Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you all right let's go ahead and call to order the planning committee meeting Monday March 3 um next item on the agenda is approval of a minutes from the February 3rd meeting do I have a motion move for approval Madam chair second you have a motion in a second is there any discussion all those in favor hi motion carries moving on to item three public comment if you are here for public comment you have two minutes and 30 seconds please state your name and address for the record I will get a timer going my name is Stephen on December 2 Town Council convened a meeting special special meetings are held for matters urgent concern that particular meeting heard amend plan Development Council voted to approve it and at the end of that meeting scheduled a public hearing which was sent to the Planning Commission the next night according to our rules and our zoning code before you act on any Amendment or any ordinance it goes to the Planning Commission first for a public hearing a retroactive public hearing really doesn't serve any great purpose at that excuse me at that particular hearing the town administrat spoke and informed them the council had already approved what they were considering which probably told them what their thoughts were worth it was a rubber stamp that was being sought and I don't know that anyone really gave it any thought but it is very clear in our zoning code before any matter is undertaken or approved by this Council it has to First be heard by the Planning Commission and I hope you'll

take that to heart because the the the option on the other side is because this is sort of disdain for public I don't think that's a message you want to send the other item I want to bring up is your tax increase slip through at a special meeting much of this happened at special meetings and that particular issue I've read the statute on it and I was taken by one thing out of it that wasn't disclosed at any at any point that I could see and it was that you had the option of having a referendum to impose rather than to impose that tax and you chose the least Democratic way to do it and that's surprising and disappointing my last thought is this you had 17 special meetings last year then the calendar year during the the course of the year that's a lot of special meetings when need special meetings in your Rules of Order that's Robert's Rules says they are only for matters of urgency between regular meetings they're being used as a vehicle to do public business at a time when the fewest people can attend working people can't make an 11:00 a.m. council meeting and that's what this particular December 2nd meeting was I hope you'll take some of this and you stick it in the back of your head and think when you talk about transparency what that word actually means it means visible easily visible without having to work at it you have to work at it thank you so much thank you thank you do is there anyone else here for public comment all right public comment is now closed moving on to item four continue discussion recommendations on an ordinance for providing for the adoption of the Patriots Annex plan development District ordinates I can uh provide as much or as little information as you want you all have seen this uh it did receive first reading at last month's Town council meeting at that meeting it was recommended that it come back to this

body for further discussion on those conditions um so I'm just going to kind of go straight to what the Planning Commission recommendations were and then what the planning committee recommendations were and um I'm happy to answer questions and I know the um the applicant is here as well so I think maybe show it show us where we are as far as where we left it at the council meeting like there were because there was a lot of discussion back and forth at the council meeting what because because we haven't made any amendments right there's no amendments on first reading so what would the what would the list of amendments be on second reading is I guess what uh well I mean that would be up to Town Council but so far what's been discussed is lowering the height to 35 fet from the current approved 55 um 50 or 55 um for that front center parcel between the water and the grand lawn um lowering the number of required uh trees per inches from 160 to 120 no flat roofs uh 14% open space as opposed to the required t right now and the number of residential units restricted to uh 80 units for the entire development which is about two units per acre um but if I recall correctly there was some discussion from the developer that they had they had different requests is that correct do you have a list of what those requests are from the developer uh I don't have a list uh they talked about the they were amendable to the tree requirements I think they were amendable to the 35 ft height I'm not sure if they were amendable to the the open space requirement I think I density 12% is what they wanted I believe 12% and and they're here to to clarify anything and I I'm not sure they are amenable to the two units per acre um but I'm not sure that they provide I think eight they

were not they they wanted eight units is what I recall yeah so so if just you mind if I summarize them where we are so based on the feedback from the developer we're at 12% open space M8 units per acre 120 in trees and 35t for the one parcel correct in by near Grand long and those would be the those would be the four am and then no flat roofs but um but there was there was it was kind of a caveat to that wasn't it Mr Rambo with like no flat roofs but there could be like a false right to allow for the rooftop for equipment to be on the rooftop which we allow that like a Gable false Gable thing okay so those are one two three four five potential amendments that we that kind of we came out of with the meeting and I I would like to remind this committee that the uh developers could also just stay with the current zoning of Waterfront Gateway which puts them at 12 units per acre per housing 10% open space 160 units trees and then the height map that was that was there so okay set and the setb Mr Chapman um I presume we have um items motions on the floor is that what you're saying we do not have any motions on the floor um in terms of the 35 ft I brought up the issue of uh HVAC units on the top how does that work in terms of allowing above the 35 ft for the HVAC units that's that's a great question so if for non-habitable space it may

project further than the maximum height speak up please yes sir so for non-habitable space it may project beyond the 35t max but that is that is not for uh elevators that can be habitable any kind of conditioned space that is not to be meant for or to interpret it as habitable space and how do you um not protect but how do you uh cover that height from visibility so that would be a design review board perview item and screening would be required especially looking at the vantage point I mean if you're on the street level it's not going to be very obvious but if you're in the harbor it could be and that would be studied to screen any elements that protrude above the maximum height actually all elements about false roof or something like that that's that's the way that design review board has typically handled any kind of equipment anything like that it it is the false cable has been a very helpful mechanism to speak sir speak up the uh the false Gable has been a a very helpful mechan FAL Gable you could put some protection by raising the roof a little bit with a false Gable to allow for the hbac yes sir okay thank you m you have anything I think uh for me when it comes to the trees I think I asked about this before and they said it's in the code but how do we guarantee of shade trees and a very variation of types of trees rather than just going by

the size of the tree how can we put into the into the plan that they're going to be required to put shade trees um we already require that so we our our planting requirements are U mostly native species and a mixture and that'll be reviewed by our certified arborus but that's already a requirement that you have to have um canopy you have to have understory and you have to have different types and species so is it determined by percentage or or how do they determine how many shade trees versus how many palm trees that offer no shade at all how is that how could we cautify the requirement so there is there's a requirement for a certain amount of native species and you can't have a monoculture as well so no species can dominate the plant pallet so you can't have um 75% um Sable Palm and then 25% of of other species that you cannot exceed that 50% with with one species so it it would be a monoculture to to do so so okay so we don't have to be concerned with that okay Mr Rambo and just speaking kind of individually with some other council members um I think everybody's kind of uh it seems to me that there's a consensus that where everybody's amable to um the 12% I opposed to the 14% um I think the sticking point seems to be the eight units per acre residential um and if you'll remind me so their original submitt um where they did a impact assessment traffic study um that traffic study was based on a certain amount of res residential units I think it was 130 that's correct am I right um and so I guess my question

would be um instead of I think what we had said was 80 or was was our proposal is and they came back with eight units per acre however many that is I think it's 240 um so my question would be if we could compromise and just do in say 130 which is what they had originally um proposed in the impact assessment correct so that would be my thought would you like to make a motion um I don't know the mechanism of which to make I uh recommendation so do we want to make a motion that includes I guess all all encompassing of what we would recommend to Council of all of these Chang my suggestion is do the numbers we've talked about the residential based on the uh you know the impact statement yeah the um which would be the number of units the height with the ab ability to cover higher HVAC and okay I think we talk we're pretty good with what our planning uh department has said about the trees having to have a um a a grouping of trees not just one particular species so all right I will give it a shot go ahead all right so I'll make a motion to recommend to Town Council that we amend this on second reading to include a 12% open space requirement um a maximum of 130 residential units uh for the entire uh parcel um no flat roofs allowed with the exception of of false Gables um and

the number of trees per acre uh be reduced to 120 inch inches of trees per acre second oh and my apologies um and uh a maximum of 35 feet on that one uh parcel to labeled Patriots Fountain I I think he said with the exception of the false Gables that's ined in there yeah so I just oh yes yeah that was but he said that correct but supp be clear on that yeah yeah okay second I'll second the motion all right we have a motion and a second do we have any further discussion on this Miss H you mean on the whole subject on the on the motion on the motion on the motion um no I guess not on that motion but I had I did want to bring up something okay outside of that outside the motion okay we have a motion in a second no further discussion on the motion all those in favor I I motion carries Miss H you had more comments on that um I I do still have some I'm concerned about parking I know we haven't talked about that but um I was wondering if their plan was based on using this parking garage and the conservation easement that right now is not happening or anything like that I mean is there anything that will be concerned with with uh needing to rely on on that piece that's not no this has nothing to do with the patri they're going to meet all that parking requ on site that's correct okay um all right that was just question I had and um I won't elaborate on the residential so okay okay all right um I believe that takes us out of item four into item number five review of Planning Commission recommendations from chairman did we vote we did okay yeah yeah we did we made a recommendation yeah all right moving on to item five a um so um this is really it sounds

convoluted but it's not uh as we were going through the zoning code update we realized some things didn't really fit in the zoning code chapter 156 uh one of those was the vested rights section and the other was our Workforce housing exemption Grant which really has to do with a um reduction in your impact fees if you're doing attainable housing so this proposal is just to Rumer those two sections the vested rights would be moved to um chapter 151 and the workforce housing would be moved to chapter 15 4 which is where our impact fee ordinance sits and we really want to get this done because once May 1st comes around and our zoning code goes into effect these two sections are no longer in chapter 156 um so they need to be renumerated moved to other parts of our Municipal Code so that they're still in effect that's really all that is all right do we have a motion um I have a question sure um it says planning oh never mind looking at the second one it says with condition commission recommended approval yeah we have a second a second move a motion and a second on item a this text Amendment any further discussion all those in favor I I motion carries moving on to 5B this is a request commend to allow outdoor storage thank you madam chair for you we have requests to amend the central Mount Pleasant PD to allow for outdoor storage on a 11 acre tract you can see here that the 11 acres is within the county it currently has a zoning of R4 which equates to four units an

acre the um the orientation of this I need to kind of give you some context because it's a a nondescript site it has access on Vining but there's really no visibility from the street and you can see here it's triangulated between the Four Mile Community Midtown town homes and Laurel Lake subdivision and here we have the proposed master plan this the request before you for ultimately development of a 5 acre portion of an 11 Acre Site so with that you'd have outdoor storage for 223 spaces you can imagine boats RVs trailers the supporting amenities that come along with that be wash station uh dumpster and I I do want to be clear this is not storage units or structured storage this is open air outdoor storage and I think the existing site conditions are going to give us a little insight into why that exactly is this is the site with the three Associated utility Towers um all constructed within 10 years of each other so as you can imagine this presents a pretty large encumbrance on the property not only From The Towers themselves but the guy wires that that come off and you can faintly see those um coming off of the the towers these towers probably 7 800 feet The Two Towers three and two definitely are around 7 800 ft so a c certain amount of guy wires are required to protect it wanted to provide another Vantage Point uh for this you can see how the uh bird's eye view the conceptual

plan is kind of jogging around a lot of these uh guy wires and just there are a lot of horizontal and vertical clearance issues when it comes to to this site so specifically in speaking to the property owner we were talking about what is needed to actually protect utilities on this site and the lease holders that he he has and it really came out to three acres to provide security for for those towers and U provide you know the upholding that that lease agreement that he has that leaves 5 Acres of Development Area and it was interesting in talking with property owner he talked about it as an idle asset you know they they actually this company owns 177,000 Towers throughout the US and they're kind of looking at their sites in this perspective what do we need to protect our towers do we have idle assets on the site and in this case it would be uh five acres that they are looking to partner with harmonious users that could exist on the site and not cause a negative impact to their their uh lease holders so you can imagine that quickly Narrows down the list when you when you look at that criteria that quickly Narrows down the list of of what the uses could be on that site so with roughly three acres um you you have uh uh protecting that area and then five acres you have proposed use and a proposed layout that that definitely gives you a little bit more of a context of of the why for this application in addition uh because of this Development Area they're they're

proposing to install a storm water Pond as well they've written into their their PD ordinance to provide perious parking spaces and drive aisles so that will definitely help with the the storm water uh and the develop State staff did have one concern you can see that they are providing a 25ft buffer around the perimeter of the property the buffer that is closest to Vining Road that backs up to the three single family homes in lurel lakes that actually overlaps an overhead power easement so that would actually essentially create a a cleared 50ft space so this would be something that just needs to be stated on the record and you can kind of see here that that area staff is already coordinated with the applicant on this and they've come up with multiple Solutions possibly even undergrounding these lines these are just distribution lines that they could they could possibly underground or just relocate the access uh that would that would be another solution but they're already thinking through solutions to that as well as with the Planning Commission recommendation this was approved with conditions and the Afghan has also been in coordination on that condition and that condition specifically was to study a 10 to 12 foot wide natural pedestrian path around the property so we're discussing the the elements that would be required to to do that and U that was the the main condition that was brought forward by Planning Commission so that's all that staff has at the moment um glad to answer any questions you have any questions from the committee Mr Chapman um the parking allowed along venning

Road explain how that works without seeing that from Benning Road so we're looking at the master plan right now and let me see if I can get the laser pointer all right are you talking about this area okay sir so I'm sorry please uh ask your question again now that I understand the the context well the context is the visibility of that parking from Benning Road and I know there are houses in the area of Benning Road all along Benning Road how do we protect that view of those nice live oak trees all along vinning Road from seeing through to that parking everything else looks pretty good I'm I'm just concerned about what is that two maybe eight 16 spaces it that that's the only area I'm really concerned about yes sir so there is a 10- foot buffer that is being required along vinning Road I would imagine to meet that they're going to be preserving the existing trees but you're you're correct uh this will be more visible than it was previously right now just with a shape of lot you really don't know what's going on back there at all Where is the lake that is along Benning Road already that one so this is Laurel Lake um right back here and actually I'm I'm having trouble seeing

where you're let's go back yeah okay so you can see here it surrounds on two sides this is lurel Lake right and it belongs to the lurel lake subdivision here so it's further down Benning Road that is visible the lake is all right any other questions from about The Pedestrian walkway or access into an area where we've got wires keeping the P the uh antennas from falling and we're proposing an access around you that doesn't make sense to me to encourage pedestrians to walk into a hazardous area um to me that just makes no sense Mr Rambo um yeah I was going to ask the same kind of question it seems while I I understand the request like it it is kind of a pretty area back there with the lake and it would be cool to have a walking trail but um typically when we make those arrangements with PDS it's a long and existing already like walking path or something like that and it's it's like on a like it would be like a town easement kind of thing um I'm not sure how that would even work liability wise if they were to have like a just a residential walking trail that they had to maintain I don't know it certainly yeah and I've provided this exhibit wor some request sure sure and your your request are you know our concerns are are warranted this this guywire here um it comes down uh right

outside the property line if if you're walking and I mean it's it's at eye level if you're biking it it's at chest level I mean there are ways to meander around the guy wires but we're now kind of encountering the same you know trouble that the apkin is um because there's a lot of of things to dance around and and Jog around on the site the I believe Planning Commission uh definitely wanted to incorporate this because this is a part of the vinning trail project the green belt funds from the county are requiring a 10 to 12T path right here fronting on vinning road and the thought was that you could take this Half Mile Trail around and just kind of as a Excursion detour but there are certainly some some things to be worked out and maintenance and liability are are some of those issues for sure so they only recommended a study is that what it says just for it to be looked into I mean they could come back and say we don't find a way to do it that's not so I've copy and pasted the exact minutes here and I believe that was that was a request the study be done and you know certainly working with the applicant to talk to about what could be done but also you would have to you couldn't open up a public space and not park it so then now you're having to require parking and some of that parking would would definitely take up the the applicant space as well so oh my next question all the parking would be perious that's that's correct as currently proposed and so they still need a retention Pond even with the lake right there and perious I mean that's

still that's that's what's being proposed and the applicant is here to to talk about that um Thompson Hutton is is working on this so um they'd say more trees if that was green space but and water but um I I think that spending money on a study where the outcome is a foregone conclusion doesn't make any sense to me why spend money on a study that's going to come back and say there's a guywire at chess level someone's is going to clothline themselves riding the bike around the property and creating liability for the property owner exactly um I mean I guess like they're cutting they the one thing with this they were literally cutting down they're clear cutting trees on five or they're cutting down trees on five acres of property in order to do this it looks like a fairly wooded property is that yes ma'am let's see here so this is the tree removal service you can see the trees that are proposed to be removed with the red X indicated there's actually not as many trees as I thought it was it's a lot it's a lot I mean it's a lot but it's it's really more than half probably but creating an amenity and an opportunity for that area I don't know Mr Chapman um I I'm going to make a motion that we approve the request without The Pedestrian study and secondly that the buffer along venning road that they're saying the 10 ft be 50 ft which would I hope keep the trees there and eliminate that parking within 50 ft of Benning Road um and also look look at the

potential for some percentage of Landscaping on this parking site that's my motion all right we have a motion do we is there a second second we have a motion in a second we are in discussion is there any discussion okay can you repeat the second part of your motion please that we do that what that more planting that we have a percentage of trees remaining that was with in our budget within our ordinance that we not just clear-cut everything that there be some Landscaping of this parking area that it not be completely clearcut now the question I have is for these tree removals they have to either pay into the tree bank or replant is that correct so at minimum they have to meet the 160 in an acre which they will easily do based on the amount of historic trees they're preserving any trees that are historic beyond that correct they will still have to even if they meet the 160 inches an acre they'll have to pay into the tree Bank okay and then Mr Chapman my question the rest of the property has a 25 foot buffer why 50 along Bing why not just 25 because the rest of the area is not seen from a road anywhere it's in it's all interior it's already more than 50 ft and the area that's close closest to vening road is what I'm looking at um because if you're going to have boats with their all their equipment as well as the posts for sailboat that might I'm just trying to maintain the visibility along Ving road because that's that's a beautiful roadway with the with the um

Live Oaks unfortunately some of them have been butchered with tree cutting recently but it'll come back so that that's my my main reason okay Miss H did you have something to um [Music] yeah this PL they could have campers all sorts of huge things parked here it would help these neighbors yeah exactly of the you know on the corner there um how many historic trees are coming out I know some of these are probably okay to lose but are there any that they should be working around or that they I guess they're doing the best they can't I think we're looking at uh 20 plus but do keep in mind some of these are sweet gums um but I mean that would be classified as like historic 24 Ines larger than 24 inches correct so we're losing how many TW 20 plus oh wow okay well and the thing is we don't have to approve this like like on the one hand right you could just say just leave it as what it is right um so I think that Mr Chapman's request to increase the buffer is not an unreasonable one and that area and to request that there's the that the Landscaping be considered is also not an unreasonable request because it's like the option is either you get nothing right and you just leave it as un what did you call it un undeveloped land not oh idle asset idle asset right so it could remain an idle asset or we could permit it to become not an idle asset but then with some conditions that that preserve sort of a little more Greenery Mr Rambo do you have any further thoughts um no actually have one question so somebody could park in RV there but they cannot live in that that that's

correct we we would rely yeah yeah the covenants and restrictions to to govern that but that is also a zoning rule okay all right we have a motion on the table and a second any further discussion the recommendation is to approve with an increase of the buffer along Bing to 50 feet and a consideration of landscaping all right all those in favor I I motion carries moving on to item C pepper track plan development District ordinance Amendment thank you madam chair this is a request for three items in total the the PD amendment to Pepper trct a conceptual plan and an impact assessment you can see here this is the subject parcel it is 70 plus or minus acres and this is actually one that this committee reviewed in January of this year and you can see here since 2011 the light blue area has been designated for commercial and this is a part of the tupo subdivision there is institutional which has commercial qualities the darker green that is open space this is part of the plan development that's that's been intact since 2011 we'll be predominantly talking about that light blue area so just to to orient you so wanted to give you a project update of what has occurred since January uh show you the revised conceptual plan and then work through the proposed PD amendments so here is the site that this committee reviewed in January committee agreed with commission on the issue of

safety traffic just general nuisance largely because the indoor Flex Warehouse that was being proposed so it was ultimately recommended for deny denal I believe in the course of having that discussion that led to the denial the applicant stated I actually have an alternative plan would you like to review it and it was such a a substantial change that it required it would have required you know starting all over if if that is an option that the applicant want to take and so they have and they are um and now back at this point this is the revised conceptual plan that is currently being proposed taking the indoor Flex warehouse space and moving it a th000 ft away from residential you can see also there is direct access to Highway 17 it's not going to be isolated access because there will be interconnectivity to the rest of the commercial development but having direct access is something that was contemplated to to help ease any any use of tupo forest so I want to run through these because these are the the PD amendments and the other request ultimately the indoor Flex Warehouse Community designating six acres for RO commercial Planning Commission approved that with conditions uh stating that it must be located where it is shown on the revised master plan and that the height be limited to 35 ft Max in in this area you actually have a Max of 55 so limiting to 35 and that was really ultimately I think the design that the applicant was going for there was a provision for outdoor storage the applicant requested removal of that it

didn't really achieve the intent that uh they were hoping so that was removed the addition of Civic and institutional uses within real commercial that was approved with the removal of Hospital most of your uses in in this p are limited to 12,000 Square ft of course a hospital that had no square footage conditions on it so that was removed and is still allowed within the in institutional District but not the rural commercial the modification of the buffer standards the developer um was asked by Planning Commission to coordinate with staff on study for a potential wall of 10 to 12 feet in height the the applicant is actually requested at this Point um he would like to go back to what was originally approved back in 2018 with just an 8ot um I'm sorry a six foot BM with a 3-ft fence on top it's um 10 to 12 foot wall that that requires a good bit more structural um uh planning and and footing so that is uh remains a question mark um for yall to either move forward with or or repeal the conceptual plan and impact assessment those were both approved uh stating the you know above conditions as they are relevant so that's all that uh staff has on this with this updated plan uh welcome to glad to answer any questions you might have any questions from the committee Mr Chapman where on this site is the wall going to be in relation to that open space so we have lots 15 through 25 and I'll actually zoom out so you can have a a

better look at it let's see here so this is Lots 15 through 25 and that what was well what is currently proposed is 35t buffer with an 8ft wall so there would be a separation from those properties of 35 ft and then the wall yes sir okay and I'm sorry I'm trying to picture a six foot BM with a 3ft wall like a pile of dirt with a 3ot wall so a six foot BM with a 3ot fence on top of it that was adopted in 2018 and if if you'd like to get into the evolution of this this was this is the current request the 35t buffer with OT wall in 2015 to 2017 that area was cleared and a burm kind of made sense it was cleared to uh create this detention Pond for the future homes but now present day that vegetation has grown back and you can clearly see old growth versus New Growth but it has come back and the developer was proposing well look off reserve the vegetation and just provide an 8ft wall with the existing vegetation Planning Commission obviously went with the option of L preserve vegetation but the residents that came to to speak U wanted either a 12ft wall or to be held to the original 2018 burm with 3ft Pence on top of it wa but still in any case there would be a 35t buffer correct okay did you um okay so the burm and the three

feet that gets them 9 feet worth of coverage and then the other option is the 10 or 12 foot fence what's currently proposed in the application is the 8 foot wall eight okay so with the burm and the three they get an extra foot which is sure and height and which is environmentally the better way to do things dirt or a big concrete fence the yeah the amount of the amount of dirt that have to be brought in to create a six foot BM is yeah you would you would be clearing out that entire area Okay so the fence is better for the environment it's going to be thin and just they'll preserve whatever trees they and and Meander around protected trees you don't have the option to do that it's it's really non-selective when you start bringing in yards and yards of dirt it'll just be a wooden fence like privacy fence or does it have to be either it I mean the app is is open to he's been looking even at Acoustic um elements to place on this so you can't really attach that to Wood you could you know possibly concrete wall masonry wall any kind of that the the commission wanted to study okay what would a 10 to 12ft wall what would that take and how much more I mean how many more trees would be taken out based on that um just based on the you have to meet wind and seismic and you know the Footers that be required so they they did request and recommend a study on that which Mr R did you have I think the 8 foot masonry wall is very reasonable request anyone else have any comments on this um I the only other comment I have is um I remember this applicant coming in and I think he did exactly what we love applicants to do is that he realized that what he had proposed

needed some significant changes based on the feedback of the community and the board and everything and so and he's done that and so I feel I'm ready to move forward have we have we had a motion yet no we have not um I'll make a motion to approve all right we have a motion to recommend approval to approval have a second I'll second it but I would like to suggest to Mr Rambo that we specifi 35 ft buffer with the wall as opposed to the what came out of the commission meeting yes so um yes I'll amended that that is specified a 35 foot buffer with the 8 foot masonry wall SEC second okay we have a motion and a second we are in discussion rised we are in discussion is there any further discussion on this all in favor I motion carries moving on to item D thank you madam chair this is a request to Annex and rezone R1 for Lots off of pore's bluff you can see here that it's located across the street from St Peter's Church and across from Hamlin Plantation neighborhood these Lots currently are in the county they are zoned S3 conventional residential neighborhood was the future land use designation which is consistent with the current request and here is the plat that was approved in June of 2021 this does meet R1 standards and the R1 request is again consistent with the future land use so that is the request that is

before you and here is a image of the the current built outside three of these homes exist the one fronting Porsche BL does does not it's so have vacant lock so glad to answer any questions you'll have on this I'll move it we recommend to Town Council approval have a motion to approve second second Mr Chapman is that for the annexation and Zoning yes ma'am thank you we have a second is there any discussion we it no um we any discussion from no all in favor hi motion carries moving on to item six status report fiveyear are we back at comprehensive Plan update yeah yeah staff has been working on it for quite some time actually um this is a five-year update so every five years you have to do an update every 10 years you have to do a full new comprehensive plan so we are at the five year update staff has been working on it a lot of it had to do with demographics data and of course you know we adopted the new zoning code so for instance in the in the previous comp plan we talk about hubs in the zoning code they're they're called mixed use Development Centers so it's making all those things consistent that language so um we've had three meetings with the Planning Commission um and that's kind of where we're starting is Staff has made a lot of updates to the for the five years um presenting those in different sections to the Planning Commission we'll get their input and feedback and once that's incorporated into the draft update we'll start to take it out to the public and have a few meetings and then it'll it'll come to you all and then Town Council but October 23rd was an introduction and an over overview of um really everything's the same except for um recently it was

adopted that you have to do a resiliency element so instead of the nine typical ele Els population Economic Development all of those things there's now a resiliency element so that's that's probably the biggest change as far as adding in new information and we always kind of addressed resiliency um but now it's its own element and we're incorporating it into not just environmental but um economic resiliency and those sorts of things you know December 11th there was a meeting held um with the Planning Commission where we talked about the Community Vision the issues and the profile um this past month was primarily focused on Mobility um so we had our transportation department there we also talked about um uh M our partnership and the things that we're doing with Mount Pleasant water and they were present at that meeting too to answer any questions and so our at the next meeting in March for the Planning Commission we'll be talking about land use and Community design and uh character Community character um so we hope to kind of wrap up April May June as far as this draft with commission review and then start to have some public meetings but I'll continue to provide you with updates on how that's moving forward um but so far it's pretty straightforward you know with the update not a lot of things are changing as far as land use more cleanup than anything incorporating things that have been changed or rezoned incorporating that into our future land use so um but that's all I have all right thank you so much do we have any questions from the committee on this progress okay all right thank you so much that closes item six the last thing um is to adjourn if there's nothing for to come before our committee We Stand adjourn