Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Temp Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Park resident proposes ‘stay-and-build’ temporary use permit to avoid displacement during home replacement
Summary
Resident Michael Enders urged the council to consider a temporary use permit allowing homeowners to live on-site while building a new house on the same lot; councilmembers asked clarifying questions and suggested staff workshop the idea.
Cedar Park — A resident asked the Cedar Park City Council to consider amending the city’s temporary use permit rules to allow homeowners to remain living on their lot while a new house is built, a change the speaker said would reduce moving costs and keep families in their schools.
Michael Enders, identified in public comment as a Cedar Park resident, told the council he is proposing what he called a "stay and build permit." "I come to y'all with a proposal for, a temporary use permit. It's I call it a stay and build permit," Enders said. He described the typical process under current practice as requiring homeowners to move out and rent elsewhere before demolishing an existing home and building a replacement. Enders estimated that moving and rental costs could add roughly $90,000, approaching $100,000, to a redevelopment project for some homeowners.
Enders proposed a temporary permit that would allow residents to live in the existing house while a new house is built on the same lot; after construction and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, owners would have 90 days to remove the old building (either by towing a manufactured home or by demolition). He said benefits include reduced redevelopment costs, continuity for children remaining in their schools, and the ability for homeowners to supervise construction.
Council members asked Enders practical questions about how the program would work: whether the change would be citywide or limited to older neighborhoods, how the city would control long construction timelines and ensure completion, and how small lots would be handled. Enders suggested safeguards such as performance bonds or surety bonds and timelines for completion. He acknowledged that very small lots (for example, a tenth-acre) may not have space to build a second dwelling and said the proposal would not be appropriate for those lots.
Council members and staff suggested the idea could be workshopped with city staff and potentially considered at a fall workshop. No formal action was taken; the topic was closed out of public comment but council indicated willingness to add it to a future agenda for more discussion.
Enders left a copy of his proposal online at cedarparkstrong.org for council and public review, according to his remarks.
