Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

okay we're going to call the order the uh regular planning and zoning Commission meeting for City Wood Creek Texas for June 17 2026 it's 5 00 p.m uh if you would I'll set your call to a roll please yes uh member Robert De Leon member Pat Rawlings member Carol Nesbitt Vice Chair Carson Bloodstone and chair Russell here and you know all right fantastic I think the uh first item uh is the consent agenda item to approve the regular planning and selling Commission meeting minutes for May 20th 2026. I know that we accept those months all in favor all right name this All right, next on the agenda is from our Council of the ETHON. I do not have a report for you today. Okay, great. That'll move us into the regular agenda. First of all, we have a presentation discussion with planning consultant regarding zoning regulations related to the MH-1 manufactured housing that's based

So my name is Mia Padilla. I work for the law firm Death & Navarro in their planning division. And Stanley asked if I could attend to sort of give you a rundown on the new changes that have been made. at the state legislature on the 25th of September. I made this quick little PowerPoint because if you look at the actual statute, it can be a little bit confusing. So I just wanted to break it down and sort of tell you what the main changes were. The changes actually don't have to go into effect until September 1st, 2026. So you're a little bit ahead of it.

But I noticed that on the agenda, it had the law or whatever that came out. And in the very last line, it said, these take effect on September 2025.

That may have been the law went into effect, but the cities don't have to implement these threats every year for cities to implement these because it was a little bit of a conceptious change in the state laws. And so what the state initially did was they required that all cities have to allow by right the installation of a new manufactured home. And then find what new manufactured home means. It essentially means anything that hadn't been used before. So this could, if someone was able to find something from 2000, and it had never been used before, technically, that would be considered a new manufactured home. And so city has to allow it by right. and um in a couple scenarios it could either be in a residential zoning classification um so just a single family district um or you can create a manufactured home district which wood creek actually does have a manufactured home district so that's applause you guys already had that question important about that um i was reading s375 that there was a

part of doing this thing says, if you hear, hear, hear, or a single lot. Yeah, so that's it. Do you know anything about that? If you look at, let's see, I'm checking exactly where Mitch is. um so that is essentially saying that it doesn't have to be a manufactured home of course

that you're approving, it could just be an individual law, like a single family law, if you wanted to. But the law does say that you have to have a substantial area. And the thing that's being questioned and a lot of cities are trying to deal with is what does that mean? And so we really won't know that until the case gets challenged. And so we always recommend trying to find a substantial amount of land if that's possible. But one of the changes that are affecting a lot of cities is they used to only permit manufactured homes via a special use permit or a conditional use permit. And you can no longer do that unless there are single family homes that also in that district require uh conditional use permit or sup um so essentially you just have to treat them the same as you would a single family home unless you create your own manufactured home district um there are some exceptions um so there are some exceptions and we did look to see if this may apply it will be um if there's a historic district and you can prohibit them there i can I understand that you all don't have that. If deep restrictions were established prior to January 2, 2025, that would prohibit manufacture of gums. I don't know if that's the case here, but that's another one. And then the other exceptions are another deed restriction if residential districts place deep restrictions back in september 1st of 2025 that could have um affected any regulations and then also if the city doesn't have any uh properties that are zoned for business or industrial and i believe you guys when i look at your zone map you have one lot that has actually sold commercials so unfortunately you don't need any of the exceptions to the rules uh which would mean that we would have to, if we were to go off of what the city had today, we would have to find some areas to zone manufactured homes. Or we can change the ordinances to permit them in some residential areas. It really is up to the city. I know that it can be a difficult decision to do one or the other. One, because a majority of people Don't really like the manufactured homes, but there are some repercussions if you are going to rezone people, there's noticing requirements. And you'd have to notify the property owners and that could cause some issues and they are allowed to prove necessary zoning. So there's potential for that issue. And then if you just rezone and allow in the same family district, that doesn't require noticing because you wouldn't be making everyone non-conforming, but it could cause issues for people who are already living in residential areas that may not want that. So I'm happy to help and figure out questions or if you have ideas and you want to discuss that, I'm open to that.

Yeah, I do have a number of questions. I read until my eyes were crossed about minimum square footage. And the only thing I can find is that the single wide approved version is like 500 518 feet right but I can't find anywhere where I I find one that specification says a minimum of 320 feet yeah that's so but

how does that apply to us so and i'll have to look into it a little bit more it's been a while since i've looked at the definition um but one of the changes that also came about was um the way that they defined a manufactured home and they rely on the definition of the federal government which means it was constructed in a factory 100 that means correct yeah so if and that's sort of a question for cities to determine um is whether sizing requirements would apply if HUD has approved them as being a main fractured home yeah so i'm saying so if 320 square feet is their minimum HUD minimum does that mean we have to

except 320 square feet that is a I don't know that's a yeah that's a it's like a smaller than a tiny home but yeah it's like a big camper what is it uh 14 feet by 37 feet right so I mean it's not even as wide as from here to the wall well on here it shows that it's 518 square feet yeah 37 by 14 but 320 Is about 25, but it's very, very small.

Yeah, certain regulations that you can put on manufactured home. So, some cities have chosen who have developed manufacturing district will include, like, additional landscaping requirements, a pathway from. the road to the home um a porch to make it more aesthetically pleasing so there are things we can add on to it um to sort of discourage smaller size uh manufactured home but right now we haven't done an answer on if the city can limit square footage if that's something you want to consider we can go yeah i'd like to know yeah the answer to that um

get away with not allowing a 320 square foot uh with i would i mean i understand people on the budget and we're i'm not trying to say it needs to be 3 100 square feet but you know i think

yeah five of the options on this page are over our 1000 yeah yeah so um let's see um

So you're going to ask about that?

Yes. And just so I know, you mentioned a 1,000-foot minimum. That applies to residential?

Most of our residentials are 1,000.

Oh, and especially if we were to overlay this on one of our existing, like an SF-5, which already has the 1,000-square-foot minimum. Okay.

That's good to know.

So, yeah, I'd like to know that. Also, Yeah, I mean, I'll look on the code. It very clearly defines the type of construction, but not the size.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And we have to be careful as well because on top of this, there is the building material requirements that restrict cities from implementing building material requirements.

The other last thing I was hung up on is in SB 785. What is it? It's just labeled as two. I guess it's, I don't know, section two and number two. It says, may not adopt or enforce other zoning regulations or zoning district boundaries that directly or indirectly prohibit the installation of new, uncode manufactured homes in all residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning districts adopted by the municipality. Does that mean that we have to allow it to be? Because it's kind of what it sounds like. We cannot adopt or enforce any zoning regulations that directly or indirectly prohibit the installation of new HUD code manufactured homes in all residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning districts adopted by the municipality. I mean, for me, that says, We have to allow everywhere, but I know that can't be the meaning of the bill. It's not what we split together for.

Yeah. So I think it's not. So sometimes cities can adopt regulations to strongly discourage things, and you want to be careful that you don't go too far where you're indirectly basically prohibiting them from being placed somewhere so that happens a lot with like sexually oriented businesses the state requires you to permit them in at least one district um but you're allowed to put distance requirements and what you find is some cities will put such stringent distant requirements that it's essentially like banned in the city and so we think the language is meant um as a sort of curve beware, do not put requirements on that would essentially prohibit them.

Well, because it's number two. So it's actually, you got to read it as a whole. It means the municipality, any municipality with zoning shall allow it in one area and cannot prohibit it everywhere, is what it says. So it's part of a kind of three-part sentence. So it's not saying they can't go anywhere. It's saying you just can't prohibit them everywhere.

yeah that's beautiful very strange yeah the people who typically write these are not the ones enforcing them so they don't write them um for the people that have to write regulation so we identified in our last

one two um I've since looked at you know two other potential locations I still think the one we chose is the best option um but I believe our council is on requested uh up to three for the council to consider so I don't know if um our committee members want to look at that map again uh up close over here so we can kind of talk about that that's on this well you can't see

Okay.

Do you want to look at that? Because my second virtual is the SF4 that we talked about at Wood Creek.

And I know where that is.

Yeah, that's the little condos. Before it drops down by the sometime lake. Right, right at the edge of Wood Creek. know it is what it is and then lastly sf6 which is commonly known as the circles uh i don't know if you run it in the champion circle it's uh wilson's regular installing circle uh it's a sf6 um do you want to look at these and see if there's any thoughts are you thinking better i didn't realize those were so differently yeah The one we originally talked about was. Yeah, that's true. So I see what you mean, yeah. Yeah, I see what you mean, yeah.

So this is the one he's mentioned.

And then this one in particular.

well if we have to get them one of these selections or you would have that one like that's oh yeah

What I think is essential is that it's going to be impossible to find like empty lots and I don't think the requirement will be to find the only one. I think as long as you're substantially trying to defy the law or the statute and do your best, I think that's all.

If they selected the one that's probably not fitting but it's built down they could select that that's built down already yeah yeah and so that way if one were burned down or torn down then the opportunity yeah and this because it's a PDD we can't test that right um negotiate with them directly yeah and that has been dormant for years

More or less. I mean, a city can rezone a property that's a PDP, but essentially you'd be able to have your PDP to have you talk to your property manager.

Yeah, if you would have to have support from anybody. Yeah, exactly.

Okay. Any other questions from either of the committee members on specifications, law, requirements, cleaning, anything at all? I like your questions.

I think they're very good. One of your questions was can we stipulate a minimum size, right?

yes and also she answered the question for me is can we stipulate different regulations not just setbacks but skirting you know walkways that kind of thing that she says we can do that's not the material that we got you can't say we're off skirting you can say skirting yeah and there are um some cities like the city of bk um

they really wanted to get, in the city of Dripping Springs, they wanted to get pitched roofs. And so in order to get that, they didn't specify material, but they did require some pitch. And so there is a certain pitch that you have to achieve in order to get metal roofs. So they sort of found a way around it. So there are ways to try to find, so if there's something you're thinking about, Please bring it up. You can drive by. Yeah.

Okay. So if there are no other questions for her, I'm going to go ahead and move to the next agenda item, which is our discussion. Thank you for that. Appreciate you. Yeah. Discussion, possible action to identify a designated zone, the city would create a zoning map. For most it makes one manufacturer housing with possible ranking of three options for consideration, so I think we have jumped ahead and already did that, so I will. We didn't rank them, did we? Yeah, we did. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, SF5, SF4, SF6.

Okay.

So, if we're all in agreement, I would like that to be entered into the minutes, if that's what we're going to recommend to council, or do you want that?

I need a motion and a second. I need a motion and a second.

Okay, great. No, we're not. Okay.

I would like to move that we... How will I move this? We provide the following three options of doing... number one choice sf five the number two choice sf four and the number three choice f s s f six the stone house circle area do we have to do that whole thing

I just want to clarify, you can't actually restrict to one street SF6. It would have to apply to the whole street.

That's what I was wondering.

Would you be rezoning that it would be an overlay? You could do, maybe create another, maybe

change the name Patrick Holmes district to another name and then rezone particular areas that I don't think we were intending to do that because that would force them in the future I think it was going to be an overlay if that's acceptable I'll have to look into that statute specifically said like the district um I don't see an overlay

so i'll just double check to make sure of that combined yeah single family and um yes just food for thought to each other's decision but on that ranking if sf4 is a legitimate uh spot to consider i might mean that it's built out recommended being number one all right

just I I won't vote on that but I mean I I think it's a horrible idea that mobile homes at the entrance to your city well just I think that's what it says it's just my point is it's built out yep yep they're old they're 50 years old and ready to be falling down so yeah I don't think I appreciate it well I think that's going to help us in here all right so the motion on the table I believe you want to read it back did you get

Yeah, yeah. Submission was made by Pat Rawlings to provide the following options of doing option one is SF5 or rank one is SF5, SF4 and three is SF6.

That was seconded by Carolyn. Yes. All in favor?

Well, I was listening to what he was saying about the ranking.

um but i don't know about rules of order or anything no i mean we'll have to amend the motion if we if we're wanting to change it um but i mean i i i'm just looking at what the majority of residents would want and i think the majority of residents would want to not

see mobile home if they have an option and why can't i know that i love that little purple area over by the liquor store yeah it's privately owned so so what why What do you have to get into that? I've never driven back these. No, go ahead.

Yeah, you can do well, 1st. Mr. D is going to look into the overlay concept because we do have an overlay district in Brook Meadow. So I'll do an overlay. then we can leave the current zoning and then have an H-1 being a district overlay in that area. If we can't, then it will force us to rezone. And Lana was saying we have the preference for the overlay is that gives the builders the options of either. But if we rezone entirely, that will force manufacturing. Which, again, I'm not here to criticize or talk about types of homes. You couldn't do it here in Deerfield. this is your film so you could select fourplex for your overlay or you could select sf6 for your overlay if you were going to rezone entirely then you could rezone this area entirely I'm sorry I think she's

This is the commercial zone and it's one giant block of commercial zoning.

This is duplexes, DU1, so you could pick DU1 for the overlay.

SF2 is medium meadow, you could say SF2 for the overlay.

literally any one of these existing zoning areas could be used for the overlay if you're rezoning the other reason why i wanted to hopefully avoid that is you're going to have probably a bigger complaint with that because you are completely changing the building standards in the area entirely right right if we if we make sf5 our number one choice

knowing the two owners of the two lots over there, you will have a lot of commentary.

And that's the one at the end of Duglo? Yes. That wild boat.

This will likely generate quite a bit of controversy regardless. I'm surprised we haven't done one.

Right. But if you zone an area that is already built out and adding a

manufactured home is contingent upon demolishing one of the homes people would see that as a less possible outcome yeah there are there is a lot to weigh here and remember you still have a public hearing to get through where the people around us are going to be noticed we're not damaging all three Right. We're providing for a rank choice notice.

So we could recommend our ranking choice and then you could just change it.

Except for the public hearing will have to be on your number one. They're going to get notice. If it turns out that you're like, this is a bad idea. Let's move to number two. Then we have to have another public hearing and notify them. Or we can decide to notify all three. Right. That's stuff we need to talk about and settle on. My recommendation for the right choice was whenever you make the recommendation to counsel. Right. And so that's another public hearing after your final report. Which, I mean, you know, now that I'm thinking about all the notices, this is getting pretty complicated, but it's kind of. It's up for you all to decide how you want to approach this. There's more public notice in these areas, letting these people know you're considering it and getting their input. That's more transparency. Is it selecting one area only and noticing them? And then if there's fallout, they're starting over.

That all seems to be the best.

I don't know how it takes. I'm just asking for more trouble. That's really in the council's hands.

Well, you all will have your public hearing first and then issue your final report to council. Council will then have their public hearing and make a final decision.

Well, there's no easy answer here.

The point is, is if you have a built out area, the only thing is, is to the state or to someone else, does that appear to be disingenuous that we designate an area that has no possible build out area without destroying any place?

I think that if you were a city that had a bunch of vacant land, plenty of land, and you chose to only rezone an area that was built out that would be disingenuous but wood creek is essentially built out you have very limited space and for the city to designate maybe the few lots that might be vacant as a manufacturing room i don't think that was the intent

I think if we did do SF5 and it did somehow make it through the comments and then get to the council, it would generate a lot of commentary, knowing the ownership of those lines.

I don't think we'll get any less commentary.

No, I think you won't get nearly as much commentary on the built-out area. You're talking about the entrance? The back entrance.

Yeah.

I understand what you're saying about the entrance, but I don't know what the chance is if somebody said, oh, good, I want to demolish this place so I can put it in manufacturing. I think it's high.

I think it's very high. I don't know if you looked closely at those, but you could probably have a strong point of blowing over. I mean, they're crumbling, they're falling apart. They've got mortar problems.

So you're thinking that somebody could buy that whole area and set up a mobile home park.

Yep. And that's what you could see.

Oh, yeah. Let's buy a container. It could be five to ten years from now.

Yeah. But again, I want to remind you, this is just a solidify our decisions or change them if necessary and then get that to council and ultimately it's their decision.

Well, in open commentary, you know, people can suggest where they would like to put it. Yeah, see if they have any better ideas than what we do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let's go with the original emotion with the original rampage the way that I'm sorry. It just I just wanted that. I wanted to talk that out just a little bit before we.

Yeah. And six is. There's two pink things there, and Wilson Circle, I'm very familiar with. That's off of Palmer. And the one above it is Stonehouse.

This is Stonehouse Circle, and this is... Is that off of Champions? No, this is Wood Creek Drive here. This is right off Wood Creek Drive with that tree island. They're called the Circles.

No, those are off Champions.

These are, not Stonehouse. okay i said my name i can't place it in my mind you could you guys could say we want to rezone this oh i see now but if you do the overlay approach it would have to be yeah okay

And I like the overlay approach. That would be ideal if it's allowed.

Yeah, and if the overlay isn't allowed, are those your only SF6 sections?

Yeah, both of these.

So we could just add regulations in the SF6 specific to the infection home.

So you wouldn't leave the district we have?

We could leave it. We would just add additional regulations. I mean, if I could probably fill the reserve section for it. Yeah, okay. That's a good change. Which might actually be easier because if you just change the regulations in a district, you wouldn't have to notify the property owner because you're not making a non-conforming or active adding potential value to the property. So we wouldn't have to have a public hearing then? You would have to have a public hearing because you need to test it in there, but it wouldn't require a property owner.

would require a property owner notice.

If you're adding, if you were taking something away, like, say, if you were taking away, like, You used to be able to do duplexes and now we're taking duplexes.

So the ranked choice voting could still work. Okay. So remember when I was talking about if we're having to send public notices out to the property owners, I kind of in this moment realized the ranking was difficult because we'd either have to send them to all of them. Or you need to pick only one. But what she's saying is because we're adding, we're not taking away rights, we're adding rights. We don't have to send out personalized notice. It's just the public hearing. So you guys can still move forward with that idealized ranking to present to council on your report.

and i will say unless not to add more to it unless there's already a manufacturer come on one of the properties we would then have to note by that because there are no okay okay so you want to go back to the vote now yeah do we need to amend that but add as an overlay approach no she's going to research that so we'll think of the readers okay so yeah so you want to read the motion one more time just on the record so we

yes sorry no it keeps free like the screen keeps freezing so i just stop it start okay um so pat made the motions for by the following ranking of the three options as follows one is sf5 two is sf4 three is sf6 and it's second in fight care all right all in favor of the motion all right all right um

So now we're going to talk about discussion of possible actions to propose amendments for the MH-1 manufactured housing zoning regulations in the city of Maryland. This basically is what we've alluded to a couple of times of, you know, do we want to require anything additional that is not already in there for single-family homes for manufactured housing, like skirting, walkways, you know, whatever else may be. Well, and certainly tankers. yeah i think that's part of installation requirements isn't it yeah so you don't need to say i mean it's if it's how it has to be done right okay and we can't we can't charge a pro net fee or we can't Is that accurate? Yeah.

So you can't charge. I'd have to look into it. There is something regarding permit fees. And I believe also like some cities will require like a move-in fee. But I believe you can charge fees for like utility connections and things like that.

Yeah, yeah. But not like, if we're going to build a house, you're not going to get a permit. They don't have to do that.

So, that reviews and inspections. To ensure that it's done right. Yeah.

See, that's what they're saying. If you read this, I'm sorry to interrupt. Please put me if I'm wrong, but the HUD stuff I read said it's built to exact specifications that the government has approved only this you know these these certain people to build so they trust that it's built right it's labeled that way and then the installation we can't be any part of it is the same as the manufacturer they're bring it Purdue installers for that manufactured home that install it in a specific way to ensure we're not supposed to have a bunch of knowledge, anything to do with it.

What we can do is require those proofs.

Those what?

Those proofs, meaning show us your moped, your hood.

but we would have to have somebody inspect replacement of the manufacturing home on the lot being compliant well we can't charge you oh okay I mean keep in mind this is for low low low income

individuals so the government is trying to say look give these people a break you know we've got very very clear specific ways that this has to be done let it get done that way and stay out of the way don't charge them extra don't make it difficult though you know what even two hundred dollars or a hundred dollars for a permit it is a lot you know if you don't have any money right and your loan doesn't doesn't cover that then you're stuck. We're charging $100 for a permit fee. So that's the language of it. I guess there should be some kind of instruction.

I've got to be honest. I'm reading this again, and I don't think it quite says that. so basically it's saying that you can't create additional restrictions for them so it says a municipality may not unreasonably regulate or restrict the installation of new head code manufactured homes the municipality may not require a specific use permit for other permit that serves as a similar purpose to a specific use permit for a new manufactured home so it's not saying that we can't have a permit process or an inspection process it's saying that we can't create overly restrictive ones or required special use ones and what that means is special use permits have to come before the council and be approved so it's saying you can't set up additional limitations for approval here um and so and we can only charge for actual costs well profit

So when someone is building a house on an empty lot here in town, who goes out and makes sure that the replacement of the house is in the right place?

Well, it's in their paperwork, you know, permit paperwork showing there's going to be a side plan. And then before they poor concrete they have to give me another survey of the form boards so the concrete's going there but since this doesn't have concrete and somebody's just packing it in well I would think we could still have the same survey that is this is where we're going to put it and when they put it we have that survey that shows

So if you would, so that is a certain amount of, what is it, ATS?

Well, ATS is the planar view and our inspection. So I would have to get with them because I don't know the difference between new home construction and this, what the difference is, but as far as inspection is required. As far as the permitting and the placement, they have to have a survey done and provide it to me before we approve.

So an existing lot survey without any manufactured home on it would not be sufficient until you actually drew in where the home was going to be to scale.

So that's how I'd like to get your survey of your empty lot. And then within your plans that you must provide, it's going to have a site plan that shows exactly where that It's going to be on the property. That would be different.

It's not. And it is allowed. What this is talking about is some cities require a permit for the transportation of large stuff like this. I moved some houses from Austin out here, and Austin requires for house movers to get permits. And basically, it just says, you're a licensed mover. You know what you're doing. We've got you. So we can't do that because a HUD person is going to be doing this. And that supersedes our jurisdiction. So that's what that's talking about. But it does not prohibit us from a site kind of permit. We still got to be able to check that kind of stuff. And it does say that basically the actual costs incurred by the local government unit that result from it being put here are fine.

is the way i'm reading this though and so basically we can't inspect the unit if it's got the hud stamp right but we can certainly make sure it's going to put in the left foot yeah yeah so let's let's talk about let's get back on the topic and talk about the possible amendments you should have a copy of the mh1 manufacturer housing subdivision requirements a lot being 7200 feet a minimum square feet a thousand square feet of living area and then the three setbacks what was the i.e on there i guess we should take them probably one at a time jim you happen to know if what the square footage or the what these lots are that we're proposing i don't know what to tell them

Yeah, so we don't have minimum lot sizes as any other code. It was something that, again, the comprehensive plan net code update are supposed to address. So we would have to look at each individual lot.

The lots are very uniquely shaped, so figuring out the exact lot size is a little surveyor's work.

I know.

It's not our job to ensure these can be installed in that manner. And if somebody's lot happened to be under that restriction, they could request a variance.

Yeah. Are there any questions or concerns about the minimum lot size? Item B is minimum square feet or living area. This is where it gets a little bit tricky.

But out of all of these, there's only two that don't exceed 1,000. Right. And honestly, those are the most common.

It was first year. There's a, there was a buddy of mine was selling this, they had a 784 square foot one. They bought 600 of them in surplus and they sold them out in basket.

Those units that are used in situations, they buy those and put people in.

Those were famous.

The reason those were so available was the disaster, not necessarily because that's what you find when you go to a lot-selling manufacturer.

Yes, exactly. And somebody made money by buying 600.

I just want to clarify that when I read this code, it doesn't say that we have to allow all HUD manufactured. So you're going to read into it. But I do think as long as we have selected a reasonable one, meaning 1,000 square feet is reasonable.

Allowing, what is it, five of these seven seems reasonable.

yeah so basically if HUD manufacturers smaller ones that's fine nothing I've read in this requires us to go to the smallest size right and 1,000 square feet is very typical right so it's just it's all an interpretation those laws are the taller walls are about interpretation and I I interpreted just

So if you're comfortable with us trying to leave it at 1,000 square feet, that's what we'll do. Please let us know if you find out on that. And then item C is the setbacks. I don't see any reason, personally, why this should change for a smaller footprint or the same size or smaller footprint than what we normally have.

Who has this little match that I can't get out? What are the two dimensions with the arrows on the 97 and 134? So the 134 would not be an issue at all as far as if you subtract 50 feet from 134, you have the 97.

which is the first one over 1,000 square feet. So they would have to ask for a variance. But I think what I would do if I was on the committee at that time was I would push them back. You know what I'm saying? I would reduce the back setback and leave the front at 25 feet and reduce the back move point at this point um so leave those yeah unless I mean I'm open discussion uh I don't see any reason to change it you know um Jim any thoughts with you not on these but okay so the last item is property and areas of the city's own MH-1 may be planned used approved platted and occupied as a manufactured housing subdivision with lots sold and conveyed to individual lot owners land and areas of the city zoned in H1 and having an approved subdivision plan may be used in manufactured housing so the only um thing that we want to talk about is did you have a question about that one about some additional things. Yeah, that's what that's what we're getting ready to do. So, the next things are what else? right well the starting it's uh yeah so I mean if you think about it when you build a house I don't know that it's in a permit packet anywhere that says you have to have a sidewalk but it's just like duh of course you have to have sidewalk yeah but there's plenty of places in Austin that don't have a walkway we have some houses out here there's one on Augusta Lane that doesn't even have a driveway where uh it's down yeah yeah yeah couple houses up from that yeah so i i think we should add things like skirting you know and we gotta get the proper wording and stuff but uh a walkway uh you know from the front to to the driveway uh first off there's no driving required so you might want to add that right yeah so Driveway. How big a driveway? Well, it is.

That's the question that I have. We can talk driveway. We just passed a new ordinance. It's a, you know, you can have two 10-foot-1-quart spots. We also have in this, in all of these zones, we have to have a two-car garage and a one-square-foot, 400-square-foot. Can't you have a requirement? It's not going to be attached. Or...

we would need to address these so that's yeah do you want i mean i don't think i'd have to look at that i don't think being actually comes ever right um so then you'd have to allow them to build it separately because it would be required that you would essentially be saying you know to manufacturing right i'm not Yeah.

They're not going to come with it.

Yeah.

But in the zone, it's required them to have a two-car garage. So are we going to take away that requirement?

I would recommend that.

I would think so, yeah. I mean, if it were detached or allowed

If you are overlaying this, can you take it away just for the manufactured homes or do you have to take it away for the whole thing?

The overlay can be very specific, yes. And even adding into the zoning code could be very specific as well. So y'all need to address that. garages or you know you don't have to have it well manufactured homes 90 some odd percent do not have garages you know carports yeah okay and does the city permit carports so we would need to address that specifically here I don't I don't think we need to require car folks I mean I don't think they're very attractive and that's why we don't allow them uh and you know if

they want to build them you know you put them all on there and they want to build a carport then you can talk to council and planning and zoning about it you know yeah yeah they did right away but as far as the carport i don't know i don't know if you need to tell them that they need a couple detached garage because the detached garage is basically a cardboard that includes right so but then i don't allow them detached right now but Yeah, and my only concern about that is we get back into the gist of the bill, right? So you're saying these people can afford to buy them off. It's all they can afford. The government's helping them. But now you're saying they can't live in your city unless they spend $50,000 or $60,000 on their own.

Yeah, that would just record for us. I'm bringing up the point that you require that now.

I get you. I get you.

Although, in that area, there's several houses without garages in their rear-fill bin, but if it burns down and they rebuild, they're going to put it in a garage.

Right. I don't think a garage would be required. I think a driveway the size I think was important to identify what what is our standard right now it's 20 by 25 that's one two factors okay well it's the setback but it could be 10 by 50.

i think yeah didn't y'all pass 20. well mr miller was the last yeah specific so there's like one about it entirely and that each area has different some of the areas have different standards so now on the pdd we allow the 10 foot by 20 because the setback it's only 10 foot so 25 right yeah i guess what i was saying is if this whole thing is based on a very linear house

then you're taking up a lot of your space linearly in the lot front to back, and so you might end up having to have a very long driveway. Right, which is not uncommon with normal options. Yeah, so that's what I'm saying.

So yeah, I would say for parking options, we also need to consider material. You know, is cement required? Is energy, you know, Is that acceptable? Now it's durable surface.

So what I'm learning so far, just to make sure we get this in code, garages are not required. Detached garages and carports are prohibited. Driveways are required and must be a durable surface. And the size is what?

Well, a minute ago you said it must have two 10 by 20 or two 10 by 25 spaces. 20 by 25. I thought you said it was two something.

20 by 25.

it doesn't have to i'm not sure what the new the revised code it used to say three 10 by 20 parking spots minimum so and now you're saying it's sort of 10 by 20s perhaps i guess what i'm saying is if you allow them to either stack them side by side or linearly if you designated Enough for two cars to park, let's say two 10 by 20s or two 10 by 25s. They could decide whether they want them front to back or side to side.

So how about this? How about durable surface for parking for two vehicles, either 10 by 40 or 20 by 25? 20 by 20. 20 by 20, yeah.

okay okay 20 or what'd you say 10 by 40. you just said you want to make it simpler just say four hours per feet um

No garage required, no garage or carport.

And you had mentioned the pitched roofs. Do manufactured homes have the pitched roofs?

I think they do. I researched a little bit about this for another city. They typically have like a standard roof. And so I think if we were to put something on, a few of them a majority i think part of it could be due to the transport of it but i think typically in mobile home is a 412 pinch yeah it would be nice if we get a 612. okay can we get um

I'm sorry, but I want to make sure we tackle some of these really key things like skirting. Do you all want to require skirting?

I haven't got there yet. I haven't got there yet. So I want to know, I want to understand what we have so far, right?

Garages are not required. Detached garages and carports are prohibited. Driveways are required. There must be a durable surface for two vehicles, either 20 by 20 or 10 by 40, 400 square feet total. Skirting required. The next two things I would highly recommend you all address are a walkway and some kind of regulation about the entrance.

So let's talk about skirting for a moment and then we can move on to walkways.

So skirting must be a rigid material. Yeah, you might have to .

Yeah, it's an example that we've used for other cities. We've required fire-resistant skirting, the necessary bed screens that are opening shall be installed on each manufactured home within 30 days after its installation. Such skirting shall be of weather-resistant materials typical for such use, which may include metal panels, siding, or masonry, and be compliant with federal installation standards.

What she said. Yeah, I like that a little bit. Yeah, that's perfect.

She's going to fix all of our language for us. I'm just taking the basic notes for her. So she gets our decision making, our policy, right? And she's going to make it beautiful.

That's great. Walkways. I don't know if we add this to the driveway or if it's a separate item, but I see it as a separate item that you have. Well, let me stop. Let me jump ahead, all right? Porch, front porch, deck, whatever you want to call it, really adds a lot to a mobile home. It makes it look a little bit more like a home. Can we require that? Is there any issues in requiring a front porch? Like minimum size or something? Okay. So I would like to recommend that we require a minimum, say, 5 feet by 10 feet or 6 by 12 front porch with steps. Or a ramp. Steps or ramp. Yeah, either way. don't have to have arena but you don't have anybody living there um but with steps made out of wood you can't describe material you can't let it well she said it could be these or others you can't run that material you can say it needs to be durable weather resistant material yeah okay so a porch

six by twelve seven middle porch minimum six by twelve that's um that sounds not my head not very big yeah just to throw another monkey in the range i'm just throwing up yeah i appreciate the discussion now you're talking about decks one thing we haven't addressed is on purview's couch 30% we have all over town. Well, that's not, I mean, so that's weak. Is a deck considered a pervious cover? Yes.

Yeah.

50% is that what it is?

Yes. 50% pervious?

Yeah. So if it's 100 square feet, you only get 50.

Okay. Yeah. That's fine. Six by 12. Is it too small?

It's not very big. The 12 seems a little wide to me for a Because a lot of people don't even want it as a porch. They just want it as an entrance kind of thing.

You got your tape, Andy?

I don't.

I'm 5'11". Are these six foot tight? I'm seeing like right here. That's the front door. I'm seeing from right here to the back of that second chair.

Yeah.

is six and six that's 12 feet and then these so that only goes from like right here to right here what about there it's not that's not yeah i i guess my concern i i think it's fine i understand

My concern is throwing something at them that makes the permeable cover an issue.

Yeah.

Like, you're making me have a porch. I didn't want a porch. And then you say my permeable cover can't be over so much. I want to do it by the door so we get a visual. Well, let's do this real quick.

Remember you're cutting . That's six foot bigger.

Go up to 12. Go to 12 feet.

I think, well, my concern will be dictating the size of the room. I would figure out the description. So right here. Yeah.

Where your left hand is. That's it. You want to say 6 by 10?

I'd say 6 by 10. I see what you're saying, and it's desirable, but measure, too, Maria.

Minimum is fine. That's great. My concern is if you put a size on it, it may throw you over.

Or under.

So 7 by 10 is the max you can have because of your average coverage limitations of 30%.

so we're going to sit for about two minutes so we should be fine and i would recommend that you consider any and all exterior doors have this so then you're looking at meeting a back porch so six by ten would eliminate your ability to have a back entry so yeah you have two egresses um the city of bk through it was also very adamant about how they manufactured

homes they require that if there are to be stairs so an entrance into the building that it had to be attached to a porch like you couldn't just have stairs oh yeah for aesthetic purposes so that's something you might want to consider oh my goodness i would say five by five is your minimum for your porch and the reason i'm making this recommendation is because

that would allow you to have it on both entrances and exits, and you can always go bigger, but it is in compliance with keeping the 30% impervious coverage with your other requirements, including your parking for two cars, the size of the building being amenable.

I agree with you. Talk to him. I haven't been able to discount that door because None of the mobile homes that I was looking at this size have them. But there isn't a patent for one door, that's it. So I didn't even know that they had, huh?

Most mobile homes are front door. They all do.

It's a safety, I guess. That's what I thought. I guess I've never thought about that. I didn't think I had.

There may be some that are on both one side. Yeah. If you've got a double wide, there's a door on the side.

Even the single wide, it's often on opposite sides.

My aunt has like a super old one that's got a back door. I grew up in Omaha Park, so I know all about it.

So porch minimum of Five feet by five feet of durable material. Each side.

For each ingress, egress. Yeah, because you can't even say front and back because these are going to be on the sides of the structure. Could be anywhere.

I used experience work and she's going to help us with like legalese. Okay, good.

And then they also are firmly attached to the primary structure. Right.

right so he hits us down to walkways so a walkway was how how's our How do we start?

Well, the thing about walkways is a lot like your house. Your house has a driveway and then your walkway starts at the driveway and then goes like that, right?

And no one uses it.

Well, that's what I'm saying. And plus it doesn't go all the way to the street. So requiring something that goes all the way to the street. No, no, no. I'm talking about from the driveway to the porch.

Okay.

okay of course I'll just tramp down the rats so we we don't typically require them anywhere else but what we do is we describe what they must be like if they're in meaning um that you know like they a durable surface they can't cross lot lines that kind of stuff I don't I mean I don't know that I'm requiring them on this rent would be something I would personally recommend or look for. I get the desire for it.

I don't think it's necessary. What? Okay. I mean, they could do decomposed granite, you know. Or pavers.

Or pavers.

Pavers and decomposed granite.

yeah it would be like crossing block lines but i think i don't know that they would have to yeah it's a general center other codes like it's it's one of the only things we allow to cross lot lines but then they can't be constructed out of cement that makes sense we're talking about two different things i don't think we have i don't think it's in our code now but they're required

Sunwalker.

Nobody is.

Yeah, and that, what you're talking about is with somebody who knows two adjacent lots.

Yeah, I'm not talking about a sidewalk. I'm talking about a path when you get out of your car to your front door. We don't have that intercode. I think that's a mistake. That's a big blunder. I think we have an opportunity to start correcting it right here. You've got to have some kind of pathway. as far as i'm concerned but it needs to be a blind you know pathway what you're saying we don't have that curve now i i can just imagine what that yard would look like if there wasn't any kind of walkway between

It looked like that house on Augusta Lane.

It should be very pretty.

So possibly a walkway of a durable surface from the driveway to the primary front entrance is required. The reason why, so I was saying I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but if you wanted to have a justification in your mind, everywhere else our driveways are typically attached to a garage which is attached to our house right so this is kind of a way of creating a uniformity um visually with other structures so any other considerations and we address exterior buildings no metal well i was wondering our code isn't

any of the requirements, you know, lamp posts or I don't know, I think we've pretty much covered the skirting, the driveway, the walkway.

Is there anything with the mobile home that its connection to utilities is any different or any more visible than a conventional home?

Yeah, because it runs to the top of the roof instead of underground.

electricity electricity's still going to go underground you're not going to put a weather handle so it comes out of the ground okay put the box on the side of the house yeah not bad but they could not because of the minimum i mean and you have to have so much okay

Do you guys have water?

So must connect the city water and sewer?

Where else are you going to get it?

Yeah, I mean, I don't think anybody has it. But you no longer can do that.

well i guess if there was a grandfather we basically say anything lower than this you must connect the wastewater and then we don't have a restriction like if they have a bigger lot we're not going to prevent them from putting in a septic i don't think that matters because you have to have the new aerobic ones anyway it would have to be such a big block i don't is that something i don't think we have to address on this but if i could if y'all got mine could is there anything that you've seen yeah and i just told yeah there are a couple things not really like related to the mobile home itself but just

requirements that I would probably add just in case. So there technically is a difference between the definition of a mobile home and a manufactured home. And a mobile home is anything before I think it's 1970. And that was before HUD had standards. And so that's everything classified for that. And so we recommend putting something in your ordinance that states that anything classified as a mobile home would be not permitted. um and that um there are requirements through state law that you have to allow their placement and so we just ask that additional language so um i would recommend when i get it i can add the additional things that are required uh well if you say it's it's a hud manufactured home that gets rid of the mobile home chart yeah technically yeah um but you always get those people who ask you something which is easier And then the other thing that I would add, I do want to clarify, we don't require them to buy a HUD.

So they can purchase a mobile, a manufactured home from somewhere else. It does not actually, by our code,

meet HUD standards so that's another thing I'm just going to recommend adding um the state law says that it has that a city has to permit what they consider a new HUD manufacturing home cities don't have they can allow something that's older if they want so I recommend having my notes that says it has to be a new HUD manufactured home yeah i thought that's kind of what the bill says anyway well so the bill does say that but if the city doesn't adopt that then the city could permit something older oh okay yeah yeah

I think you guys have just majority of things that it is right. Let me print this out for y'all. So you have a need with basically an understanding of what was discussed here today. Yeah. Okay.

Do you have any other discussion on item three? Any other questions? No. All right. We will move

yeah and then it's is there going to be a motion on three yeah yeah okay yeah I don't know sometimes no I just didn't figure it out myself we'll have to have a motion to provide the additional requirements it's a second

I don't know if you need a second did you think about it oh I'm sorry I thought you were making a motion no no no I had a question all of it I was just asking so to clarify the action this evening we will be in secondary we would request that the city uh propose this into a ordinance format for us and then that would come back for your public hearing should you all feel ready go ahead and have a public hearing i'm sorry i don't think i've lost anything with me so basically we would draft this into an ordinance format she would work on that language clean it all up and it would constantly be in your public hearing i don't think we want to schedule any public hearings until we see the final one as one and we should do it If you have concerns over that, that is your right to... Well, I don't really have concerns.

That's just...

I believe it will be okay because we're taking what this quorum has come up with and rinsed it through a planning expert who's going to take it back to the legal team and rewrite our words into a justifiable word. And so, I mean, it i i i mean okay if you want to put it off another month no that's fine that's fine um i i we can call it you can also call a special meeting how long do you think you'll need to have this ready uh no so do you want to you want to call a special meeting in two weeks just for this purpose i i don't like to have meetings all right um we can just go ahead and do the And we don't have to accept it. I mean, if it's completely off of what we want, then we can line on that and pass to council, but we'll have that for the hearing. Oh, okay. I see. We'll just move it here.

Yeah, for the hearing, but that's not our final council. No. Oh, okay. You have to have the hearing, make any changes. Yeah, okay. Perfect.

And it will say, if you're after, cross it really big, and it'll be redlined, meaning the additional language will be red. And, you know, based on what you're recommending, you know, and she goes and researches, can we do the overlay or do we kind of add this into an existing one? We'll get that format correct for y'all. If you're not ready for a public hearing, that is totally okay.

No, that's fine. I just thought that we were... This language is going to end up being what went to council.

Yeah.

Okay. I misunderstood.

So you will have at least one more meeting on this. If you're not ready to have a public hearing on July 15th.

I would like to move that we go to Senate number four and have a public hearing.

Before we do that. Oh, we have to vote on this. You're going to make a motion to send this to council. It's your turn. Yes.

i make a motion to send this to him can you be more specific about what we're sending them oh i'm sorry we don't send it to conflict i've not sent it to the council yet uh proposed

To accept the proposed amendments. To be reviewed by Plane and Legal. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general. Interactive and general. Interactive and general.

Interactive and general yeah thank you outstanding all right item number three is closed moving on to item number four discussion possible election calling a public hearing for the purpose of considering a zoning change of wanting mh1 zone to designate area in order to comply with state law would that be it the next meeting just the next regular meeting Yeah, we can do whatever we want, but I would recommend that. Yeah. So, because you're going out like that. All right.

Hold on. We're trying to work out the day count that's needed to call. I can double check. We can ask her tomorrow and help you call me and I can.

Let's try to keep one conversation at a time, please, while we're still in the middle of the meeting.

If you leave your motion vague to state the next possible meeting, if we can get it in on your July 15th meeting, we will. But the publication dates, we might have just missed them. We're going to try that.

I have to send it to the newspaper, and I have to have 10 business days, so I can't count Friday, and I can't count 4th of July, that holiday week. And then also they do, you know, I've sent it to them on Tuesday, and then it goes, right, so it's

So if we can get it back by next week, Thursday or Friday next week, we should be fine.

No, it's me sending the newspaper, the wording to put in. I would have to send it by tomorrow. But I need to ask that.

You have to do it by tomorrow?

Because they need it a week in advance, too, because it goes to proof, print, and then it comes out the next week.

Yeah, it was four weeks out.

But there's holidays, so I think if we got it in by Tuesday and they printed July 1st, that would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. You can't count the date. Okay, so it won't make it unless they make an exception.

Well, but I like your wording of the next possible meeting. Is that okay?

I'm not crazy about it.

I can call Taffy in the morning because she knows the newspaper numbers very, very well. But the newspaper has been struggling a lot. And missing stuff. So I also will not hold it to them to make sure that it's in there. It's my problem.

So what if we had a special meeting? Can we call a special meeting?

You can't. You just have to have a supermajority vote then on everything you do.

Okay. I think we can arrange it. Why don't we call a supermajority, I mean, a special meeting for July 15th.

That's the date.

I'm sorry, the 22nd. Right? Yeah. Does that work? Because our third Wednesday would be a regular meeting. Did you say 22nd? 22nd. I'm trying to remember. Never in here.

um is like 27th is the fourth wednesday so yeah if we needed a special council meeting i don't know we don't have it so i guess i i'm not clear why the august meeting is undesirable because there wasn't enough time no the so your next meeting is july 15th that's the one we we're not going to be able to get in so that's why i'm unclear why the august meeting isn't desirable like

mean we can i don't care we're off another month if that's what we want yeah as long as we get it done the only thing is is we have this september is it the beginning of september the end of september

I believe it's different.

We're really pushing you guys. We have to handle everything in August and get it in place to be compliant by September 1st.

Because you've already... Sam talks about Austin is if you are in crop size, then it's fine. But it would be if we had done nothing and then that debt falls around. And if somebody decided to sue us over it. So you have all of those...

i would like to make you ready yes i'd like to make a motion that we have a public hearing on august the what's the date 19th 19th to um for public comment on the amended mh1 uh what do you call it just i would just use this that's what the public hearing's for this is what is in that area what is this just read item number four okay so

I'd like to have a public hearing on August the 19th. Is that it? Okay. Public hearing considering the zoning change of applying MH1 zoning to a designated area in order to comply on state law.

Yeah. I second that.

Seconded by Carolyn.

Is it okay to end at 5 p.m.?

Yeah. 5 p.m. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. That is the end of the regular agenda items. We do have one consideration on the agenda for next regular meeting, which will be July 15th, which is a replan of Watts. And are you going to provide us with the details on that and more information on that?

Yeah, it'll be in the packet. You'll get it. Yeah.

I do have a curiosity. Would you guys like this on that agenda, even though knowing you're

Your public hearing will be the next month just to see the draft of everything.

Yes, absolutely. Okay. We could even add an agenda item to review the updated amendments to MH1. from, you know, legal. Okay.

And it would be after the public hearing, so we would review it in the context. No. In the public hearing always before it?

That's a different item to that public hearing.

Oh, no, I see what you mean.

Yeah. Yeah. We'll just review what we get back next month. Okay. And that'll kind of give you what you were asking for.

Yeah, we're skipping a month because of the time. Right.

So any other items you can say for the next agenda? No, sir. Not all entertaining motions to adjourn.