Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call to order the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Sachse. We'll hold a regular meeting on Monday, May 11th, 2026 at 6 p.m. to consider the following items of business. First thing is I want to declare that we do have a quorum. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The first thing we'll have is an invocation and prayer. I'm sorry, invocation and pledge of allegiance. Would you do the invocation? I'll do the pledges. You do the pledges? Okay. I'll do the invocation. Father God, we give you thanks for the day that you've blessed us with and the life that you've given us in it. We thank you for this opportunity to serve. We pray for wisdom as we consider the items, as we listen to the public. And as we debate, we ask, Lord, that you would guide us and direct us and that we'd be strong as we do the things that you'd have us to do. We just praise you in your son's name. Amen.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

You may be seated. At this time, the public is invited to address the board regarding any topic not already on the agenda for action or public hearings. Comments regarding any discussion-only items on the agenda may be addressed during the public comment section. The time limit is three minutes per speaker. A public comment card should have been presented to the acting secretary prior to the meeting. Under the Texas Open Meetings Act, the board is prohibited from discussing any item not posted on the agenda, but we will take comments under advisement. Is there anybody that would like to address the board at this time? Mr. Don Schilt. OK, very good. Anybody want to make a public comment? Seeing none, we'll move to the next agenda item. Item C, action items. Consider approving the March 23, 2026 meeting minutes. Anyone from the audience would like to address the board on this item? Seeing none, could I have a motion and a second? A motion that we approve the meeting minutes as they are. Thank you, sir. We have a second here. Anyone have any discussion? Seeing none, call for a vote, please. Cast your ballot.

To confirm, the second was from Mr. Omen, correct? Yes.

Oh, there we are.

The motion passes 5-0. Next item. Conduct a public hearing to consider and make recommendations on an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance and map to grant a change of zoning from residential district R1, agricultural district AG, and residential district 2A, district R2A to residential 39, R39 on a plus or minus 14.52-acre tract of land generally located south of Sachse Road and east of Getha Lane at 4912 Sachse Road, 5.5008 Sachse Road, and 5251 Getha Lane. City of Sachse, Dallas County, Texas, within the Sachse city limits. Can we hear our staff presentation, please?

Good evening. Good evening, Commission. Philip Finehall, City Planner. The request before you tonight is for a rezoning from R1, AG, and R2A to R39 on a 14.52-acre tract, generally located south of Sachse Road and east of Getha Lane at 4912 Sachse Road. 5008 Sachse Road, and 5251 Getha Lane. Like I said, the request before Unite is roughly 14.52 acres. It's currently occupied by two homes and their associated accessory buildings. The applicant has stated in their request they intend to consolidate the zoning of the proposed property so they can eventually replant into one lot for one residential home. This rezoning is the first step of that process. They would be looking at rezoning, replatting, doing some demo work there, and eventually replatting again to consolidate into that one lot. In front of you here is the aerial map. As you can see, along Sachse Road there with a small amount of frontage onto Getha there. for that other property on the south side. This is the zoning map here indicated in the blue with the blue star on it. As you can see, the lot on the northwest side there is zoned R1. To the right, it is zoned AG. And on the bottom, that bottom piece is zoned R2A. There are several requirements that are very similar in each zoning district. R1 and R2 are legacy zoning districts. Any new rezonings would not be allowed to rezone to these standards. In front of you is the R39 zoning district standards. These are what is proposed by the applicant. It mirrors R1 zoning with a lot area of 39,000 square feet. And R2A allows for a density of 10,000 square feet per lot. And AG allows for five acres as the minimum. The current parcel on there does not meet for this. That one on the top right there. The proposed mirrors are one and is more restrictive than the R2A in existence. The future land use plan designates this as low-density residential, which is described as single-family detached dwellings on a range of lot sizes and setbacks. State law requires that zoning decisions be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use plan supports the proposed rezoning request. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request. It is in line with the comp plan, the future land use plan. Permitted uses within the proposed rezoning request would be consistent with the surrounding residentially zoned and developed plan. And the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will go to the City Council on their June 1st, 2026 regular meeting. Is there any questions for staff at this time? The applicant is here as well in case you have any questions for them.

Okay. Anybody on the commission have any questions?

Yes, sir.

No, so this would be specifically for these three lots here. It would not change any of the zoning districts surrounding.

The second question is if the applicant at a later time wanted to come back in and re-subdivide that later, even though they still met the R39, that still would trigger a review of that site change or anything else?

If they meet all of the zoning requirements, the lot standards for that zoning district, it would not require that it come back to here. would be administrative staff review.

I have one question if you go back to the map once later right here so this southern property is three separate tracks that are our 2a zoning is that correct?

It's identified in DCAT as one that's what we have it as in our system and This parcel layer that was done for the comp plan may have just shown it as three as a previous.

So it's three separate parcels, three separate zonings being consolidated into one.

Correct.

I'm good. Yes. I'm good.

Okay. No other questions from the commission? I declare the public hearing open at. 1811, would anybody from the audience like to speak? Mr. Shipp, I think it's your turn.

Thank you. I'm here with several of my neighbors.

Can you pull the mic down a little closer, please?

Thank you. I'm here with several of my neighbors from Magnolia that backs up to one of the properties. We're very, without more data, we're very concerned that right now we have a very open view. We're concerned about a new neighborhood going in with two-story buildings potentially looking into our backyard, taking away from property value. We're concerned about the drainage implications that, I don't know if a study's been done, and what, if that's going to come into our property. I'm concerned about not only two-story homes, but outbuildings directly. I've seen certain outbuildings built directly against a fence line, and it took $50,000 to $75,000 off one of the values of the property in my subdivision. If we're going to do this, then my ask would be for some accommodation to protect the property values of those who are on Magnolia Lane, I don't know how it affects other people, but I know that it would affect our property values. I would ask that we would ensure that it doesn't affect drainage. I would also ask if tonight's proposals, are they legally binding or are they merely conceptual tonight, subject to change later, as was mentioned by if this gets rezoned later and instead of having 10 houses go in there, we have 40 houses. that eventually gets rezoned, if one of those outlets comes into my subdivision, that has a lot of traffic impact in a small area right here near the courthouse. And so those are some of the questions that I had. I've got a minute and a half. I'll read some of my others, and I'll be happy to hand these off. I would be interested to know if the developer is requesting any variances or waivers or future flexibility beyond the standard R39 requirements currently. I would like to know if there's any sort of berm that is going to be allowed between their property and these new ones that are going to be built. Any thoughts have been given to a landscape buffer or a tree screening between the new subdivision and existing homes. I would like to know if there is a plat that's been developed And if so, what are the approximate sizes and depths of these of these Lots and what the approximate price ranges and anticipated? nature of these buildings Again that affects property values So all of those things we're here We understand that the growth growth is needed and healthy, but we are concerned about for our property values, of course, and the enjoyment of our home. We bought these homes, it was bought, backed up next to a lovely field that had horses on it, and having a bunch of two-story houses back there would significantly change that. And so we would ask all these things to be considered as you look at this.

Thank you, sir. Diana Smith.

Hi, Diana Smith, 4802 Sachse Road. And I'll ditto Don Shipp's questions. But my main question is, how many buildings, how many homes could be built on this tract of land? What is the maximum number of homes that could be sitting on that property? That might help alleviate my fears. So maybe the developers can answer that. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Yes, sir. Please come to the podium and state your name and where you live.

My name is BJ Cope. I live at 5221 Heritage Circle. I would be east of this development. Question is, if it's a 3,900 square foot lot, does that mean, is that supposed to be just the largest lot size that you approved to build a house on? I was told that the plan was just to put one house on there, on the whole thing. If you're going to put more than one house, why are there other buildings? They're pretty new. that are on the backside of that property already. And same thing as the drainage, whoever owns it or whoever was running that property has run a drainage line, a line that collected water and empties onto my property. And I already have drainage coming from the development next door. It comes across my property. Some of it comes, Across my backyard into my pool and I had to put a sewer pump in there to get rid of that The rest of it goes across and then to the the tank next door On the horse farm and the rest of it just goes down the back of my property and so it's that's already a problem the question is What's going to be done as far as the drainage planning? And are they going over there gonna protect us there and? How easy can this be changed? I mean, I don't mind getting rid of the smaller lot requirements that were already planted on that property next door. If they're going to build some larger homes, that's fine with me. However, if it's going to mess the drainage up, I'm not crazy about that. And I think for right now that's all my questions.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Was there someone else? Yes, ma'am. Please pull the marker. There you go. State your name and address.

Linda Crank, 5006 Heritage Circle. A couple of quick questions that I may not, that staff could answer or the developers. Was the intent to build one home in the consolidation? Or if it's about 14 plus acres, is that at a lot size of 10,000 to be consistent with the designated zoning up there? Then is that the intent to build 63 homes or some sub set of those numbers. What's, could we get a clarification? And then just one correction, it's Crank, C-R-A-N-K. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, please come forward.

Hi there, my name is Miranda McKinney. I'm at 5304 Getha Lane. Our property is right next to where is that little piece of land that touches Getha Road right there. My question is, do they intend, if this does get developed out into a neighborhood, do they intend for that to be a main road? And if yes, then what are the intentions for the traffic? Was a traffic assessment done? And what are the measures that might be put into place to make sure that there's a good barrier between that road and our driveway, which is a couple feet away. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak, please? All right. We're seeing none. Would the developer like to speak?

I think maybe the homeowner.

Okay. The homeowner? One second. Need to close public hearing. Time is 18.19. Yes, sir.

Todd Ferguson. I'm the homeowner. Just to put everybody's mind at rest, we have no intention on developing or chopping that all up. It's just going to continue on as the current usage that we're doing right now. And we're just combining the two lots in the front because there's two homesteads there. We're going to take those out and then put a centrally located home new home and that between those two and that's all we're doing is just trying to get everything all straightened out and that's the whole purpose behind the rezoning too is just to make sure that we're all on top of all that with the new rezonings and that's basically about it but nothing is being changed as far as uses or down the road you know there's no desires to I mean that's the whole purpose of the whole property back there was to have it for the animals and the horses and the other things we have back there, but it's not going to be all chopped up and developed. So no intent there.

Thank you.

So I'll go ahead and address some of the questions that were asked during the public hearing portion of this. If I miss one, please let me know. So I think some of the questions were related to the density of this project overall. This is, in effect, a down zoning from a higher classification, which would be 10,000 square feet per lot to 39,000 square feet per lot. So as the applicant has stated, this is a consolidation of these properties into one lot for the enjoyment of one home with some accessory buildings on the outside. As far as any future subdivision, if the owner decided to sell or subdivide the property in the future, they would have to meet the R39 standards, which is 39,000 square foot lots, which would be close to one acre in size. So in that process, they would have to come through a subdivision plat to replat that property into smaller lots. This is the first stage for their development as far as getting rezoning, having consistent setbacks across all the properties, and then they can combine that property into one lot. So after, if this rezoning was to go through, they would replant the properties into one lot They would, I believe they're looking at demoing one or two of the existing homes, constructing one larger home, and then having some accessory buildings in the back for horses and such like that. As far as drainage goes, that will be looked at at the point of development. This is the first stage in the development, so we're looking at the use component itself. That's what the rezoning is for. When they come through with development, that's when drainage will be looked at. So any building plans, any development of the property, that's when we will look at the drainage. As far as variances and deviations, we have not seen those at this point in time because this is the first step in the process. As far as a berm or landscape buffer to adjacent properties, The adjacent properties are also zoned for residential use, so there is no buffer required between residential uses. There has not been a plat developed at this point in time. Zoning decisions need to be made before a plat can be submitted for review, as a plat would not meet the requirements of the zoning for each of these properties. Regarding the maximum number of homes on the property, As stated, that would be limited to the 39,000 square foot per lot. So you'd have to go through a subdivision plat and subdivide this off. As part of that subdivision plat, each lot would have to meet the minimum zoning standards for each lot. So on an R39, Phillip, if you can pull up the standards, the minimum width of the lot at the building line is 130 feet. So you're gonna be limited by the number of lots that you can have off of a street. Most notably, Getha Lane, the lot line is not wide enough at that point. So the only way that lots could be configured would be off of Sachse Road. So that would be a future subdivision if the owner at some point in the future decided to do so. Let's see. How easy can the property be changed? As far as zoning goes, it would go through the same process. It would go through the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation and then City Council for action. If they are subdividing, meeting the minimum standards to the R39 should the zoning go through, then that is a administrative level review and approval. I think there was a question on intent of making a road on Gethall Lane, that would not meet city requirements as far as the lot standards. So no, the answer to that would be no. I think I've touched on pretty much all of these. As far as the question related to two-story homes, this zoning district would allow for a two-story home within the R39 standards. Once again, From my understanding, the applicant is intending to build one home on the entire property. But if they were to subdivide in future, each of those lots would be able to be two-story in height. The homes would be able to be two-story in height. I think I've touched on most of all the questions that were asked at this point in time. And if the commission has any further questions, I'd be happy to answer any.

I have one more clarification on my end. The setbacks for R39, would be a front yard setback of a minimum of 90 feet. There is no maximum to that. And then your side yard is 10% of lot width. So depending on how much frontage you have there or how much frontage you have at the building line there, we would measure that and make sure that structures over 400 square feet are set back that 10% there. And your rear yard would be, it's 25 feet or 20%, whichever is less. This is a deep lot. So you'd be looking at 25 feet on your rear yard setback.

That 25 feet is from the back of the house to the end of the property. It's not 25 feet from like their fence line to what's behind it.

Correct. Correct. It'd be from whatever structure over 400 square feet to back property line. Got it.

I had a question on the rear yard setback. What is the current setback that's there now, and is the current setback that will be required, is it greater than what would be there?

So the current setback for R2A, because that is the one that is on Getha Lane there, the main thing is that all of these are currently subdivided. They all front on different streets there. So R2A has a different setback standard than R39 would if all of these were combined at that point. R2A's setback is, let's see, 25 feet or 20% consistent with what's being proposed. R1 is 25 feet or 20%. And then AG is a 50-yard setback. or a 50-foot setback.

So just for clarification, there's no, we're not reducing down the setback to how close any barns or any additional structures on the site could be placed closer than what they currently are now or can be now?

Correct. And we'd be evaluating that and making sure that everything is in current conformance whenever they come to plat. They would provide us with a survey and we'd make sure that no extra Demo work needs to be done at that point, making sure that they're up to current standard with the law standards.

Sounds good. I'm going to reopen the public hearing at 1828. Does anybody from the audience have any follow-up questions that were not answered by the presentation. Yes, sir. Please come forward.

There's no gutters. There's no drainage system in our neighborhood. The water comes to the streets and goes out to the creek. It's a pretty big river like last night. And the other thing is the water that comes across my property right now is in one part. Permit, I don't know anything about whether that was ever done the other thing is I mean, I don't have a problem with with big properties and that's big house. That'd be awesome But but the drainage coming across my property it goes different ways I know that I think we talked about the fact that the very back part of my property is set up to where we're supposed to allow Free drainage to go, but it comes across a big part of my backyard not just one little part of my backyard. So I want to know if they've done a drainage study, if things have been investigated already and make sure that things are being done right now. And especially if you're going to replant or redo anything, are they going to make sure that the drainage is controlled and not going to cause more problems in our neighborhood? Because there's a house next door to me that has a backyard all the way up to the fence line also to that property.

To answer to address the question regarding a drainage study there has not been a drainage study at this point in time as part of the Replat that's when drainage plans are looked at in addition They're also looked at again at the time of building permit for any kind of structures So should this zoning request go through and they move forward with their their plat? That's when we'll take a look at the drainage okay, and how they're their new home, and how they're Reconfiguring the lot how that impacts the drainage in that area okay?

Anyone else have a further follow-up question?

Again, Linda Crank, 5006 Heritage Circle. I would concur with Mr. Koch. Heritage Circle currently gets a large amount of water that's going through, so I don't know if we've done it. I know we haven't at this particular time, but if there's been any prior study of the impact of the other neighborhoods that are putting the water down on Heritage Circle and that street. So I'd encourage you to keep that one in consideration because we are, especially with the storms last night, we're seeing just a huge volume of water. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, I'll close the public hearing a second time. It's 1832. And... We've heard from staff. We've heard from questions from the council. We've heard from the public hearing. Are there any further discussion from the council?

So I just want to find out, has this flooding been an existing condition for them, or is it something has changed because of that the flooding is occurring now? Are we aware about that?

As far as if there's an existing flooding issue in this area? Right. I'm not aware of existing flooding issue per se, but, you know, if the homeowners are saying that there's some drainage concerns, then obviously we can contact our public works department and have some of that looked at.

Sure. Yeah, if it's causing problem and these are neighbors, they should be happy with neighborhood. So probably we should look into that.

Nothing more from the council? I'd entertain a motion.

Make a motion we approve C2 as presented.

Oh, I have a motion. I need a second. I have a second from Commissioner Murdoch. Please cast your vote. Passes 5-0. This is a motion to present this to the City Council. And this will be heard at City Council on June 1st. So if you have further questions and wish to have discussions again, You'll have that opportunity at City Council on June 1st. There being no other business coming before us, Item 3, I didn't see that. Item 3, conduct a public hearing to consider and make a recommendation on amendments to Chapter 11, Zoning, Exhibit 11A, Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 15, amending the Old Town District Regulating plan and the character areas established to create a neighborhood manufactured home district Council Good evening Commission Philip Finehall city planner the request before you tonight is for a zoning ordinance amendment to the Old Town District and

We're looking to add a neighborhood manufactured home district within the Old Town Zoning District. The ongoing maintenance of regulations and the streamlining of processes and provisions identified as tasks within the city's 2025 comprehensive plan update is one of our motives for this item. The proposed changes include amendments to the city's zoning ordinance to comply with the state regulations regarding manufactured homes. In 2025, the state passed legislation mandating that cities permit by right the installation of new HUD code compliant manufactured homes within municipal boundaries under at least one residential zoning classification, residential zoning district, or dedicated zoning classification This act will take effect September 1st of 2026. The request before you tonight, like I said, is the creation of the character area development standards for the neighborhood manufactured home character area in the Old Town District. The proposed regulations would follow the neighborhood standards of the Old Town District with the additional use of HUD code manufactured homes being a permitted use. The Old Town District Regulating Plan would be amended to show the new designated neighborhood MH character area. The area proposed to be designated as neighborhood manufactured home character area is currently located over the Wildwood Village Manufactured Home Park. The amendment formalizes the existing use of the property while still allowing for the property to be redeveloped into a traditional residential use down the line. Like I was saying, it would follow the neighborhood uses as well as the standards for neighborhood, just with the additional of the HUD code manufactured homes being a permitted use as well. In front of you is the existing regulating plan. The site that we're talking about is right here. And here is the proposed regulating plan. As you can see, we added the character area, neighborhood MH, within that area and just covered up that specific area for Wildwood Village there. Here is the aerial of the proposed area. As you can see, it's in existing use. Currently, there is 30 different spots outlined within their site plan and is what would be allowed within that neighborhood manufactured home area as well. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment as it complies with state mandate state-mandated requirements while formalizing existing development. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be considered by the City Council at their June 1, 2026 regular meeting. This is a staff item. If there are any questions, please let us know.

Anybody?

That is correct. So with the state legislation that was passed, it says that we have to allow four manufactured homes by right in one residential area.

The intent when we went through the old town type of stuff was to enhance and beautify and make things more alive type of deal. With a manufactured home, is there any requirement of what type of manufactured homes go in there? Could they just put anything they want?

So it would have to meet HUD code standards. And then with that, like I was saying, it is neighborhood underneath that. So everything that is allowed within neighborhood would be allowed as well. So if that did redevelop at some point, it would follow basically the same standards that was in the existing regulating plan as well.

Is there any opportunity to put that type of classification in a different area altogether? Because, you know, the intent, like I said, the intent behind the old town type area was to do certain things. And to me, this goes against that directive that we were initially doing.

Yeah, the challenge with designating a different area is either you're coming up with an entirely new zoning district and then figuring out where that location is and or you're adding it to an existing zoning district. So it's either you're creating a brand new one somewhere or you're adding that use to an existing residential zoning district. And the challenge with adding that use to an existing residential zoning district is that means it can go throughout the city versus in a specific area. The reason this one was looked at is this is an existing use on that subject property. This is the path of police resistance as far as this has been in place since the 90s. They have manufactured homes on that piece of property. this would formalize that but also give the ability for it to change in the future should the Old Town District change overall and influence that property owner to sell and to create more of a neighborhood type development. So it's formalizing what's there but still allowing the change to meet what the original Old Town Zoning District was trying to accomplish.

Has the current owner, is the current owner requesting this change, or is this just we're talking about doing this on his behalf, his or her behalf?

The owner is not requesting this. This is city initiated rezoning in order to meet the state legislation requirements.

Last question I would ask is, say the current owner wanted to do, left this property as it is, existing situation, and we approved this, he can continue to do this, the same scenario in his, you know, current, to whenever, right?

That's correct. Whether the zoning goes through or not, they are entitled to continue operating their use as it is. It is considered a non-conforming use at this point in time, but they are able to, utilize a property for that use until they terminate that use for a period of time. So in the sense this formalizes it, allows it to continue on while meeting city standards versus it being classified as a non-conforming use and they're still allowed to use it just if they abandon that use, that's when they wouldn't be able to put it back there.

The last question I would ask is, if we designate this one location as this manufactured home area, without having to go through and do a new zoning request somewhere else, that usage cannot be used anywhere but that one location, correct?

That's correct. So you mentioned that it could change in the future. Does that, if it changes, they can build just regular houses in that area? That's correct. So if they come back in and fill that with regular houses, then do we have to go back and create a new zone somewhere to allow for this?

No, because we've created the zoning district that allows it. It's just not being used for it. Okay, got it.

Is there space in there for someone to put a house, a new mobile home in, a manufactured house?

Well as part of their original site plan there, it's limited to 30 The the code as as amended limits it to 30 as well So if somebody moves out or or changes then there would be able to put another one in there But they would not be able to see exceed 30 on that property.

My question really is Are there any vacant spots in there now?

I believe there's a couple big ones.

Okay, and if he gets full we're We're still meeting? That's correct. Okay, because we have that designated. Okay.

Any other questions? Has this property owner been notified of this staff item?

The property notification was sent out to the newspaper as far as the public hearing for this piece of property. As far as their notice, we have not heard from anybody within that manufacturing part. Just to speak to it, it's all along Billingsley and 7th Street. And if there are questions for the commission, the public hearing will be open here in just a moment.

Anyone else from the council?

No. Well, I guess just a follow-up question. It is not a city or state requirement to notify this property owner beyond the newspaper notification of this property. this public hearing.

That's correct. We are not restricting their uses. We're actually adding an additional use to their property for them to be able to enjoy the property.

And the city has not received any direct response from this owner? No. That's correct.

Okay. I declare the public hearing open here at 1845. Would anyone in the audience care to speak on this item? Sir, you asked a question earlier. Did you get it? Please come to the mic. Please come to the microphone. State your name and address.

Mike Ellis, 5240 Magnolia Lane.

Do it when you get there in front of the microphone so it'll get on the tape. Michael Ellis, 5240 Magnolia Lane.

Now I'm just concerned with the placement of what that last location of the HUD homes was. You're talking manufactured homes versus trailer homes, because they're two separate. You've got the trailer homes, which are on wheels, which you can place just about anywhere. And you've got manufactured homes that actually do have a standard base that it sits on. And you're saying, are we getting or are y'all getting? Compensation to have that that's why you have to make use of that location Why do you say we mandate for that location?

Anybody I'm waiting for you to That's it To answer the question, head code manufacturing homes, there's a specific definition, and it's defined at the federal level. That definition is included in the zoning designation itself. Once again, this is a mandated change by the state legislature that each city has to allow for manufactured homes within their city, and it has to be permitted by right.

I see.

And the specific location that's in question, it is an existing manufactured home park already. It's a non-conforming use. It's been there since at least the 90s.

I'm going blank on Billingsley. Where is that? Is that off of 76?

It's one street back off of Highway 78. 78?

Yeah. I'll check that.

Are there any other questions, comments from the audience? OK, I declare the public open. Excuse me.

Linda Crank, 5006 Heritage Circle. Just a quick question. In the HUD definition, it usually looks at the permanent chassis, 320 square feet, whether it's attached or not. Could you please? Clarify or comment on does that include tiny homes and does that then have to have wheels horses permanent chassis? And how does that affect that particular park?

Thank you So I'll address the definition HUD code manufactured home means a manufactured home constructed with a permanent chassis designed for over-the-road transportation and delivered to the home site in one or more sections according to the national manufactured home construction and and Safety Standards Act of 1976, enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD regulates the home's design and construction, strength and durability, transportability, fire resistance, energy efficiency, and quality control. It also sets tough performance standards for heating, plumbing, air conditioning, thermal, and electrical systems. So if it can meet the definition of a, the federal definition of a HUD-coded manufactured home, then it would be allowed. I don't believe the tiny homes would meet that requirement.

Okay. No other questions from the public? I declare the public hearing closed at 1849. Any further discussion from the council? If not, I'd entertain a motion. I motion. You move that we approve this. I approve the motion. Okay. Second. You second? Got a second from here. All right. Please cast your vote. Vote passes 5-0. Thank you, folks. I declare the meeting adjourned at 18.50. Thank you for coming.