Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e e

all right welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March 13th 201 25 uh we're going to begin this evening with old business uh everyone has a copy of last month's minutes yes how a chance to review that are there any Corr corrections to be noted issues concerns all right seeing none we will then approve the minutes as submitted and then Wendy can you walk us through any actions of the last since the last city council meeting so the city council did approve the Reg zoning that we talked about last month from mid with mobile home overlay to Li without excuse me without the mobile home overlay that was Zero Ula Street other way around from l l Lou correct I told him he car me it went from Li with mobile home overlay to Mid without the mobile home overlay um off of Kirky smok eyes drive so great M excellent all right all right and then next we're going to read the disclosure of interest um okay any member of the commission who may have a conflict of interest or a possible conflict of interest regarding any item of business to be discussed at a commission meeting should declare their conflict of interest to enable the commission to manage the conflict and resolve it in accordance with the stated statute um looking at the agenda this evening does anyone have a disclosure need to disclose um a conflict of interest for this evening seeing none we're going to move along all right um great all right at this time we do have set aside uh at this moment to provide citizens an opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission about any issues other than those that are already on the agenda if you're here for a specific item on the agenda we will have time for you to address that specifically but if there's anything else anyone in the

public would like to speak on we're happy to open that up all right seeing none we shall move on to our first order of new business all right item one let me just read this aloud consideration for an application submitted by Eric and Christy Carswell to rezone the property listed at 810 West Fleming Drive the property is currently zoned medium intensity District quter overlay and the application is to rezone to high-intensity District quter overlay and I'm going to turn over to Wendy to walk us through that submission thank you eron um Chad if you can bring up the screen this shows the Loc of the subject property so to orient you a bit um this here is McDonald's if you can see the little arrow moving around and the Mimosa Hills shopping center and then over in this area Begins the Morton Heights Shopping Center over at Walmart with the old Henry Dawn Factory so coming along West Flaming Drive there's a little property there that a long time ago was a bank and then it turned into a hot dog stand and then a coffee shop for a little while and then it was partially the the drive-thru was partially dismantled at some time the cardwells are now the owners of that property and they have asked to rezone the property if um so the current zoning is shown here is mid all along this eastern northern eastern section of West flimming Drive um but across the street is hid as it is all in this other area um along West Union and again we will be talking about the McDonald's and the morgington height shopping center um the land behind it is developed with a mix of different um types of residential uses and in the um comprehensive plan that we just recently adopted we did designate all of these properties here

so this is blue 42 on the corner and then this is the subject property here as being reasonable to move to the H well mixed use category which is a mix of commercial and residential uses the closest thing that we kind of have to our current hid category today um so it was designated for that should a change of use be proposed and that is what they're doing today is proposing to change it you can see the list of uh different densities and setbacks that would be permitted there as well as the list of all of the different permitted uses essentially some of the bigger changes that that allows in terms of permitted uses is mid talks about neighborhood scale uses whereas hid is more of those um larger types of uses that we could expect on our Corridor such as I mean it's a small lot but hotel motel type use um but one of the bigger things is it does allow retail over 3,000 square ft and it allows retail outside of a fully enclosed building that is not permitted in the mid Zone it is a major Corridor um one the closest thing we have to an arterial street so if you remember last month we talked about there were some uses that couldn't be developed on smaller streets this is the one of those larger streets so that pretty much any of those uses would be acceptable there because they do have um such good access um for the public to get in and out um and access them without infringing upon the um amenity of other people that might happen if you were going down a residential Street are there any questions for me about that information before we no the the one map at least in the paper copy the

property oh the zoning map I'll I'll bring that one back up I I guess it was just a little confused by the coloration because isn't the property between this property and West Union already hid or is it no no no it is not it is mid at the moment okay mhm that was the comprehensive plan that the comp plan shows that it all of that could go to that if they wanted to but right now for some reason everything in that section I mean I I don't know why that happened when it went before because it it seems odd to me as a planner that you had this whole Corner yeah and and at least the corner where blue 42 is was not hid um the large property there is um side the historic property um the house is up close to West Union Street so should they ever I'll go back to the this map so the house is up here closer to West Union Street and faces West Union Street so there is some land down here that you know should they want to change they they may have some options for that in the future and all the property on the other side of Fleming is already H yes sir yes MH yeah only question I had I have no particular opposition to what's been suggested here but uh I guess we've checked the status of uh Creekside which is historical property I guess it is a historic property but this should have no bearing on on the change to it um basically it gives them tax credits to keep their property the same but life moves on for everybody else around here I'm going to presume in fact that since the name of the house is Creek Side at one point they owned all of this in here down to the creek itself and that has clearly changed over the years to a large degree from what they probably had when they inhabit early 1800s yes

sir long as we check that's all I'm asking okay any other questions from the commission okay uh then if not we will open the public hearing if anyone present representing the applicant uh would like to come to the podium and say your name and address and share with us anything about this submission love to hear it I'm Christy Carswell and um we have owned the property I think I've owned it since 03 or 04 and it has changed a little bit in the years that I've had it um and I do know that it's potentially going to already go into to the hid um the property is owned by us and my husband is a nor is a morgon native been born here raised here never left and I've been here for almost 30 years um it currently is vacant and that just doesn't look good there plus we have a little bit of issue going on with the homeless wanting to get behind it that we've been fighting to get cleaned up so we're working on that as well um and he is the what we'd like to do with this property is opening a Retail Nursery and he used to own a Retail Nursery behind Tannery Square so this is not something that's new to him or new to us being that we already do own two businesses here in Morganton um carswell's landscaping and maintenance and carswell's Tree Service um our vision of course is to have this retail location for as a small business and we want to supply Morganton residents and area residents with a sustainable options for their landscape supplies um we plan to be an S

corporation and our business hours are not going to be crazy 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and then 8 to one on Saturdays so you're not going to have any of those nighttime things like you might have had with those drive-thru hot dog stand and drive-thru um coffee shops um we will need probably three to five employees Around the Clock when we're open so not to pulling from our current businesses we will be adding some business some jobs to the area um we'll do the Shrubbery trees mulch um Boulders Rock um straw fertilizer seed things like that just that for homeowners to be able to use in Aira businesses to work on their lawns um we will offer design services and we can also special order for clients um and like I said it's a small business but it's stays local and I think that's the most important thing so we would love your support do you guys have any questions for me uh you may not know for sure yet but do you plan on like doing any major changes to what the structures are already there no the structure that's there is going to stay okay great that'll be the office area okay sounds good do you anticipate any security issues um it will be fenced in the um retail area where the Shrubbery will be housed that will be fenced in great any other questions mulch is likely to be bagged or open open Scoops has a little fresh smell some it's [Laughter] wonderful anything else no that's it thank you so much for sharing with us um any other public comments or questions anyone like to

share okay seeing none I'm going to close the public hearing portion all right so then do I need to read the motion somebody can make a motion do I'll read it read oh wonderful thank you okay um well appropriate to go ahead and make the motion to get it on the floor uh I would move that we that the commission recommend a city council uh support for the proposed resoning of 810 West Fleming Drive P 1793 626 900 um as shown on the Imagine 24 uh comp plan as suitable for a mix of commercial office and Retail use to rezone it from medium intensity District Corridor overlay and water protection overlay to high-intensity District Corridor overlay and Watershed protection overlay excellent thank you um and we'll have a vote all those in favor oh I'm so sorry first you have a second in discussion I apologize thank you do I have a second second thank you now we shall vote discussion discuss oh discussion oh I'm sorry just a quick question for Wendy that I had um the what was being talked about as potential use so would come under retail outside fully enclosed building okay um it is my understanding that they don't intend to grow plants there like in the ground it's just the retail portion of it though technically you could put a nursery there as well that is so for those of you that um don't know the way the zoning ordinance is split up is

split up into a greenhouse use where you don't sell anything and Retail use where you do sell things so if you had a greenhouse or a nursery where you sold things you would be both of those but at this point they are just looking at doing the retail without outdoor sales not the full on nursery and because that's outside fully enclosed building that only be an hi instead of M because it doesn't clarify that you're not selling you know tractors or something yes question as far as a loose mulch goes and be loading mulch to onto trucks Etc is there going to be a screening requirement to screen that off of is or that we talking about something else that we don't have to deal um any of that would be dealt with at the time of development application process for and with the requirements of the ordinance so yeah technical question since uh all the surrounding zoning is M pushing this to hid does that constitute spots only no across the street is already well everything across the street is hid and because the comprehensive plan says that we would intend that whole strip to become that um it would be the expectation over time that that change and once we have an opportunity to redo the zoning ordinance that would be what we would be recommending or proposing um for them they just got there a little sooner than we have thank you good question is that going to kick in um since it's change of use the sidewalk requirement and all that stuff um at a time of development application it would and they would have the

opportunity to either put this walk in or to pay the inlo fee and um us put it in as a coordinated project in the future but they will at time of development application be required to leave room for it so maybe that's a good overall point to understand is this is just changing the zoning they'll still have to comply with all the ordinance R because again that's why we give you that whole long list while they um are proposing to do this um that plan could change tomorrow and you were saying that any of those uses would be suitable um which is essentially what you said when you adopted the future land use map that's said any type of mixed use um this let me read what it says in there um comp plan a mix of commercial office and Retail use with multif family development there's a whole range of items that could potentially be developed there obviously somewhat constrained by sight size overall only one and a quarter any other further questions or clarifications no okay call the question what that now we're ready to vote okay thank you for your patience um all right all those in favor anyone objecting seeing none we will recommend it to the city council excellent when does that go up to U that'll go City this will all go to the city council uh at the next meeting April 7th 6 p.m. excellent um all right now we will go on to item number two for this evening uh consideration to apply rezoning to sorry to apply zoning to a portion of the properties listed as zero anola Road and 757 Pete bit Britain Road both of which are currently being

requested to be annexed into city of morgon uh subject properties are currently partly within the city of morgon's extr territorial jurisdiction or the etj uh in the area of zoning responsibility and partly within Burke County's area of zoning responsibility uh the portion of the properties within the city of morgon's ET etj is currently Zone mid and the request to apply Zone mid to the portion being taken in from bir County currently zoned R1 and I will let Wendy walk us through that all right um Chad if you could show my screen maybe there we go okay I'm going to show you the larger map and then try to zoom in so this is Liberty Middle School this is Patton you can see their softball field over on the other side up here is Fiddler's run and exit 104 so if we've kind of oriented ourself I'll zoom in a little bit closer to this site hopefully be able to move it around cuz I want you to see these different color lines so Liberty this green line is is the city limits and Liberty and patton are within the city limits this blue line is the etj line and it runs all the way down that um western side of the street so these properties there's actually three properties here I'm going try to zoom back in sorry let you see these lines so there is one property that is this long skinny property adjacent here there is a little tiny property here that is 07 acres and actually has a house on it um that is rented at the moment and you can't even see it for our big fat line there and then there's this larger property out the back so this etj

line bcts This larger property and the um a tiny portion of the 07 acre parcel um and meaning that these two Parcels on this side are in our etj or this parcel and a portion of these two parcels and then this remainder area is not so the applicant has asked to Annex all of all of three property well the ones already in no all of all three properties into the city limits which if we go to the next map you already have a zone of mid with Corridor overlay for the portion this helps you see that one down at the bottom for those presumably that zone stays when you come into the city limits but there is no zone for the other side because it's currently in the county it's zoned R1 um Burke County so the proposal would be to give it a Zone if it is annexed in so the way this will happen is you guys will make a recommendation we'll take it to city council and at the April 7th meeting there will be a public hearing on annexation of all of these parcels and then if that annexation is approved the next item will be applying this zoning to it if that annexation is not approved this is a moot point and we will not um even discuss that other item at city council but we want to give you guys an opportunity to comment on what that zoning should be the entirety of that side of the road is mid for medium intensity uses residential and smaller scale commercial fit into the neighborhood so the proposal would be that it stays mid and the remainder of the properties become mid it won't compromise the house that's already on there and basically when the individual then goes to develop it they're not taking the development plan half to us and half to Burke County and getting different sets of rules for different pieces of of what they might be doing there it may be subdivided or

recombined and in a variety of uses in the future but again that they wouldn't then be hampered by having multiple different zones of multiple jurisdictions on the property so they have asked to come completely into the city limits and and make that change um likewise looking at the future land use map we've actually said that all of that stuff should be that mixed density residential neighborhood that allows things like um your residential uses again your smaller scale retail um and schools and and so forth in those zones so um would be consistent with that they are proposing I will just mention um go back to this other map the C ozone extends 250 ft from the edge of the property boundaries so if you look closely it looks like it's bigger on the school side than it is on this side and that's because it only runs to the etj line so it will actually extend farther into the property um okay uh for that full 250 ft when you apply that CU Zone to that and the applicants aware of that and is fine with that but I think it's only got about 170 ft maybe at the moment so I can bring that up on the map and check exactly if you'd like but if I may just to clarify then so part of this area that is being potentially annexed and zoned is not within the corridor overlay or will not be within will not let me just bring that map up that's a great question Louie um I mean I I'm just asking because I I guess technically we're not rezoning all of it or wouldn't rezone all of it to quarter overlay because it's well I guess no but the corridor overlay itself defines itself as only existing 250 ft from the property boundary so when you apply the corridor overlay to a

property you're only applying it to that first 250 ft sure I I understand I just but yes the entire property would not be in there it's really Corridor overlay to the extent that Corridor overlay exist provided under the city's ordinance so 250 ft is about to right there on the property so it it's almost the whole property yeah for the sake of this development yeah okay are there any issues with the county not wanting that to happen is there um not that I'm aware of Keith um may have some other information we do as part of annexation process we do have to I don't know if asking the county is the right terms but we do have to ask is Salem Fire Department if they have any debt and if they have debt then we have to pay them a requested amount relevant to the size of of the property that we're taking um for that to service that debt and they do have debt because they built a new fire station and that's the same process that we did with Micah Avenue last year um but otherwise so there's transactional issues but nothing the other and I will about jurisdiction and so forth I will just mentioned this is on City Water and Power um but the sewer line Chad if you can go back to my map um actually does run along Fiddler run Creek down here at the backside of Liberty Middle School so they don't have access to sewer on this property unless they extend it a good thousand ft up that hill um up there so that will affect the sizing of potentially of what they can do on those Parcels but they're aware of that and also willing to um to work with that so that might mean they get stuck at our 20,000 foot line line they would have to pay for the extension

and they're not pay for extension for that well they might maybe they're multi-millionaires who knows um but that that'd be unlikely it' just be developed but as evidenced by the house on there that is able to so there's septic septic tanks I assume yes okay or any other alternative wastewater treatment device which you can utilize again depending on how much you want to pay for such is that um you mentioned there's a rental property on a very small corner of the parcel would that they somehow figured out some septic that would work with that I mean usually so there is a I'm presuming that is serviced by septic and that is one thing that we have pointed out to them is that it is unlikely that their septic is actually on their lot right and that they should probably figure out where the leech field is and that's why I said there I know there will be probably at least one division recombination um so that they can include that in this other lot with the house or at least put some sort of easement or something over it so that the septic system is not compromised um obviously this is a an historic lot that goes back well we're popping up the 1900s here that's that's what that just means it goes back further than we have records for in our system so it's been there for long they have a um right um so this house was built in we think well it says 1984 but it looks older than that yeah yeah can't go by that I don't know be so they need to like um would there be any issues with them coming into the city if if sort of like that septics is issue is maybe not quite up to the current or we allow septic in the city if we don't have access to sewer and there's actually a new state law that says if it is something to the effect of if it is cheaper for you to do way

septic than to connect to our system we have to allow you to do that anyway so that would be the case with this we simply our engineering department would provide a letter to the county they go out and do a perk test and make sure that it is suitable before they do their development and then um so as if they were to not do anything just change just be annexed not do anything they would not need to make any changes to their property correct if they in the future want do anything then that would trigger sort of like this investigation yes clarification about okay that's correct great question that makes sense okay are there any other questions right now there's anyone in the audience or public who would like to make a comment or question about this they're welcome you you would need to open I will need to open for public comment is there anyone who would like to make a comment no I don't know negative okay I will close public comment great so then I need a motion for the second um item for this evening anyone like propose a motion okay I'll do itk the Planning and Zoning commission recommend to the city council support for the proposed text amendments noted in the report above oh you're when go back you're on page 11 item three um the planning zoning commission recommends to the city council support for application of zoning of medium intensity district with uh Corridor overlay uh Watershed protection overlay and Airport Hort safety overlay to a portion of zero andola Road

um P 27263 7232 and 757 ft Britain Road um should annexation of this area into the city of morgington be approved as um the proposed The Proposal is in keeping with both the existing residential zoning of the site as well as the surrounding founding uh institutional retail and residential uses already developed in this area the development of the site with M uses carries uh um over the expectations of the image 2040 comprehensive land use plan for the area immediately adjust to the site within the area currently within the city's uh zoning Juris excellent do I have a second I'll second it wonderful all right and any further discussion or questions from the commission just real quickly just to clarify for the record sure all three Parcels are owned by madcap Adventures the the same LLC good question any other clarifications concerns I would like to clarify that I apologize I put the wrong page numbers on these right I so sorry about that no worries we're working out a system to make it better and clearly I did not follow it we're all getting our systems down um great in that case I would like to proceed to a vote all those in favor

of adopting the motion anyone opposed all right seeing none so P pass it will also go to City Council on April 7th all right we have one final uh item on the agenda for du business this evening and that is a consideration of several minor editorial text amendments and I'm going to hand it over to Wendy to walk us through those okay um would you guys like me to walk you through each one briefly as they're so short I'm seeing some head nods okay that' be helpful um please so starting with so these are mainly edits to clarify items that we have noted the one is an error and we'll get to that one uh so the first one is the base residential density and dimensional standards for this little tiny writing that you can't see at the bottom of that table I've written it bigger here and it says that the minimum lot size for infield development that's less than two acres um shall be equal to the average of all Lots within 200 ft of the property so basically what that means is if everybody our minimum launch size is generally 47 Acres but if everybody around you is 0.2 and you want to subdivide down to that then that has been deemed suitable in the past because it's consistent with the existing neighborhood we did have a situation however where there was one large parcel that was like 10 acres that threw that average off so now the average was actually larger than our minimum lot size um so we tried to clarify that by putting in or the minimum lot size in that table whichever was smaller so if your average comes out to be0 2 your 0. 2 if your average comes out to be 0.5 you still get to do the 47 that's in the table any questions about that one I might just stop and ask questions about that that was just something an anomaly that we had come up and by the strict letter of it should that one be even bigger than what we required didn't make sense um the next one well before you

move forward just an editorial comment as far as ease of reading M where where you go to two acres shall be equal to the average and I'd suggest putting acreage okay after that word or size yeah um that's a good point the average that's why I put it up on this so I can make the edits here equal to the average which whichever floats your boat average I'm going to use the words in the table itself so I can find it the average minimum lot size yeah that's average yeah you use minimum L size two other places in that sentence so that's probably yeah shall be equal to the average lot size of all Lots within that or the minimum lot size above okay thanks thank you the next one um this is actually an error from changes that we made a couple of years ago we mixed up our tables and we accidentally eliminated you being able to do anything over 35 ft in zone hid it should have been 65 ft and we mix it up with the table above it which in the ordinance is the one you have to earn points for but you can't earn points for non-residential development because you have to do those things anyway so you have to do those pieces um and that's why you have the right to go to 65 ft so that's just correcting an error on my part from a year or two ago so this actually reverts back to what this was in um I think it was April of 2023 um the next one I know this is confusing I'm going to show you a picture and if anybody has any better clarifying words they be happy to hear them um so General standards for all Landscaping basically says that if you've got a required landscaping area you can put a wall or a fence or a mailbox or something in it um

including a sidewalk but the intent is that the sidewalk can cross that area not be fully within that area because so for example in our Corridor overlay we require 10 ft of landscaping and 5T of sidewalk well you don't want 5et of that landscaping area to be the sidewalk in base residential or base density areas if we require a that street yard landscaping it only has to be 5T wide well we don't want somebody to come in and say oh my sidewalk is 5et wide it says you can have a sidewalk in there so I just won't do any Landscaping the intent was that the sidewalk could cross it so I'm going to show you this picture so this sidewalk adjacent to the street that's not part of your landscaped area but this perpendicular sidewalk that's required for Ada access to the building that's what we intended to be in that area we've had some push back from some developers that don't want to spend any money um so we wanted to clarify that the perpendicular sidewalk through that area is fine to provide access but you can't just have your whole sidewalk take up your required landscaping area so the wording was the sidewalks permitted to cross that landscaping area at a perpendicular angle the sidewalk shall not be permitted to be laid parallel within maybe I'll say or instead of the required landscaping area shouldn't that be parallel to the street or or property line or something doesn't say parallel to what should I say within or instead of requireed landscaping area because you do want it to be you want it to be Street sidewalk buffer yes yeah so you're using the street as your reference in terms of perpendicular and parallel yes so should

maybe that right away be reflected in the text more so so of Chad can you put the thing up on the screen my screen so if we add those words to the street yeah I mean I mean technically it doesn't have to be exactly perpendicular but we can make that that was my other question could you just make it approximately perpendic otherwise don't you have to measure make sure it's 90 degrees I mean that this is the one I thought that you guys would help me Wordsmith while we were in here take a perpendicular out just as long as it's had an anle right cross the or accept because that's what they are saying is that hey my whole thing can just run down through here you need to make sure it's it it just explicitly um it's the crossing of it to Crossing it rather what about the access to the building can cross the Landscaping border access cu the sidewalk couldn't access it well I mean these developers are creative Rick um so they going to circle it around to be their access yeah it as Judy said it's the crossing that's important I would underline cross but underline and zoning ordinance means it has could put an illustration into the ordinance also if I took this picture we've got here and put some labels on it about this is this is appropriate and this is not or a similar illustration that I can have Michael B draw very nicely yeah if we say approximately perpendicular if it's 85 deg we're not going to care it's 30° that makes a big difference yeah totally because I imagine like Where the Sidewalk crosses might also depend like where's the door to this building that it's getting so that there are odd shaped lots that we just saw on the

lasts that that is true really I mean if you want to get really technical you could say at an angle of not less than I don't know 80 de or 7 we say an angle as close to perpendicular as feasible as determined by the development design staff Tech than 20 de follow I'm not going to measure those degrees Yeah I think that's probably over although you could I think that you just have an illustration in there and if they want to and then if somebody wants to appeal it then go to the board adjustment can decide that's right yeah that's true too cool any other questions about that one that one I think is perhaps the most confusing what's the fin I'm I'm editing the document as we go so I will give it to you um the next one we are proposing to remove from this proposed change because of um so for those of you that are unaware um there was a new hurricane Helen relief bill that was pushed through in December that included a whole bunch of other things that weren't related Hurricane Relief one of which was some changes to zoning and it talked about not being able to make changes in non-residential zones that would make anything non-conforming that exists problem is they didn't def Define non-residential zones um the general understanding has been that a non-residential zone is a Zone where you can't have residential so for us that would only be our exclusive industrial Zone because every one of the others you could this edit was for the CBD but out of an abund of caution for somebody to say well non-residential Zone means a Zone where you can have things that aren't

residential which would be every one of our zones because even in our mainly primarily residential Zone we still allow things like churches and schools and that sort of stuff um rather than to be the ones that that are end up fighting this one in court we'll just remove this provision okay and move on if that's okay with you guys so that's 4.49 yes ma'am okay none of that's happening today underst of changing that there's about 50 bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate to date um in this new session that would repeal either all or part of that session so that's what we're waiting on and we are supporting the repeal of those um but the rest of this does not trigger that no because all it does is say if you make something non-conforming and every other one of our changes increases the provisions for people so you're able to give them more I see um but you're not able to take stuff away essentially so going from 35 to 65 ft is giving them more if it was reverse I see there would be potentially be an issue so okay great question the next one is parking of commercial and recreational vehicles um we have a current provision that says in case of extreme emergency and not for convenience purposes re recal Vehicles may be utilized for temporary living quarters for a period of no longer than 60 days um what we have found with the recent storm event is that 60 days is not enough yeah if you have a catastrophic event it may be fine if you had like GL a tree on your roof during the storm and you needed to be there temporarily while someone removed it and made your house safe um but if you are going through a thema process um those people are looking at

possibly December before they have some outcomes of that which would be a good along past the storm um and then if you have a catastrophic fire on your house it may well take you longer than two months to fix that um so the county did not have this provision at all Burke County and have recently added this provision in and their period was 18 months um there is nothing in here here it says we could not renew that for another time period if it was necessary um but there may be some discussion that you'd like to have on on um whether or not this should be further clarified that once you get a um a CO on your house you've got two weeks to move this trailer off and you can't then rent the trailer to somebody while your house is okay to live in or that you have to be actually making measurable progress on your house uh and have a plan not just um let it sit there empty and and not have any intention of fixing it and just kind of gaming the system if you will cuz there is a a situation we are concerned about at the moment does the County's ordinance have any such restrictions I don't think so and in general they don't we were proposing to do that by conditions on the development permit we would issue um but that um was something that that was discussed be between the time we put this out and here so if there is anything that feels strongly about editing that I think you need to put some qualifications on it definitely the one I would think of is there's nothing as worded here is there anything that says that the user of the temporary quarters has to be the owner or occupant tenant

whatever of the property I mean otherwise could you that's another one too that was my concern um was that what if you storm damage we've had some people that were flooded out and the real situation this week they've moved to camper in well that's been six months um is that the same people that Liv there or is that just new people you were putting in a camper so I think that that is a very valid question and that the intent is clearly for it to be replacement housing for the people that were damaged not for another set of people so I think that that although I guess that's a kind of a political decision for the council I mean that I guess the question is if it was a rental property do you have the right to rent RV out to somebody you could not do that elsewhere and I don't think that's the point of the provision the provision is provide emergency housing for those people so I think that's a very valid concern it's not it's not legal to really have them be residential units anyways that's not what they're built to they're not built to a residential building code they're built to a a recreational vehicle code it is for an emergency use only it is not any kind of well just temporary because we haven't built our house yet you know you will never get rid of these people if you let them in you have got to really speaking from experience you have got to really be specific about why you're allowing it in the first place and what the conditions of that use is including time limits nobody wants to inconvenience people who are going through hell already but we don't want Cousin Eddie either yeah

yeah should I mean so is there some do they have to apply to like get their vehicle like what triggers their allowance of this to be it would be a development permit that we give them so if we find that they're currently if someone reports an RV on a property to us that appears somebody's living in Code Enforcement goes and checks it out and if they are just randomers from California plugging in to the neighbors um as we have had um they are asked to move along that this is not allowed um in the most recent case um we found out that those are the people that Were Somehow storm damaged um for the people along Creekside Drive they called us and said we have that um there um technically this does not cover FEMA trailers but the provisions of the Ordinance do allow me as director to choose the use closest to the use noted in there and we have deemed those as being this four cases of extreme emergency and I hope that we do not have enough emergencies in our city that we should need to make a particular provision for FEMA trailers I would not recommend that so we're going to continue to process that but they come to us or they are noted To Us by by complaints so you don't have to define extreme emergency that's a that that's an ambiguous term that that the city is going to to rule on it is um law I prior to the storm I would have said a case of extreme emergency would have been fired okay yeah because most houses are not supposed to be built in the flood zone so I am hesitant to try to Define every emergency that we had do we need to put tornado do we need to put tree falling on your house bad wind you couldn't say as as defined by a state of emergency by the city I mean is that way we don't issue

states of emergency okay um well that for one person's house situation yeah what if it's just a fire out that destroyed that house right yeah and then we wouldn't have that so we did have one over off of St Mary's Bost Road and hearn's house that um you know had he wanted to live in a trailer there it's just a singular house what about to apply for a permit or is that to apply to have in other words my house burned down need to prove to us what the extreme emergency is but I think we could look at it and go hey okay you guys are comfortable with that okay um I mean that's that's up to you guys I I think we're probably capable of making that decision but if you it's Common Sense prevails we don't want to enumerate it more nervous about enumerating it and leaving something out than I am about defining it but I think it it is a great question I'm going to just put some language in here for you guys to review about the things we've been discussing and then we can Wordsmith it I raised the issue about a Mobile Medical unit you got an elderly parent that cannot be institutionalized but has to have extra care those type of units are available and could be located on a person's property so that they could be watched and I think that's one of those unusual extreme emergencies that is different to this now it does still say 18 months I don't think that we should necessarily allow those permanently if they were permanent then they would go under that accessory dwelling unit category y of that and we different rules already and we already have established rules for accessory dwelling units for those but a lot of times these medical needs or popup deals to where I'd classify some of those being an emergency right that's what I'm saying I think that that's that's a perfect example of what um we were talking about

with Lou that if we enumerate every situation maybe a medical emergency is a valid emergency as well that we wouldn't do we need to list anything but this only deals with what I'd call wheeled vehicles right I mean if it was a prefab unit it's not covered under this ordinance it's not and that's where I was saying that I that would be the next closest use so let me bring up for you guys here the definition of recreational vehicles so you do know what we are talking about um there was a question about I guess defining what is Avail what you can have and um I was looking the county has done that in their ordinance and I'm not sure what the final wording was but they include um a temporary dwelling can take the form of an RV camper FEMA provided unit primitive sleeping accommodations like a tin insulated shed Etc which are not electrified so they they allow all of that I don't want to go that far to allow people sleeping in tents on our property that's probably the again the difference of SE right being not I me I was just trying to answer but yes a question I I'll show you items in the zoning ordinance that might help you so the definition of recreational vehicle is a vehicle type accommodation other than a manufactured home so not what you typically think of as a single wide trailer M designed as temporary accommodations for travel vacation or recreational purposes which is propelled by its own motive power though that sums that word might be wrong Moe of power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle so okay so a camper is okay yeah camper a camper without being a drivable vehicle is okay

okay the other provision I'll leave that up is under bear with me as I find this I believe it is in here um the listings of permitted uses in various districts in this ordinance are considered to be specific in regard to the types of uses intended for each of the various districts in determining the proposed uses zoning administrator shall classify the form and function of the use when a proposed use is not specifically listed in the permitted uses table the administrator shall determine if the use is the same as or manifestly similar to a listed use in its form and function if the administrator finds that the proposed use is the same as or manifestly similar to a listed use he shall classify the proposed use as that listed use if the administrator finds proposed use is not the same as or not manifestly similar to a listed use he shall classify that proposed use is not permitted so under that provision is where I was saying that I would without going so far as to list the FEMA trailer I think we could say that's manifestly similar to it's clearly only there for because you had an extreme emergency of that piece but a ENT would not be manifestly similar to this property or this use that is there um that the intent is that you have this temporary vehicle we have done that for other uses I'll give you two really good examples we have Mobile Food Truck ordinances um where you have a restaurant that moves around on Wheels and locates at different places in the city we had a request from um individuals that had offices at at bur County Health Department to have a mobile office that they sorry was that Health yeah Health Department actually they were in one North square and they wanted to move

their office occasionally to the health department premises and we approved a mobile office that they moved on and off every day just like you did a food truck and stuff occasionally to be there you have the breast cancer screening bus we allow it to operate like a mobile food truck and go around and park in parking lots and Walmart and all of that and do their thing without having to say breast screening bus is a use in my table because it's manifestly similar to these uses um if you trust us to make that um this definition under that to determine that something that is being used for these emergency and not for convenience purposes um for recreational vehicles but I would say that by and large 99% probably 99.9% of all of our issues with this are RV of some sort that people have P or campers that people have pulled onto their property um and letting your son live there or again they've got family coming in and they're staying for the entire summer season or something of that sort need to go public um let me just let me show you a couple of things I've been I'm adding to this so these are some suggestions of things that you guys have talked about we can edit them we can add to them we can delete them at your

preference so that the tenants of the recreational vehicle shall be the tenants that were subject to the extreme emergency they not other people coming in to be rented to well I think that just my suggestion on that that should be the occupants okay or residence whatever you want to say of the vehicle um shall be the well that's I don't know I'm going to defer to the City attorney to try to figure my point is it it shouldn't just be limited to tenants because of course this could be the owners yeah occupants is the better word I was just thinkings or maybe you just to say only the the S what you just say persons only the only persons who occupied the relevant premises shall occupy the vehicle I I don't know something like that was my point what happens if you have somebody that's a relative that had an issue I mean and we're getting nitpicking now but that had an issue with their house and they have to come live with so and so and in the RV now you're they need to get the permit for their property y um yeah they need to go to that what if they don't have an RV that's not our sorry I not our problem okay we're not providing RVs for that this is a I see this as a nice to have right and helping out people who are able to secure such if it is Extreme emergencies I do think there are enough Community organizations and things that could assist people with that but what we're trying to say is if you already own this and it's sitting somewhere else you can come cuz what we have found is the owners on Creek Side they're in there everyday fixing their house so they want to be located close by um they're not having to rent another

property to put this on on top of all of those pieces um whereas unfortunately it may be that they you know maybe two of you have look I'm not going to go out and get a certificate every night of who's staying there and wake you up at 300 in the morning and see who's sleeping over um but if every time we drive over there during the day there's six different cars park there or the people that lived in that neighborhood beforehand said hey I've never seen these people here before these are not the tenants that were there um in the recent instance that we've had um the complaintant said hey yeah I recognize these people they were living in that house um but there are some issues with um you know once they figured out hey this is what's happening with those issues so um in case of extreme emergency which affects the I mean it says it's used for temporary living quarters so that that's up to you guys yeah that's I guess the only thing I'll I'll know for a was that we said this might extend to things Beyond a damaged dwelling that it could be like a you know to your point a a medical emergency where the dwelling is fine so it's just a temporary addition is that to narrow then for that a point yeah I think you just deal with that by saying that the persons who occupied the you're saying you couldn't move mother-in-law over to that so then you're just talking about either the owner of the property for somebody who's a lawful tenant of the property yeah but it needs to again be the same tenant they the point is that they're not just renting out an RV to somebody I think that most of these situations that

we're talking about can be dealt with as special situations um in that instance that we talked about the medical tenant like I'm I'm presuming the question is Mom didn't live with me now she needs to live with me but she needs this special feature I think we consider mom has moved in with you so she now is an occupant occupant of the dwelling of that dwelling but needs special care that needs to be in that um remember these rules aren't written for the 0.1% they're written for the majority of it and sometimes we do have to make interpretations but we do have an appeal process if someone feels that um we did not make an appropriate administrative decision obviously we'd have multiple discussions with them about how to rectify that before we went to an appeal process which does require pre-application consultation mediation anyway um something that had been suggested by our building inspection department um and that is occurring on Creek Side is that the recre ational vehicle is connected to electricity and portable water they're at um the houses that were damaged so you're able to fix that so again you're not just pulling a camper somewhere else you've got to connect it in so that these people in the camper have reasonable Services you're not making them bring jugs of water in and again if they got to wait a week for Bob the electrician to get out there and fix the electricity so that they can connect it to that because they've had a fire that is something we can manage internally by putting a condition on a development permit that within 2 weeks it needs to be connected to electrical power okay so where is obviously harder but we could put a provision that the recreational vehicle shall be connected to power and portable water and must have a system for collection of

human waste waste yeah um because I don't want somebody using them my bucket well that's what I was I was thinking if someone had a camp for without a restom they would probably try to put a Porton or something there on the side as well just just don't be cousin ity do what don't be cousin ity it could be you know I mean that would not be uncommon though like if you had a long-term construction project have a Portage on something on the property well I guess that's a question do you want a porter so you're in a nice neighborhood mhm somebody and your neighbors are not nice neighbor let's let's SK it this way you're in a nice neighborhood your neighbors are not the nice neighbors that that don't upkeep their house are they the ones you want to have a Portage on outside or do you want them to have an internal system for collection of waste but that's not an emergency situation you're moving outside of the emergency no I'm saying that in that RV you need to have some sort of toilet inside your RV not to put a Portage on outside but you're also allowing a camper you're required to have a Portage on at the construction site anyway and again the construction site is not what we're were talking about if it's there for construction oh you're saying it it's a sign I guess the the question is whether or not it's there because the house is under construction you're required to have it so you're going to have one sitting there anywhere yeah that's what's my I see what you're saying but if you're the person fixing your house are you required to have that um if the ones inside AR function yes you are for permitted unless they're opening it to the public yeah unless they're let there I mean you have to when you get a permit you have to either

have a p a port on on site or you have to have access everybody I guess what I'm saying is we're trying to do a nice thing for these people here and and say you can have an RV there in my personal planning opinion if I was a person living next door and them sitting there for 18 months with a Portage on outside their RV that that's not suitable for the people in the RV to get up work on their house while the same time so they're going to have the port of John there yeah during that construction period anyway I agree I mean even if they got their own permits they they're going to have to have Portage on what if they're not working on the house and they're waiting for 12 months to find out about a FEA buyout um I personally I think that if you are pulling an RV onto your site to live there for emergency purposes you need to have a toilet in that RV that you can go to in the middle of the night because you're staying there overnight you're not working on the house during the day oh I agree so I think that they the persons occupying that RV need an internal toilet in the middle of the night oh I agree so that's what I'm I'm trying to say is that that needs to have an internal system for them you also have the word CER L but you can still have an internal toilet in there I mean we did when I was little it's a chemical toilet chemal you still got to but that you need to have that toilet because I guarantee you what's going to happen is that on some of these places they're just using your yard yeah God they're not walking across to wherever that toilet is as convenient to the other people I think it needs to be internal to them you would need to make that designation in the the or so T can you bring the um wording up and I'm going to try to make this bigger so you guys can you guys see it on your screen it's more difficult out there do you make that bigger that's fine okay how's that so if it's used as

a residence it must have internal pluming yes so we've said only persons who occupied the damaged delling unit shall occupy the recreational vehicle Rec that point about damaged is is probably correct who occupied wouldn't it the principal dwelling unit well what if it was a well I mean God we get extreme here if somebody's Apartments get develop damaged can they pull multiple recreational vehicles onto the site I think we're opening more worms than probably need to okay I just use dwelling unit CU that was that's the original dwelling unit you use that term later okay this wouldn't apply at all if it was a vacant lot right we're not going to let anybody Park yeah so this is only if there was a dwelling on the WW correct so call it the original that's fine the recreational vehicle shall be connected to power and portable water and shall have an internal system for collection of human waste if you got a better way of saying human waste about for no but what about the removal of human waste how do you you just assume they're going to do it I mean again with splitting hairs but cover all the bases right I was putting too many hairs yeah because there could be like I mean maybe it's a pump about maybe it's like a bucket collection and removal there you go there you go you can do that yeah actually that's I mean you know don't dump it in the yard I mean you know well which is properly disposed of it really all goes as I understand how they work the restroom and the gray water if there's a sink or something that all goes into one receptacle that you either go to a dumping station to empty or you have to have it pumped out

right right and not to mention if it's their property they probably don't want to do that anyway yeah that's a good point too okay you guys are bringing up items recreational vehic I've added one but I might move it down to the bottom Okay so we've we've done the waste shall have an internal system for collection of human waste which shall be properly disposed of correct not the system fine that's fine mhm because otherwise it's the system that she be properly disposed of the recreational vehicle shall remain in good repair and and at all times be capable of being removed from the site under motor vehicle power basically what we're saying is if it's sitting there for 18 months and you've got it up on blocks and all that you do need to be able to take it to empty this um and you need to be to move it off the site you can't let it sit there and fall apart just like any other house because I don't have minimum housing rules for an RV um and good repair is used elsewhere in the ordinance that gives us ability to determine such um measurable progress must be made towards fixing happy to words me that the original dwelling to an inhabitable State repairing returning returning returning the original dwelling to an inhabitable state to an inhabitable State thank you ke well that's one of those words that could mean um how about returning the original dwelling

to well because the next one is I was going to say to be able to achieve a certificate of occupancy qualifying State how about that a what qualifying can we put something in there that like the uh the planning director can make a case by case yes let's or something like that there there there's a situation that at my continuing ed class there was like three Builders they were part of this group they had been building sheds for these people that are left without a home well they had pictures of swanana NOA and these people were wiped out and they had dropped sheds off they' had done a bunch in yansy County but bunkham County zoning officers have told them they got to pick these things up and before the people were living in shed so they should be somebody I mean living in tents there should be somebody that makes that temporary call if that would happen here okay I'm just looking for some similar language that we have elsewhere yeah extreme emergencies um and just one quick thing the last part is um has to be removed within two weeks but what if they own it and it's been parked in their driveway the whole time for three years and now all of a sudden they need to use it to live in for a while maybe it's more like no longer be occupied yeah she not be occupied as BR that back up so so once the original dwelling receives a certificate of occupancy the recreational vehicle shall be removed from Service as emergency accommodation within 2 weeks yeah that

is I think that's reason we don't have to remove as Judy was saying that's not what I um the director shall be able to make determinations about the suitability reasonable deter looking at my attorney here Zing administrator it we use different pits and pieces because sometimes it says unless approved by the development and Design Services Department sometimes it says the director sometimes it says zoning administrator like here the development Design Services Department um I think we there may be places where it says director it it makes it hard because you do change titles over time sure um administr Z I think the director probably wants to do that one yeah I mean that that was kind of my thing is that this is a a specific topic and rather than it being a say an employee from the Cog that's been assigned to us for a day like we have had in the past um that's probably not a decision you want them making a call on when they've never been to morgington before that um in my opinion um so um this is the language I was could could you say something like Z administrative director shall shall interpret and apply this section reasonably in a manner to um carry out the compassionate purpose of section or something like that comply with the

intent I'll I'll defer to the Keith on the exact language yeah just in case we get an uncompassionate director at some point well you could have well what Rick was just saying you know you could have somebody who said oh strictly speaking this doesn't work here and I'm not going to allow it and and if the purpose of this is really to allow for a compassionate treatment of people who are really in an emergency and that ought to sort of be the overriding keeping in mind public health and things like that you know I'm glad we added that um but you could I don't know what if we use this language from the variant section and general statutes that says consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance such that Public Safety is secured in sub stal justice to all parties achieved I'm going to add that in because I like that um I am going sorry I did not write um want to reinvent the wheel I didn't write you could just say in interpreting and applying this ordinance the director shall okay um or the section I guess is what you're going say do I need to clarify that that substantial Justice also applies to your neighbors or I put to all parties at the end all parties is there okay so sorry Lou can you help what were you saying there I read that last sentence and tell me what you would like instead uh not sure what I uh I don't know if you

need that last this bit well I think that's what they were saying is that that gives the director the right to clarify these pieces well put aiod well that was the language from the other from section I I guess what I included the public safety to be able to make calls on those people did not live here MH and the way that you are dumping your waist or leaving it outside and now you've got everything in your H I mean I guess the things would still apply but you can't put your couch outside even if it was an RB and stuff to be able to utilize those I do like the substantial justice to all parties because it does take into account your neighbors very maybe seldomly would this be probably be applied to a whole street this is probably going to be mainly your house is burnt now maybe I'm being pnic but I'm a little concerned we say okay we're applying yeah I know we're applying this section can you bring that back up yeah we're applying this section the parking recreational vehicles consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance the ordinance is the zoning ordinance AR are we making it do we mean it to be specifically this section I think it means the entire ordinance that in my mind I would say this is supposed to be a residential neighborhood and there are things that we're expecting in a residential neighborhood and this is not one of those things we're expecting in a residential neighborhood I withdraw my question I think you're absolutely right okay but I did change it to this ordinance from the ordinance yeah okay any any other comments about

this one save this before I lose it yes well up not going to make this we got one more okay um okay so wall sign um a wall sign is actually also a hanging sign and um we did recently do an audit for different purposes and most of our signs downtown do not meet the 8ot clearance and every other clearance that is required by do or Ada or anything is 7 feet and we mainly wanted to change it to 7 feet so that we only had to remember one number instead of this one thing is different and then it it doesn't make all the ones downtown non-conforming yeah and I don't have a zealous person that makes complaints and then I have to make m misch ra their sign a foot if that's okay yeah so that's it's just about the sign Edge not like the canopy it's just about if you have a sign hanging beneath your canopy that's still good for most even the tallest person to walk under it without hitting it um and again if you had other Ada like your Ada sign is supposed to be at 7t the bottom of it is 7t so somebody can walk underneath it um so we just wanted to make it consistent so we didn't have to go which one of them was the different number every time that we do every week consist um that's all thank you very much for all of your contributions to the other one I think that that is um helpful and is likely more enforceable than um uh just putting conditions on so do we need to vote on that one to

I think you need to vote on all like separately or uh I think because we made edits to did we make edits to another one I think we removed this one we added the approximately and and we're going to add an illustration in there I think that you could accept them all at once if everybody is okay with that unless someone wanted to pull one out makes sense okay would someone like to um make a motion for this I'll make motion wonderful that we accept as edited great amended is that I'll second great we have a second do we require any further discussion or other questions do you want me to read this last paragraph is that um I think we'll just um X Amendment noted in the report above and as edited in the meeting yeah which one did Will you remove the one about fences and walls so 449 okay and it it kind of goes on a bit because we include so everything between 449 and 469 away this whole page a minute and should you wish to talk about what we were trying to achieve I can discuss that any other further questions or concerns okay seeing none we shall vote all in favor any opposed seeing none the motion passes excellent um that concludes our new business three items for today are there any other items of discussion we need to

cover seeing none I will just share that our next planning and voting meeting is on Thursday April 10th 5:15 here in the city hall of council chambers next city council is right before that April 7th at 6:00 p.m. in this in this Chambers and it does look like we will have an item for that April pnz meeting excellent okay if that's it then we will adjourn thank you all