Planning Commission - Special Meeting

We we'll call the uh the special planning commission meeting of November 2025 to order. Miss Lines, I think we have a full commission this evening, which is great. I'll call for approval of the of the agenda as it's been presented. I'll move to approve, sir. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? and just confirming with Mr. Stone or Michelle you uh that all general correspondents have been distributed. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

Um first before we move to the the real meeting agenda, I wanted to welcome Corey Barber who's a new member of the commission and look forward to working with you, sir, and learning from you. I just understand that he's a civil engineer by background and qualification. So, that's a good fit for what we do and look forward to to working with you. Um, this is the time for general public comment. We don't have a lot of folks uh in the audience tonight, but uh if anyone would care to speak um on any topic of a general nature, now would be the time to do that.

Good evening, Mike Tanky, 208 Bing Street. Thank you all so much for meeting and extraordinarily for this event. I think it's important that we work together with the county council and seek to mirror uh the ordinances and historic overlays that uh they're doing and uh your deliberations today will help determine that. I think it's important to honor the wishes of 51% of the people in that area that have been deliberating for over three years and are deliberating even next week on this very topic on the second reading. So, we're in sync. mortorium is in place until July, but we we're moving along expeditiously and thank you all for meeting. I'd also like to thank Corey Barber. I've watched him as he served on historic district preservation commission. He always did his homework. He always was well prepared uh thoughtful in his uh deliberations. So, we're delighted to have you on board and all have fun. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else for the general public comment period? The two items on our agenda tonight are a public hearing. So if you someone would like to speak on either one or both of those, you will have an opportunity to do so. Okay.

So this first text amendment before you uh is really kind of a fix to our zoning code. So I'm gonna fast forward before I get to the text. Back when we We completed our zoning code. It was adopted in January and it went into effect May 1st. Um, as we were going through the process of update the five-year update to the comprehensive plan, we realized that as you can see here, a lot of these properties, so this is our urban growth boundary down here. And we realized that a lot of the properties beyond the urban growth boundary were were recommended for settlement. but we didn't have a corresponding um text amendment to match it. So what we did during the final approval of the comp plan, town council made an amendment to and you can see this blue area. So instead of it being the orange settlement community as you see to the south of Highway 17 inside the urban growth boundary, they amended the future land use map to have those areas recommended for settlement communities outside of the urban growth boundary on the northern side to actually be designated in the future land use map as rural neighborhood. What we were missing from that was a corresponding text amendment in our zoning code. So, the zoning code when you come in and you request an initial annexation and zoning, um you you if you don't request a zoning, you're assigned a specific zoning based on what your future land use says. And what it said here was that rural residential neighborhoods shall be zoned as and and it went on to say what is appropriate for a settlement community, which would be a CC zoning. A

CC zoning is three units to an acre uh 12,500 square foot lots. It was not appropriate for the for the settlement community land use designation beyond the urban growth boundary. So if you can see we've now added shall be RC1 or RC2 as further specified in 156036. We've also added a caveat because we know that sometimes uh somebody will come in and request a zoning. So, say I I want to come in this area and I say I want to annex and I want to zone R1 and uh town council at final reading they approve my annexation but they deny my zoning. It goes back to that automatic. So, we just wanted to cover our all of our bases. Whether you request a specific zoning or the zoning you requested is denied. We want to make sure that outside of the urban growth bound boundary you have an appropriate zoning. And so based on this, so you would go to whether it's RC1 or R RC2 if you're designated for that blue shade, rural neighborhood. So when you go to that section, it lays out whether you're going to be RC1 or RC2. And that's designated based on your location and this map here. So you can see this map is associated with the RC1 RC2. You're either going to be RC1, which is one unit 10 and I don't know that we have any designated as that or you're going to be RC2 which we are starting to have a lot more of those which is one unit for three acres which we as we said is appropriate in this area. So this is the first text amendment before you tonight. Again the new text is in red and um there is no text here to be deleted at this time. And again this is really a fix to make sure that the app

zoning is assigned outside of the urban growth boundary um to match that future land use. So I'm happy to answer any questions with this. Michelle, if you would comment on this in context with with the county zoning code and their their requirements because in so many ways that's what motivated at least for me that's what motivated this special commission meeting to try to reconcile those.

So Let's go a slide just so you can see a lot of that area. Okay. A lot of the area beyond the urban growth boundary, the parts that we have below highway 17 that are CC are pretty comparable to the county's uh S3 special three management district. But We have designated those blue areas, the rural neighborhood. Much of that in the county is zoned rural residential um which is one unit for 3 acres, 30,000 square feet. Um that's again this slide is in the in for the next text amendment. But um right now our our rural residential and the county's rural residential are not comparable. um our rural resident our rural conservation is comparable to their rural residential. What they are considering and has not had final reading yet is making this rural residential instead of one unit for 3 acre it would be one unit for one acre. Um, again, that's part of the next text amendment, but but making changing the future land use to rural neighborhood in this area, uh, and making this text amendment that I just went over does make this more consistent with what the county currently has in that area and how they have parcels designated.

Okay, that's helpful to know because again, that that was my individually that was my motivation. this meeting because what we don't want to have as we there's been a pattern over the last what several months maybe even longer than that um where we've had applicants who are either motivated or motivated in one manner or another uh to pursue annexation denial or otherwise because of differences in in our code versus that of the county and I think to the extent that there's not a downside or a huge downside or other consequences. I think it's important for us to try to reconcile that with the county to remove those those motivations. So,

anybody else? Um I I have comments to what you just said, but it's actually the next text amendment that that really more refers to. So, I think the RC1 and two automatic designation for those that are annexed designated zone or denied a zone. That is a separate issue which well we've got Michelle. Any questions for her right now?

If not, we'll this is a public hearing and if there's anyone here this evening would like to speak on this particular issue and now would be the time to do it. Yes, sir. If if you would come to the come to the podium and state your name, address and you have two and a half minutes.

I'm a slow talker. I'm not sure I can make that. But Eric Dine live at 587 drive not pleasant. I just I was having trouble understanding where exactly that is. I can't see it very very well. But all the blue and the green and I'm part over track on Highway 41 just outside the city limits and I was just wondering how that would affect us if we were choose question.

Yes. So the staff could answer that in greater detail, but these tracks are uh along the northern reaches of of the town um around Highway 17 as one approaches. Okay. So really affect not to my knowledge, Michelle. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of the uh for this particular proposal agenda item.

So, can I move to approve the recommend recommended change for this text amendment?

I'll move as stated that we approve the recommended text amendment as just explained. Okay, motion has been made and seconded to approve the proposal as it's been presented. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item 5B, again, another zoning code text amendment.

So, this is an ordinance to um amend the density of the rural residential district. Um, and essentially what right now our rural residential district is a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet with a density of three units per one acre. It has been that way ever since. We didn't change any of this when we updated the zing code. This has been in the code for many years. Um, and I I think what prompted this really was right now, as I said earlier, in the county, their rural residential district is for three acres. They are considering and we'll have final reading on Thursday night changing their density of rural residential from 1 to 3 to one to one. Um they are considering it it is and that's part of the 10 mile uh historic overlay district that was mentioned earlier. So what the what we are proposing then and the three units per acre really is you can see um we don't have a one for one. So it starts with the RC1 which is a 10 acre lot. We have RC2 which is three acres and then it jumps to RO residential which is three units per one acre. So, this would not only provide us with a one unit per one acre uh for the ro residential, which we don't have that in our category, but it would also be closer to to what we anticipate the county is going to approve on Thursday night. So, we kind of meet in the middle with that and it would make it comparable to what uh what they end up adopting and it would make our density more appropriate in these areas that are rural residential. And so, really, this is a very basic text amendment of crossing out the three and

doing one unit for one acre in any property zone rural residential and I will say that we have very few of the urban growth boundary so this is appropriate happy to answer any questions I had a question real quick Michelle on that so um and my concern I guess would be and maybe you just answered it Is this is like the Hamlin area or areas off rifle range. Is there a lot of RR that we don't know about impacting folks?

There's not the only we have about five or seven parcels maybe zone Royal residential and they are all beyond that urban growth boundary. So there are none this side of Daryl Creek Road. They are outside of the urban growth boundary. has um has notification or anything gone out to any of those property owners though?

No, because we're not proposing to reszone anybody's property. We are ch we are proposing to change the density of an established zoning district. And so we I don't know with legal I'm not sure there was any requirement. We met all of our public requirements as far as a text amendment, but um reaching out to people individually who may happen to have this zoning that's not something That answers it. I I just, you know, for folks, I would just hate for somebody to come back and say, "Hey, I bought this land last year and I was told I could get three inch now."

Sure. You said there's only half dozen or so. Yeah. There's not very many. Yeah, there's not very many. I have a question. Um, if you go back to the map that shows the urban growth boundary and the properties outside of it, um, there's a portion of it that is part of the settlement community, you know, the extension of 10 mile and then there's a lot of other property that isn't settlement community.

So, is the is the county's um, you know, impetus to change it to one per acre based on the concerns about the settlement community because I could see I have a real problem conceptually with um going to one per acre on all of that area all of that blue area um only because it's outside our growth boundary and I know we already have our R that's three per acre which made no sense to me in the first place but um I feel like it could add a lot of density whereas if we have one per three acres it's more consistent I think with the future land use in the comp plan for those for the areas outside of the urban growth boundary. Um but but I I could see making an exception for any areas in our code that are or that are in the comp plan designated as a settlement community if that's the concern. You know, in other words, if they really want one per acre, I don't know if they do.

I I I think I understand your concern, but I I wonder if it's not uh addressed by this first text amendment. So, all that blue is recommended is on the future land use is rural neighborhood. Um, if you're designated in the comp plan for rural neighborhood, you're going to be zoned RC, RC1 or RC2 for this first text amendment. Okay. So, it's only if someone requests RR,

correct? They have to specifically request RR and town council has to approve it. There will not be an automatic designation of RR. It it will be RC1 or RC2. Correct. Okay. And so they they could so if we had a designation um like an I guess would we even need an RR1 and an RR2 because RR2 would be consistent with RC2 is what you're saying. Like in other words, if we had a one for one and the one for three, the one for one doesn't exist now. So somebody could ask for that designation.

They could c And there wouldn't be any reason to have an RR2, which is one for three acres, because that's RC2. In other words, they get that anyway. This is redundant. It's if we were to come up with an R R1 and an RR2, we need R2 would be the same as RC2. Correct. Okay. Yeah, I get it. So, you can see here um how sort of the evolution of how it would work. And and again, if you're if you're outside of the urban growth boundary that all that blue shade, you're not going to be Right. Okay. So, the the issue I have now is just that because of the timing, we don't have the final reading yet for the county. That's in a couple of days or so, I think.

Right. Um staff's concern, too. Yeah. I mean, I hesitate. I I definitely think we need to change what we have because three three dwelling units per acre is not appropriate outside the urban growth boundary in my estimation. But I would be more likely to keep it to one per three acres, which is what the county has had. Um, so I guess my feeling would be to recommend that we stick with that unless the county changes because we don't know if the county is going to do that yet, do we?

Uh, it's currently includes that amendment. So, it'll have to get it'll have to be amended at final reading to not approve the the one to one. Now, when you say stay the same, ours is 3 to one. I don't mean stay the same. I meant mirror the county I see. Okay. The same that the county has now in Right. Okay. Not keep our current. So the at first reading it they approved an amendment that would change their rural residential density um from 1 to 3 to 1. It received second reading the other night and it'll get third reading Thursday night. and they could amend it to remove that, but as of now it's approved with it.

And do you know if it was a contentious like was it a vote that was pretty well split or It was not split. There was only one or two uh council members that had concerns about the one to one. I see. Uh the rest of council really because that one density is coming from the 10 mile community. They want it. Well, that's what I was asking in the first place. Was this this what the settlement Absolutely they do. They one to three is not viable for them if they want to subdivide and and give property to you know their family.

And so the the amendment and the the desire to go onetoone is coming from the settlement community. And if you go I I went and watched the the reporting of the and that's what the council members who supported it. They said listen we we're here to listen to the settlement community the 10 mile community. this is what they want. We don't want to go we don't want to go against their wishes. Uh but there was a couple of council members that had concerns about the increase in the density.

Yeah, that's why when I started my comment, I was thinking, is there a way that we can go to one dwelling unit per acre for area designated in our map as settlement community outside the urban growth boundary because there is that area of 10 mile that is outside but not for the other because I do worry, you know, council changes over time and I just worry about having any of these other areas asking to annex at one per acre and that could significantly change the density outside the urban growth boundary and going up towards so I'm very sympathetic to the 10 mile community's concern. I don't want to overcompensate and end up giving that as a possible and I It has to be voted on by council. It has to be requested and voted on. But, you know, we get sometimes to where we are because council, you know, says yes to things like this. And I I'm just not sure that I feel comfortable.

So, so procedurally, we ought to talk about what our options would be. So, I understand the concern. I have the same. Um, I think we could bring this back up next our next meeting. Is that true? We could we could So, we can wait. We can wait for the county council's final vote after the third reading. And to the extent that their decision making is consistent with what they have sort of projected thus far, we would just make make a final decision ourselves. Uh that absolutely the next [clears throat] uh regular meeting 10th which is within the 30 days. So yeah, you can certainly do that.

The concern I have is that if they go with one dwelling unit per acre, they're doing it all over. They're not specifically saying just for that settlement community area, right? Anything. So someone as long as it's in the county, right? And a lot of these properties and so right Liz is saying she thinks it's just the 10 mile area. I and that's something we clarify at their meeting, right? Because if it is, then we could amend our motion to recommend to limit that one for one to the because it would still be consistent. I because if they went more broadly to one for one,

I wouldn't necessarily want to follow what they you know, let them let somebody argue that, you know, they want something more than that. But I I would be happy to stay with the one for one on the settlement community, but not So these areas here, yeah, if you're if you're recommended for settlement community outside the urban growth boundary, right, you could be a one for one, correct? But if you're here and you're recommended for rural neighborhood, right, you would be what it says now, which is rural conservation, which is rural conservation two. Yeah.

Yeah. That's how I feel. I think it's a slippery slope if we do one for one more broadly. what they're trying to address the 10 10 miles concern back to the original point that creates a right I'm trying to think through what this text amendment looks like so it is so the text amendment would not if you're zoned rural residential you are one unit per acre if you are designated settlement community outside the urban growth boundary. This would be something somebody has to request. This is not going to be anything,

but that would give them the right to get that that one for one. In other words, if someone owns property in the 10 community outside the urban growth boundary and they want to annex into the town, this would be available to them as a zoning designation. Right. Well, it's available now. Well, at three well units per acre, right? But if you go to one for one, I'm Yeah, I'm having trouble. I think it's the same thing really because I think Michelle said that the only zonings we've got are properties that are outside the urban growth boundary. Now, we're talking about property that might that we don't have now.

Yeah. But if the county is mirroring that, I mean, we could defer mirroring it. 10 mile and not for other property that's in the county that might want to annex in and be denser. And honestly, my feeling about the count mirroring the county is my concern is for the 10 mile community, not for just always mirroring the county. They don't always do what we what's best for us. So, I want to do what's best for the 10 mile community, but I don't want to get more dense um availability for county properties that are looking for developers that wanted them to build more than our RC2 are not intended not intended

and that's not in the town a lot of these properties are not town properties so I've said is there a discrepancy between the settlement in and out of the urban growth boundary like if you're on the other side of that street is it drastically different

so Liz just had a good point when we amended the future at final reading. The motion was to change any settlement community outside the urban growth bound to this blue shade shape. So we're trying to figure out I guess that may be the only She circled it. I did. Oh, you can see the circle. Yeah, we can see it. We're unsure where that came from, but

it should be that everything based on the future land use map that was adopted, everything that's assigned settlement community outside the urban growth boundary was supposed to be changed to this blue shape. So, I I think we're just having trouble trying to figure out what this text amendment Can I ask a question about the urban birth boundary line? Yes.

And when that what year that was established and when that could be reestablished because to to Cory's point, the the way that things look and appear and feel when you're going up and down this corridor to one side or the highway or the other, I feel I feel were trying to beat sort of the finger here and I don't like that um as a matter of just how real estate can naturally be developed over time individually or by a larger group. I don't know. I just this line just seems

arbitrary. There is a reason why the urban grow is a line. That's what I just asked. said, "Why is it there and when when was it established and when could it be reestablished as growth continues on?" Because it should be and will be. So, I feel like there's I feel like we're probably being a little bit too granular in this. We We've been So, that line has not moved in over 20 years. I know. Um and it is kind of set in stone, if you will, intentionally. Um it was initially established the 98 99 comp plan. It got it slightly adjusted in 2003.

Um the difference there being basically 10 mile community. It initially was on the south side of the 10 mile community. There were reasons at that point in time that 10 mile I won't get into I don't I don't know motivations. So it changed at the at the five-year update. The county changed it. We followed suit. Um, and that's where it's been. Um, and the idea at the time, I mean, it was, you know, they, we looked at long-term growth, you know, projections and the fact you've got forest and you've got the wildlife refuge and, you know, you've got some real limits to what if you're looking at development along this section of the coast, you got some real limits. further north

and you don't want to go from hard one thing to hard nothing. And so there was an intent to soften it. Sure. And transition. Um and if you start moving the line, when do you stop moving the line? So, um, so you not trying to butt in too much, but, um,

my understanding of the county's deliberations, um, with 10 mile, basically, it's the north side of 17 and south side of 17, if you will, with north and south, you know, um, nothing's north south in this town. Um, but so anything on the southern side of 17 has been, as you were saying, I think considered more of a three to three to one. Make sure I get it right. Not one to three. Um is there let me just ask is there the 10 mile community is defined. It has a historic and it includes

so regardless what this map shows. Could we define it as designated as the 10m community historic dis overlay or whatever you know like in other words it may not be exactly this but whatever the 10 mile community is it is a defined area and that's kind of what I would be looking to protect

that's what we plan to do once they adopt we've been directed by council the moratorum in place but we are to follow the council's process what We will then look at and figure out how do we want to do it's going to be their historic overlay district but there are going to be parcels that are going to be annexed in the town and pulled out of that and how are we going so you're right we will eventually get there but We're waiting to see what the county does.

And I guess just to circle back to my original point, I have no problem recommending that we mirror that for the 10mi community, but not that we overextend it to any area beyond the urban growth boundary because there may be other county properties that have nothing to do with the 10 mile that want to annex in and want to go to RR and I would prefer that not be one per acre. I prefer that to be one for three acres because it is we want a a more rural transition out of the town, you know. So,

so if you I mean if you can make a motion and then we can of what that looks like in the text amendment and then we can move forward from there. Um because I I'm I want to make sure I understand. So I think I would move my Sorry, Mr. We're in the middle of the hearing. Oh, we need to have a public hearing. And then the other the other issue would be if we're keeping the public hearing open. I don't know. But we need to hold the public.

This is a public hearing. We have just a few people in the audience tonight, but if somebody would like to speak on this particular matter, item 5B, now would be the time to do that.

Yes, sir. Again, 587 drive. So, um, get a little bit confused with all the different RRS and one to three, three to one. Um, my concern is still with a property on Highway 41 just outside the town limits right now. If we were to annex in, my understanding that we would annex in is if we annex in residential, it would be three units per acre. But what I'm hearing This might affect that ability to to annex in at that density. Is that correct?

We're really not. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I understand your sensitivity.

You can't answer any of my questions. Or does this area that they're talking about affect that area? I know she said the other Our rules don't allow us to have conversations in the public hearing. That's why I would be about that. Is there anyone else to speak during the public hearing? David, if you would, could you advise on our ability to uh keep the public hearing open for some period or are we compelled to close it this evening? I've never understood this at least to not to my satisfaction

30 days, right? Yeah. I don't recommend keeping them open and the remainder. We could continue on with our discussion but not but not invite others to speak. And and why why do you recommend that we close the public hearing? Because I believe we have to revert. Oh, I see. So the inconvenience and expense of rever

Well, I I don't I'm not sure that you know that's my position. We do. We do because the next meeting Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. We have a 30-day window. So, it's within the 30 days. I don't know about the advertising. Right. So, we do have we we do have that time. So, it's in that window between we've got enough time for the 30 days, but also enough time to advertise. In this I guess just just for discussion purposes I'm not sure what is it an opportunity for people to come in and speak on the issue is that why you

I'd like to make a motion I know Pam you were starting one question I have a question before so this is kind of an offthe-wall question and it may not be appropriate to talk about it right now property. If the town ends up buying this Republic property, how will these new will these new new zoning laws have any effect? Because that's a huge piece of land and and have we thought about the possibility of what will happen if successful in buying this public property and how zoning may or may not affect that?

So, the areas we're talking about are outside the urban growth boundary. So, this is Daryl Creek Road, Highway 17, and Beehive. Um, So, anything off Highway 41 is going to be within the urban road. So, so to answer your question, no, these changes do not affect anything.

Okay. So, Adam and Pam have I'm sorry. Thank you. We're just talking here because there is a question as to if there's a motion to hear the motion, right?

I see. So, we may have to do that regardless is what I'm hearing. Okay. And that's and that's not a problem. There's there's enough time to do that, but we would need to hear the motion and how distinct it is from what is currently perfect. That that was part of my sensitivity. It wasn't just keeping it open for opening, keeping it open and safe. It was ensuring that we check the boxes for whatever it is we want to vote on. Yeah. David, do they need to make a determination on keeping the public hearing open before a motion is made? [laughter]

But while he's doing that, so Adam and Pam Pam, you were first at least. Okay. I mean, mine's more simple, but at this point, we've had public comments, there's board commission questions, um, and then applicant staff response, which in this case is more formality. And then the public And then there's deliberation and emotion. So if you want to keep it open, then [clears throat] that determination needs to be made now before any motions. Well, I have to leave that to the person making the motions, right? Because if you feel like it's within the bounds of what's

I haven't seen the advertisement, so maybe you should tell them how it was advertised. Well, it would have been it would have been advertised as No. I'm not saying it's a risk, but of course if the public hearing is kept open and we get to the next meeting, there's a motion that is made that is outside the boundaries of what has been advertised. We'll have to go through that process again. We're willing to do all this. I just want you to understand, right? And so can it can someone I I didn't read the advertisement, Peter. Does it read as it's stated here in the agenda or very close to it.

It's very close to that. But I'll say this, um it is centered on decreasing density above the urban growth boundary. But if you begin to talk about mirroring the overlay and having a joint overlay, that's not something that was contemplated at all. So we're getting into territory where we would just need to uh run another advertisement just to okay encapsulate all that. So I suppose we've got actually several options. One would be to keep the public hearing open um for that that purpose. One would be um to either um approve or deny um any motion that's more narrowly specific to what's stated here. Right.

And then if we wanted to That's right. Um and then we we would also have the benefit of waiting to confirm whatever it is that the county council uh adopts uh you said just in a few days. Right.

Yeah. They're supposed to have final reading on Thursday the 20th. So later this week. Um and like Peter said, the the ad talked about it was specific to the Royal Residential Zoning Districtwide. was a townwide district, although we only have a few parcels zone that outside the urban growth boundary and it was to decrease the density. So, if we want to and and I know that we do want to we want to look at what the county adopts and how how what are we going to do with that? I I'm concerned about having a plan together to mirror their plan for December 10th. this it took them three years to come up with. So, this makes this makes me a little nervous uh bringing back a plan to you to mirror the county's adopted plan that they adopt on Thursday.

What What did they move to like what was their motion that was approved that's going to third reading like because wouldn't that be what it is we would be doing or Well, that's it's it's a doing it as to the settlement. No, I'm sorry. I don't They're creating a new It's an entire architecture. It's everything. This is just a very small piece of it. It's an entire zoning overlay.

Okay. I see. But and the density is part of that overlay to to increase it one to one. Correct. That's just a very small piece. It's a it's a pretty long plan that took them three years to come up with. So, we want to, you know, be thoughtful.

They have a historic uh district designation. They are now looking to have third reading and adopt a zoning overlay to create standards for that historic district. Okay. So that with those parameters probably motion to determine the degree to which Oh, you show your cards first. [laughter]

Well, I I feel like what you're going to say is uh more acutely focused on one side of the road versus the other. So I'm interested to hear that. Well, I mean, I'm really not sure how to make a motion now given everyone's concerns, but is the public hearing or continue it? Can I just say what I might move if I were to move before we go to the I think that's the best way to discuss possible option. That's why that's why I'm

because I don't want to physically move, but I want to tell people what I was thinking. So, I would be inclined to to make a motion to um approve of this change in front of us for RR as it applies to um the 10 mile properties within the 10 mile historic overlay as as shown by the county or as designated by the county. So in other words, if there is something across the street that is part of the overlay, you know, part of the historic 10 mile overlay, then it would be part of what this would apply to. If it's not, if there's a property outside of that, then it wouldn't. It seems kind of simple to me, but I know everybody looks a little confused. So, [clears throat]

but a motion such as that require So, that would be essentially a joint town county overlay and that would require another you want an RR density of one to one in some areas but but one to three in others that's what you want correct and you're using the 10 mile as a boundary um can you were we still unsure of the shading I'm sorry. Were we still unsure of the shading of this map that we're looking at?

It's okay if we are. This is how it was. Um I don't I don't recall what to said. I think Adam was putting words, but I think you're asking, can we identify 10 mile community on map? Yeah. I also had a question somebody [clears throat] um she had described the boundary as beehive, but it's drawn here. I'm sorry, I meant Theodore. Okay.

Sorry. It's the edge of those properties of the north side. and 10 miles properties counties. However, outside of urban growth,

right? I mean, that's all we're talking about. Yes. So, we want to make that distinction. Okay. So,

property were being annexed in outside the urban growth foundry asking to go to R. 10 to three just like an RC,

right? And I'm not sure we need that. If we have an RC2, maybe RR would just apply to that. I don't think one way or the other is fine with me. I don't know. I don't I don't like being redundant, but if we had to be, I would be requesting to use the county overlay in our circumstance as And that would change the area, right? So, we would need to revertise that because it it doesn't

provide to Mr. Bennett's concern doesn't provide notice to people who very well could be affected by it. legally this may not be much of a concern but but I will share it is that if that overlay boundary changes that our zoning is not going to expand our zoning area is not going to expand and contract with that. So I just point that out for future reference that if they decide the county at some point whether three five 10 years decides to or expand that area. Our zoning rules will not match that. It would take further action by the town for that. So, I just say that as a matter of congruity.

So, I think what I just heard is that we're not even eligible to vote on Pam's motion as it was articulate or proposed motion would have to be republished. My immediate answer is because it changes the actual boundaries. advertised. That is a bright line concern for notice. Okay. Right. Makes sense to me. I just want to confirm. Okay. I mean, but without a motion, we can still report to council and we have one council member here as to what we're thinking. I mean, because they're going to meet, aren't they? Or are they going to meet before we do? Yeah. December. Our council. I'm worried about the county council. No, I know.

So, committees of council will meet. I believe it's Monday, December 1st. Um, yeah, that's it'll happen another month. Make the right decision for us for the town. But if there would not be a recommendation for December, that's correct. We don't need to keep it open if we're going to now that's that's for the proposed motion that you suggested. That's the hypothetical motion to change this meeting.

Hypothetical motion, right? Hypothetical motion and Adam may have a hypothetical motion. Are we still open? We're still open at this very moment. So you could tell us what you think. [clears throat] Okay. hypothetically we we should in my opinion I think we should defer to collect more information and that's that's what we do.

Okay. So then we could what we really would do is close the public hearing. This this is a straw man. We close the public hearing because this matter we're saying that we don't like the way that public hearing was advertised and defined and so we believe it's appropriate and best that we redefine that for a following following meeting. Right. So if that's the case then we will close the public hearing as defined by the way that 5B is presently articulated. Okay. Now unless there's a motion to be made where people would say hey let's just move forward with the way that

prove it as is. Prove it as is or some modest modification the way it is. You could recommend approval of a lower density. So right now it's three to one unit three units to one acre. You could say we want one to one. You could see we want one to two. We want one to three. All right. That would all be anything lower. Yeah. Anything lower. Well, I I will say that the the current 3 to one makes no sense, especially given the fact that the lot area is 20,000 square feet. So you physically can't have one parcel with three units on it because an acre is like 43,000 or so.

That's by design. That's the kind of point having the larger, right? It just isn't possible and um I mean I would ask other people's opinion. I wouldn't mind approving this, but I would like to go forward and to still narrow it. I mean so I don't know whether you know well we started this process trying to mirror what we think will happen in the future. So deferring to get the information in the future seems logical.

Yeah I agree. Okay. If that's the case then my inclination is to close the public hearing for 5B as as it presently defined or it has been defined since it was advertised. Is everybody okay with that? Okay. So, I'm hereby closing the public hearing for 5B. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, it sounds like we've got two or three persons that that have stated interest in um won't call it deferring, but redefining um this particular agenda item for a future date. And we'd like to have as additional information at a minimum whatever it is that county council ultimately votes upon. You can bring that back to us on the on the 10th of December.

Right. Is there other information that we we like for staff to collect? I I do want to understand the the map a little in more depth. You know, where exactly is 10 miles? I mean, we know it when we drive through it on the periphery, but we're not exactly where exactly it starts and stops. It is not always. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that.

And I feel comfortable not moving on this because if somebody were between now and next were to ask for this, they would be denied and it would go to RC. So I on that. So, uh, Mr. Pagarini, in terms of procedurally, we're I think choosing to to no vote. H, how do we process that?

Yes, sir. So, there's I think there's two ways. There can either be no recommendation. You provided instructions and we'll move on or the commission can could take a no vote or or a yes vote, a recommend. So, there's three options. Um, no, no recommendation, yes vote as to as it is currently stated or a no vote with the instructions that we will readvertise and bring back as requested.

I' I'd like to offer I I don't want us just to readvertise again and get it wrong. Um, I'm wondering if and I'll offer this up and let me know. So, December 1st committees I will take BA or 5A that you recommended approval for that fix. What I can do is uh present to committee 5B not whether or not there's a recommendation but the concerns and then we can I by then and then your December 10th meeting so I can fill the planning committee in on this discussion. at the December 10th meeting, we can come back to you all with an update on what the county adopted and then we can based on some committee input and what the county adopts, we can readvertise for January. Is that right?

Yeah. Okay. All right. I'm fine with that. I mean, that would be about as deliberate going about this as I can imagine. Do you agree? Yes. Okay. So I think what we're doing is we're taking a no vote without recommendations but instruction given to staff. But instruction given the staff. Okay.

Just just if there's no motions, it's no action with no action. No recommendation. Michelle will follow up as she indicated. Yeah. If there is a a motion to deny and then there is a denial, it would go with a recommendation of denial as is but with the instructions as as Michelle just said. And there is a third option. I just say it for there is a someone could vote to for approval. So we still achieve our objectives and that may be cleaner. So maybe what we We entertain a motion to deny but with recommendations for follow

deny as as as written or approve as written but want to get it better.

Well, I'm just saying I'm saying if somebody were to come now and ask for RR it's loan. So if we approve it then at least it would be going to them at one per acre knowing that we would be getting more information to make it more refined the way that we were suggesting that's the only rather than just denying it says we don't like this at all. Is there a problem? David, in terms of further refining it based on the information we're getting, they're going to be getting to us, but approving this for now.

You can do any of those, all three of the options that I mentioned that we discussed are are appropriate. Again, the council in any circumstance has the absolute right to say we're going to do what we feel is appropriate. I I will say I don't know that I've ever seen that happen. I think with y'all's requests, reasonable. Um I I I'm not sure. Well, I don't want to lean into whatever the appropriate vote is. Um All of them will get you where you want to go.

Yeah, that's that's my trying to think in terms of messaging is there. We can't want to come in and res. No, the moratorum is pro prohibiting the subdivision of land in the historic districts. Um any lots anything over four lots. Um so that that would be the only

Yeah. Yeah. It's But as David said, I you can you can make whatever recommendation you make, whether it's approval, defer, or denial. I can still at the committee meeting explain what our concerns and we can get further direction and we'll have the results that can come with an approval or I guess yeah I mean I guess I'll

that's that's the more conservative approach because it at least reduces Yeah, I would second that motion.

Yes. Yes.

So, so for discussion, I guess we're at So, but Miss Ireland, what you're asking for approve the motion as presented, but then you want to reenter uh the subject again in January post the county's uh decision final decision to even more keep it as is. back to us in December or J viable to um advise um the limitations or the parameters of the county council's overlay as to the boundaries that it affects so that we could further refine the zoning to address that area, the 10 mile That's really and again it may be that we decide not to do something at that point but we ask for more information in case it can be further refine.

So it would be a separate subject matter. Yeah. And then I'd like to further discuss it depending on what information come back. Can certainly do that. We can come back December 10th with additional what what came out of the county process and We'll know more by

I just want to ask question. If we if we approve this, are is anyone in the settlement uh designation going to be upset because now they can't develop it as dense? What we've been told is they would prefer the less [clears throat]

the 10 mile community overwhelmingly has asked for the one to one. The county has them now. I kind of say we're meeting in the middle. The county currently has them at one unit for three acres. We have them at three units per one acre. This text amendment gets us one to one and they're proposing to amend one to one. So we kind of meet in the middle, but it is coming from the 10 mile community, the one to one.

And right now the current draft that's had two readings includes that that density that would get us the same. My last questioning this does notffect anything now. Yeah. If somebody is currently zoned rural residential and they happen to have uh three units per one acre, which it doesn't exist. Um but if they did and we and town council approved this and they exceeded that density, they could remain as they are until they chose to make changes to their property and then they would have to come into compliance. Um, but we don't we don't have any properties out there that are developed under RR 3:1 made.

Okay, got it. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, carries 8 to one. All right, I think we are journed. Thank you. That was painful, but thank you. Thank you. You should