City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and call the common council meeting to order. First will be the pledge and pray. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Bow your heads. Yes. Lord, we just come to you today to ask for your guidance and protection and to allow us to do what's best for the city and everyone in it. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Thank you. Okay. We don't have anybody here for public comment unless you want to speak. Okay. We'll go into the minutes February 10th, 2026. Time to review. Motion approve the motion. Have a motion second by Mike. All in favor? Motion carries. We're going to the uh claims for February 11th, 2026 through March the 10th 26. Stacey,

any comments, corrections? I didn't do these by the make a motion to approve the second. I have a motion by turn second by Joe. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Old business. Uh T other than I talked about Joe Heny.

Okay. We go in the old business. We'll go into the uh adopting of the unified development ordinance 20 26-3 DDO. Do you want to speak on that behalf or do you um No, I think we kind of at least I know we gave a bigger overview commission and then um last month we said we didn't get a formal or anything. I can pull that one out though if anybody does want it. But I think it's making sure we had time to review it since you guys didn't have it a lot in that way. You know what I mean? Making sure you didn't have any questions. One question was on the new processes. Are you going to give those to Tyler and kind of go over them with him?

I can. Yeah. Um, so they've got a flowchart that section. Um, a good thing and I can definitely sit down with Tyler. I know he sat through all of our committee meetings and sometimes that's also a lot going on. So like I know Yeah. For instance, yeah, like the development you have special exceptions pulled up like I always think it's good to go and press these off

so you just have them and you can reference easy and then all the steps outlined underneath that. So, um I don't have any issue if he wants to meet and just walking them through it to make sure he like understands what's what. It should generally be what you're following today. You know, most that all pretty much follow state statute. Um the exception is your um development plans. That's something that's just new, but you should be doing that in a larger idea anyway. Just verifying do you meet the setbacks before you issue a building permit on like non-residential things. Um, and then your subdivision rags. There's something new. She didn't do that prior. So, I think those are the only two things that are actually should be new.

Okay. You guys, you guys for us didn't redo any applications or anything. No, that's an option if you wanted to. It was one of those optional tasks, but we didn't redo any of those. Okay. And I think everything in that is supposed to be uh you were going to work with Jason Applegate from from Expo to get that uploaded to the website as well. Some stuff off of that. Greg. Yeah, I can give that to Jason. Been working with Chris on that. I think so much. Yeah. Yeah.

The only thing I'll also kind of mention is again, I know this started at pl commission very beginning of the year or maybe even in December. Um House Bill 101 just passed as well. Um, and I can send some information out after this. You can basically opt out of most of that stuff. I think you're probably pretty good because you guys were open to like apartments and um commercial districts, you know, but um we're kind of ciphering through that right now to send out to a bunch of our communities we work with that it regulates things like um minimum parking that you can Yeah. own on on um apartments and duplexes are permitted in the residential district. Um, you can opt out of some of those things which again just went through this. I think you're feeling pretty good about where these landed. Um, so I can information on that, but you have I think through 2026.

Oh, that's right. Yeah, but that just the finalized iterations between the house and senate. I did have a couple things on ordinances. One of one in particular we were talking about I think we I know we talked we discussed this when we were having a meeting about the driveway surface. Yes, we had lots of discussions on that one. We we had discussion on that and uh I think we have it. It needs to be a circuit is what? So, I'm going to go to that. Sorry, I'm scrolling back up there for you.

Um, yeah, we even debated about that plan. Yeah. And, um, here we are. If you grab it, can you give me a page number? Sure thing. We did talk about the minimum width and that sort of

driving at the top.

Um where we kind of landed on that one random is um so allowed materials within a and residential see better. Um within platted subdivisions that are recorded after this UDL is in effect, it needs to be paved, right? So, like that'd be your your subdivisions like you would normally think. Um, driveways outside of the plate into sub subdivisions or subdivisions that were prior to this ordinance um just have to pave back 30 feet from the right of way. So, they just need to do the 30t from keeping that gravel kicking on the public roads. Um, and then it can be gravel past that. If it's other uses like commercial industrial, then it does need to be paved. I like the part of the subdivision. I don't see a problem with that.

The as far as the ones that are not in the subdivision, I' I'd be okay without having a paid surface at all there. So, I know we debated that. I don't know how the committee definitely debated it. The planning commission debated that about that. I agree with you too. I think uh it's good in commercial business one like existing existing does not need to be solid surface. the the debate kind of we had discussions on minimum square footages and I like that one kind of that one out that's a okay you know term and then this one remained the same based on like the back and forth so I think you were you were there right so

I know we discussed that quite a bit and we had to move on because we were getting behind everything else at the time so I didn't yeah so that it did it stay that it's it's 30t back from the right of So that's the length of most of these driveways is that's the whole setback on a lot of new ones. I was going to ask you for that one specifically. Is it um for improvements as well or is that for new? It would just be new stuff. So I mean if you don't if you have a gravel drive and you're not doing anything, you're not moving it to the other side of the property or you know putting a house up or anything, then you're good. Um,

say you had like a double lot or something or just a wider lot and you built a detached garage next to you. You would have to do so in your actual home would still be gravel on page 88 like each one of these um sightseers we say when do you have to comply just to make it clear. So um if any of the f following all of them have all your driveways have to comply if you do a new primary structure. So like it had no house and you put a new house on it. All your driveways that have to comply or if you establish a new land use on a vacant parcel. So that's intended for um commercial uses maybe that don't always have buildings, you know what I mean?

Um and then all if there's an existing legally established driveway and it's um altered, moved, then it has to comply. Long as it stays where it was, it's fine. Um, and if it's a new driveway, so if you have an existing gravel and you are putting up a garage, you don't you're not messing with, you know, moving the existing driveway, it can stay gravel. It would just be new driveways, a new house or um what moving the driveway somewhere, altering it.

My issue with that was, this is where I was going with that. You don't have to do that in city of Scotsburg. We're already competing with city of Scotsburg. the appraisals are automatically higher in the city of Scotsburg when you build a house in Scottsburg. So if we have to spend another $10,000 surface of driveway in Austin, you're already getting less for a house than you are in Scottsburg. It's going to appraise that they don't have to pay the driveway in Scottsburg. You got to come here and spend 10 more,000 to get 15,000 less on a $200,000 house. Yeah, that's backing you're backing investor of $25,000. So, it's going to be hard to get. It's going to make it more difficult to get some more appealing to

look that I can't remember where spots were glanded. I just had to turn my hob. I don't see a problem at all with that. Yeah. And I think you said in the planning meetings too, like you'll have one new house go up on a whole street and the whole rest of the street will be gravel because they're existing and you're in the middle and yours has to be paved, right? Which is Yeah. Scottsburg. I just don't remember where they landed. If we looked that one up, that's just my opinion. I mean, that's That's my opinion. That's where

um so in Scottsburg, unless they're located in the A district, um all driveways have to be graded and service with an all weather paving such as concrete or other material. Um unless located in the A1. So Scottsburg U A1 has to pave 30 feet back from the right of way.

So So they're requiring it in their in an entire city. Mhm. Yep. Unless it's an A zoned. A has to pay 30 ft back from that rightway line. Going to know we even debate it on that distance. You know what I mean? I feel like that's there was a debate on the width of those driveways as well because they was too narrow on some of them. We changed the uh minimum width whether we make eight or 10. That's a good chance either way. We set we set a maximum width on it too. Um it was like a set number. I think it'd be better as a percentage. I don't know if we done a maximum

I think we made a maximum we made a maximum width 20. I know we done a minimum width of 10, I think, because people were stepping out of cars into the mud on some of those driveways. I get that. I'm saying on the maximum I think that one of the alterations planning made was to make it 20 ft maximum. The minimum uh that's minimum distance between Sorry. Yeah, I remember. I'm just need to find that now. Minimum width of 10 ft. Um that's the width at the right way. I mean, it can wide as it goes to your property. And a maximum width at the right of way of 20 feet. 20 feet. 20 10 to 20 feet for single family and two. We're not talking about other things. You're talking about 20 for double parking is what you're talking.

Yeah, that's the maximum or like two I would prefer it be a percentage maximum lot frontage because if you think about it, if you have a two twocar garage and they're the separate like 9 foot doors, you'd have to be wider than 20 to make it line up. So if you have like a bigger house on a bigger lot, 20 feet might not be enough. Most communities for residential is 18 to 20. They'll put a max on there on the width. Usually that's where that goes. Um it's at the right of way and then it can widen as much as you want back.

So know all these things was debated in the plan commission as you well know. He was in there. Yeah. committee for sure too. Pardon? We definitely debated on there too. Plan commission presented to us with the changes they made which was that. Yep.

And they and that's how they pass it to present to us. So what do you guys want to do? I know what you have. I mean I know the concern but I do know that all those that are paid now are shut. There's nothing settling about seven. So probably just the easiest way to do it would be one little item at a time like comments have been made. You just make one change at a time or let it die at one at a time. Um the last one I was talking about was the maximum width. Does anybody have a problem with raising that maximum width of the driveway? I could see how that would be annoying if it's not wider and like if you got the two corporate garage situation going on that would be annoying because it's annoying to me that mine is size that it is.

Well, actually it's too narrow. Would you go up in your driveway while you can I like the 20T the road because if you're if you have a really large lot, you don't have a 50 foot drive in the road. Yeah, that's it. It still keeps you at right away at 20 ft. I mean, I guess the only negative about a percentage is like you don't know that to be a really really large lot and then you're you're allowing a parking lot up the road. What if you just made it a little bit bigger than 20 so that you can like 24

like 24 that way you can fit on a two separate garage door garage one straight entry way. Anybody have a problem with 24 on the maximum? So most garage doors you putting them are they nine or 10? 8 n 10. It just depends. It's hard. It's tight on an eight. So I'm okay with 24.

Yeah. I'll motion change that to 24 maximum. I'll second that. I'm making that. So that is 24 ft maximum. So you had a motion to change that. Yeah. Motion and second to change it to 24 width. All in favor? Opposed?

And just for the for minutes and how that goes, it's on page 90. That's where we're changing to from 20 to 24. Okay. And then you want to go to Brandon's point next about the servicing. I'm hoping I mean those are my suggestions. I I agree with you. just in like R1 and and leaving subdivisions paid. Yeah, subdivision subdivision could be out of control.

Yeah, we know that is driveways outside of plat subdivisions or subdivisions recorded prior or before the initial adoption of the studio. So, those are the the category. And I mean, what's everybody else's opinion on? I don't know. I mean, I guess I'm conflicted. Um, if you're talking about a contractor building a speck home in a in a on a street, I do sort of feel like it should be paved. If you're building your own home on say Rice Street and zero driveways are paved on Rice Street, I'm not sure why you should have to pave your driveway on Rice Street. So then

if that's the same for me building my house on R Street then why should it be different for I don't have to be a common problem but that will at one point I will guarantee be a deal breaker where somebody builds a house they don't if they have to service that driveway the bank is not going to cough up that much money cough up 10 10 more grand for you to do that so if they're on the borderline to build that house and that that driveway is a deal breaker I mean I don't know why we how many times that came up how many times has that came been I mean I would say be more common like Joseph when somebody's building their own home if you're buying from a contractor I I don't think that' be an issue but like if you're building your own home that's going to be an issue all thanks for I mean I see

I guess my question is if if we allow contractors not to pay the driveways and contri whatever are they going to pass that on the consumer that are we going to lower the price of those houses I I think it'd be opposite if you make it to where they have to then it would the increase to be passed on. That's what you're doing now, right? On new building. You have to pay it. That's a cost. That's what I'm saying. But if you make every house that way, every house would have to be passed on.

Are there like are there houses right now that are being built with with gravel driveways? Like how many? I don't know. You know what I mean? Out of the the last 3, four years, if you think about houses that have been built, have there been any gravel ones versus like I know you said your subdivision was you you're putting concrete. Yeah, concrete. I know you see a house a new home with gravel driveway. There's no house at all. Yeah. So, just that maybe just I don't I don't know the answer to that. Um not that it so that kind of sounds like it may not even be an issue. Most people are most contractors are putting bonker joggers on anyway.

Yeah. I'm just saying if somebody's building a home, you don't want to be that be the deal breaker that they don't build. You know, the problem I got with that, and I think if if we do allow that, then none of them's going to come through. It's all going to be That's not true. You don't have to right now. You don't have to right now. Majority of them did. I don't I know the last one that we did on the budget he did. Leave it alone doesn't change. I mean, I know I know them all. I know that. Yeah. And it's not it's not killed the deal, has it? On on selling ranges, huh? It ranges. I mean, any cost pass on I don't think it's a burden to the contractor. It's a burden to the to our normal citizen that's going to try to build a home on a budget.

That's what I'm saying. That's why I'm saying I don't see that happening because we haven't any said they're all seven. That's what that's where I'm all seven. But do you have a lot of folks coming in that are kind of trying to build their own home independent of a contractor? I mean, obviously you're hiring them. So, have you had any ask you not to concrete them or I it corrects me if I'm wrong, but what it sounds like is it's more so of giving the option to the homeowner who is going to be building on their own,

making sure that we're not preventing any new builds from happening from that property owner versus not so much that it's a problem, it's just and not that we even notice things. However, do we want that to be a preventable action? Yeah. For new homeowners, right? It really doesn't matter the order they do it in. Either way, it's somebody build the home. It's do they build the home and sell it to them or do they get the land and then hire someone to build it for them? Like it's all it matters is what happens to the end citizen. Yeah. And it sounds as though most things are going with concrete right now. However, do we want to just put this in writing to where in the future it's going to prevent?

If you're determined to build a house, maybe put a concrete driveway and it's not going to stop you from building that house. They might cons mostly people can build like the biggest you can see probably 80% of approvals that come through Austin, local people here. The price is about $180,000. What they can get approved for if two working families work safe is around $180,000. That driveway will put you over that budget to where you couldn't build that home is what I'm going with that sometime. Not every time, but I'm saying it will happen. You're selling now for about 189, aren't you? Depends on layout

and it doesn't affect whatever. I don't care if my gravel is concrete and it's going to be road editor. But I'm just saying I'm just looking at it from a citizen standpoint from somebody that's trying to build a home on a budget. I I would not want to stop someone build a home on a budget because I want them to pay the driveway. That's well that's the case then do they have to build the concreted driveway as soon as the house is done or they would have to based on that. They would have three months down the road but it's got to be done regardless. Yeah. Like so your statements would need to be done. You usually paid it last so you don't run your equipment over, but to get like your certificate of occupancy, that's where you need all of your sight standards done to whether it's resin. No,

according to this, before they could move in, they would have to drive unless you got again a varianc.

I kind of like that idea because it's cleaner track out on the road. But if I'm going to spend the money to build a house, I'm going to have enough budget in it to either concrete or asphalt. Yeah, that's just But nine times out of 10, the person that's given that house, they're going to buy the house already built. They want to move in the majority. Unless you just own land and say, "Hey, I want the most being built here now anyway. contractor contractors build them and then sell them as they build them. It's not people own the property and have a contractor build for them. Yeah,

I think that would be the argument is is it necessary to place it if they're already if it's already happening. I guess that would be the rebuttal there and like the new major subdivisions it'll still be paid. That's majority of your new home beision there. I agree with that.

One thing I'm just throwing out compromise things too for you guys is it's it's a local decision, but you could say like right now we say 30 feet from the right of white, right? So the road's inside of the right of way. Um what you could say as an alternate is x feet from the edge of the roadway. Like you know the road edge of the road and the right ofway are not the same line, right? You could say the edge of the actual roadway so many feet back and right now you've got 30, but that's again an option. The idea is trying to keep that gravel and everything from getting kicked onto the road and being a maintenance issue. Again, we can you can start to talk about compromise point there. Maybe just just a thought. Well, and I see that point too because the property that I purchased behind me, it's gravel in the back and it's falling into the ditch line and the culbert is

Yeah. So, yeah, that makes sense, too. Myself, I think I would probably I don't know. I don't know that anybody want 10 ft of the driveway paid and the rest of the grab. Yeah. Huh? I mean to fix that one. I thought about doing it myself to fix that one just to get you past the Yeah, cuz I know it would be an issue, you know, further down the road. You own it. Mhm.

Well, that's a difference though. I mean, it's not you're not living there to the house. I mean, would you want that in your driveway in your house? That's what I'm saying. Would you want to go up 10 ft driveway then go 20 and grab? No. You probably want to pave it all the way to the garage. I probably I mean yeah preferential now if I had didn't have funds then I mean I just don't think that'd be a good idea just to do 10 feet of require it would be still be 30 maybe the edge of the roadway instead of the right way you know what I mean because you're edge of roadway and right away different places right just throwing up thoughts for compromise

I mean then the next the next thing you go okay let's build we say we build we build a 18 by 24 barn. You don't put a roadway to put your s your lawn mower and your golf cart or whatever in. So, you're going to have to spend more on the driveway than you spend on the barn. Yeah. You got a point there. Yeah. Yeah. That doesn't apply to Oh, it does. Agriculture residential is what we're talking about. Yeah. Right. That would deter me from putting in a garage if I spent more on the driveway. That would definitely determine me.

Yeah, I think I think in most situations like I'm just thinking out loud. I'm saying like to me makes sense. The percentage of driveways paid off and what would you say? 25% max. Yeah. On existing Yeah. On existing properties outside of subdivision it's probably lower. Yeah. What's that?

Outside of subdivision probably lower. 20 25% on existing homes and it's not a problem now. I mean different we're having a problem with rocks in the road or whatever. I don't know what it would be if it was like we're having some kind of issue that we were trying to address here. I feel like

I think it could turn into a problem on something we're not currently having a problem on if we had it. kind of like to in terms of like what Brandon had just written with the garage situation. So, say we do have somebody who does want to make improvements, but you know, going back to my thoughts on it, it deterred me from wanting to put in the garage because I'm spending more on the driveway. It that then halts any improvement being made on the property itself. Just kind of considering that, too. Like,

but most lots are not big enough for your house and a 1820 garage. Well, say like for for my well like the property that's behind me that I purchased, had it not had a driveway, but it was just an open lot, I would then have to put that on and it would be big enough for for a garage. just I think there's a lot of oneoff scenarios that are involved in that, but it's what risk outweighs future development. Unless anybody else has any questions, I say just bring it to vote all motion to uh not require paving R1 and leave everything else the same.

I'll specify that you're making that that bullet on page sorry I zoomed in now. Um on page 90 that would be the second bullet under agriculture and residential use for allowed materials would read driveways outside of platted subdivisions or subdivisions required before the initial adoption date of the studio are not required to be paid. So there's five or six lines in the middle there that would get deleted if that that based on what you're saying Trevor just so you have the wording. No motion to bring it to vote.

I'll second motion a second. All in favor? Opposed? Vote for Joe. I did. Yes. Okay. Okay. on that that you have where do we end up after area living area?

Let me um R2. Uh so we're looking at page 34. Um we had 600 square ft for one bedroom, two 750 for twobedroom and 950 for three plus bedroom is where we landed on that. R1 was when we still stayed at 1,100 across the board and then um R3 goes down to 600. the apartments in the tiny allows for tiny smaller house

600. So R2,

are we ready for a motion pass with the amendments? I'm still I was still going to go back to the minimum living area on R1. um is right now we have it as 1,100 I think it should be 950 to match what the rest of the county does like Brandon brought up earlier that's just one if you make it 9 if you make it 1100 they're not going to stop building 950 homes they're just going to build them other places and not live here

so my issue is first I reached out to somebody at Scottsburg and they have not issued a building permit for anything under ft in 5 years. Um current leadership is considering changing their ordinance to a minimum of 1100 and previous council changed it to 1100. Planning commission agreed with 1100 the majority of the committee agreed with 1100. I just don't see making any smaller. It just doesn't make sense to me. I was on the UDO for city of Scotsburg that just reinstated that it's 950 and went through the whole process with them and nobody brought up changing it from 950 and it got approved by council 950. I can probably I can think of probably two houses that got pulled on permits less than a,00 in the last 3 years. their building inspector disagrees,

but he doesn't handle permitting though. So, I would have been APC head. Um, so let me ask you, what's the main purpose of going back? We've been through this before. So, what's the main purpose 1150? Why is the main purpose when we're selling everything we're building? Why is why is the main purpose of that? Makes no sense to me. It's just about more stability. Someone's looking for a home that's And that's why we established R3 so we could do tiny homes for those people. So, I disagree with the chair. I always have and you know how I feel about that. So, if we're going to get into that discussion, you guys can vote how you want. Be the first one. I veto. What's the count? I'm not in favor. The county is 950.

What do we have as R3? And where are those zone? What? What areas that? Well, we haven't established it's R3, right? It's the It's a new one. Okay. Up to how many square feet in R3? There's no max. Yeah, they're doing anything. They can build as big as they want for 600 minimum. Um, yeah, we just talked about minimum.

Okay. My thing is that 1,100 for a threebedroom is a a good size, but if you did like a twobedroom, 950 would be a good size. We did something similar on the R2 where we broke it down by bedroom count. It would would it be in consideration if we did two bedrooms, 950 minimum, three bedrooms, 1100 minimum? I think a three bedroom definitely probably Yeah, that's been my thing the whole time is

not every house is a threebedroom, but if you did even fet the third bedroom and that and that is pretty tiny. Pretty small. Even 1100 the third bedroom is really small. Cool. to buy a two-b it would be like downsizers or new to market for bucks more than anything. But the thing is if you got two or three kids two bedrooms they don't pay and most people got two or three kids if you have zero or you're an empty neester. Have you had your request for two bedrooms? Yeah. Yeah. So why don't you build two bedroom 1100 make a decent size bedroom? Why don't we 4,000 square feet?

What's the difference though? I don't see going backwards. It's not going backwards. That' be just as nice of a home.

You've been arguing this there since we started. So if that's what you want to do, you make a motion. If they want to go forward, we will. My the thing I wrote up 950 for two bedrooms and three bedrooms. You still have to be exactly like it is now and you still have no reason to do that. Some older couple want to build a 950T home. I don't see a contractor building a 950T house because they don't build a twobedroom because it's not going to appraise for anything. Why not build another 150 ft put a third bedroom in price for another 25,000 bucks? Yeah. Say you're going to build, say you're an older couple, you want to build your home. You don't care what appraises for. You just want a small home.

I don't see the advantage going to 950 though, Brandon, because there's not everything that we are building is selling. I don't I don't I don't see that. I don't see the need to go back to a 950. If they want a smaller home or they want two bedroom, they go free. There's no reason process anytime you want to do it. The staging it, like I said, is kind of like it reszones itself if you're doing a twobedroom. And you'd still have your same frontage minimums. So, it look the same from the road, but you sleeping on the outside, you're on the inside where you live.

Yeah. But I'm saying like it's crowded. It's crowded. The two I've lived in a two bedroom. How many people are living there? Yeah. It depends on how many people I mean, you can make the I'm in on this, but you can make the argument that there has been a decrease in um marriages and there's also been a decrease in uh childbearing. So yeah, that again I'm indifferent on this but the trends are declining with

and a lot a lot of the like entry homes are brand new home buyers this their first home or downsiders and on both those situations it's usually just one or two people buying a home. The only thing I can say is I do not see it uh benefiting the community. It benefits a contractor to go back to 950. That's that's step.

If it's a threebedroom, it still have to be,00 like Brandon said that contractor if you made it 950 for a twobedroom because the appraisals will be so much less. It wouldn't benefit you to build a two-bedroom home financially. It would benefit you as in a home be cheaper, but you're going to get less money on the home if you build a twobedroom. So financially for an investor, it's not going to make sense if someone's going to live there, right? I mean, I'm either way. I don't see the need, but that's giving like 150 ft to one bedroom. That's a decent size bedroom. If you got 15.

Yeah. Like 15. That's a decent size bedroom. It's really just it's for his bedding. You have to do a variance over one bedroom. I think you could do two bedroom, 1100 and make decent rooms on those rooms. They're tiny. in three bedrooms, 1100 cuz I went in three or four of them even some of you built tiny very tiny couple of them are about a 9 by 10 on several of them 9 by 10 on the third bedroom I think they're bigger than that

again my issue is plane commission council It's been 1,100 for a long time. Yeah. And we've built more houses in the last 5 years than we've built probably the 15 to 20 left. And they're all sold.

I mean, they're not sitting vacant with the exception of one that I can think of. I don't think they're sitting vacant hardly till they get done. And I think uh inventory just hit like a six year high. So stuff's not really moving like you alluded to. But I I have three brand new ones listed in city limits that are have just sat for months.

Yeah. Those took forever. That one's been done for six months and hasn't slow. Yeah. So, they're not selling as quick as it seems. And I think that's just something that's going to start happening more often. Yeah. And I think that's going to be the case no matter what you do, right? It's going to

slow down. Everything that's going on right now, everything's going to slow down. I think splitting it up in a tiered matter, like I said, is fair and it keeps the same scale of the house that we have now. It's just if you don't need the third bedroom, you wouldn't have to build it. And like Brandon said, anybody who's just building one just to try to sell would do three bedrooms still anyways. It would just keep from burdening someone who's specifically wanting and needing a two-bedroom home for getting it.

Then I propose you try to deter them to uh an R3. But what what would the difference be if you go any size you want there 600 up? Yeah, but I'm saying what would the difference be? Doing that the house would be there either way. It's just a a bigger process. I just trying to put myself in other people's shoes. If any of us sitting here build a house, we're going to build a house a lot bigger than 950 bigger than 1100 ft. But I'm talking that wants to downsize and build a small house. I would be the one to build a small house because

I'm just saying I try to look in their situation like it's not affect me zero. Itffects me zero. Not any way, shape, or form affects me. Um, I agree for the fact that when you say that with an older couple or a newly wed wanted to build a two-bedroom house, I wouldn't see a problem with that. But I mean, there's pros and cons both ways. I mean, no, you don't want to see every street with a two-bedroom house on it, but are you going to see that? No, I don't see that being a issue. I've done a lot of homes and I would I've never considered doing two bedroom. Actually, I took the three bedrooms and turn them into four bedrooms because they're great. So, it would just be there for people who actually need it. And I don't think it'd be used a ton, but it would I don't think you should burden somebody that would need it. And it keeps the same scale of the current housing we have. I make a motion to pass the UDO as presented with only the two amendments that we've agreed on tonight.

Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? I I

I passed as presented. Well, not as presented. There were two changes with the two changes. Yeah. Okay. So, I've got both of those and then that's I'll incorporate it into the final draft or final, you know, version. You guys will get the PDF for your coordinate how you want to move it online. You'll get the actual word document too because things happen every year in the space that impact your ordinances so you can make amendments as needed. Um and then can reach out to coordinate on the

and um however many to you guys in the next couple weeks. Maybe we should ask Josh. Well, Josh may have to redo this. I think so. So that's kind of null and boy.

Okay. Any new business? Joe the foundation. Yeah, just bricks and and chandel. It's okay. Thank you guys.

I'll do the final word so you can make amendments changes needed. Um, and then you get the hard copies and then I'll get

any new Stacy.

I can't think of anything at the moment. Any new? Okay. The only thing I can tell you is Duncan's underway and then uh there's supposed to be porn and Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. Ding. Mhm.

Um as you're pulling out on Ding I know I had this happen to me recently, the turning lanes, there's no arrows on the roadway. Um and for that to be one of the um businesses that are proper or used often by people who aren't in the area. So, I was parked beside um or or in the lane in the turning lane. There was a person beside me that was in the right lane and they actually cut me off because they didn't know how to get out. So, I think that we really need to put some arrows on that.

I meant to ask Jeremy today. Roger, do you remember like I think that was bid with with painted lines and for some reason they couldn't. I don't know. Have they just not gotten to it yet? I don't know if it was the weather, but I think they they ended up taking that off the bid because they didn't didn't think it was practical to stripe it down the middle, but not about the turning arrows. I think we can probably put turning arrows out there. Yeah, it is. But we don't need to stripe the road because it's not right. It's probably really just the turn lanes, right? Like because there's really like there's two I mean, I guess in our minds there's a left turn lane to go toward the interstate and then a straight or right to go

sensor wide. So, I don't know. Yeah, even when trucks are coming in, I don't really want to set in the middle lane because they're going, right, get you coming in. Yeah, I think it's the stop sign area is the big issue. Honestly, a roundabout would be a great thing there, but what' you say? I'm a fan of a roundabout. It does decrease time. A roundabout. Accidents. It needs drive somehow. Mhm. I'll talk to Jeremy and see what we can do about putting turning arrows.

Left lane turning arrow I think would be nice. Um I think just having something one there will be a helpful indicator because like I said you could tell they didn't really know what they were is kind of a free-for-all. It's a free for all. Yeah. You're playing frogger at that point. Okay. I'll have I'll have Jeremy check into that. See what we can do about put turning lanes turning arrows in there. We not to have lanes. We just need some barrels. Yeah. Something simple.

And then what I was saying on Metalbrook, they're going to do two foundations over there. It's two new homes. They're going they're asked to for inspection this third day. Going to do this third and two new homes. So it's it's now underway. They got 11 permits to build over there. And uh and we're still in the works already, too. So we got some more coming in. We had submit by the 1 of March and we got submitted for that. So we'll see how that goes. We should get some money here. Has to be has to be distributed by June. So for York Woods Crossing so we should be in good shape there. That's all I got to add at this time. Motion.

Second. All in favor? I