sir. >> Welcome everybody. This is we're opening the March 10th uh planning commissioner meeting. Um Terry, would you mind doing our invocation list? >> Our heavenly father, we thank you for
this day you've given us. We thank you for all things that you've given us. We praise you for Jesus name. >> Amen. Would you lead the pledge? >> Yes, sir. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Madam clerk, will you call the >> Mr. Hall? Absent. Mr. Merritt is absent. Miss Pauline
>> present. >> Mr. Striker >> here >> and chairman Rego. >> Yes. And we do have a legal proceed with the meeting. Thank you. >> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being interested in what we do here in the city. We've got a relatively light agenda today
for a lot. Mr. How are you, sir? Wouldn't mind coming to the podium here. a couple just telling the group what's your give us a summary of what's going on and we
have a lot of paperwork already. >> I know you do, but I just made a copy of the whole >> parcel and um highlighted on there what um what I'm hoping to do.
>> Um I think and maybe Tony alluded to some of this already. Uh I'm Dave Whe by the way. 45 West Cooper right before you go over the bridge down there. And um I bought a parcel uh in 2021 and have
rehabbed it. It was a you know um was a kind of a drug when I I I I bought it and um rehabbed all the units and now I'm hoping to change it over into a a regular neighborhood. Uh
as we approached this last year, kind of our recommendation from anchor was Yeah. but you just do it all at one time and I'm just not able to do that. So I I I'm hoping to I'm I did build one beautiful house that you guys authorized last year. I appreciate that. So that was on
um lot 11 with the elevated palm trees there. >> Yes, sir. >> Beautiful. Thanks for improving the neighborhood. We sure do appreciate. >> Thank you, sir. >> That does look very nice and it's really improve.
So, so I pulled out the next trailer and I'm proposing to build a very similar house, a sister house to that. Um, it'll look the same. I'll change around the front and whatnot, but that floor plan works out very well for um our
customers. So, um so we're probably going to keep very similar to that floor plan. It's a five bedroomedroom, five bath, and um it's um we've to fit all that into about a 2,000
square foot footprint, which um really works out well. Um and so I I know Tony was just mentioning to me that the the um so the um parcel as you see it there, there's
kind of a road in between. So part of it, half of it sits over on um one side of West Cooper. That side is mixed use. The other side is residential, the side that I'm addressing tonight. And uh so as you can see, I've pulled the one
trailer off already there. And I want to build on that lot, which it that lot would it's contiguous uh won't be impacted. But when I pull the next one off, when I come back in a, you know, when I make enough revenue to build the
next one, um, it's going to have to pull. I'm gonna have to pull away eventually. >> Yes, sir. >> So, lot is lot 10. You mind if we ask a couple of questions and then you can kind of fill in the gaps? So, is lot 10, that's the one you want to go ahead and
build a new single family dwelling on. >> Yes, sir. Just adjacent to that blue one. >> Very good. And that is low density residential. Is that right? And then where the the little fishing village is and all the house trailers that are in the big long row, that's the MU1. Yes, sir. Area right there. Okay. I I think
we've got that. Um and then ultimately, uh that area, lot 10, that was essentially established back in 1952. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. I think I have supplied >> about Yeah. 15 years before we became a city. And at some point, so from what I
understand from the property record, somebody combined all that property back to one parcel. So I think what Mr. Whey's wanting to do is kind of take it back to where it used to be. Is that about right? >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Very good. >> I'm just unable to do it all at once. Uh >> um so essentially what we got right
there is we've got about 8,800 square feet in that lot 10 and that's where the single family home would be built. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. >> That's perfect. that that meets the density requirement because the requirement ultimately is that we really don't want more than five residences
within one acre of land. Acre of land is a little over 43,000 square feet. So, you've got more than you need there. And then we have a minimum lot size of 7500. So, it meets both of those requirements. So, right now there's a there's a couple of other house trailers there, but
you're taking those off. Is that right? >> Not immediately. Um as as I can like uh I've I've um >> just in lot 10 now. That's the only thing we're focused on. >> That's the only thing we're focused on. When I come back next time, as you can
see, I'll have to pull all four trailers at once to move on to the next project. Okay. >> Which I mean, >> um I'll be building likely building two at a time and losing four. So So u >> I got you >> because right now they're revenue generating. They're revenue generating and as soon as I generate that revenue,
that's my focus is to turn that into a >> Okay. >> Um, >> but lot 10, the the >> projection for lot 10 will be that there's only that single family dwelling at some point. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. Okay. Not at some point. I'm
I'm I'm not um I'm not procrastinating. I'm ready to get started as soon as Okay. As soon as we can. >> So, that's what I mean. Lot 10. So the the the project for lot 10 is going to be that there's going to be a single family home. So we'll have 8812 square feet with just one single family home.
Yes. Is that right? >> Is lock 10 vacant right now. >> It is sir. I pulled the trailer off in December. >> That's what I thought you said. >> Okay. Very good. >> Understood that. >> Very good. >> But what he was referring to is the density concern, right? Because the density concern is it's one area and
it's all his >> and it's technically in violation of the density rule >> because of the >> because of the other ones and that's why we are going there. But it looks like that's his and anybody who's eaten at the the Thai noodle that's driven down that road has seen Mr. Whley's really
cleaning up the neighborhood. >> I think he's been doing some really nice work down there. And uh so with our goal being the focus of lot 10 and him meeting the density requirement for lot 10 with no other residences on just lot
10 right now. Right. >> Yes sir. >> And uh it meeting the minimum requirement. Um, I think I think that's really all we really need to be focused on right now because his future business plan is to also assist the city with the
density issues which currently are non-compliant. However, if we read uh what uh Mayor Kelly wrote him because uh in his letter um he granted uh another building permit on lot 11 because he was
doing the same thing and built a beautiful home on it. So, we have a we have a model to look at. So, what I'll ask for is a a motion uh to uh approve approve with conditions or deny uh from one of our commissioners and then I'll
ask for a second. Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Very good. Thank you, Terry. And we got a second. Can we get a Can we get a a vote, please? >> Sure. Miss Paul R. >> Yes. >> Mr. Striker. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Rig. >> Yes. And Mr. Whe, thanks for all your good work. We appreciate what you're doing for the city.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. All right. Okay. Mr. Mr. Sanushi. >> Yes, sir. >> Could you come to the podium, please? Thanks, Mr. Whe >> All right. So, Mr. Sanushi,
you are under contract to purchase this property. >> Yes, sir. >> So, who will actually do the lot split? You or Mr. Hullbrook? Greg and I are working in tandem. He knows I'm executing on it. Um he's more moral support, but he is the seller and the owner of the property.
>> Okay. And are there any other owners of of uh of that property? >> No, sir. >> And the reason for that question is the state requires if there are all owners have to agree to a lot split. And then are there any are there any uh unpaid taxes on that parcel?
>> There's no unpaid taxes. There is a demo lean that the seller is aware of um that there was a previous structure on the property that has been removed. >> Okay. >> And by the city and he's going to be taking care of that um at closing.
>> Tony, I have to dive into your uh does that stop anything from them uh from a city standpoint uh with regard to uh allowing a lot split to go forward with planning? I think you can go ahead and make the recommendation before I go to city council.
>> Okay. Very good. Okay. So, um you you want to take a little over uh 4/10 of an acre. Looks like it's uh 42 acres. Is that right? Yes, sir. >> And you want to and you want to go ahead and split it uh so uh that ultimately
meets the the density ruling uh because that is low density residential area there, right? >> Yes, sir. Okay. And then you're going to end up with 0.19 uh clearly above the 7500 minimum roughly >> and uh because we have both a density
rule here in Parker which is no more than five residences per acre but then but they don't all have to be the same size. They can be but the minimum size once you split them has got to be at least 7500 square feet. And that 0.192
that that meets a requirement. And then you've got the other one just uh almost a >> about a about about a little more than a 20.22 acres. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. Yeah. The int the interior lot because it is a corner parcel. The
interior lot would be 60 by 140 and then the corner lot um in this case would be 70 by 140 to allow for more setbacks on the corner. >> And where is the demo demoing going to be going on? Is would it be on the new lot that you're create the the lot you're going to build on the subject
partial or the non- subject partial? So the the previous structure that was there was smack dab in the middle of where these lots are now. Okay. >> Where the proposed split would be. >> Okay. >> But there is no there is no structure anymore. So there is just >> just concrete. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. And that's what you're
talking about. That's got to come up before the new one gets built. >> Yeah. Yes, sir. >> All right. Very good. Commissioners, do we have any questions here for Mr. Sanushi? All right. Very good. So um do we have enough information to to proceed with either an approval, approval with
condition or denial. >> Recommendation with clarity clarification coming from Tony. >> Okay, very good. So, uh it's a conditional approval then. So the conditional approval is that uh that uh our uh department of uh you know Tony's
department Tony public works right director of public works that our director of public work works makes the council members aware of the demo uh request that's currently on the property right now which splits it but they would have to do it in order to build it but
it's a conditional approval none the same based on Tony making c the council members aware of that requirement. Right. Okay. Very good. Excellent. So, uh, so that's the >> that's my motion. >> That's the motion on the floor. >> Second. >> We got a second. Can I get a vote,
please? >> Mr. Paul Ray. >> Yes. >> Mr. Striker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rega. >> Yes. Thank you, sir. Appreciate. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And that that's that's an easy conditional requirement because it sounds like you don't have to really do anything except >> Tony may have some questions for you
about what's done. So, you've already got the demo. You've you already got the permit to to demo that out of the ground and everything or >> uh not the not the concrete yet. No sir. Um the city from what the seller was telling me was the city had already
basically removed everything and then they slapped a lean on it and so he wasn't aware of the lean until >> uh >> Okay. So, the city of Parker has a lean for whatever money is due because of the demoing because it was what? Unsafe
unsafe uh uh you know structure. Okay. Any idea how much that lean is for? >> It was the title company Dunlap Shipment said was about eight or nine,000. Does >> that seem about right Tony? >> Sellers. We've worked it out in our so it get comes out of his proceeds.
>> Okay. you don't have any heartburn with. So they're essentially going to pay that right to the city and then and then they'll be able >> Okay. >> Oh, very good. Yeah. And actually even before the property can split, right? I mean, he could buy it with a lean on it
if he wants to, but because we couldn't stop that, but we could certainly >> That's what our intention was. >> Excellent. Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you approving the neighborhood. Thank you. All right,
Tony, if you want a chair when you come, just sit down. You don't have to stand at the podium. >> Let me let me give everybody a summary. Okay. So, Rich unfortunately got called off and we had tasked Rich with ultimately um summarizing language uh
around uh dimminimous structures 120 square feet or smaller uh being reviewed by uh Tony's department uh prior to proceeding with them just to make sure that ultimately um we had the applicant's name, we had the site
location, we had the lot size. We wanted to make sure that impervious nature was not being um infringed on and um we tasked him with doing that. Unfortunately, he can't be here. So, we we can kind of parlay that to the next one, but I think we all understand
exactly uh what that's going to do. Item two that Tony had requested uh was storage of food trucks at residential addresses in LDR districts um to uh perhaps be moved required to be removed to side or the rear yards. Um so that
was one of the things that we were going to discuss. Another one was going to be a review of our MU1 and MU2 minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. Okay. Um why don't we just kind of kind of hit them hit them you know at the at the same
level or at the same order of which we're bringing them up. So any thoughts on the storage of so essentially a food truck owner will go conduct business and then if he lives here in Parker apparently there's some complaint uh that that that person is parking that
food truck in their in their driveway in the front. So what are your thoughts about um changing that ultimately making it so that it would be to the sideyard requirement or backyard requirement or off off premise in uh low density
residential areas? >> What's the requirement for any business truck? If you're a dump truck driver or cement truck driver, >> there's no restriction. >> Pardon? >> There's no restriction. >> So you can park in your driveway and front yard every day. How can we call that anything different if you're not running the food truck.
>> You could you could make it comply like RVs. >> RVs have to be in the sidey yard or rear yard. >> Okay. But how is then the food truck? How do we >> Well, if you work for a dump truck person, you're just going home with another company's dump truck. If you're running a food truck, you're the primary
owner. >> Gotcha. >> And you it may come to the same location each and every time. Okay. So, let me ask the >> a lot of times we we and just what you're bringing up is another topic we could bring up in the future, but we have had multiple complaints about dump trucks coming down residential roads and
other things and that was a code issue, but it's never we don't need to address that one today. >> Yeah. >> But we have told some of these dump trucks they need to, you know, their employer needs to keep the truck there and you come home and not bring your dump truck through that neighborhood. >> And that makes sense. We also have a
food truck that operates on the weekends in a residential neighborhood. >> Okay. Well, well, that's already Well, that's already a code violation >> because if you look at the what's accepted in the LDRs, uh, running a business, that's running a business. Now,
>> I heard somebody say to me the other day, and it was a good point. So, if you can't run a food truck in a low density residential area, what about these ice cream trucks that go around occasionally? Isn't that a food truck? And it is. It's just driving down the street. >> It's just driving down the street dinging the bell as opposed. Yeah,
exactly. >> So, so technically I could The way I would challenge that is is that you're not in low density residential. You're on public >> Yeah. >> city street. >> You're not classified technically on the property, but technically you're saying like what you just said with operating a food truck. If you look at home
occupation, >> Yeah. >> that vi that does violate everything because you can't have two and from coming from your property, >> right? Okay. So, one of the things we had talked about is the state of Florida is really being very strong about
individual property rights these days. And um and uh you know, if you haven't gotten a chance to kind of review whether or not it might be infringing on somebody's personal um rights in order to park their food truck in their front
driveway, um then then that's okay. we can kind of push it off till next month when you know we have more members of the of the team. Um, you guys interested in what I think? >> First of all, I'd want to know how big the problem is. I I'd want to know if
this is one or two viferous people that are bitching about a neighbor who's got a food truck parking because I live in Parker and I can't tell you the last time I saw a food truck in somebody's driveway and I drive a lot. So, want to know how
big the problem is first. And and the last thing we want to do is is fix a problem where all you're really doing is you're you're meeting the need of one or two people who are complaining, but then you're infringing on everybody else who
might want to park their food truck in their driveway. And I can't imagine them being a lot of them. I just I just can't imagine that being the case. And and one thing I did do is I did review personal property rights. And I will tell you there's a lot going on in terms of
people being um cited by their municipality, taking it to court and winning because it's infringing on their personal property rights. And it's what we talked about last last month. It's called a stop a law. A stop a law is if you have a reasonable person who thinks
that it should be that a right is being removed from them because they should be able to park their personally owned food truck in their in their front driveway then uh essentially they are there's a lot of things a lot of cases siding with
the property owner. So just look into that for maybe next time. We won't solve it now but look into that. I have and I've I can tell you that um unless the problem gets so big and out of hand that
uh it really something we need to solve. I'd rather not solve a problem we don't have at a large scale. >> Just just my thought. >> Any place there's an HOA takes care of it. HOAs don't allow. So, yes. Do we have HOAs anywhere? >> We have a few. >> Okay. So, no no issues there. We could
maybe look at some of their verbiage if we want to get some ideas. >> The way state of Florida is going with HOAs right now, that might not be too much. >> Okay. Never mind. All right. Yeah, you're exactly right. Because >> but I hear what you're saying, too. Well, that was actually number four. I'm glad you brought it up. So, we'll we'll
we'll revisit that. So, just look look at those estopple laws. Look at whether or not you feel as though we're infringing on that food truck owner's right because you know that person then we are then forcing that person to either find a way to park it on the side
of their home or the or the back of their home. they may not have that availability and we may then be infringing on their right to generate an income for them and their families and and you know if if if they or at least harming them if they have to then park
that vehicle offsite there might be a security issue there too if it's on his property uh and it gets broken into that's different if they you know >> what about the places like Uh Hall I think it is right there on Parkway that
has the parking lot with everybody's RVs and boats and things. >> That's what I mean. But another step, you got to go pick it up every day >> and you have to pay for that. >> Yeah. Pay for it. It's expensive. Yeah. They're pricey. Yeah. Thank god I I got a alley. I can park my RV in the back.
>> And you could park yours on the side. >> He doesn't have that ability. He's got to move his once every 30 days. enough space between >> when I moved here about 40 years ago. We had looked at when we first got married >> and we liked it.
I got I had a bad habit that time. I like to pull my car out the middle of the driveway and take the engine out of it. Whatever. You can't do that >> places like that. We settle we not settled. ended up settling in Parker
>> for that reason because it wasn't overbearing. >> Yeah. >> I kind of hate to somebody like you talk about taking away their livelihood. >> We got to remember I agree. You got to remember we're in United States and we don't I've lived in gated communities as
well uh where you're right. You're out in your driveway at night welding up your your mower deck because you just hit too many trees with it and the damn thing cracked and nine neighbors the next day complain about you because you're welding your your lawnmower in your on your property in your front yard.
>> I I like living in a neighborhood that doesn't complain about >> I've never once had one of Tony's guys come by and say, "Well, your li the leaves of that tree are too long." >> Yeah. >> And and you know >> Yeah. So I get it. And listen, uh the uh
you know, Tony was clear about, hey, he's bringing these things to us to get our opinion and and we're being honest about our opinion. So, nobody, you know, uh it just is one of those things where I'm almost always going to side on the property owners rights
>> unless it's egregious. Okay. >> And right now, they're just opinions. >> Right. Right. and is and and because I literally took a drive with Kim uh last last weekend and I said I want to on a
Saturday night after about 7 o'clock I want to see how many food trucks are I can see in people's front yards. I did not find one. Now maybe we're in the wrong neighborhood. So but it comes back to I want to make sure we're not solving a problem that doesn't have to be solved. >> How big a problem is it?
>> It's not it's not like a super thing. It's just a topic to bring some discussion up to see, you know, >> I just know it's a growing thing, >> right? >> So, as it grows, we might have to address it f in the future. But, I mean, it's just something to just put on our
radar that >> it's kind of like what he said. If we don't have a problem, >> let's not solve it. Yeah. >> But I can see we're putting some guidelines in place proactively, heads off, we won't have a problem. And Tony, you've got real life
experience application and eyes on the ground that you can see what's happening and bring specific examples perhaps. >> I think our biggest thing that we have to look at possibly is just the home occupation part of it first. >> Um that might have just been the caveat of the complaint that here's this in the
yard and they're doing this in the yard and they're doing this. So we just nip one thing in the bud, the problem might go away. >> Okay. for right now. Can we agree with this body right here that we can push that off until it becomes an issue? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Very good. Um, all right. And then item three was review of MU1 and MU2 minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. So, I want to make sure everybody I I listened to the the tape of our meeting last month and I I kind of feel like
what we got wrapped around the axle thinking that minimum lot size also meant like minimum building size. It it it's not. It's minimum lot size is just in an MU1 area you can have up to 15 residences on one acre. On MU2, you can
have up to Well, just think about think about highrises though. one you got one like look over at East Bay Flats one building is what 30 residents right so what we're essentially saying is that um you need to have at least one acre for
25 residences in an MU2 and 15 for an MU1 and the concept there is that we live in Parker and we don't want to repeat you know the sins of Panama City Beach I mean look look at those guys you can't you can drive a mile and not see
the Gulf in your 200 yards from it. So, we're trying to keep that in mind, trying to maintain sort of that, you know, Malberry, you know, uh, look about us. I I assume that that's what the the developers or the people who developed the vision of Parker was was coming up
about. So, what this is essentially saying is that in MU1, you have in order to build, you need at least 5,000. That's the minimum lot size in order to build. Uh, it could be a multiple dwelling. Okay. So, you need at least 5,000 square feet. And if you look at if
you look if you just put like one duplex on that and then you look at how many 5,000 square feets there are in 43,560. Uh what are you going to end up? What's the math on that? So, so eight.
So if so if you took one So if you took one um duplex, okay, per every 5,000 square feet, you'd already be exceeding in an MU1 that 15. >> So I kind of think that number works for us. Um you know, and for MU2, of course,
you're going up. You're going up. So now you're you're building an apartment complex or a condo. And it's really designed to keep us, you know, in that you know, maybe RFD >> and it's plenty small arena.
>> I mean, that's >> 5,000 small town. >> Now, it's different if you're building a hotel, okay? Because a those are really not residences. That's a commercial business and it's and they don't have that restriction in a commercial area.
But in MU1, which is mixed use, which is designed for residences and businesses, we want to be concerned for the individuals that are literally in that area that are also living there. So, I think can we can we agree that 5,000
might be the the right number? Um, and I Tony, I I did go ahead and I'm sorry to be so longwinded, but I did go ahead and I took your lead and and I looked at other municipalities that are out there and you're right, some of the big ones, some of the big boys, like you get into Steuart, Florida, Miami, they do have a
smaller footprint, they require 2500, 2,800, they have different numbers, but we're Parker and we, one thing that if uh that happened two years ago was the affordability housing act initiated by
Florida. And what they've essentially said is that if you're a low density residential area, you are exempt from that style of a so somebody can't come in and build a a 50story building in a low density residential area. But
>> what the Affordable Housing Act specifically says is that every other district in your area, they can violate your district laws. So if somebody comes in and says, "I want to build a a 30 story building and an MU1, MU2 violate
your 15 and and 25. I can do that because the state has supremacy guidelines that ultimately override what our municipality rules are. So, uh, right now, thank God, you know, we don't have too much new area to build on, but if it was a deemed affordable housing,
you could violate those those rules. I would So, anyway, all of that just to go ahead and say 5,000 is probably the right number. to limit the populace of the of the area. So that was item number three. You guys okay with that?
>> Okay. >> See, without five people here, we get done. We get a lot more stuff done. Okay. >> Okay. And then the other one was um Ann had some really good input last month on minimum home size because she was
talking about uh Fanny and Freddy requirements for uh home size. Now, there are about uh there are 31 states that do have requirements at a state level for uh minimum home size. Florida
does not. Florida is one of the the 19 that does not. The only thing they do is they ultimately say that in order for a room to be habitable, it has to be a minimum of 70 square feet. And in that same uh residence, there has to be a
minimum 120 foot room in that same home. Okay? So they don't say 800 foot home, 1,200 foot home. Those are usually reserved for um HOAs uh in in municipalities that ultimately
wish to establish a neighborhood. Like for example, if a subdivision is being built, they may say minimum home size 1,800 square feet, that kind of thing. So um with regard to now we do say we do
specifically if you look in the definitions page we say no no no tiny homes and we define a tiny home as 400 square feet or smaller. So we say that's the only restriction we have right now. So what are your thoughts about
other municipalities have said minimum lot minimum home size but the state has not the state specifically is staying out of that and in fact the trend is smaller homes not bigger homes by a long shot. That's the trend. Now that might
be because of pricing. It might be because of economic you know where the world has gone over the last couple years. Big homes are much more pricey to build. You know, used to be you could build a decent home for 90 square bucks a square foot. Now
it's get a decent home, you're probably talking 250, 280 minimum. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Per square foot. So, um, do you at a municipality standpoint because Tony gets questions from builders. What's the
smallest home that I can I can build? And the pressure obviously is if you got a guy with a 2,000 foot home, do we want him to build a 401 square foot home right next to it? >> Well, the shoe could be on the other foot. The guy next door wants to build a 10,000 a 10,000 foot home and views Mr.
2,000 square feet as a problem, >> right? >> So, the 400 is a good number for tiny home. >> It's all perspective. It just depends on which which lot you're on or which house you're in. >> Um, the 400 seems like that would be a good number. Anything smaller would
probably not even be a stick built. I mean on the land and then it would fall into a trailer mobile home, >> a modular home and that would be a different restriction altogether. >> Yeah. >> So it seems like 400 would work and and
I think from what I remember FHA actually says okay 400 used to be seven and I think they've come down. Well, and you gave us an education last month that I was not aware of and I was really thankful for it. It was about >> the lender. >> Fanny and Freddy will require a minimum
lot size in order to get a loan. So, there's one mechanism already in place that ultimately restricts how small they can be. The second thing you said is that you can't build a small tiny home on a beautiful piece of of land on on
the water because I think you said a 65% ratio of the value of the home versus the land. >> Correct. It's called land to value ratio. You run into that when you've got a shack on 10 acres of valuable property. There's not enough value in
the dwelling for the lender to accept it as collateral. Now, if you're paying cash, who cares? But if you're trying to put it into a loan pool, all lenders want 65% of the value in the dwelling, not the dirt. So a shack on waterfront,
a property or a trailer on 10 acres, not going to work. So those are are issues on a bigger level. And then you also can have lenders with specific overlays so that even if Fanny, Freddy, Jenny, VA
allows it to get to them, you have to go through a lender. Pick any Trustmark, Truist, Bank of America, any of those guys. They can have specific lender overlays with minimums that you that are even more conservative
than the endgame. So that can be an issue. But I would think 400 tiny home would address it in terms of affecting the value of the house next door. It's square footage. They're not going to it's not going to bring the value down
of the 2,000 square foot home. Um and again, Mr. 2,000 square feet might be looked down upon Mr. from Mr. 3, four, five, or 6,000 square feet. So, >> so each each home is going to be evaluated and Florida is that way. I
mean, it is very likely you could have a 6,000 foot home right next to a house trailer. I've seen that. >> Seen that in North Carolina where my sister-in-law lives as well, where they, you know, and the homes themselves are evaluated based on the homes themselves.
>> Yeah. I know why they're wanting to build smaller and smaller though, too, because to this day, we're still the the fastest growing state in the nation because of freedom and property taxes and and things of that nature. So, is it your assessment then that the
requirement of no tiny homes in in in Parker of 400 square feet is where we should leave that number? >> Are we missing anything? >> Okay. All right. Very good. We Okay. Can we check that one off the list? >> Yeah, I didn't agree with that before I
listened to you. I agree with it now. >> Okay. Okay. Well, but I understood >> the lot size >> Yeah. >> says 5,000 square feet. >> Yeah. >> Whatever you put on it. >> Yeah. >> Should take care of itself. >> The other thing that you see too is if
somebody builds a small home and then somebody else buys it later on, they could always add on to it. You know, and I tend to agree with Ann more. You you have such diversity in the style of homes. I don't know that your neighbor's
home is really going to impact the value of your home. Now, that's providing you don't have rats and you know, you know, decrepitated home and you know, one that is in severe disrepair and all of that >> or a food truck in the drive.
>> But but we but we or a food truck Well, except if it's a, you know, if they're selling Philly cheese steakakes, you might get a deal. It might be a benefit. That's right. >> So, let's let's go ahead and say we already have something there that says no tiny homes because we didn't want to
go in that direction. And that's the state defines it and we define it. A tiny home is 400 square feet and smaller. So, I'm going to put a check mark there. Okay. That we're >> as very good. >> Okay. Very good. Uh the other one was
Tony brought this up. RV uh these right now we have um if you are building a home, we have rules that ultimately have said you can bring an RV or a mobile home into that that lot while that home
is being built. Okay. And uh so I I went to that because I didn't remember all the detail. And Tony, this is going to be more Let's see. 549. 549. I went to this because uh I remembered
some good discussion around this when we were um discussing it with the council members and I feel like the city right now already holds all the marbles and let let me read the passages here. So, first of all, this is under temporary
permit. It's in 5-49 in in our land development rules and it says a permit may be granted only where the city determines that such a permit is in the best interest of the city and
the mobile home manufacturing home is to be occupied rentree by a blood relative. In other words, we're not renting at somebody for the benefit of of cash. So that person's probably going to be living there while the while the home is is being buil built and the mobile home
manufacturing home is to be used exclusively as an office. So they contradict each other. Okay. So because it does say best interest of the city and mobile home manufacturing home is to be occupied rentree by a blood relative and the mobile home manufacturing home
is to be used exclusively as an office during construction. I think um when we wrote this up, the final person who wrote this was Mr. Sloan. Um and I think that word and should not have been there.
>> I think what should have all So I think if anything what we need to do is exclude that word. Okay. And then I think it needs to say something like the following conditions should be considered when the city clerk determines whether or not that temporary
permit should be applied. And it should be the reason for the blood relative is we didn't want there to be a mobile home there and them renting it out. Okay? It was really supposed to be while their big beautiful home was being built as a
place for them to to to live while they oversaw the the construction. Okay. And then it goes on to say the mobile home manufacturing home is to be occupied as a residence during the period of construction. Okay. And then it also says no significant harm to the interest
of adjoining and nearby land owners will result if such permit is granted and special circumstances exist which will result in undue hardship to the applicant. In other words, the applicant hurricane another hurricane Michael comes along blows their home away. If we
say no, you can't have a mobile home there. They've got no place to live. That would be a pretty significant undue hardship. So I really feel like we hold all the marbles when we read this language and remove the word and from the LDR. So uh it does say permit may be
granted only where the city determines that such permit is in the best interest of the city. Your your department can already see your planning group can say >> I understand what you're saying but so let me let me just try to paint like a a different picture. So say the property
there at Donaldson in Donaldson Point right there on Thornton that big property right there. >> Yeah. >> Right where you come in off Ethan. So say he wanted to set a mobile home there for a year while he developed that property. >> You know the census of the neighborhood
is not going to be happy. >> Yeah. >> That there's a mobile home back on what used to be a mobile home park. >> Yeah. >> You know so and if it came across my desk you know I'm a mobile home to produce
some houses, you know, within a year, you know, but >> it's just that's the kind of pictures we can pay. You would never see a mobile home probably go a single family home a lot, but if you saw, you know, acres, >> someone would probably set something there while they were working on building those plots.
>> But I mean, I understand what you're saying. We ultimately have the power to deny it, but I'm going to have to have reason why. >> Let's do this. Let's strike. I get that >> because I wouldn't want one moving in next to me because you're right, it
could be a problem. Let's then strike A and C. Here's what A says. So, a permit may be granted only where the city determines that such permit is in the best interest of the city and then strike the mobile home manufactured home is to be occupied rentree by a blood
relative. So, in other words, strike out that entire area which talks about it being occupied. Okay. uh and leave B which says the mobile home manufacturing home is to be used exclusively as an office. You okay with
that? So you know and those aren't normally going to be 50 foot mobile homes. They're going to be like 20 foot, you know, where they've got an office and they can lock up their documents and everything. So So strike a Okay. Strike >> is it a trailer or RV?
>> No. RVs are fine, right? >> But the permit specifically says mobile home. >> Yeah. or RV. >> Yeah, it's Well, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Now, there's a different provision for an RV, though. You can have an RV, >> right? >> Uh so, >> they're just both on the same
application. >> So, I'm going to s suggest striking A and then striking C. So, A was the mobile home manufacturing home to be occupied rentree by a blood relative or a second degree of cananguidity of a person or the spouse,
LA. And then C is the mobile home manufacturing home to be occupied as a residence during the period of construction. So not so we would strike that. So we would leave permit may be granted only where the city determines that such permit is in the best interest of the city and then
leave the word and the mobile home manufactured home is to be used exclusively as an office during a construction project or no significant harm to the interest of adjoining and nearby land owners will result if such permit is granted and special circumstances exist which will result in
undue hardship and that would only be in reference to it being used as an office. Can you say instead of mobile home a mobile office? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. You know what I'm talking We've all seen construction trailers. They're usually like that pale green
gray color. They're not actually >> Yeah. Okay. So you So what we would do is effectively remove the >> ability for individuals to live in a mobile home next to that that property.
They can have one as an office or as a place to lock up their tools at night. Um but we would effectively remove the ability. Okay. So that's what we'll then bring to council to change. You okay with that? Okay. Very good. All right. Well, thank you. We are kind of moving
right along here. All right. Very good. And then um I think that was it, right? the mobile home. Yeah. So, it was >> well the the only well the only the the first one is got to be Rich. That's Rich's ballet whack and that's going to
be uh when he talks about um dimminimous and and what oversight there would be. >> So, you want to add some more? >> Yeah. So, I need y'all to look at Senate Bill 48. >> Senate Bill 48. Look at >> it addresses accessory dwelling units,
ADUs. Currently, They're prohibited. >> Say it again. >> ADU. >> Accessory dwelling. >> Okay. >> So, Senate Bill 48 is making it require the municipalities to allow ADUs.
>> They do really December of 2026 >> and you know, we called them inlaw suites before >> granny flats. >> Now, here's where that's >> let people live in sheds. Is that what you're saying? >> No. It still has I mean it still has to be >> like apartments
back in the day some people used to call them pool houses. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Your your mother turns to she's 99 and she can't but you don't want her in the house but you want her >> she wants her privacy >> because the dog bites her. So ultimately, you know, >> build something.
>> They used to call them mother-in-law suites. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> They're referring them to them as as granny granny flats, backyard cottages. But basically they're pushing the big thing is is that they want them used for um family members and caregivers.
>> But here's the good news about that is if we eliminate that um the provision that says no ADUs right now which I remember >> that was something I think was being pushed by um
>> the skull and uh >> it happened >> Gibson. Yes. >> Happened down the end of Cedar. Yeah. >> Oh, that's right. People went wild. >> That's right. >> It had a different address. >> Yeah. And at the end of the day, we
still have the density rule. So, if if uh you know, if if you can move your mother-in-law in, build her a, you know, 900 foot mother-in-law suite and the density law isn't being violated, >> why not? Your property
>> 400 Yeah, density law. There you go. Density law. And then also the impervious, right? Because we have the impervious. You can't have more than 40%. >> They meet all that criteria. >> Yeah. Oh, Dave and Well, David Well, Dave and Michelle's home was built in the 50s. Yeah.
>> And so they're all grandfathered in. >> And thank God they had that because Hurricane Michael destroyed their home and that's where they're living even now until their home gets is being rebuilt. Yeah. Well, it's a it's like a it's a garage attached to a really nice efficiency apartment. There are
neighbors across the >> Okay. So, your recommendation is to remove that provision because Senate a Senate bill >> is requiring >> basically what what I've been reading and keeping up with is is that they're making it by December 2026 that that all
municipalities need to I know it's got to go through one more thing, but it's rapidly passing 100% support. This is to allow ADUs >> to allow them. Yeah. But again, we have another we have other provisions in place that will still prevent that low
density residential arena from being affected because you know you you know density rule and impervious law. Now, just if your lot's big enough, you got a 2500 square foot home on a full
acre and you've got your 400 unit ADU for your mother-in-law and your 400 unit ADU for your uh adult son that hasn't moved away from a home yet and a 400 square foot ADU. I mean, how many can you have as long as we're we're still meeting all the criteria? It's meeting
the criteria of a tiny home, their ADUs, and their blood relatives. Are there any restriction on the number? >> Well, there Well, we didn't say anything about blood relatives for an >> ADU. >> Okay. But I mean, there's there's >> Yeah. >> I'm just playing devil's advocate. If we've got a big enough lot.
>> Yeah. I mean, there's there's nothing I've seen in the bill that says there's a quantity or limitation. It just says the municipalities have to allow them. >> Got it. And generally when the state does that kind of thing like for the affordable housing act they then take they then push their supremacy ruling and say
there's a statement likely in that that says no municipality can infringe on that right >> there are also also issues with Fanny and Freddy with number of outbuildings if they're habitable whether or not they're attached whether you call them a one unit two unit three unit etc. So
those things would gum it up a little bit. >> The biggest thing is you can't address it. You can't, you know, can't address it. You can't give its own address. You can't, you know, >> two mailboxes out front. >> Yeah. >> We have people do that all the time. >> Can't be on separate utility bills. Correct. Separate.
>> No separate meters. >> It's kind of like the one on Ninth Street. >> Ninth and Hickory, >> right? Like right off the garage. >> Yes. >> Tony. Yeah. >> All right. So Tony, right now we've got uh we've got Rich coming back with how
we'll oversee the dimminimous structures and then we've got we're going to all look at the Senate Bill 48. Thanks for bringing anything else. >> I just have one topic to talk about just because you brought up mixed use one and mixed use two for for some reason. Some people have a like a maybe it's my view
of it, but I've read what the definition of that is what people think it is and what I've come up with is basically So you can have a dwelling that would have a livingable space, an office space, a working space, you know, in
that unit. Some people feel that if they have a lot of land, they can have a house and a business separate on that land. What is your take on that? >> My take is that that's really how it was
designed. I mean, if you you go into some of these >> all >> Well, either Well, it would be either because uh I mean, you oftentimes have restaurant owners that live in the second floor um throughout throughout suburbs of Chicago, throughout
Philadelphia, throughout New York. >> That's what my interpretive that is. >> But what I'm talking about is I have people that are talking about that I have >> a duplex on this property for res for people to rent. >> Yeah.
>> But then I want to have this commercial business on the property built in conjunction with those house realms. >> Yeah. >> But the way I read mixed use is it does it's it's one structure doing multiple things, not multiple structures doing multiple things.
>> Well, keep in mind mixed use is use. Structures are structures. They're they're two different categories. Now, so if an is is mixed use. It's talking about what that area will accept. And then individual structures, they have
their own requirements for building and and all of that stuff. Um the use is really just about what what can be done in that district. The structure there are going to be limitations about what structures, you know, can be built and how they're built and all of that stuff. So, I would say
as long as you're not violating in an MU1 or an MU2, as long as you're not violating any of the other rules regarding density, regarding minimum lot size, regarding, you know, prohibited businesses in that area. It's okay to
have more than one structure. That's that's what I'm trying to clarity because, you know, if you have a single family home there and then someone wants to build a restaurant on the same lot, that's what I'm trying to look in this area that I'm in that you know everybody's trying to >> yeah you gota and and I don't see an
issue with that I'm just trying to feel out to see educate myself on this to how these developments come in because these developments will come to y'all and you know then I'm just trying to make sure I cross my tees on that's the census of how we feel.
>> Oh yeah. And then we even have in low density residential areas, we have uh some businesses that exist in their residences like you know right up Ethel you've got a lady who cuts people hair that's a functional business >> but it used to be right.
>> Yeah. And but that's that's the concept is that you have them in >> but unfortunately like what you just brought up they're not there anymore. So, she was probably grandfathered in. Yeah. But by the rules of the LDR, that wouldn't be allowed. A home occupation that has clients come to and from the
house. >> I can't get music lessons at my house. >> Right. I mean, we're the reason we're really looking at >> Well, it's not mixed use. You're residential. But in a mixed use, you could. >> Yeah. Mixed use, you could. Yeah. Like I said, it's a residential. I'm under the
home the home occupation provisions. that this allows you from having employees come into your house. This allows you from having clients and traffic back and forth. You know, there's there's a lot of rules on you can't have the frequent traffic on your residential road.
>> I thought there was something about Florida. >> You can have home occupations, you know, embroidery and, you know, doing things mailouts and stuff like that, but they don't they don't want you to have a home mechanic shop >> at your house and people off the cars
and then you're pulling engines out in the front yard. >> Well, that's a little we have it. We have it happening in Parker. >> What John has is perfectly >> correct. Correct. >> Correct. But we've matter of fact, we've had two complaints just this month of
people running mechanic businesses out of their residence. >> So, those have to be investigated, looked at, questioned, you know. Now, I have brought a mechanic to my home to change the oil of my RV in my driveway. >> Yeah, that's
>> takes me a trip to >> Well, what are you going to do if your car breaks down in your driveway? You don't have a lot of choices. >> Yeah. Um, you know, I thought that there was >> they start trying to >> think, Mr. I try to help you. I've been
reading about as much as you can. >> Well, I When they try to repurpose something from residential to mix, they get a lot of push back from the res. >> I would think would there be some definition of what mixed uses are
allowed. A commercial restaurant would not be one of them. Not in a mixed property, would it? >> Oh, it is. >> Yeah. M1 and ME2. Yeah. It's it's in the definitions. >> Like even an excuse, you can have retail. You just can't have a large
retail store. >> So, how residential is an MU area that residents would then complain? I mean, if you choose to live in a mixeduse area, it's not like one lot is mixed use in a residential area. Correct. So
basically most of it how it was designed in on the >> map right there. >> Well, most of the way it was designed was anything that's commercial, the road right behind it mixed. >> Okay. >> So basically like on Second Street,
everything on this back road that backs it >> is >> Okay. >> mixed use. >> Okay. >> But then across the street is resial. >> Yeah. We had a developer at one time that we had houses on the left and right and he to buy the empty lot in the
middle and build a warehouse right in the middle of >> it was mixed use. So it was allowable use. So those are the things that kind of you know the whole neighborhood's going to go around warehouse. Well, yeah. If we have an MU right in the middle of a whole neighborhood,
that's >> Well, no, I'm saying MU's on one side and it's all houses, but one lot in the middle of it was empty still. >> Other side were all houses, but that's why luckily it was bought >> by another developer and he built a house. >> Okay.
>> Oh, Terry, I know you said you had a deadline for six o'clock, right? >> Okay. Right. >> Okay. Um there there are some home resident residential um businesses that are acceptable. Um but it's going to be
like in 54 something 54.3. So we'll we'll go ahead and we'll cover that the next time. >> But uh Okay. So right now so we just have that we're going to look at Senate Bill. >> Yeah. Senate Bill 48. And then also
we'll get back to you once Rich gets back here with regard to uh the um dimminimous structures. All right. Very good. Terry, anything you want to address the group? >> I think how about you? >> Thanks for showing up. We really
appreciate anything we need to know. We got a new clerk coming. You want to tell us? >> She starts next Tuesday. >> No, our pay period starts on a Tuesday. Tony, I know you've been talking a lot, but anything else you want to tell us? >> I'm going to shut the meeting down.
Thanks for all that you guys do.