I mean the candy's in the right place.

I respect that.

Well, all right.

I assume we're ready to go.

Well, welcome to the Lehigh Planning Commission.

August 7th, 2025.

We are call to order and uh let's move on to item two, yeah.

This better be good.

High expectations.

Because it's been years in the main.

Well, you guys always have food storage over there.

That's important.

This has been, yes, a long time in the making.

But um starter home attainable residential SHAR is the new improved Aha's or Chaws or whatever you want to remember it as.

Um so some of the big changes, you'll remember um Chaws had it was like could be proposed anywhere, and it could be any size home just on smaller lots, and that had to be uh 20% or less than surrounding properties and deed restricted for five years.

Um you'd increase your the amount of um equity that you could capture each year.

So what the SHAR has turned into is it can be any lot in the R3, R2, R1 Flex, R1A, R11, R112, and R115.

Um that's actually a more recent addition.

Um that essentially just excludes big lots.

And yeah, agriculture.

Yeah, yeah.

Yep, everything half acre or bigger, maybe restricted.

Yeah.

Um and then it does require that the lots are under 6,000 square feet and homes are under 1,200 square feet.

Okay, if forgive me.

6,000 square feet is how much of an acre.

It is like uh point one.

Yeah.

Less than fourth.

Yes.

Um, and be deed restricted for owner occupancy long term.

So is sorry.

Up and does that totally more.

Okay.

It's just a highlight.

So we'll go into it.

Good question.

But um so what how this evolved after it left you is the mayor was like, I think we really need to look at more of these, yeah, like small homes on small lots.

So let me start looking at that.

Worked with engineering and council, did a couple work sessions, a couple of redrafts, and then kind of ended up here.

So this is a good place because it's where we're all kind of finally feeling for the most part pretty comfortable, you know.

Engineering's comfortable with it.

Um council seems more comfortable.

So every single four people on that council is represented.

No.

I think more of them like it.

I had the thought.

Which four though?

Mystery.

Carry on.

Um yeah, this is just gonna go straight into the language.

We can talk more about the uh aspects of it.

So purpose and definition, not too much different than what you're saying before.

You know, it is supposed to be four cell housing on smaller homes on small lots.

Um and this is another newer addition.

It really is an alternative to accessory dwelling units, which is where engineering is coming from.

Is you know, now we've had to add ADUs to pretty much every lot.

Um so we can pull out an ADU and create a small home that's focused on the home ownership instead of just a rental, and it'll have the same impact on utilities.

Um we lost all control over ADUs, right?

The state.

Yeah.

So yeah, we can't have to allow if it's over 6,000 square feet, which is where these lots are under 6,000 square feet.

So they won't be allowed to have an ADU.

Okay.

And also it'll require that.

Yeah, yes.

And the the developer will agree to not allow ADUs.

It'll be on the um plat and things so that it's and um we can do that because it's a voluntary decision.

They could um just build standard lots in whatever zone they're in, or they could do this.

Did those deed restrictions ever fall off?

10 years, 20.

Well that hour, never.

And if it's on the plat, that always goes in perpetuity, unless it said like ending at some point.

Okay.

On the 20th month.

Um and then we have some definitions that just kind of help with reading the rest of the cokes.

Shar development is the overall development, standard units are the ones that are allowed based on the current zoning, and attainable units are like the density bonus.

Um so this is where it goes into those zones we just talked about, are where they can apply.

Um so this is the calculation for the maximum number.

It's the number of units per acre allowed in the existing zoning district multiplied by the project acreage, and that represents the standard units, um, which is how we do it for um PUDs, PRDs, things like that.

Um and then it's multiplied by one and a half.

So that's where that half time bonus comes in, and um the number will then be rounded up to the nearest whole number and be used as the maximum numbers of units allowed within the SHAR development.

Um then there's still some flexibility with the standard units because you have to in order for it to fit.

Um but they're not they don't have to meet like the attainable, they can just have some flexibility with size.

So the attainable lots all will be detached single family, and not the lots less than six thousand square feet in size.

Um the homes are a maximum of twelve hundred square feet if it's um doesn't include a basement.

So just I mean, I guess it could have an upstairs, it's not saying that it doesn't, but um it just without a basement.

And then a maximum of 1,000 square feet of finished floor area, so that would just be the first floor if um includes an unfinished basement.

And it shall it needs to have a minimum frontage of 50 feet, so lot width would be 50 feet, and then setbacks, um five feet on one side and 12 foot on the other if there's no garage or carport, and that's so that there could be one added in the future and access.

Um but if they do include a garage or carport, there could just be a five foot on either side.

Uh the five foot cane because that's what most of the planned communities have.

Um I ask a cool question, sorry.

On number three.

Some buyers ask the builder to finish a basement.

So we've already given them the bonus at this point.

Does that be them if they said, yeah, we built this with a square with an unfinished basement, but the buyer asked us to finish it.

And they're paying for that.

Right.

The buyer would pay for that finishing, obviously, but that happens, right?

Yeah.

So they're not necessarily guaranteed an unfinished basement.

Um and I guess what really comes down to that is the home sales price, because we have the goal is to provide uh uh home to first-time home buyers with a maximum price of 400,000, and then there is a little bit of language that they can ask for a different price with some justification.

Um, but so that is a thing, like that was the thing with garages, like not allowing a garage.

Well, what if they can include a garage and still have that 400,000?

Um so I guess maybe the same with the basement, right?

Like they have to meet that sales price for the goal of the attainability.

But would that be in your mind a condition that we would consider if they said we're actually gonna be charge over 400,000 because they want us to finish the basement?

I I don't think this would really allow for that.

Like they could do it later, but the goal is that it's supposed to be under that to start with.

Just curious.

Yeah.

That's a good question.

Um we have our 20-foot side yard setback, corner lots just standard, 20-foot front yard setback, um, because there's a chance that this would have a 15-foot PUE instead of a 10-foot PV.

So that's why they kept it the 20 on the front yard.

And then 20 feet with the initial build and then remodel after two years could go back down to 15 feet, which is um what's allowed in most of those zones anyways.

Um there is an opportunity for them to ask for some alternative side yard setbacks.

Just or side, yeah, side yard setbacks.

Um if they're doing something, if they want to give like extra room on one side.

Do we want to sorry on point two?

Do we want it to say lot size shall be less than or equal to six?

No, it has to be less than sixty feet.

So it's 6,000 square feet does not qualify.

Yeah, because anything 6,000 square feet or above can have an ADU is kind of the buttons honestly.

Sorry, go ahead.

That might be able to change because then is when we added that it'll say that none of them can have ADUs on the plat.

So maybe we could say 6,000 or less, which would make it easier to subdivide, but sorry, I'm really more just processing, I think thinking out loud.

So ADU, of course.

I would not.

Yeah, never mind.

I I've processed it on my own.

Okay.

Nothing to discuss my plan.

I have a few questions, but I'm I want to take in everything you have first, and then we'll then we'll get to my nitpicking.

Okay.

Um so then they have to be uh of a similar design and exterior materials as the other homes in the subdivision.

Um which part of the thought behind this is if they're sold as part of another subdivision, they're gonna want them to be nice anyways, right?

You're not gonna try and sell a crappy home next to a really nice home.

Um so there will be a lot of incentive just built in to keep them nice.

Um and then there's the deed restricted for owner occupancy.

Um yeah, so none of them will be able to have ADUs due to utility limitations.

Um yeah, so that and then to promote affordability, garages are discouraged as part of the initial construction, but can be built if homes still meet the price requirement.

So I would say the same thing would work with basements too, you know.

It's discouraged, but if they can actually do that and still meet under 400,000, they could do it.

Um then there's also this opportunity to have a reduced public right-of-way on the street, um, but it's based on review by the engineering departments, and it honestly would depend a lot on where they're proposing it.

If it's tying into an existing street and it's just a small segment, it probably won't be.

But if they're doing just an internal road, then there's the chance to do a little bit smaller.

So it'd be 30 feet of asphalt, um, which is what um yeah, it's only two feet smaller than what we have, and then five foot sidewalks and rolled curb and gutter.

Um, but that requires the 15 foot PV.

And then the process for approval, just concept plan that shows some of those basic requirements that they will that they can meet it, and then it will go to DRC so that there can be a room just a review just of like if there's any utility concerns or anything else that the city council should be aware of.

Um then it goes to city council.

If city council is in favor of it, they'll say to write a development agreement that will then go back to DRC, then to the planning commission for a public hearing, and then city council for approval, and then the preliminary and final subdivision, as long as they're matching that concept and development agreement will just be staff level approval.

What's the difference between this being an ordinance and and uh an actual zone?

So that so uh if a developer came in and they have a neighborhood, they can have one of the homes be like this, or does the whole the whole um project have to be this size lot?

And yeah, so that's where it needs to at least add a minimum meet this, so at least um the uh 50% extra would have to meet the attainable requirements, but then the just units they could have based off of the zoning wouldn't have to meet like the 400,000 or any of those other attainable things.

So they can have a mix.

Yeah, okay.

And the goal and idea is that it would be mixed.

Is this any and is there any invested right in this?

Nope.

It's yeah, I mean it's so it remains legislative and not administrative through the whole process when it comes to us, it'll be legislative.

Yep.

Yep.

Yeah, it goes with the development agreement.

So it's yeah, pretty much.

Yeah, it'll be administered through a development agreement, not as necessarily even like a zone.

Yeah.

Yeah, because any development agreement has to come to the planning commission now.

So it'll come after the city council kind of directs the development agreement.

So nonetheless, city council directs for it.

Comes to us, there isn't a uh shucks.

It's gotta happen situation.

I mean you can recommend any changes or I I get we we give a recommendation.

What I'm digging at though is you know, are we in the administrative lane of like they have a right to do this now because that's the way it's been written, and really it's only a matter of whether or not conditions are imposed, or is this no, this is this entire thing is very discretionary.

We're doing a solid even allow it to be considered, and we can without uh you know, without some incredible finding to merely put limits on it, it nonetheless has to go through.

We can actually just say, you know what, this is not a great idea, we don't love it, and it's a no.

That's what I want to understand.

I I imagine it's the first one.

Because if it's in our code that they're probably allowed to do it if they meet the minimum qualifications, whether we think it's a good idea or not.

Yeah, I don't know.

I mean that that would be a question for legal, like how much like could they say, yeah, I don't I don't know how much this gives them like an invested right.

I mean, I think there's an expectation that comes, right?

If they go to city council and city council says, yeah, we're willing to entertain this, this is you know generally what we're in favor of.

There's that expectation.

Yeah.

I think I think the I mean I think from our perspective, from planning commission's perspective it's uh it's moving forward.

It's all of the other stuff is subjectional on the commit or on the council side, right?

But ours is black and white.

This is it's in our code, they're allowed to ask for it.

We have to just give our recommendation.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Is that what you're getting at?

Uh I yeah, what I'm getting at is understand if that isn't indeed the case.

I I don't uh I just want to make sure that across the whole this whole process, the city's very intentionally aware of of what we're doing or not doing.

I mean we just use the word discretionary within the last 10 minutes, and that is entirely not what you just described, Tyson.

Right.

So I'm not trying to poke and you know, make anyone upset or uncomfortable.

I want to make sure we understand what we're doing.

You know, are are we opening the can or or are we not opening a can?

Well, I I think I would still say it is discretionary, but I think you've honed in it's the city council that has the full discretion.

When the you what you described is exactly right.

When it comes through this body, your recommendation, you know, that's your role.

And but yeah, this I I would say the city council has full discretion.

They don't nobody can force them into signing a development agreement, you know, unwilling.

Um I think it's just an option, a tool that somebody can ask for like a PRD or a PUD, which we've turned those down.

I I mean, yeah, I think it would be a very hard legal case for them to say you know, we have this right, you have to approve it.

It's very much a voluntary tool on both sides.

Well, in that case, would we not be within our uh you know our prerogative as the commission to to look at this and say city council may have directed it, city council may have said to do this, and now we're here, but now as we see the details, we think this is a crap yeah, I think you've denied it.

Yeah, you can always give a negative recommendation.

Yeah.

But we doesn't stop with us.

Yeah.

So yeah, I think we do it just like so we'll see it whether it whether they need an exception or not.

Yeah, because it's a development agreement.

Yeah.

So you'll see it with the concept and the development agreement, both of those together.

Yeah, we always we always see those.

I just want to really drill down when it when I pull that up.

Am I gonna see administrative or am I gonna see legislative?

Yeah, I think it would say legislative because it's a development agreement, which is not a by right.

Administrative is and and we do we have the rules defined, but then it says in the rules this is uh uh discretionary.

I I don't know if you can pull up the it's uh yeah, it's not like a zone where they have the right to do it automatically.

They have to approach the city.

That to me is key.

Yeah.

I I think that um yeah, I I I think that is where these are scalpel cuts that we're making.

Uh to entertain this in in the first place.

But uh the zones truly become arguably meaningless if we inadvertently are effectively investing rights to play with them entirely.

Um I I guess what I'm saying is I want to make sure that this is a controlled fire.

This is a torch, this isn't a forest fire.

Yeah, and everything, nothing in here would say that they have the vested right, like it says you know they can apply to be a SHAR development, but it doesn't say you know, you automatically get approved and then I mean because it's a development agreement, it does have full discretion with city council.

There's nothing that says they have to approve any development agreement.

If it was like an overlay zone, there might be a little bit more vested rights, but it's not uh if you pull up chapter the development agreement, chapter 20, or no, 30 uh anyways, we'll find it.

I think because it requires a development agreement, and I think there's language in that chapter that's very you know specifically says this is this is discretionary, legislative, no invested right.

Yeah, but let's see what it says.

Yeah, no, I totally get your concern, and I would I agree.

I don't think that that to me is uh that we need that in this.

Yeah, if this is gonna happen.

Yeah, we want to see a benefit, and that's the whole idea of a development agreement.

Is there some community city benefit that we're receiving to allow you know, but that also requires retaining the negotiation power for ourselves.

Yeah, that we have the rights given away.

Yeah, yeah.

We lose that.

Yeah.

Then it just turns into anything else.

Yeah.

Can we see a um zone map city?

And can you kind of show us roughly today what this would affect?

It would be cool to see like all of the undeveloped land in these zones that are left and have them highlighted.

That would she can be.

Yeah, like it's not a concern.

I mean, and the hard thing is it could apply to larger lots that are developed too, right?

Like that's one of the things that we're gonna do.

Sure, they subdivide and do like flag law-ish almost thing, but at the same time though, i that's kind of a moot uh issue because if it's that large of a lot, they could have built an ADU to begin with.

So it's not like we're really giving some sort of huge new expectation.

Yeah, yeah.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

Unless it's so big that they, you know, and they'd have to have enough for like the road right of way to, or I guess they could maybe propose it as a flag lot if it was a little bit smaller than what normally would have allowed a flag lot or something.

Like there's a little bit of flexibility, but yeah, it's not gonna add a ton more.

Is the reasoning that we limit it in the large half acre lots?

Um because why?

I mean, I I don't disagree with it, I just want to know the reasoning.

So originally we were talking about including it in all of them, and then engineering was like maybe it's easier if we start with the smaller and work up to the bigger um the bigger ones will be a little bit harder just based off of the fact that you're coming from like a very big lot to like smaller lot, so how that all like fits in is just a little bit more complicated, but really the biggest reason was kind of uh maybe instead of opening it up to all zones, let's start with the smaller ones and then see how it goes.

Doesn't this allow you to knock off some zones so only certain colors are highlighted?

Um not on this one.

I could do that query.

Like if you wanted to see what's you know what show me all properties half acre or larger, one acre larger, we could do that.

It would just take a minute.

Yeah, it's not the online map doesn't do that.

But we can just act asked Chat GPT to do that as well.

No, you probably could.

By the way, maybe while she's le so this is the opening paragraph of development agreement chapter chapter 29, it says Lehigh City may in the exercise of the legislative powers and at the full discretion of the city council enter into a development agreement.

And if that isn't strong enough, the next sentence says under no circumstances is this required.

So it's pretty strong.

Like to hear very much legislative in that discretionary realm.

Good.

It's just if you have the R1 zoning, you could do this.

Is this just all the zones or is this the undeveloped?

Oh my gosh.

I haven't developed yet.

And I found that LDR, NBR, and HDR.

Some of them are planned communities already.

Yeah, I was gonna say a lot of this obviously wouldn't because it's all planned community.

Red's high density, right?

These are one bit of commercial.

No, it's commercial.

The pink is like mixed use.

There we go.

So some of these wouldn't still, but really more it's the mostly down here.

Is it the green or the blue?

So anything that has that blue.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Is the select it because you select it?

Yeah, I would have done a better job.

I could have hidden all the other ones.

Oh, the blue is just a really thick line.

It's actually like a tan.

So it's anything that's blue, right?

Well, but at the same time not, because all of this isn't.

Selected LDR, NDR, and HDR, all of it, which include the match point.

So you can't it wouldn't be applied in those big chunks.

Mostly of those smaller pieces.

And a lot of that is already developed.

Yeah.

There's other things that are actually getting developed now too that's not pull out of data.

Yeah.

So is this?

Yes, there is still some development, obviously, happening.

But what about infill?

Is there is that where this really comes into play?

Yeah, this would really mostly be in.

I mean we only really have infill left, right?

Like that's not.

Yeah, because again, it wouldn't apply to like anything that's TOD mixed use, anything like that, which is kind of some of the bigger tracks they have left.

So I don't think there's any large area that it would apply to.

Like probably nothing over 10 acres.

How about that lot out west by um behind the um strata warehouse over by the power lines?

It's being built on a developer, but would that have qualified?

They're doing some smaller lesson there, aren't they?

Um yeah, but I think it is that one's still zoned.

Higher density, isn't it?

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, there's something below 6,000 square feet.

Yeah, so this is all like R122.

Okay.

That's the area you're talking about, right?

Yeah.

Like where the pioneer village overlay is.

Yeah.

So none of it.

Uh sorry, sorry, no.

Oh, the main stuff means Auburn Spring.

Is it the strata right?

Oh, where they are.

Yeah.

We didn't require a street through because it's a city owned property.

Yeah.

It's still stupid.

Yes.

R115 could have, but yeah, it's being developed right now.

So that could have.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um explain in simplest.

I feel like I already know this answer, but I'd like to hear it from you.

Um in part because I want to think about how the dialogue goes with the Lehigh Citizenry.

Explain how this is distinctly different from being an overlay zone.

Um I mean, it's it kind of is an overlay zone.

It's just not because so like zoning is gives you like um by right development, right?

Like you are zoned R115, you can build a 15,000 square foot lot.

Um this is like the discretionary.

I'm coming in, I want to do a SHAR development.

Um it's kind of more like a PUD PRD.

So, you know, at one point that was an overlay, like we'd show on the map that like okay, it was developed this way, so there's an overlay now.

But we don't do that anymore, and it's just they apply again, it's fully discretionary, and then it'll have smaller lots than it would have in the zoning, and it just is on the plat that it's a plan unit or a planned residential development.

So it's it really is in a lot of ways very similar to a PUD.

Like a citywide tool available.

Yeah, it's just like the PRDPUD, same thing.

We consider those overlays as well, but it's just city wide, so we don't identify on the map necessarily.

Um circle to the 400,000 dollars.

Where did that number come from?

Yeah.

Also, how is that going to stand when of course what the US dollar's worth today is not what it's worth tomorrow?

And 10 years from now, that's a entirely different figure.

Yeah.

So is that going to be adjusted?

If so, what's the formula?

Yeah, yep.

So it is, it's definitely something that can be adjusted.

And it already, right?

It's not the set in stone.

We did allow the flexibility of city council can approve an alternative maximum price range.

They just have to provide justification for it.

It just can't be like, oh, we don't want to.

We think 500,000 is the right number.

Is this the actual verbiage that's a good question?

Yeah, this is all what is written into.

So 400 K, that's really more a conversation starting piece.

Yeah.

Yep.

That's the goal.

That's where we want to get to.

I mean, it will be really hard right now to even reach that.

And so we talked about that, like we say something higher, but this is the goal because it does fall more into like what could be attainable for someone making, you know, a hundred percent of the AMI.

To make this more of a living document, is it better to instead of putting a dollar amount to put a percentage of the AMI?

Yeah, but that that's where it is hard because it is kind of going for the attainable versus the affordable.

Right.

Um to be like affordable, it would have to be like 80% of the income at 80% AMI.

And it gets really, really hard to even calculate that number because interest rate plays a huge part.

What yeah, which depends on what you qualify for.

It's just like that it has I just worry that it's rigid and then we'll have to change it every six months.

Well, but I mean that's where having the the 400K and then what if I'm a developer, I'm gonna read that and it's gonna honestly it's it just says this is the number to start the conversation.

Yeah.

Uh and by the furthermore, what's gonna I assume the same games are gonna be played as when someone goes to buy a house, it's 400K.

But what does that 400 really mean in terms of you know, uh does down payment get included in that, not get included in that?

Uh does that include closing costs?

Is that include you know any other fees?

Uh they're they're gonna they're gonna build it, there'll be impact fees.

That's what what are impact fees at currently?

I want to say 15 grand, and I'm not sure.

Depends on that.

Yeah, some of that maybe 17 or 18 on average.

Some of it varies because the PI fee is based on lot size and stuff like that.

So I mean, if if I'm a developer, or even if I'm looking to work with someone to build my one house, maybe it's a one-off.

I mean impact fees alone are gonna be a huge part of that conversation as to setting what that number really really is or is not.

Are we offering a discount on impact fees if they build these?

No.

Nope.

And yeah, I mean, I guess that could be a conversation, but that gets hard because they're still gonna be impacting the system.

Right.

So and now the city's subsidizing.

Right.

That is one of the states.

We're brainstorming talking to goals.

I like that we're talking.

No, I I I I do hear you on the case.

And I think this would be like listing price is I assume how we would do this and and make sure that they f follow through because a development agreement it is a legally binding agreement between two parties, right?

So we can come after a developer if they're gonna be able to do that.

Yeah, so they build and sold their all the but what's the consequence?

Yeah.

I mean, it's a legally binding document, so we can I think we can sue them, yeah, civilly.

Um I mean, uh yeah, you'd have to ask Craig.

I don't know all the legal ramifications, but we can it's a legal document, we can come after them if they don't fulfill it.

Why do we not have legal comments to these?

I feel like every time we we do a train, it always goes into legal territory.

You know, we're always left with without unanswered questions.

Yeah, I'm not sure we're I'm I'm sure Craig enjoys not being here.

Don't forget about it.

I'm not looking to drag them into things.

Uh Bring, can you go?

I think it's the previous slide.

Well when we have heavy trains like this, it really might make sense to make sure he's here.

Just drag, yeah.

Whether it's him or uh Ryan, right?

We don't see him as much.

Just one of them, somebody.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um I'm ready to pepper you with a few more questions.

That's all right.

Did you have a question, Dyson?

No, no, I wanted to.

Just look at it.

Um if they include a basement, they can have a thousand square feet finished.

Do we have any limit on the size of that basement?

I mean, what if I build a 2500?

Yeah, like uh a bunker.

Does the city care?

Are we worried about that?

You're not gonna see much impact above ground, but it could nonetheless be increasing the population in the region far beyond what the expectation was, and that has impacts, of course, on utilities.

The cost to build that would make it so they're not selling it for 400,000, right?

Like that's uh cost to build a basement's gonna be a lot more, and building it huge would be even more.

I mean, yes and no.

If you're really just putting a hole in concrete in two by fours up, laying out an extra you know, X number of feet, that's really not a lot if it's unfinished.

Because again, by this, it's only gonna be a thousand square feet that's finished.

Yeah.

I guess you'd say the basement footprint has to match the main floor.

Uh there's probably ways we could close it.

So we we do that.

It's now a twenty, it's now uh a two thousand square foot.

I don't even see how a problem with these things.

I just want to think through all the what are we doing?

What what unintended consequences will we have?

Uh so I mean you you do that.

Honestly, if I were building it, I would read that and I would say awesome, I can build a 2,000 square foot joint.

That's gonna be my first thought.

If it's if it's gonna match the uh footprint.

Um, and and if there isn't that it has to match the footprint, I am absolutely thinking to myself, yeah, this this thing's gonna be an under underground bunker.

So if it's if it's the footprint, you're probably limiting these two ramblers, right?

Because if they go up, then the footprint's even smaller.

Right?

Then you've got six hundred square feet and four hundred upstairs, maybe a six hundred square foot basement if you match the footprint of the main floor.

But are are we worried that it architecturally would all look the same?

Will they all look the exact same like the 1950s bungalow, which I love.

I love the look of them.

But are they all gonna be bad?

Right?

Are they all also is is that a problem if they're scattered?

Right, if these things are what if they're not though?

So I mean it probably would only do that 50%.

Or you know, they they can do more than that if they want to.

They could do a whole subdivision of it, but I don't think that economically would make as much sense as making you know.

It's just building a normal yeah.

Yeah.

So it's and the city would again also have to say, yes, this is a good idea.

Build a whole neighborhood of of these, let's sign a development agreement.

Yeah, yeah.

But yeah, I I guess I'd really like to know what are our intentions on the size.

I get that it's really about price point, right?

That's what we're really driving at.

It's two, it's both price point and then also the utilities.

So these numbers were kind of driven more by engineering.

Well, we wanted smaller homes, but like the maximum was more engineering saying this is the utility capacity that we calculate with this size home, and so this is.

I mean, I don't know what that number is.

If I kick that to uh greater mines than mine when it comes to numbers, but uh crap I mean it's not expensive to simply dig more dirt out and throw concrete a little farther out.

That that is not that's gonna maybe drive the price point up 10, 20 grand.

Tops.

Um yeah, so I mean we could just include include an unfinished basement with a similar or you know, with no more than 1,000 square foot.

Yeah, and I I'm not looking for a number to you know to to be made up, Gary.

Do magic with numbers.

I bet you're probably right.

200.

Right.

So I or or is there is there a cap set of you know, regard we don't really care if it's basement, we don't care if there's two-story, but in no way, shape or form is the structure to exceed X square feet.

We it cannot exceed two thousand square feet.

Yeah.

That's fair.

And I and I think and I think maybe that's where it's driving a little bit more at the selling affordability because there is the thought of if people want to expand, if they want to, you know, finish the basement, add that or expand their home.

That was my next question.

So yeah.

So we're that's totally fine.

The goal is kind of to allow that natural growth, but just not to have that at the beginning, you know.

So that a ideally middle class person can buy it.

They want to put sweat equity into it and they want to add on another room later, whatever.

That's fine.

This is just about making this thing affordable fish to begin with.

Yeah.

There's a like we had before about when they sell it, they only get a percentage of their equity.

No.

No, because the whole idea behind this is building actual true, like attainable, because you know, we looked at um some of the smaller lots, single family stuff that's similar to the what the size we're proposing in Lehigh in some neighboring cities, and they've stayed much more attainable in price anyways, right?

It's just it's not as big of a home, it's not as big of a lot, so the value doesn't go up as much as other things.

Is it Dixon?

That was up by Trevor or not Travisman.

In um yeah, Ivory Rage.

Ivy Ridge by up there.

Uh-huh.

Those are small papers or poster stamp lots, but they're million dollar homes.

And those homes are huge.

They're huge.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that's why.

Because what we looked at is that right now, and it's is just a sign that the market is really skewed right now.

Is um the size of the lot isn't as big of a determining factors the size of the home.

So having a smaller home really will drive the smaller or the lower price more than the size of the lot.

Um what was the uh forgive me the the deed restriction?

It's for owner occupancy.

So it can only be owner occupied forever and ever and ever.

I don't know.

Um so I mean a deed restriction is again like a legal, like I I think a neighbor can come after them or whatever.

We also can because it's in our ordinance that it's deed restricted.

So if someone calls in and says this is being rented, we can send a letter and say this is required to be on our occupied.

You need to, you know, live here or sell it kind of thing.

What if it's like a temporary thing?

Like they would call an emission, for example, or something where they leave for two years, five years, whatever.

Yeah, we don't write it in as much on this one, but I think there's that where there would be a little bit of discretion where I mean I guess we always have the a little bit of that when we're doing code enforcement of someone's like, oh, I have a renter in there, it's gonna take me six months to get out of them out, and you know, usually we give them flexibility because we're like we're not gonna make you kick someone out to the street in a day because you're renting it illegally, you know.

Are there any deed restricted lots currently in Lehigh?

Yeah, there are a lot of deed restrictions.

Just I mean anyone can't call our occupied deed restrictions.

Um not that we've deed restricted, but HOAs, anyone can deed restrict a property.

There's people that buy properties simply to deed restrict it and then sell it again.

So my gosh.

Really?

It could be, yeah.

I mean, that's more like commercial and stuff, like but then the new owner can't get that restriction taken off.

No, I I don't know the whole legal process of that, but it's not easy to uh remove a deed restriction.

Seems like a punk move.

To do it to someone.

Oh yeah.

A lot of people, yeah.

But so I don't so an eight like an HOA or you know, a developer legitimately could deed restrict their properties in some way and then sell them.

There's yeah.

I think with the deed restriction, it's hard to get title insurance, and then it's hard to get a loan because the lender will be owner.

Is it owner occupied?

And you say, Well, yes it is.

Well, that's loan fraud if you're not planning on being there.

But like you said, things change if you end up going in the military and you gotta get it whatever.

Yeah.

So it's it's hard, but I think on the title insurance on the lender side, that's where the data nutrition would show up and title companies will go, wait a second.

We can't get rid of this.

How do we insure over that?

So what's the price of insurance on deed restricted lots?

Is it significantly more?

I don't think it would change the price, but the insurance company would basically say we can't insure that unless it is over occupied.

So you can say, well, I'll give you five grand to insure it.

I think the underwriter of the title company would be like, yeah, it doesn't matter.

I need to find out more about that.

I I am all for it has to be bought by a um occupant.

I do not love setting up in perpetuity deed restrictions.

Yeah.

I mean, it's I think of all deed restrictions, it's not going to have a huge impact.

Um I I think other cities are doing it.

We could look more into that.

I think it is becoming more of a common thing to deed restrict to be owner.

I know it's becoming more common thing, and I think it's an awful trend.

Yeah.

I guess it just depends on if yeah, the the goal is for the owner occupancy home ownership versus investment properties.

Is there any other way to obtain home like to achieve the goal of home ownership without a deed restriction?

I mean, I I don't know if there's any other ways to really I mean we could write it into our ordinance still and just say, hey, this is in our ordinance, a deed restriction definitely gives us more teeth.

It does.

I I would be far happier.

Uh to rephrase, I would be very happy.

I would like it.

I would thumbs up with an ordinance that in this case, this is very different from you know our discussion about the kind of silliness, perhaps, of saying someone can add on to their house 24 months later.

That seems kind of ridiculous.

It was a 25 months.

Uh you know, it's in this too.

No, so it just says the setback goes down.

It doesn't say you can't do a remodel until that time, you just can't go into that setback.

Okay.

So if you had a whole thing last week.

Yes.

So I I do see that that is a stark difference in that to say that it has to be owner bought and occupied and must remain that for 25 months or whatever the case may be.

I mean that that alone, no one's gonna turn around and turn it into rental.

It just does not work.

Um but at the same time, it now does make it not an issue for a property owner when that mission call comes, or they have a child that is now reaching adulthood, and they would like to move, but they'd also like to just hold on to the property and let their kid move in it.

I don't see the how how that's a terrible situation either.

Uh I I feel like there's a way to get the best of what's being what we're going for here without also turning into the nanny state uh essentially.

I mean, uh locking up a deed in perpetuity.

I don't like making decisions that um restrict property after I'm dead.

And it's not my property.

Yeah.

And others can disagree.

That's fine.

Are there deed restrictions that are triggered, I guess, like in the event of a sale where there's property trade stance, it becomes active.

After five years, it's inactive, but it's dormant until it sells.

Like, is that a thing?

Like every time it sells, it has to be more occupied for X number.

Right?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Yeah, we're getting really far in the weed.

No, but I mean that that would make way more sense to me.

That even that.

But uh as opposed to this lockdown absolute inflexibility.

Um I don't yeah, I don't think there is a way to do it that way.

I mean, we could look into it, but I'm guessing that there's not like uh that kind of flexibility with it.

But I mean, and I think one of the things is what we're seeing a lot is if you do buy something like this, you know, you buy the people who bought like a condo, and they're like, oh, I got it for a really good price.

Now I can like afford a home, I can rent it for so much more than what I paid for it, and use that to help pay for my mortgage.

So we are seeing a lot less people selling any of their previous homes, which just doesn't open up the flexibility in the market, right?

Like there's rentals, but there's not as much for sell product.

And so if you have something that is truly attainable that you can't afford for a while, and then you make more money, you're like, great, I want to move up.

I think that's a big part of the deed restriction, right?

Is to create that incentive of okay, let go of it now.

It's not uh I can afford this and a new home, so I'm gonna have both.

We want to really create this homes that can be starter homes over and over and over again for people who need a starter home.

If you can afford another home, awesome, that's great.

But let's give someone else a chance to start on that instead of just holding on to it because it's a great price and you can pay for it and your new home.

I just think that that's capitalism, but like I think that's we should allow people to buy assets and maximize their assets.

I think the real issue why we're not seeing a lot of homes on the market right now is everyone's holding on to those two, three percent interest rates.

Oh, yeah.

That's why.

It it's it's not it's not because they're unwilling to let the next generation come on.

It's they can never get something uncheaping.

Um there are bad marriages holding together because of that mortgage rate.

You know, like I'm not even getting two to three.

Come on.

It's unheard of.

Yeah, but so I don't know.

Yeah, like I hear your point, but I also don't think that we should be telling residents that they can't maximize their assets, right?

That they can't have made a good decision back when the interest rates were low, and now unfortunately you have to sell off your two percent rate, right?

Like, well, nothing says that you have to sell your home, right?

Like you can stay in the home.

It's just saying they change jobs, or whatever, you know, if if something's happened and they need to leave it, like they're just not allowed to maximize that asset, right?

Like, I just I don't know how I feel about the government coming in and telling me what I can and can't do with the sale of an asset I own.

And I think that comes to maybe one of the most fundamental questions, arguments with housing is the is it an investment or is it a shelter, right?

And it really can't do well at both.

Because an investment always constantly needs to go up in price and investments you do want to hold on to and sell when the price is right, and all of that, and I think really what this is getting at is we're trying to provide a shelter for people who need it.

We want to provide, yeah, like you know, it can be an opportunity to start having an asset that then you're buying a new home.

Like it doesn't have to mean that it can't be that, but I think this is really a goal to provide a shelter that people can afford, and it's it's not going to be a huge glamorous home that you're making tons of money off of.

That's not really the goal of it.

It's to provide a place for people to live.

I agree, it's not huge, glamorous, you're not gonna make tons of money off it, which in my mind is all to the point of where on earth do we need to come off imposing deed restrictions that lock this land up in a way that we got I mean uh uh my father-in-law knew a very different Lehigh than the Lehigh, you know, that that he left.

Um thank goodness they didn't make decisions uh, you know, when he was mayor in the 90s, that locked things down in a way that would then have screwed up our ability to make choices now in the 2020s.

So that is the the sort of thing I'm thinking about when we start saying this land will now only be able to be used for this, barring a judge granting good grace and a huge legal battle that someone who owns a house like this is never gonna have the ability to fight, ever.

And yet we're we're gonna set it up to be in that in that situation.

You know, and and there are still, I mean, there's lots of work arounds I could do, like when you said, okay, if you want your kid to move in, well, you put your kid on the deed, and now it's underoccupied, right?

Like it's not, but it also is something I mean, you're fully welcome when this comes to you to vote on, you can make any recommendation to city council to say we don't want it to be deed restricted, and you know, then they can remove that, and it's ultimately their decision.

I I do have a thought on the whole deed restriction.

Uh all of my years of being involved with the planning and the and property rights.

There this is the best explanation I've ever heard is their property rights are like a bundle of sticks, right?

And you don't you all properties don't have all the sticks, just like if I buy an R18 lot, I have no right to have an animal on there.

I choose to buy, you know, whatever that bundle of sticks is.

So a deed restriction to me, you're just taking out one of the sticks, just like if you had an easement on your property, you can never build on that.

But that owner buys that, knowing, okay, these are the sticks I have in my bundle.

The the one is missing, the I can rent this or do you know.

So they've chosen to do that, and whoever the next buyer, same thing.

They're there, they don't have to buy that home.

They could say, oh, it's missing this stick in my bundle of rights.

I'm not gonna buy it.

I don't want that restriction.

I do agree with that in theory, other than where things have gone in the last decade or two, is that it's kind of hard.

You're speaking like there is a free market in which someone who wants this bundle of sticks can really find it.

It's a struggle.

I am very happy and elated that I am in a non-HOA home.

I I love that.

That's great for those who like it.

I understand the service it provides.

I've lived in them, and to me, it felt like having an extra level of municipal government that made terrible decisions, and I didn't need more taxes for more, you know, promises not kept.

Um it's really hard to find homes like that, though.

Yeah, I mean, everything that comes through to us pretty much is HOA planned.

So yeah, I I I struggle to see where someone finds the single family home that they can really, you know, feel like they have all the bundle of sticks that were really a given only 20, 30 years ago.

I'm not seeing that.

So to kind of shrug off.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, yet again, you know.

Yeah.

I mean, my my dad has eight fingers.

He'd like to have all ten.

That'd be great.

He made bad choices in Woodshop.

Um joke, that's how it happened.

I was kind of like, where are we going with this one?

Point B, right?

Like it's it's restricted, and you're right, you can't ever go back.

Yeah.

Um I I I just don't see that as uh as very willy-nilly.

And I'm not trying to say that you are.

No, and I was just trying to offer somewhat of an explanation.

Not all I appreciate it.

Have every right.

Sure.

Just like we zone commercial versus residential.

I have no right on my I just don't know how many, I guess to go with your analogy, how many Jenga towers really have a lot of those you know, sticks in it these days.

What you would have expected a few decades ago.

These days it it feels like they're all a little wonky.

Uh-huh.

However, tip the same.

So I'm I'm very sensitive to wanting to keep as many of those.

Yeah, totally understand.

So if there is any way to get 80% of the benefits here in another means from a deed restriction, uh I am absolutely gonna lean that way.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

And like when you said we can recommend that put in and I mean, I guess because it does philosophically, it's just a philosophical question, right?

Like, what do we want this to do?

Do we want it to be like a deal?

Of course, city council can disagree that maybe the commission here disagrees with me.

I'm just being very clear on where my where I land is we workshop here.

Yeah, yep.

Yeah.

Just for fun.

I am starting to disagree with Greg.

Awesome.

Which I I don't often.

I usually am pretty in line with Greg.

But I actually what what you said is really resonated that not every property has every right, right?

And people know that ahead of time.

It's not held from them.

And when they buy it, if there are certain things that come with that property because of where it is or how it was developed, they know that going into it.

And I like that it does encourage a cell on the other side.

And it encourages the market to keep moving.

Can I offer a counter?

Sure.

What about the rights of those who have bought in at these zones with these expectations?

And that they knew that this is what the surrounding properties were also going to be this zone with these expectations.

I feel like it's and now this drops in and changes what they bought into.

I feel like it's the same as someone who buys a view.

Yeah, you didn't buy that property.

You bought a view and that view you were really excited about, and as soon as that view got obstructed, you freak out, right?

Because it goes back to that bundle of sticks.

You do not have a stick to a view.

You don't have a stick to any other development around you never changing.

You only bought your property and the rights on your property.

It's not on that's apples exactly, because yes, there is zoning, and that zoning does give you an understanding of what can have.

I mean, it it's it's a little more like the city said, guess what?

This is that this is a view.

But that's why I think this is important to get put into code, because then yes, there is that zoning, but it's up to somebody to also know the code and said, but this could happen, right?

We're not hiding that it could happen from somebody.

Yeah, kind of like PUD's PRDs, too.

I mean, it's the same thing.

If someone comes in and does that, all of a sudden you might have town homes when it was zoned single family because they provided a park, like it changes what was you assumed because it's allowed by the code.

If this was strictly development code in those closed doors, you city council, then yeah, I would feel super uncomfortable.

But if this is written somewhere where anybody could see this is something that could be done, not that it will be done, but that it could be done.

That alleviates a little bit of my concern that you brought up.

I think it's a massive shift from the general plan.

That's massive.

It's a 50% increase.

Yeah, it's from the general plan, which why do we have one if we're just gonna willy-nilly go, oh, drop that there.

And I mean again with the ADUs, it really is just kind of a change in the way it's laid out, right?

Because it could be a detached ADU or even at a basement apartment, it's not gonna impact like the traffic and stuff.

It might impact the look a little bit because there will be some smaller single family mixed in, but it won't impact utilities and roadways and other things because it's still the density that we're kind of assuming would be there with ADUs.

Yeah, I just think about that parcel we were looking at last the earlier this week.

And like, what if this dropped right there in your neighborhood, right?

So that's my concern is that you we've got the R18 zone, and so well, you got this, this is what the master plan says, it's what it's zoned as.

Oh, but we can if you want, you can also do this, increases density.

I can see the neighbors being like, wait a second, that's even though yes, I gave up my my stick for my view or whatever.

Well, then you didn't give up that.

You just never had that.

Right.

Right.

But when I moved in, it was zoned this way.

And it says in the master plan, it will be this.

But now we're changing the master plan on a more flexible basis.

Well, and I think it almost comes back to almost Greg's argument with like the homes, like we do the m we do a general plan and it's a moment in time the best of our ability and knowledge, right?

Like this makes sense.

This is what we think it should be, but it doesn't take into account changing needs, right?

Like the fact that housing is now crazy expensive, right?

We didn't really account for that in 2019 because the houses hadn't gone up.

So I mean it's it's but if I buy a parcel of ground that's agricultural, and I go in thinking, okay, I if I can change the code, right?

I can now develop all that, but I'm trying to work through this myself.

Why what gives me the right to think, oh, just because I bought something, I now can change the way it's zoned.

I bought it as agricultural.

I understood that's what it is.

Now I'm trying to change it.

I don't have the right to change it.

Yeah, and that's the grant of that.

No, but but you do you have the right to request that's always your you're right.

Right.

I have the right to ask, but it's not some it feels like this is like an assumption where, oh, if you have this, I ask.

We started with it, it is fully discretionary still.

So you know, if there's something that makes it so it's like, yeah, it really doesn't make sense here.

Um I think you know, one of the things that is hard in the way that we think of property rights, and as we've thought about our cities is that they should be like the same, right?

We're like neighborhoods should stay the same.

Well, what that has done is created a ton of pressure for more housing that's not being met by slow adaptations.

That's how cities used to develop.

It would be just like a home, and then oh, there's a lot more demand to live in this area, so then it becomes a duplex, and then it becomes a four-plex, and it's just slowly incrementally increasing, right?

We have through zoning made that so it's like nope, this is all just single family, and that's all it's ever gonna be, which has created this huge pressure, right?

Where we're now way far below the housing units that we need.

So what ends up happening?

Well, now like ADUs everywhere is part of that, right?

Or you get huge apartment buildings everywhere, and so the impact on some neighborhoods is far greater because you now have a huge apartment building with 500 people behind you instead of some of this is good because this is all still single family, right?

It's not going to be an apartment complex being.

So is it isn't an adjustment?

Is it an adjustment to the master plan?

Um I mean, in some way the utilities were already this is already accounted for in the utility calculation.

But it's so it's but it's a little bit more units than would just be allowed based on the city.

Yeah, yeah.

Yep.

I just see you know, that seems to be a hot button right now.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It definitely does.

It's going to be a hot button.

And I think that's the trade-off that I wish we would discuss more, is we can either have like these smaller incremental changes, or we don't allow any changes, and then all of a sudden we explode with huge apartment buildings.

That's what's happening.

Uh I'm so sorry.

We did say we were gonna keep this meeting controlled because of the historical marker, right?

Which I know Nicole has uh uh beelined it too.

I guess we need to obviously keep talking about this in Brittany, you think you put it together a wonderful presentation.

This is a rich and robust discussion, but I imagine some of us want to get to that, right?

Uh can we?

Can we call it unfortunately?

Yeah, that's great.

And if you guys have other questions, things you want to reach out to.

Yeah, I just want to say thanks because you clearly listen to a lot of our comments from before.

Yeah, and I it is a lot better than I know it this is not this is not a fun one, and uh yeah, thank thank you very much, Brittany.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, I know.

No, this the this is uh this is a hot potato, and she has no one to pass it to.

She's just like tossing it in the air over and over again.

Uh trying to not get burnt.

When do we plan on hearing it with a public meeting?

Uh we would the next available meeting that we could schedule it would be the August 28th, the end of the month.

Or should we do another work session on it?

I guess we'd probably just schedule it for you want to take it or Brittany's like, let's vote.

She's like, I want to get out of the way.

Okay.

I uh sure.

All right, let's end it.

And uh real quick, uh item three, uh, what would we do for the next training then?

Uh yes.

So we oh can we do deed restriction laws and and like different types of deed restrictions and stuff?

That'd be awesome.

Greg.

Yeah.

Though I might I might suggest if we're gonna do that.

Legal uh one legal cons.

Let's just put this item.

If we're not gonna do another work session on it, that's fine, but let's yeah, let's do a deed restriction training and then next regular meeting.

Let's I think it'd be more productive conversation if we were trained on deed restrictions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because I'll tell you, I'm not I'm not gonna be in favor of this right now.

Uh unless you understand well unless it doesn't have deed restrictions.

But maybe that'll change if I have a deeper understanding of deed restrictions.

I I'm always open to uh to that.

Yeah.

Uh so um this will probably influence how we want to approach going forward.

We have um and I'm trying to remember her name.

Uh it's a professor from the University of Utah, although she's going to be acting as an independent consultant.

Um, but we have actually reached out to her to do some training on uh what would you describe it as anyways things that you deal with.

Um managing public and uh conference um conflict resolution, maybe is kind of how you boil it down, like yeah, a lot of the heated things that we deal with here.

And she wants to come and do a training at the September and the October work sessions.

That sounds great.

It would be the entire she needs the full one point five hours, so we'd we need to so those September and October are fully committed, but I wonder if well the August one is getting pretty big, isn't it?

The agenda or is that the smaller one?

For planning commission.

I'm wondering if we put next week is small.

Oh, is it next week?

I wonder if we if they have time, we could just say at the end of the meeting, we'll just say at the regular meeting.

Anyways.

I like that very much.

Yeah.

And then yeah.

So that was what we wanted to make you wear those September and October's work sessions we want to devote to what's her name?

Donia.

What's that?

Dawn?

Don't run the more Donia.

Is it Rumor or Rum Rumore?

No, exactly.

Yeah, anyways.

She's a really good she's in their um public administration faculty, yeah.

She is yeah, she's in the school like planning and in law, and she does um uh the NAR initiative.

It's like gateway communities and stuff.

Yeah.

Anyways, we're excited to kind of have that as something different.

The other training thing really quick that we thought we'd offer.

If any of you know, you see the DRC comments and but and and maybe some of you have been to the DRC, but we just thought we would extend an invitation if you wanted to ever attend DRC and just kind of be there as a fly on the wall and say here's how this DRC process works and see who's in the room, kind of that how we churn through those reviews and I don't know.

We just thought that might be helpful to see what happens before it gets to you.

So I'd love to do that.

Okay.

I wonder if there's a lot of those open and close in the same minute like we have.

Yeah, there you go.

They're they're on Wednesdays.

Maybe we'll not this coming Wednesday, but maybe a future Wednesdays, you'd have to be able to come between one and three.

They're in the conference room right behind you.

So one I couldn't make them this month, but in September I could do that.

Yeah, I can't.

Yeah, anyways, we just thought, why don't we invite them if you ever want to obviously you'd probably want to let us know because we couldn't have more than two attend at the same meeting.

Uh because then it becomes an official meeting, yeah.

Okay.

Anyways, uh I think that's oh, the joint work session in it.

Oh, yes.

Our downtown revitalization plan is very close to a final draft.

We want to have a joint work session in September.

So this would be on the first Tuesday of the month.

And then I think the way the dates work out, your this training with this professor would be the the Thursday before, then we'd have that Tuesday joint, and then you'd have another regular meeting that same week.

So it is gonna be a little bit busy.

September second, first Tuesday of the month.

Uh yeah, so maybe yeah, that's September 2nd.

Your training would be the following that same Thursday, yes.

So that week you'd have two meetings.

Um but we want to be able to kind of vet the final plan and see if there's any major red flags.

But we'd have council and plan commission.

Maybe we do dinner or something.

So yeah, okay.

All right.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and second, all is in favor.

I can ask you out with the schedule.

Thanks, guys.

Where's it at?

Um is that the mayor's on the corner?

I feel like a