question outside of that, I I don't I don't know the I don't know minimum is I got a big question.

091>> I don't know. I mean, then you get the things like, well, you know, if you watch your if you take too small a minimum, somebody can use a container house and drop it in there. You know what I mean? >> I've got one on my block. >> I don't like that in the city limits, I'll tell you that much. So, Okay. >> Drive down pro. [screaming] >> I think I saw what you're talking about. >> Is that permitted use? >> What's the uh what's the size of a shipping container? 20 by 20 by 80. I think >> you get a 40. >> Well, I think they they Yeah, they eight. >> They makes 20s and 40s. I don't know. >> Yeah, they make 20s and 40s. And they're usually eight to 10 at most,

092right? I think there's some there's some tens, but most of them are eight. >> Yeah, you got to fill on the roadways anyways. >> Yeah. >> So, we're seeking a specific size and not a percentage. >> Well, we can do it. I mean, we can raise the percentage, which raises the minimum size, right? >> Yeah. >> But I I'm just to me like you say, okay, well, what's the minimum? Because that's the minimum, right? If the minimum is 750, what are we happy? What percentage of 750 is sufficient? >> Yeah. >> As a minimum for for me it's for me it's calling a maximum. That's like not to >> We should call maximum too, >> but not to set a maximum that's too low, >> right? >> For people to utilize. >> You got a

093two acre lot. >> Yeah. And and you got a twocar or threec car garage, right? What do you want? you know you what are you doing because you're just making a bigger apartment for somebody. You're just making more living space. You're not >> so on the bottom end we want to say you know no no less than and no more than >> you that's how everyone else I mean that has regulations has it >> less the lesser of 50% of the house of the principal or no greater than let's say this one says 1,000 square feet. There's another one that says 1,200 square feet and rural estate areas. So, I mean there's >> Yeah, >> because the lots in theory because the lot sizes are bigger. So, it'll incorporate that. I mean, from an aesthetic,

094you take those 700s that are, you know, these small houses that aren't on big lots and put 375 foot unit in the back of it, there nothing left. >> Yeah. >> It's it's it's it's a grass path on the outside edge in the in the setback and nothing else. Right. I'm sorry. >> Mhm. if they want to utilize it for >> for full-time. Well, short-term living. I know, but you know, it's it's a guest house, right? It's So, what is it? I I know. What is it? [clears throat] >> Yeah. As long as it's free, it doesn't matter. >> What about a percentage of the available lot size in the backyard? I mean, if you're gonna stick it in the backyard, I mean, >> oh, you take you take the the available space after the

095setback and then say you can only use x amount of that space, >> correct? [snorts] >> That's a pretty good equation. I wonder how that works out. >> Yeah, >> do the math at my house tonight. >> How does that affect like garage apartments or stuff though? >> How would that affect like a garage apartment or some of the other ones where you're using existing structures? >> Yeah. Yeah, I think the the factor would be are you going to use this as an accessory structure or are you using this as a additional dwelling, right? An ADU dwelling. That would be the I don't think you I don't I don't think the intent is to prevent someone from building a detached two-car garage, right? That could fit their truck or two trucks. I think the intent

096here is you want to limit maybe how small a dwelling is. So I think that the the sticking point would be this is specifically for we we would we would very clearly define what an [clears throat] ADU is and then set those stipulations for it. >> To me a minimum size on an ADU just looking at kind of tiny houses and all those ago would be 350 ft. You know, and when you look at a minimum 750 foot size dwelling, that's in the neighborhood of what 40ome percent. >> That 750% or the 750 square foot dwelling. >> So, could you set it just have a set number like that? >> Yeah. I mean, you could you could do you could do a minimum of 350 and a maximum of 40% of the main dwelling. So

097then you don't end up maybe with an ADU that's almost the same size as as the main house, right? So you could do either or a a basement of 350 or up to 40% of the main home. Oh yeah, the building code takes care of that. To be a dwelling, you have to have >> living facilities. If I have a 6,000 foot home, I can have a 2400 foot ADU. >> If you had what? 6,000 foot, >> right? >> Well, if you have a 6,000 foot house, you probably have a you're probably on acreage and no one's going to notice that ADU. [laughter] >> Maybe true. >> But yeah, I think that's that's a good that's a good number. 350 just seems >> you think it seems small >> hotel room. >> You want to

098make it to where it excludes containers [laughter] that size 320 ft >> or you going to require that they're stick built? >> I don't know. >> Well, the problem is is you could you could cut up a container and make it >> I know meet code. >> Yeah. It's going to be it's going to be building code, right? And and building material we can't regulate. No. So, you know, someone could if you make it 600, I'm sure there's a way that they can weld containers together to make it 600. So, I think the building code is is where you're going to have the most I don't want to say protection, but it it takes a lot of work to make a a container meat building coat for a dwelling because you basically have to build

099a wood frame inside of it. >> Yeah. >> And you just you just made it 12 in smaller by >> Yeah. [laughter] You're almost building the thing twice. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but if 350 is too small >> and you 400 >> I have conditional use permit, one additional parking space 350 or 40% of the main dwelling square footage. setbacks. We >> at least we don't go below 50%. >> 50%. >> Oh, for the minimum of the >> That's That's the maximum. >> Yeah. >> So, I think keeping it at 40 is probably better to >> Otherwise, I can put a 2500 square foot ADU in my backyard. >> We'll see that through the tree. Stop. We won't You won't be able to hide that one. >> Camouflage. >> Um setbacks. Are we okay

100with the five since all the other accessory structures are already five? Do we want more than five? >> This is a dwelling unit though. >> Well, wait. Let's go back. >> So, we're saying 350 is the minimum and 40% is the maximum. >> Right. And that's to and that's to prevent your situation you describe where you have two 750s. I don't know what 40% of 750 is, but I can tell you. >> No, I just my thought was why does everybody else have like a specific number? >> So, that math would be >> that math wouldn't work, right? Because it's 300. [laughter] So, our maximum would be higher than >> less than our minimum. >> Yeah, [clears throat] lesser than our minimum. But in that situation it that's that is the um well I think

101at that point then you would then you would do the lesser language like I don't know I if I I don't know if I have much feedback regarding like a thousand foot maximum I don't know if but the minimum is where I'm at the minimum okay because I mean for me >> because I mean if >> the thing about a maximum is are we if we someone who has a big I mean I'm on a 4400 square.44 44 acres, right? And so that's 42,000 square feet or whatever. Um, but my house is big. You know, I if I put a 2,000 square foot ADU on my house, because you got point4%, you know, 40% of the total square footage of my house, I just built a second house. It's bigger than all the houses that

102they build out in any of these putts. So now there's two houses on the property and that's what I don't want to see. >> Well, I mean so well that's what I'm saying. Like if if you the only two other numbers I see on here for for max is a,000 and 1200 >> with 1,200 being in rule. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> And everyone else is either 50% or 60% of the main dwelling for the minimum. I just love to know how they got those numbers. >> In in in your vision, what's the primary utilization of an ADU? Is it is it rental space? Is it, you know, for, you know, it's it's not a home it's not home ownership, right? I mean, you're not going to sell it to somebody because you can't. That's

103part of the thing. So, is it is it just >> I guess I'm thinking fully from a rental perspective, not because you want a man cave or a >> right >> whatever you want to do. >> So, you're talking like long-term rentals. >> Well, I mean, just in general, like I think >> I don't think there's a reason to have 1,800 square feet ADUs in the back of a property like mine because that's not the intent of an ADU. The intent of an ADU is either temporary housing for f, you know, >> right, >> visitors or or even leasing, but the the the idea that people lease an ADU isn't because they're going to live in it for the next 12 years. Most people are leasing an ADU because they're on a short term or

104it's trans transitional housing for them, right? So, it's we're we're not in a situation where we need to increase housing density because we don't have, you know, we're trying to inhibit sprawl and we're going to put ADUs in everybody's yards so that we can, you know, bring in population density for jobs without taking away farmland. I mean, that's not Texan. Um, but so for me, I don't I I do see like this upper limit kind of thing and the percentages can get a little weird with people and there's some big I mean I don't know how big your house is, but you got the acreage, so you can put what you want on it. [laughter] >> One for I forgot to add that stipulation. One per >> one. They get one [laughter] >> because that

105lady over there, next thing you know there'll be 25 yurts across that field. [laughter] >> Yeah. I mean I >> So I >> I guess I'd be fine with the 50% thousand max >> like Brennham has. We would just change it probably to to be 750. So it's not larger than the main house since our minimum is 750. Well, I mean it's still relative because what if they have a 2400 ft² main house? >> They want a th00and square foot ADU. >> Yeah, but it's the lesser. Are you talking about Brennham's? >> Yeah. >> So whichever is less 50% or a,000. Ours would be whichever is less 50% or 750. >> Oh, I was reading that as their max. >> I got you. >> What is the average? >> What? >> Yeah. in Navasota. >>

106Oh, maybe >> in Paklex is probably around 1900 >> and then Hidden Hills >> like 14 probably 14,500. >> There's some big homes back there. So, it probably pushes the average a little bit. >> 16,600. Yeah, 1,600 probably. And so >> but I I you know if we're gonna but to relate to >> but it also fit >> ordinance that we have now in Minnesota and saying 750 is is a house size then >> for a main dwelling. >> Yeah. Then tapping it out at 750 is like ADUs aren't main dwellings. They're accessory dwellings. We're not going to let them grow grow big enough to be a main dwelling. They're >> saying 350 to 750. That's what we're saying. >> Yeah. that kind of stuff. >> Yeah. >> Raise up. >> Or you think people

107should be allowed to make it as bit bigger because they want to make it bigger. I mean, >> but that'll keep the numbers down, too, right? You won't have to Somebody said, "Well, I can build 1,200 square foot." >> I saw the,200 square foot in here. And I if they can meet the setbacks, they've got this property. Do I care if it's 1,200? Not really. I I like the 350 to >> What do you do if it's two story or one story? Yeah. >> Square footage of square footage. Yeah. >> No, but I mean if it's twotory, it's smaller footprint, more square feet. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. It takes up a smaller Yeah. Which you might have to do if you got a smaller yard, but you can still fit it in

108there. Right. >> Maybe the proper thing is to say a minimum of 350 and it cannot exceed 70% of the main house. So then you don't have a situation where the ADU is looking just as big as a house. And then we have a lot of leverage in there of it's not going to be if someone does have the acreage and the property for it, they could build an 18,800 if they wanted to. You know, if they if they're sitting on 10 acres, >> yeah, >> they can build an 18,800 even though their house is, you know, 3500, right? But maybe the the the cut off is 350 and no more than 60% of the main home. So that way you you're you have a limit on both ends >> and you still have to

109fit into the setbacks >> and all the setbacks still apply, right? So if there's any situation where someone can't meet that cleanly, they have to go to the ZBA and you know they have to prove it's all >> I don't I I like that. I guess I'm good with that if everybody else does. >> I like that. And then >> and now what but to go back to setbacks and what are are we saying that these are accessory buildings so that they're at five or >> I mean if they're meant to be dwellings there need to be seven just like whatever our current >> what a dwelling is not an accessory building but a dwell >> you at dwelling unit right >> maybe just as simple as match match the zoning setback for and if

110somebody has a single singlestory garage and he wants to tear the roof off build a second story then he's going have to go to Zboa because he's at 5 feet and he's supposed to be at seven to build a dwelling >> because what's the back set back? >> 20 ft. >> The standard all of our cookie cutter zones are pretty much all 20. >> But you're not going to I mean people even have space to build an ADU. >> I will say most most of the time um you're you're almost right. I think the exception is our older part of town with the older quarter acre lots. those you have a little bit more room, but pretty much anything outside of our older neighborhoods, you're not going to have enough room. >> The new stuff

111you're restricted by HOA usually anyway. [laughter] >> Does Does your HOA have a line that says no ADUs? >> Uh, yeah, we do actually. I think >> Yeah, I think that's ancrar mine down. >> Okay. [laughter] >> But yeah, I would say to >> adhere to the main principle code. >> Yeah. whatever's active at the time. >> I mean, it's a way of controlling how many of them go up, right? >> Let's just keep them the standard. If you're planning on living it, it's got to >> it's got to meet living standards, right? Yeah. Yeah. >> 20 feet and seven feet. 20 feet off the back and seven feet off the >> seven or 10% of the lot width. >> So, Brennham says >> greater. Brennham says no HUD code manufactured homes or mobile homes

112as ADUs. How does that affect us? >> It kills my plant in Mansfield. >> Well, what's the what's the size in Mansfield? What are you building? >> We're building tiny houses. >> You're building smalls. >> Yeah. >> And they're man and they're HUD code. Yeah, they're HUD code. >> Depends on the one. We build both RV code and HUD code there. So, but some are HUD code >> and frankly some of them are actually beautiful. So >> yeah, I'm not >> H interesting. I didn't know that. >> And I don't even know if we want to touch that. I was just reading it. >> Well, I I know. I mean, that kind of falls into the next topic, too. >> Well, I think I think for for Navasota, it would be we're we're already inadvertently

113not allowing those because they have to meet IRC code. Um, and unless they can prove that it meets IRC code, then technically it doesn't matter what the factory calls it. If it meets IRC code, it's no different than someone building it from the ground up meeting code. So, I think our ordinance already takes care of that. >> So, then renting andor who's occupying it. Thoughts? >> Some say rental allowed no more than two. Some say no specific unrelated person limit confirmed. Owner must live in one or the other. Some have no regulations. >> I think I think owner on the property is >> limits used to caretaker, servant, farm worker, guest or family member depending on district. Rental prohibited in some districts. >> Oh, by district. >> I district. >> I kind of go with

114Todd there. To me, if the owner's own property, >> right, >> I don't mind if they rent it. >> Do you want to limit the number of people? >> You have a family of four living in it. >> I can tell you who's that. >> Don't know. just >> they'll we don't put a number on it. They're going to pack them in, >> right? >> Guarantee that. I used to along and >> yeah because there is sort of that movement. I mean, I think for me, like as long as the owner occupies one, then I would say limit it to two just to have a rule. But >> I mean, there are some houses that are really close to mine, and there's one up front, one in the back, which is a garage. And I

115guarantee you there at one point there were six people living in a garage. But then to the point if you have a 3,000 foot house and you're at 60% for your ADU, more than two people can fit in 1500 ft. What are you going to say? >> But you can only have one in your >> What do you say? One person per 375 ft. Yeah. I mean, [laughter] you know, just it it just keeps going. >> Yeah. I think maybe a simpler approach is the owner has to reside in one of the two. Um, and that >> can you limit the ADU to the two? >> I think maybe what I can do is I could verify with our building official to see if there is an occupancy limit on dwelling space. >> There probably

116is. I mean, there's fire code, right? What's what's the fire code? >> The problem is is the >> how many can get out. >> There's a lot of gray there's a lot of gray for residents for residences, right? Because Okay. So, is the fire marshall or fire chief going to shut down someone's birthday party because it's a 1500 foot house and they >> and it's raining outside. So, everybody >> got 80 people in there for a birthday party, you know. So, >> I I'll I'll look into if there is if there is a recommended u ratio uh then we can incorporate that um and and do a little bit of research >> because the certificate of occupancy says you get to live in it, not how many people live. >> No, it does. A co

117can dictate the occupancy limit. >> Okay. We do for commercial buildings. We don't for residential buildings. And that's why I mean maybe there's a ratio out there in the building code and we can we can maybe set that number once we get it if there is one. >> Okay. >> If not then we can leave it up for discretion on what what that number might be. >> All right. So what do you have? That's it, right? Anybody? >> I think so. >> I have one per lot so someone doesn't fill up their acreage with it. um conditional use permit, one additional parking space, 350 foot minimum or a maximum of 60% of the main dwelling in an owner occupied one or one or the other. >> And and that it meets dwelling standards for >>

118SEX is dwelling standards, right? >> 70. Oh, the the last thing I forgot. >> Oh, and no more than no more than two stories, but that's in the residential code, right? >> No, you can do >> 35 feet. >> Well, it's it's a height limitation. So, that's already taken care of in the building code. >> Um, >> can't do that, right? The only thing we could do is we could require an architectural match because that's not that's removed from the building material. >> Um, but architectural standards, the enforcibility of it would be pretty difficult because there's so many overlapping architectural features >> and we don't have a committee of >> we don't have a building standards commission. >> Oh yeah. Like >> that's made up of architects. Usually, usually that's what they have is >>

119Yeah. to vote on whether or not they say it meets or does not meet the standard, right? >> Wrong with upycling. >> What's wrong with upycling? >> Or the vice versa, historic home with a brick ADU, >> right? Yeah. >> Yeah. I I know. I don't I don't want to break. >> Well, the the state took care of that. >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. And then the setbacks, I forgot to note. We want we want those to meet the same setbacks as the as the dwelling. So, if they have room for one, they can fit it. If not, ZBA. >> All right. Do you feel like we're missing something in that? >> No. No. I think we're recovered. I could talk about it for four hours or both. >> And we're doing away with

120the family stuff, right? >> Yes. >> And we don't we don't have the blood relative restrictions in it, >> right? [clears throat] >> All right. The last topic is the Senate Bill 785. Yeah. >> Um for cities that have zoning districts are required to allow HUD code manufactured homes in at least one district by right, meaning that it is approved at the administrative level. Um not through a SUP or a CUP and so we have to pick a district in the city. Um we did a lot of u discussing about this topic back and forth internally. And >> so what's your definition of district? >> Zoning district. >> Zoning. So 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, two, three. >> Right. Right. So there's a few options that >> pull a map up that has all

121of those for us. >> Sure. >> Oh, I remember that. >> Yeah. We discussed this at length last year and decided to keep the rules the same and then the state decided to >> decide from Austin. >> So there's a few options here. Um the first being we could take one of our existing districts and then just add HUD code manufactured as a permitted use. Uh that's the first uh at least on this slide. Um [cough] the other [clears throat] one is you create a new HUD district. Um and obviously you change the underlying zone. You could do an overlay district of a certain area and add HUD code manufactured homes as permitted. Um, and then the last one is is really you're you're getting into like the specific subdivisions and that's not really applicable

122for I don't think that's intent with with state law. So, I think the first three are going to be our best options and just from the amount of manufactured homes that we have in the city and where they're most concentrated, it aligns well with our three. So that would be the I would I would call it the lowhanging fruit if we wanted to get into compliance >> without a lot of without a lot of you know back and forth over what area those areas are already where you have most of the manufactured homes and so you would just simply be adding them by right. Um >> so so just to clarify so this means that the well >> you could change them out as many times as you want. There's no regulation at that point,

123>> right? >> Like we have now, >> correct? >> And you're saying that cuz I know when we talked about this before, it was about how many empty lots there were and that people could, you know, put them on. And you're saying that predominantly the old lots that had manufactured homes on them and are now empty lots >> correct >> are in R3. >> Yes. Because for me it's about okay if that's what people are going to utilize them for then I mean the idea was to get these lots back into use and and people weren't going to put stick builts on them and but we knew that people would put manufactured on them and then a lot of discussion then became yeah >> well we would hope that they would do stick built since

124manufactured was not allowed but now that we have to decide where they need to be allowed by right >> then I think it only makes sense to allow them where there's already um a large percentage of >> So, is that what your your boxes are on this? >> Yeah. So, I'm about to pull up the zoning here. Um, >> but this this is just one area. Yeah. So, you can see the R3 is basically within between the two um rail lines and then south of 105. >> We don't have the map you're looking at. >> Oh, wait. What's going on here? Oh, >> share. I didn't I still [laughter] have my slideshow playing. There we go. So, this is the R3 area here. So, you have to get some orientation. This is uh Miller Park.

125Um and I mean most most of these structures that surround Miller Park are manufactured homes and that is where you have a lot of >> not a lot but you have some some vacancy and lots. There is a mixture of single family stickuilt homes also in this area >> but it's probably the highest concentration of manufactured homes. >> Um so this this area is R3. You have a little bit u around the the treatment plant. >> Yeah. >> For high density. >> And then the largest area is or the other I guess the next area is here where Sunset Park is which is a manufactured home park and in the surrounding neighborhood around it. >> You have a little bit a little bit over here near Victoria, but most of that land um it's there's

126already there's already something there with the exception of these these few here. There's some infill there. Um >> that's for sale. >> Yeah, I know. This is a manufactured home >> here. This is a manu Yeah, this is a manufactured home. There's another one here, I believe. >> Oh, Victoria. >> No. And I know these are for sale. These are B1, though. So, these wouldn't, >> right? >> These would not be impacted. But really, when you look at the city, >> uh, Bro is >> that's a bonafide park. >> Yeah, that one that one is is grandfathered in as a park. >> Um, but I don't think the zoning is even R3 there. I think it's B1. Yeah, that's a B1 zone. So that one is that one they can do it because it's grandfathered

127as a park, >> but they could get rid of them and bring new ones again. >> No, Judson is >> only in that district, right? >> Yeah. Only in that district you can go back and >> policy still. >> The other policy still applies, >> right? Because they're R1 or R2. They're not >> Yeah. So we wouldn't completely scrap our existing ordinance. We would just have an area where they're allowed by right. >> Is there anything that says how much of the the the state law just it wants you to >> pick a zone pick an area. >> The only way to not the only way to I think Bert the only way to do it where it wouldn't be say R3 would then you know to allocate 10 acres and say you can put

128as many here as you know what I mean and stick them all in one corner and that's not cool. >> Well, I was just trying to find out if there was a minimum we had to allow or you know just >> if there was any other standard we had to think about. >> Let's see. Okay. Yeah, >> we did it. >> I I did not. >> You weren't here then? Are we gonna [laughter] >> Randy Randy did it? >> Randy did it. >> So, yeah, you have this area and this area. That's really the only R3. There is some Arthuria Pier where during our resoning of the a open spaces we designated that as a great spot for multif family because of the relation to college station. But you know this if if >> so

129somebody bought it they could put a whole bunch of manufacturers. >> They could put one >> right because if they wanted to do a park then all home park standards apply >> but they could take that and divvy it up into lots. They'd have to >> well they'd have to go through the subdivision process before this board and you know so there's I thought about that too about areas that have large acreage well if you have 100 acres and you have an R3 zone you can do one upstairs administratively one >> otherwise you'd have to come >> it's the whole process development >> right and and this does get us around well I don't say get us around but if we did the R3 like this then the empty lots that we have in one

130and two would not be >> no >> usable because that was the big one of the big hang-ups when we were talking about it before was some >> real estate person buying like taking all these small empty lots all over town and putting manufacturers on them and leasing them out >> yeah if there's if there's empty lots in this neighborhood where it's all single family sightu built homes you wouldn't be able to do it R3. >> I think I am too. I mean, there's plenty of opportunity there, >> right, with their empty their existing small [snorts] lots. And >> how does that affect the um the property we were looking at? >> Not R3. >> Okay. >> The woman that applied for that, >> right? >> Yeah. Yeah. That was a one. No, it wouldn't

131work there >> because we were like we Yeah. >> Solves. >> The solves, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> They'd have to be 10 blocks away. One thing, one of the um >> do what you got. >> Additional stipulations you could do is um you allow them by writing. Then you could have some other development standards that are objective like skirting. Mhm. >> You know, I think I think that's >> would be >> we talked about that cutting tongues >> would be important to incorporate, you know, make sure it has skirting, remove the hitch or tongue, however you want to call it, >> at a minimum, right? Having those two things um in the ordinance because right now that only lives if you're doing a park, >> not out in the wild, right? If you're permitted

132by right administratively, I think we're going to go on it. We at least put a minimum of skirting and >> um whatever the technical term is for the the tongue >> take the tongue out from the tires. >> Um and then the anchorage that's >> an anchoring that's >> right >> they have to meet setbacks. >> It has to be 750. We would treat it as as a dwelling. So >> has to be 750 and meet the setbacks. >> And most are going to be 750. I don't I don't think they're building anything out there less than 750. Right, Bert. >> The HUD code, correct? >> It would it would be the HUD code. >> They're built a HUD code. >> Yeah, >> okay. But if if it's classified as an RV and not built

133to HUD code, >> it can't >> then it wouldn't be allowed. >> It would be allowed. >> Okay. So, hear me out. >> I got to love this. >> So, I want to do a 750 home right on one of these lots in R3. >> Mhm. put an ADU in the back >> and then I can get another HUD home 350 square ft and put on the same lot. So now we have two manufactured homes on one lot >> if it meets the setback. >> That's I mean I'm just asking the question. I'm not really either. >> But you have to request the conditional use. >> You would? >> Yeah, you have to request conditional use. >> But how do what what's the what's the um the how can you decline a conditional use? We

134don't have rules like when we have the other ordinances. We can just say we don't like it. >> That must be why they added no HUD. >> Well, conditional use there's you always have the um public welfare clause. So there's I think there's a little bit of gray. I mean obviously that's the worst case hypothetical. >> Well, how many times does the worst case happen? >> Oh, but you still got to but you it's got to be a homeowner >> on the property. >> I get it. But do we want two two manufactured homes on one piece of property? I guess is my question. >> Because you can >> you can do this. >> Um you could limit one manufactured home per lot. >> You're talking about manufactured homes built to HUD code, though. >>

135Yeah. >> Yes. I mean, if they're built to HUD code, >> first's not going to have a problem with a with a 350 foot HUD code manufactured ADU [clears throat] >> with a 750 one right next to it. >> I mean, chances of a 750 foot one's pretty small. I mean, >> yeah. >> And these aren't most of these lots aren't big lots to begin with either. No, most of them are are 50 50 by 100. >> You wouldn't even meet the setback requirements. >> Yeah. So you wouldn't even you wouldn't even have the room for the >> I just wanted to bring it up. >> Probably wouldn't have the room. >> I did have room. Yeah. I mean at that point the home is built to HUD code. If they want an ADU that's

136also built to HUD code, it's going to be properly inspected, tie down, you know, everything else. So it just becomes a matter of this conditional use issue. [clears throat] >> That would only be in the R3 >> R3, right? There was just something about >> No, no, no. I I I I I understand where you're go, what you're thinking >> because we going from you can't do it to now we're >> having to allow them to do it >> to now you can >> not only can you have to allow you to do it and now you can do two. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This is the big jump. >> Well, you don't build HUD code units that small. >> Not that small. >> Yeah. Okay. and they'd be hardressed to put a second one

137on even if the first one was 750, but they're probably more like 12, >> right? Yeah. Most of those would go into an RV code. >> If they're less than X amount of square footage, they go to RV code and that's not going to play. >> Okay. >> So, sorry, I was setting the doors again in case someone's wanting to visit. >> Okay. Oh, so >> so R3, amending R3 permitted use and then adding >> um skirting, removing all of the things. And I'll I'll make sure to get the technical wording in there. >> Unless we designate an overlay or something. >> Yeah, it's either all R3 or >> or or an overlay over an area that we determine. Okay. I mean, with the parking that would go under city ordinance as well. >> It's

138one thing you can't build structures. >> Oh, yeah. It mean it'll it'll meet the standard rules that the dwelling meets today. Two parking spaces, all that. All that's already in in place. >> Plus that cuts down further. >> They're not mobile homes. [clears throat] But we get rid of the idea of a >> real estate landlord situation with a you know the doubles up by having owner occupied. We can still have a lot of rent a lot of these go in and be rentals, >> right? >> But we won't get ADUs in the back if somebody buys 10 lots and puts rent and puts >> Yeah. So because I know that was a big fear and discussion was if we were going to you know that these empty lots would be easy pickings >> because

139the majority of them were owned by development companies already. >> Yeah. And it and it wouldn't cost them that much to put a manufactured homes on and run them into the ground and then just replace them. >> Right. >> Because it's easier upkeep for >> for someone trying to make not for somebody. That's the whole thing about home ownership, right? you take care of it versus landlords, especially if it's Yeah. Good work people. >> Sorry for all the questions. >> Oh, no. I >> Okay, you got what you need there. I think uh I think that wraps up our workshop. >> Right. Consider possible action on the meeting minutes for the May 14th, 2026 meeting as presented. >> Motion to accept the minutes is right. >> Oh, second. >> Motion by Commissioner Bearden, second by

140Commissioner Walla. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? >> See none. Item carries. 747. Is that this clock wrong? >> That's what my computer says. >> 748 900 748. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. It's >> got all right.