Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I was meeting a planning commission for the order. The date is Thursday, May 21st, 2026. The time is 6.01 p.m. Roll call please. I was meeting a planning commission for the order. The date is Thursday, May 21st, 2026.

There you go.

I did want to start off by welcoming our newest commissioner, Carl Crabtree. And rolling out on the roll, Mary.

Here.

David.

Here.

Bill.

Here.

Steve.

Here. Carl. Here.

We have a quorum. Okay. Approval of the minutes. The next item on the agenda is approve the minutes from April 23, 2026, Planning Commission Special Meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? Okay, if there are no changes, I'll take a motion to approve the amendments.

I'll make a motion to approve the amendments from April 23rd as they are written. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay, the amendments are approved. Public comments on general non-agenda items. We will open the floor to the public for comments at 6.02. This portion is for comments on not scheduled for public hearing this evening. Speakers are asked to state their name and address for the record. Anybody who wishes to speak. Seeing no further comments from the public, We'll close this at 6.03. New business, the vacation. The next item on the agenda is an ordinance for the vacation of the East Harlow Street right-of-way between Blocks 1 and Block 2 of McFerdy's Edition. Staff Presentation.

Okay, in your packet there, there is a location map showing the street that we are proposing being vacated. The city of Odessa is requesting approval of an ordinance vacating a portion of East Marlow Street right away. If you look at your map there, it's between First Street and the alley between First Street and Russell Street in the McBurney subdivision. The proposed vacation would allow the adjacent property owners, which is advanced industries, to utilize the area for private use consistent with future site improvements and operational needs. I've included the location map, and there is a flat map in there also of the replan of McBurney's Addiction, as well as the ordinance. and this will go before the Board of Aldermen on June. And staff does recommend approval of the proposed vacation. Is there any questions?

I can give some additional background too. So this is kind of an evolution of us trying to work with advanced industries to help with a parking issue that they've had. We all know that advanced industries has been growing significantly. And as a result of that, they've been having some pretty serious overflow employee parking issues to where you can see on this map here, they abut residential. So a lot of their, you can even see in the Google image here, the amount of cars that are parked on East Marlowe. between the alley and Russell Street. And those are all employee vehicles. So the intent was to try to find, you know, they're doing things that they can, what they can to try to alleviate parking in that area. So where their headquarters currently is, they've removed a quite a few of the storage containers that were there, the shipping containers that were there to allow for additional employee parking. But specifically in this area, you can see in front of the south building, they have quite a bit of material storage that's right there and the north building as well they have a lot of material storage but that original intent for those two buildings was that in front of them off of first street would allow for employee parking so they're wanting to get to the point where they can um remove some of that material storage to this section of East Marlowe to allow the parking of the employees back in front of those buildings. One of the other things I think they might have mentioned to this commission before, but they're trying to, a goal of theirs and I believe a requirement of having the defense contracts that they have is that they are now needing to fence in all of their property. So once they would do this, that section of East Marlowe would be included in the fenced in area, which would then subsequently not allow those residents or those employees to park on East Marlowe between the alley and Russell, because in order for them to park there, they would have to go all the way around the block to get into their employment building moving forward. So It does quite a bit to alleviate that parking issue. And then they're trying to just generally clean up the area as a whole, get everything fenced in, get all of their material. If you've driven through there, there's a lot of material, just it doesn't feel like those are public streets. Yeah. So they're wanting to get all of their material behind a fence or in a building, clean up the area, make it look a little bit nicer. And for safety reasons as well, kind of clean up the area. So. That's the goal there. And then along with this, the Board of Aldermen would also hear, which they've seen the draft version at our previous meeting, but a resolution for an agreement between the city of Odessa and Advanced Industries that if they were to sell these parcels, the city would have the first right to be able to obtain that street back from them. And so it could return to a street after they're no longer needing to use that facility. But at this time, they're obviously looking at different ways that they could expand their business physically and different locations that they could expand. They will not be relocating from these buildings as a part of their business model as of today. So they do plan to expand to an additional site, but they would still use this facility. site for their finishing work that they do for their storage containers. Any thoughts or questions?

Sewer lines.

There is no city utilities within that red box. There's a sewer line within the alley and then water within First Street. And so the fence that they would have If you look at this very top, the very top parcel, north of that north building, there's a storage or a storage lot right there that's currently fenced. It's some older fencing, but their thought is that they would take the east fence that goes north and south from that storage lot and continue it south to the east fence. side of the building on the south parcel. Does that make sense? So the fence would go straight along that yellow line on the west side of the alley. The alley would still remain open and operable.

I'm not curious. The adjacent homeowners and land, I presume they don't have any concerns?

I have talked to a few and have been able to help them understand. And now they haven't had any concerns after that.

I mean, I guess if they were concerned, they would be here.

Yeah, that's true. There isn't a public hearing for this. So that will be the only thing is that.

Right.

And one of the residents that lives right in that area, he was at the board of aldermen meeting when we talked about the right of refusal at the last meeting. So. But no, there's been no official notice to those residents, just to be fair.

So they'll have to park in front of their house, you know, that wouldn't hope to be able to do, right?

Yeah, because there's no curb right there. So when those employees park along there, they're, you know, they're putting their one tire kind of in the grass. And those residents have had not like that very much.

What's the replan here?

That's just the last time that area was replatted, just to show reference.

In a motion for vacation, BAC-01-2026, East Marlow Street, right-of-way between Blocks 1 and Block 2, McBurney, Addition.

I make a motion that we accept. I'm not going to say no.

I'm not going to repeat it. I'll second that.

Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Jimmy, do you need to vote on this? Individuals? Okay.

All in favor? All in favor?

Okay, motion carried. Okay, hold business. We will continue our discussion on parking.

Okay, so if you go to the last two pages, this is the ordinance that we proposed. At the last meeting, which was kind of a. Just kind of every tap in to get Carl caught up. So as we were going through our parking and driveway code, we realized that our code actually says we have to have two garage spaces for each unit, and we actually hadn't been enforcing that code. We have lots of one-car garages around town, and we had two permit applications for one-car garages, so this was kind of a quick fix to get those permits approved. So what we took to the Board of Aldermen was this ordinance that you have the last two pages here. What you all proposed was the two bedroom or less, and this is just in R1. Two bedrooms or less, two spaces exclusive of garage interior, three and four bedrooms, three spaces, five plus four spaces, all exclusive of garages. They did have a meeting, a public hearing. There was a builder that spoke in opposition to this ordinance. And so what the alderman agreed to was just to change that for now to, was it just two parking spaces for each dwelling unit? So that was just kind of our quick fix to get those permit applications approved. And then they wanted it to come back to you guys. I think they kind of felt like the three and four parking spaces was maybe not very cost efficient for our builders. So that's kind of.

And it sounded like the sentiment generally was that this would be good for something more multifamily, but for single family, there may not be a need for reduced street parking. So. Obviously, there are some areas of residential that we do have some street parking issues, mostly because the width of the road is a little bit more narrow. But the original intent behind why we brought this to you all and how the, well, at the time, the planning commission had brought it up that specifically the multifamily off of Johnson Drive, the new multifamily, apartments created a little too much street parking utilization. So that was really why we brought it to you all originally was from that apartment complex. And it was upon request of a commissioner that's no longer on the commission. So We just wanted to circle back. We obviously were looking at different areas of this, of all parking code. We talked about material and things like that. We really need a little bit more time to kind of vet that ordinance before we bring it back to you. So we just wanted to talk about tonight just the parking quantity requirements for the residential and what the board had previously discussed and brought back to you guys.

So it's going to be at least two for everyone?

That's what they left it as is kind of just a temporary fix until you guys propose something different.

And that is two outside of the garage.

Yep. Yeah, it technically, it's just saying two parking spaces for each dwelling. It could be garage or external, either one for now.

You could be out. So not fixing the problem.

No, it was just a temporary fix. Just because we the reason why we did our special meeting and everything was because we had builders with plans with single car garages ready to go. submitting their plans to Jenny and we couldn't approve it because our code didn't allow it. So the reason why they just temporarily said, let's just make it a minimum of two parking spaces for now so those permits can get through and not be backlogged and then have planning and zoning look at further revisions. It's two garage parking. It was two garage parking. Now it's just two parking. Okay. But I think there's somewhere that obviously is very lenient just to... No.

So now you're down to they can have a one-car garage.

Yes. So that allowed the backlogged applications, building permits. Correct.

So one-car garage, two parking spaces. Everywhere. I said it before that if it's got a one-car garage, it's still going to have two parking spaces, correct? Correct.

No, technically you could count the garage right now as a parking space, but that's, that's too. Yeah. Yeah. But I, my opinion, that may be a little too lenient and I think we need to find a middle.

Right.

That was only an attempt to allow for backlogged applications to come through. Yeah. So we didn't hold that up any further because by the time it went back to you guys, we found a new revision, then did a public hearing for it. It would be another three months probably before we could get something done.

So what are we looking at here?

So tonight we just wanted to talk about this was what we proposed to the Board of Aldermen. And then they adopted it as two parking spaces for each dwelling unit.

The temporary. But this is what was originally proposed. Yes, correct. And so what was the problem with this?

They felt like it was too restrictive for the builder and the cost. And I would say that's not the only thing. I would say they also felt like it was addressing a problem that we don't have in single family. So we have that problem very clearly in homes. multi-family apartment complexes things like that even technically duplexes but for single family they felt like maybe this was a little um too restrictive for a single family home i've often thought that and this is just an opinion i'm always asking myself why is the city responsible for providing parking spaces

long term parking spaces for homes. That's that's a question I've always had is why should why should the city use city monies to have provide parking spaces for public long term? Not like somebody who's visiting somebody's house?

You mean as far as the road?

You mean parking on the street? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah.

Yeah.

That makes sense.

That's good. I mean, when you're visiting, out long term. I mean, like every night, you know, I've got my truck and my trailer set down in front of my house or my two trucks or my two cars or whatever because I don't have enough. Right, I see what you're saying.

And that was a conversation they had, you know, if you get a family of four and you've got two kids that eventually are going to have their license, you're going to have three or four vehicles at some point. So that was kind of where this amount came from.

From the planning commission.

You know, builders that built a spec house and used it as a three-bedroom. Your first house probably wasn't a big house. I don't know. It depends on what we want. How we want the city to grow. I agree you don't want people parking on the street, but we can't fix the problems of people parking on the street.

You know, everywhere everywhere yeah and we can't fix what's in the past but we're looking forward as we plan for ahead but there's something i mean like i'm looking i wonder what the fix would be the going into the i don't know the words here the new addition they're built up above the lake the hill the hill all right so the entryway into that along those apartments is is is a I would suggest anybody drive through there and see what that's like, especially in the evening when people are all parked on the street. But there was a complaint at one of the last board meetings I was at that it's hard to get construction trucks through there. There was a question about getting fire trucks through there because you've got a narrow street to begin with and you've got people parked on both sides of the street because they don't have enough off-street parking.

Mm-hmm. And we have the ability to restrict off-street parking, but then the question is, where do those people park after it's been restricted? Which is what we did on Lakeview Drive. We did choose to restrict that.

My question is, is that a city problem, or is that a building or a code rule? That's where I'm at, and I'm not, again, there's not a lot, I don't mean to be punitive, you know, to the path. But as we grow in the future, we certainly need to be addressing that.

And that's going to be hard to get two cars side by side through there, wouldn't it? If you had two people coming like this one each other, I suppose they don't go out another way at two places because you can't have an addition which is one way in, one way down.

Right.

You got to have two. So I agree with him.

Well, the addition only has one way in and one. Well, there is. Try to drive it. Yeah, well, I mean, you have another narrow road to.

Yes, and I don't know what the thing is there either. In a street where it's too narrow to be parking on the side or it blocks, impedes traffic, then you put a no parking, you know, this side of the road or whatever, and you eliminate that situation.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think you guys have a very difficult task here. What, what is being asked of you is not an easy, there's not an easy solution and you go one direction and it, you know, we have a problem here. We go another direction. We have a problem here. So what you're weighing right now is, um, affordable housing and costs to builders versus, um, versus eliminating street parking. Those are kind of your two directions that you have.

He's talking about, you thought almost when he laid out the preliminary plans, like you said, we're going to get to see on each other at dishes, that almost pointed that out. Somebody said they're almost going to have to get another place to come in and out or get in that and cut it off. Something that's telling people they can't park on the street if they've been doing that forever, then they build it behind them and they're stuck. See, I'm sure there'd be some griping over that.

That subdivision is unique, too, in the sense that...

I understand when they first built apartments there, it was a dead-end street. That's all they really needed. Same thing with Johnson Drive. My wife always complains that there's a little hook going to Johnson Drive and the road's too narrow, and they did put up a parking. But as I explained to her... Back in the day, that was a dead end road there. It was just local traffic and now it's a thoroughfare. So, you know, it just, some things can't be avoided as much as we can. The responsibility for parking at homes and apartments should not totally be a city problem.

Yeah. We just have to remember too, like why we brought up this from the beginning was because of the new apartments on John off of Johnson. So that has, that is very congested with street parking because it has two park, two parking stalls are required, but one is the garage. So there's single car garages for each townhome. And then the person can park behind the second person can park behind the single car garage. Well, then they're, you're playing, you know, where you have to move both cars to get one car out, so they park on the street for convenience.

That's for guests.

Right, exactly.

I had a family that lived out of state, and they had almost the exact same types of fourplexes there. And of course, single they required them every so often to build in five parking spaces you know on some blank land like you know like over where that water is which we that was proposed to the apartments of course but it also does it's also safer well and we have a big difference between multifamily and single family and

single family you have the affordable housing side of things where you know we've we can see right now the cheapest house to build brand new is three hundred thousand dollars so is that called affordable housing exactly

So that's what we're going to try to eliminate so they don't end up like that. Yeah.

I think the point here is that what we do in multifamily is not the same answer for what we do in single family. There's going to be two different answers, and we made it the same across the board here with multifamily, duplex, and single family. But maybe there's maybe it's more unique and more detailed to the type of residential that it is. But we did have someone I can't remember how that got brought up, but someone suggested that to where like between each multifamily unit, then there should be like not parallel, but like angled parking between each unit that's not tied to the unit itself.

This one neighborhood, they had community parking spaces. If you're visiting in Pennsylvania, you can park there. I think they had blocks of five. And down the street, they had another block of five. Yeah, that's fair. But there was no parking on the street of this one.

Yeah.

So on the new housing that was asking,

bedroom house or is it they're both three bedrooms those are all three bedrooms single car garage but you could have that's four cars four or five cars the whole family even if just a couple in there you think two cars nowadays I think there were

I think that complex has 16 buildings. Is it 16 buildings? I'm trying to think how many units there were overall there. I can't remember. I want to say it was like, I want to say there's 16 buildings. Oh. 16 buildings and then four units in each one.

It's not clear on that.

So we'll just call it 16. 16 buildings, four units apiece is 64. And then we would say if those are all three bedrooms, that's three spaces. So it'd be 192 spaces would be required for that. I don't think we're there.

What could we do with what they've been talking about? You know, like say you've got the regular parking for the townhouse and whatever it is, and you can make it four spots here, just one car deep, you know, 90 feet, four of them, one, two, three, four. I can just say that. It's like this one here gets two, and that one gets two, something like that. In between them. You put that in there, that would help. You know, you just... That might be a solution to some of that deep stuff on the road.

Yeah, I like the idea of having parking between.

Yeah, that would be a bad idea, but that would be bad.

Blue Springs. Oh, when we had the developer meeting.

You'd rather have the street wider, which I don't know if you could do. That would solve anything on that particular layout. But then the city would have to maintain a wide street for people to park there.

That's true. Yeah, but then it becomes our responsibility to build it. It's his responsibility to let him pay for it, not us. The initial cost, yes.

So I see under Oak Grove, Oak Grove has some of the same apartment complexes.

Mm-hmm.

And so their apartment was not near as restrictive as we were thinking.

Mm-hmm.

And this is all exterior.

So theirs would not... The big difference between theirs and ours is that they couldn't count any of those garages because it's all exterior.

But they're only saying like, well, two plus bedroom, they're only requiring two parking places.

So our requirement... What was... How it was calculated for ours was... two per unit but we allowed the garage to be counted as the two so theirs would be the same thing but excluding the garage so they got a whole nother round of because uh the math on that so what we allowed basically was 128 with half of those being garages and they would allow 128, excluding the garages. We're talking about Oak Groves and multifamily, because they have the same style apartments that we have in Oak Grove.

So that would make just a longer driveway? Either one because it doesn't specify. Would that really fix the problem?

Not necessarily, no.

Is this the one, the brand new one? Is that what we're talking about? Outside of the complex?

Inside on Pine Drive is the main road that when you turn off of Johnson you turn on to Pine Drive.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, not as wide as normal either, are they?

Yeah, I don't know what the width would be on that. I could probably find it.

Is there a plan to make that go straight through at any time?

It was intentionally built to eventually be able to connect with the parcel that's where the new gym is.

Just to be an exit?

Yeah, just for another, just for looping the street system.

So we can change that now and they can do the way we want to do now? And that keeps them together depending on one way, can they just keep going that way? Yeah, but they got the units they got in or they could go more up that road? Can they build those units the same as the units now or can we make them change it?

No, they'd have to, if they built additional units on the parcel next to it, they would have to build them to whatever the code says at that time.

As to conflicts, I have an answer.

No, because it's not a requirement of them to change anything. They built it to what was approved by the city.

is it a safety issue or what's the what's the issue not necessarily i think if we needed to we've never actually gotten any complaints from residents that live there that i'm aware of but part of that issue too though fire truck wise streets are congested that the street well from what i remember that street is not a really wide that's what i was trying to find and it makes it very hard difficult um Maybe that's what it was. And they were not being able to turn a fire truck around in there. And then now you've got vehicles out.

The only thing that the city could do at this point would be to restrict parking on the street or on one side of the street.

Well, and I'm not here to make a problem. It doesn't exist necessarily. But I certainly think it sounds like the board is wanting you know, us to recommend something for future.

I still think a minimum of two exterior parking spots. Exterior.

I like that myself. And two here.

Two in the garage. Then you've got four vehicles. And a lot of the, if you look at a lot of the driveways, you can see they're long enough to put a couple of cars. So if you have that, you can park further back, still get out of your garage and go around the other side.

Yeah.

I have to say on the ones that are built down there on Johnson Drive, if you had a longer driveway, you wouldn't have been able to build those.

Right.

Because they wouldn't even have a backyard at all. These have very small land. So it's... about that.

So Pine Creek is 60 feet wide, which is a lot wider than almost double what the majority of our existing streets are. Maybe.

I think that's what it was. Yeah.

Well, to turn a fire truck around, you're going to need a lot of room anyway.

Or maybe it's 60, I think it's 60 feet of right of way, not 60 feet of right of way. I think that's the problem. I think that's what we're seeing. Yeah, 60 feet of ride away. So it's probably a 30 foot street.

So what is it we need to do tonight?

Oh, we're just kind of discussing it.

The Board of Aldermen have already approved it, is that correct?

For a temporary fix. So what they've already approved, we don't intend for it to stay.

They had some pending. If they would have put that off, then it would have prevented some people from going into their building plans. So that's the reason why they did the jigger.

We've been approving those plans for 10 to plus years. So it wasn't fair to stop approving them now.

So does this group need to do something then?

This group, the goal and intent is that we, you guys discuss what you think is necessary and we put it in ordinance and then you guys recommend said ordinance to the Board of Aldermen for final approval.

We can make it so there is

a certain amount of communal parking that's required in addition to, or.

That would be fine. It would have to tally up and equal that, I guess.

So like what Oak Grove has for multifamilies, two per two bed, two plus bedroom.

Yes. Exterior.

All exterior. But then we would want in addition to that, a communal parking requirement.

And just to say, they specifically said when they do this, or when they did this, if they wanted to do communal in place of two at the unit, would that count? So that thing where you're describing that is- Like a parking lot instead of- Or like he's saying with these itty bitty little strips in nearby.

If it just had one for the driveway, And the second one could be in this communal lot and they could, I mean, if there's a hassle over that, they could even put the address on there, you know, this is assigned to this address. But I don't think that's what I was going to say.

What do you guys think on, so we're saying a minimum of two spots, two external spots per unit for, or per Yeah, per overall unit for multifamily. And then do you guys agree of some type of additional communal parking requirement?

It will require two, I don't know. It could be that.

But I think to Steve's point, if we say two, they could still do two back-to-back, and then we have the same, like... I'm just going to park on the street because my spouse or roommate is parked behind, is going to park behind me.

Yeah, but I don't think it's feasible to require two-car garage for multifamily. And even if the

one behind the other. It's, I mean, how they park that situation or handle that situation is up to them. I mean, sometimes, like when you come in at night, you might both park in a driver, but if it's during the day and one person needs to be going in and out, yeah, park on the street. But you still are supplying to parking places there, whether they use them or not.

But right now our code is still requiring two parking spaces. So how the apartments were built today was a two parking space requirement. So I don't know that. Is it fixing anything then if we just say two? I feel like we're making it.

People do use their garage only for storage.

But what if it's an apartment complex with no garages and then you get the two back to back still?

To me, yes.

I mean, as long as they provide whatever say they need. What they do is that it's going to be another story.

What did we have for multi-housing before?

The same as the single family. So it would have been three, right?

I remember when they were looking at the old school, they were shorting parking spaces. And then they ended up putting it back here. So we would require a three-bedroom apartment

Complex right now, we would say three spots were required per unit. All external. That's what was in our original discussion.

If we ask for communal parking additional, would we have to say how close that has to be? Or how would we, or would we just, you guys would come up with something?

If you think that's necessary, we can come up with something. If you guys think that that's something that's necessary. I know we do have a section in our code that kind of stipulates parking lot construction. And it says things like it has to be the same owner, it has to be on the same parcel, things like that. So that parking lot, we could make sure that it ties to the parking lot restrictions that are already in the code.

That's a valid question.

And looking at the other cities that we have listed in our supporting material here, the only one that comes up with what we were thinking of adopting is Higginsville. to the extent of what Oak Grove or Grain Valley or even us at this time because we are closer to city where there are more jobs and everything else. So they probably, even though they require that, I don't know how much building is going on over there that they even need to worry about it. So I don't know that we can even Use them as an example.

Yeah. And that was mentioned by the Board of Aldermen that while it's helpful to review what other cities are doing that were unique from all of the cities that we review. Basically said that Higginsville's problems are not necessarily Odessa's problems.

So in that also, I think we have to think of, okay, somebody is wanting to move

And they're like, oh, what town? And they look at all this and they think, well, we're going to build a house. And they look at this and go, well, Higginsville.

And if we adopted the same thing as Higginsville, they're going to like, golly, we're going to have to build that, you know, another parking space or maybe two extra spaces compared to these other towns. Where are you going to go build?

Well, and that's the reality of development is the people who are building in Odessa are building in Oak Grove. They're building in Grain Valley. Some of them may be building in Lexington and Higginsville, but they're going to be building in Oak Grove and Grain Valley as well as Odessa. So they're going to compare their ROI at the end of the day to what it costs to build there versus what it costs to build here. Exactly.

And when you're looking at these numbers of what they're requesting at these other towns, are these interior or exterior parking? Or is it including both?

Some of them say. So I would say if it doesn't specify, then it's going to be either or.

Okay. So the Odessa doesn't specify here.

No, because our original, well, it does for single family. Single family originally specified to garage parking. And then it didn't say garage for multifamily and duplex. Does that sound right?

Can I ask you guys some questions on that? Because I was actually here for that. The thought process between requiring the two garage spaces was that for most people, if they have two garage spaces, they'll get one car in that garage. So that at least counts as one garage parking space. So...

It just depends on the family.

Well, right. But that was kind of like seen as an average.

It's the same reason why there's storage container businesses all over the United States of America. Because people...

They use all three spaces for cars.

Wow. They're their minority. Yeah. Yeah.

Brought the stuff and a storage room.

But I mean, it's up to the people. It's up to the people to decide how they want to use the garage. That's their own prerogative.

That's why I like my exterior apartment. Yes. I agree. I like that word on there.

Okay. Do you think that the same issues for multifamily apply to duplexes? or just two external parking spots per unit for duplexes.

It's the same for this year.

You've got two units here or one unit over here. You still need to park.

So the same for multifamily as it is for duplexes is what you're saying.

Same for, yeah, I think so.

Should duplexes require a communal parking requirement? A visitor spot?

Not necessarily.

I think that's where you get to, like your one and a half bedrooms. Yeah, that's where you get that.

You know, if they're a small duplex,

a two bedroom duplex i have parking for two cars plus my garage which if i get a run at it i can get my car in there yeah well it wouldn't matter but i mean but if you look at the town i used to live in they actually had some uh four plexes But even at that, it was just one bedroom apartments. So they chose not to put in parking places, which worked out fine because the road was extremely wide because they knew they were gonna just park on it. They had no garages or anything. So I think it just depends

parking space or you know so that that was my next question is do we accommodate for we're saying two unit two parking spots per unit no matter what on one hand, I think that that balances out to the same thing, unless you're assigning and saying these two parking spaces are for only this studio apartment and this two bedroom only gets these two. But what Oak Grove has where it's 1.25 per studio, one and a half per bed, one bedroom. I don't know the math on that, but I would assume that would level out if you said two per studio, Maybe I'm doing the math wrong there.

What they're doing here is 1.25 is they are building one parking space for each apartment and then they're building one for every four apartments.

If they're studio apartments.

You can get that one if you want it, but I mean they're providing a minimum of one. They're providing five parking places.

for four.

Oh, I got you. So if it was like the one building of the apartment complex had four studio apartments in it, it would require five parking stalls.

Now the other thing is that the So you live there by yourself. And in fact, the owner, if you ever saw you coming out of there very often, you know, sorry, you can't be having, you know, stay in here for more than just one night or something.

Yeah. So do you think that two per unit, if they were all studios is too much? Do we need to account for a unit? Yeah. Do we need to account for studio in one bedroom?

Multifamily.

But I think the point, the point is that not every person in the one bedroom apartments is going to be married, a married couple. Some of those will be single individual people.

in the one bedroom apartment.

That's why they do one and a half though, is that some of those one bedroom apartments are going to have couples and some of them are just going to be one person. So one and a half accommodates for that.

Yeah. I'm just thinking to get the two though, where there's two people living there. obviously it was just one capacitor or somebody living by their self and wanted to do, but most of the time I would think you need the two. I just think you got to save the two at least, at least.

So on Oak Groves for multifamily, they do save one and a half for one bedroom, which that means they have six parking places for every four units, which Yeah, if there's two married couples and two single people.

When you say a half, are you talking about just another parking space? They just say a half.

That's exactly it.

Yeah, it's... If it's too full of parking space, I guess you could say a half.

So they're saying one and a half, but what they're doing is just divvying two parking places up or one other one between two apartments. If you only ended up with two per apartment, you'd be fine with me.

And I wonder how that'll work out. I mean, I just, in my mind, I'm thinking... I'm assuming you have to round up.

I don't, you can't round down.

You have a, if there's, you got three parking spaces up front, who gets the third one?

And then it's two couples. Yeah. Work quick. Yeah. Well,

You know, I got a neighbor who's got a two-car garage, and he's got another storage garage over here, but he's got three parking spaces in there for that. I think he's got at least that. But it's not enough.

The developer's always able to build more. So if they built a three-unit home, they could put four in and four parking stalls in. They wouldn't have to put in three.

Well, I'd like to think that the builder would build also because they want to sell them or they want to rent them.

Right. So, I don't know. Yeah, I've gotten money.

The one units are more likely because they did that when they first had that first state apartment building that's behind the grocery store over there. not necessarily their first one bedrooms in town. So that's kind of the thought process there is it's in there with all the other units.

It's intended for a mega apartment complex, not just one dwelling or one building with three plus dwellings. But in Odessa, we get that. We get triplexes and fourplexes and duplexes more than we get apartment complexes. So I don't know how many triplexes we have, but there's probably, they exist, I'm sure.

I think so, fourplexes.

A lot of fourplexes.

So the issues we have are single family and the multi-family.

Mm-hmm.

Sorry.

And duplexes. We have to put something in for duplexes too.

Right now it's just two parking spaces for each unit. So that can include the garage. That's how it's written down.

Exterior.

So at minimum we want duplexes to say two exterior parking spots per dwelling unit. So every duplex would have at least four parking spots outside of the garage. I think that's fair.

And then I could attest to, even though you have two parking places and there's only two people in a duplex usually, I know one of my neighbors has three vehicles. They had four vehicles. There's another duplex where there's two people that live So, I mean, you know.

I mean, we need a vehicle restriction instead of.

I mean, it's, you know, and then you've got others like me. I've got one car and that's it. What's wrong with you? I'm broke. If I could drive two at a time, I'd get another one. Well, we can't really, you know,

The only thing we can do is say, you know, builder, this is the minimum requirement, you know, that you've got to do this much.

And then after that, we can't really worry about it. Well, and you don't know who's going to move in and how many vehicles they're going to have. So you can't.

And the code is ever evolving. I think that's one of our problems is that we haven't evolved the code when we should have evolved the code. But just because we make it this in 10 years, we could get a ton of apartment complexes and we're like the two, the bare minimum of two per dwelling is not working anymore and we have to fix it again. So it can always be changed depending on what our needs are at the time.

It seems like parking... You know, whether we got too much, too big a requirement or not enough requirement.

So if we're fairly consistent with town, with Oak Grove and maybe Green Valley, then, you know, I think we're probably in the right situation.

The difference is we're saying cap it at two per unit. Green Valley, just to be devil's advocate here, has the three per dwelling if they're greater than three bedrooms.

Well, this is three or greater, so. Yeah. Probably less likely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, my college apartment had four bedrooms.

Okay, so I'm hearing keep it at two per dwelling unit for duplexes. Multifamily, two per external dwelling unit. Do we want... Yeah, for both duplex and multifamily. For multifamily, do we want to do anything for one bedrooms and studios? Just keep it at two?

As far as taking it down instead of up?

Yeah, do one and a half or 1.25. And no to three units, three parking stalls per three bedrooms on either duplex or multifamily. And then do you guys want a communal parking requirement for multifamily overall? I don't know what it would be. We'd have to do some research into that. That's like, yeah, 5% or 10% of total parking count.

I get the good idea like that.

Yeah. That's what the builder is wanting is a shorter, shorter driveway to give them more space to build and more yard for livability and That kind of stuff.

And I've seen someone that's got that community parking, you know, like maybe four of them between the units. It really doesn't work out. Man, it's just a single parking deal. And I think it's a good thing. And I think definitely off the street or at least we have some graduated parking on the street all the time.

You got all that parking usually. So what about single family? I think that's our last one.

Single bedroom apartments.

No, single family homes.

Single bedroom.

I think for a three-bedroom, a two-bedroom exterior, the size of your garage is fine. But when you get into a five-bedroom, if it's on the main floor, not considering who's going to add what to their basement or whatever, it's a five-bedroom house or a two-story that's five-bedroom total, then I think it's going to be... Three quarters more, yeah.

I'd say start with a four-bedroom.

That's what we had though before that the board sent back was three and four bedrooms was three parking spaces. Five bedrooms was four parking spaces. So we're reeling it back a little bit saying three and four parking spaces would be two and five plus would be three. Does everyone agree with that? So three and four bedrooms would require two external parking spaces. Five bedrooms or five plus bedrooms would be three parking spaces, external.

And I think it has to be the house.

So in reality, it'd be one through four units or bedrooms, not units, would be two external and five plus would be three external.

I'm not going to object to this.

Well, I think I guess technically you could do one through three is two. And four through five or four plus is three, because we were saying five would be four spaces so that I can see how that's extensive, excessive. But this four and five bedrooms would be three spaces. I think it I think it. is a really good middle ground. It can still be looked at as more costly to the developer because there's a high likelihood that they have four bedrooms. But most of these new houses that are coming in that we're getting the building permits for are three bedroom.

I think three bedrooms sell

yeah and it'd be hard to get a four bedroom on a lot of the lots or your four and five bedrooms are going to be built on a bigger lot and usually in and they're going to be four house they're pretty strong yeah maybe there if you get four bedrooms you're probably gonna have a three car garage yeah got it

Okay, so recap. Single family would read... Can you have a studio single family? I don't know the answer to that because Oak Grove says efficiency unit under single family.

They have confidence.

What?

They have the authority to read.

An efficiency unit.

A studio.

Like a mother-in-law suite. A mother-in-law suite. Which I don't... I think it technically says you can't. Okay. So...

We'll just say one to three, one to three bedroom. Okay, single family, one to three bedroom equals two exterior parking spaces. Four plus bedroom equals three exterior parking spaces. Duplex would be two exterior parking spaces per dwelling unit. And multifamily would be two exterior parking places per unit plus a communal parking quota of some sort.

Those are three bedrooms. They didn't want two garage spaces. So that would require them to put a two-car garage on

every house that's built.

I have a question for you, a stupid question probably. Apartments downtown above businesses, what do they call them?

Wherever they want to be.

I think they're technically required. Yeah.

I don't know the answer.

There's not an exemption for them. Let's just say that. There's not an exemption for them. If you were to put in a new apartment today into an upstairs building of a downtown area, you would still be required to have two parking spaces per unit. Because there is nothing that excludes the downtown area. Right. So I can't speak to what's in there today, but if someone were to build an apartment above in an existing building, but it's not an apartment now, so they're going to turn it into an apartment above a downtown building, the code requires them to have two parking spaces. Yep. They would have to find a way to have designated parking for that unit. And if they can't, then they would have to get a variance. Because there is no exemption.

Yeah, I don't...

Technically, you can't count public parking, though.

There's very limited parking behind that building.

Okay. Blocking businesses.

Technically, when we were in that, we shared parking with the bank. I don't know.

OK, well, that helps us. And then we'll try to I'll just be honest. We've been trying to like take everything that we've said and implement it into the existing code and like bring that to you in an ordinance format. And much easier said than done. There's so many areas within the parking sections of our code. that either contradict each other or it's saying it here, but then it's repeating it here, but it's worded slightly different in those two places. So we're trying to clean up the whole, anything parking related. It's not even like a designated section of the code that it's in. So anywhere that talks about parking, we're compiling it into an ordinance for revision, but trying to clean it up at the same time so it's not,

confusing to us if we if we say we get all this past we're working real hard to keep the over street parking or we're going to have a code in it like right initially there was no off street parking after after six o'clock yeah everybody had the off street

to put something like that under regulation they still park on the street if they want to we just want to provide as much parking as possible correct correct the board can come in after the fact like we just did with lakeview drive um and cobb avenue so the board can restrict parking by the side of the street and the block that it is and sometimes the mailboxes are all on one side you can't park on that street ever because the mailbox got to get down to it So the next one of the items that they were going to talk about, too, was Dryden Street and if they should reduce parking on one side of the street or both sides of the street for Dryden on the hill because it's pretty narrow, less than less than 30 feet. So that would be the resolution for it. It would be to restrict parking. We can't go back and say, hey, you need to build two more parking spaces per code. Okay. We have what we need for now.

I have one other thing. If we can, I'd like to get back at it sooner so that I actually have time to research and find and If you know you're going to have a public hearing and can't get the whole packet out, when you send out those public hearing notices, send them to us so we can be that much ahead of you.

Yep, we can definitely do that. Yeah, we can do that.

I think it's white.

That's funny.

Our goal is to try to get it out on the Friday before the meeting, um,

Sometimes I'm not able to do that. Me, not Jenny. Jenny's ready to go.

I'm not ready to go. Okay. The last business is adjournment. If I can get a motion.

I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'm second. Any discussion?

All in favor, raise your hand.

I hear you.

be adjourned.