City Council - Regular Meeting

It's Going to have the sun today, aren't we? Love that copy of the original. Okay. Okay. I didn't think you would come to a workshop.

It'll be a Yeah. We'll call the meeting to order and ask the cler to call a role.

Mayor Baldwin here. Mayor Proim Thomas here. Councilman Collins. Councilman Coin here. Councilwoman McCumbi here. Councilman Skidmore here. Councilwoman Wilbur here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I need a motion to move into discussion regarding conservation, residential, and estate residential zoning districts. Motion. There's a motion, a second. All in favor say I. I. Okay. I guess staff's going to present something.

Yes, sir. Um, back in the fall of last year, we proposed two new zoning districts that we don't have in our ordinance now. one being the conservation residential and then one being the R1E or estate lot. And these would be two specialty districts that uh would respond to some of the zoning and uh residential development patterns that council has expressed a desire to accommodate in certain parts of the town. Uh it's important to note at this time these these districts would exist only in the zoning ordinance text itself. nobody's land is being proposed for reszoning at this time. So once you establish these districts and put them in the ordinance, then somebody can come to city council and request that the zoning district, either one of those be applied to their property. So it's not changing anyone's zoning at this time. So I just wanted to make sure that that was understood. Um, with that said, I'm going to turn it over to Suzanne to talk about the R1E, the estate lot district, and then I'll follow up with the conservation res residential, as Jim indicated, uh, you guys last saw this um, issue paper at your meeting in OC on October 20th and some of you are new so you didn't see it then but you probably participated in the discussion. Um so there are some neighborhoods in town where historically they were developed at a larger lot size than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum required for R1. So some of the discussion about the R1E comes from those areas. Some of the discussion comes from the Little Riverneck Road area where there are

constraints on the infrastructure. Um, and this staff kind of created this district to respond to council's desires and um to to talk about it. The uses for um R1E are the exact same as R1. single family homes excluding mobile homes, neighborhood and community parks without nightlighting, publicly owned recreation facilities, churches, places of worship, accessory uses, home occupations, and signs as permitted by article 3, but those are the exact same uses as allowed in R1. And then this table compares the development standards for R1E versus R1 as it's R1E as it's currently proposed. So the green, the churches and other permitted uses, those standards are the same as what's in the R1 district. And the red uh text calls out really what's different from R1. So R1E single family um the minimum lot area is 14,000 square feet. So that's 4,000 more than the 10,000 for R1. The minimum lot width is 100 feet. So a little bit bigger than the 80 feet in R1. And then there's an actual um maximum height called out for direct detached garages with rooms above. So like where you'd have an ADU that so that's called out specifically in the in the text. But virtually everything's the same for R1. And then Tilman Estates is one of the places I think we've heard re residents there concerned with some of the um older homes there being redeveloped. Um the lots are very large. So some I know there's one that was subdivided into three lots that was just a regular house and it's been redeveloped and and so I think that's one opportunity for use of the R1 that currently exists. Of course the other opportunities would be out on

Little River neck road. Then I'll turn it over to Jim for the CR. Before we move on to conservation residential, was there any questions or comments on the R1E? Yeah, I I have one. Um on the side setbacks, would it not make I mean because we're now we've gone from 80 foot frontage to 100 foot frontage that would it not make sense to put especially in a scenario where you have an AD ADU or the potential to build one, would it not make some sense to widen that side setback? We could you could certainly do that. Maybe add five feet to the R1,

you know, somewhere along there. You just kind of thinking off top of my head is that if you were to have an ADU or you wanted um rear loaded garage or a lot of those kind of scenarios where you'd want access to the back that it would make sense that you'd probably have a maybe a 10- foot wide driveway going back through there,

plus or minus. And then you know landscaping that would give you provide you with some opportunity for landscaping on the home side and on the neighboring side. Yeah. Um we could certainly do that. Would would you I was just thinking kind of out loud here. Would you also entertain an option where if they increased it on one side, they could keep it smaller on the other or I think I think it' be worth might be worth looking at. I mean, because I think if you're if you're driving by a parcel that's a 100 foot wide and I'm just trying to think, you know, proportionally how something would set up on the

the lot. And I mean, and you know, there there will be somebody who wants to build a, you know, an 80 foot wide house. Yeah. So, I'm just just a just a thought. Um, I I think we, you know, just off the top of my head without studying it a little further, I think if we increased it to 15 from 10 in the R1, I think that would be workable. Um, we'll look at that and see if that holds. U, but I I think that's probably a good compromise for the larger lot size. Any other questions on R1E

on the uh existing subdivisions or sub subdivisions that have been master planned? And Tilman is a great example. It was master planned. It was laid out and the lots are usually larger than even our R1s are required. I don't would it not be just simpler not to allow subdivision of existing lots and subdivisions that are 25 or 50 years old. I'm thinking about the the property right adjacent to the surf club. I know everybody's concerned about that one. That might be why this is coming up. That was master plan and laid out and we why not just follow the master plan as the original developer intended.

Um so, so help me understand more of what you want an exemption for an older not an exemption. It's just that's what it is. That's that's what it was master plan. That's what was approved 70 years ago. And just because our R1 now states that it can be 10,000 square feet that you're going to go in there and subdivide these lots as the houses get torn down and all these homeowners that have bought there because they're large lots and we we should preserve that. Oh, I see. Yeah. Um protect the dynamic of the neighborhood,

right? The integrity of it. So, this this ordinance was intended partially to address that to make make it a little easier to to achieve lot sizes that are similar to what you have in in Tilman. Now, um, you know, without without coming up with another district that or or I guess you could probably do an overlay to answer your question, you could probably establish an overlay for that area and prohibit or or require a larger lot size. So, that's that's one alternative you can do to uh geographically target that area. Um,

I'm thinking an overlay is probably what Hank's want to do is protect that area, right? And I think that's why when you're mentioning an overlay, that would probably be the tool we would want to use to help because as that has happened and a house got tore down, I got a few phone calls from people that lived for the reason you moved to the Tilman area that were pretty upset about it. Okay. And it's in what the master deed or something you're not supposed to subdivide lots in as long as I've read it. I don't recall, but I could be that could be right. And then on then on top of that, it just, you know, it was all drawn out. There's a plat recorded, but there was they had a master plat and every lot in the sub in Tilman was was laid out.

Mhm.

And I'd like to see us follow that. If we can't follow it or we don't have teeth to be able to follow that, then you this would be a good band-aid to uh to rectify that or we adopt a policy. probably should do both. First of all, adopt a policy that lots and subdivisions that are master plan that we don't we cannot subdivide them because if I buy a lot over here and I plan on this is my neighborhood and all of a sudden it starts getting redeveloped because people are the law allows me now to go down to a 10,000 square foot where right now I got a 35,000 square foot lot and I can get three lots out of it. That's not right. Yeah, I I understand your point, but I'm I'm thinking what if there's a scenario where you had a master plan neighborhood like that and let's say the uh the average in the neighborhood was 15,000 square feet just hypothetically and but you back in the day you had somebody that wanted a double lot and so now they've got a 30,000 square feet and it's kind of a statistical outlier in a neighborhood with a lot of 15,000 foot lots. Are you going to say you can't subdivide because you're locked into that size that you had from day one? Is that

Yes. Now, just like in Cherry Grove, if you go down on 21st Avenue with the uh the family that had the two lots, they had re they had recombined and built a house on it. That was 45 years ago. They wanted to resubdivide it. We said, "No, you can't resubdivide it back to what originally was. They were 50 by 100. Uh I don't forgot the family that owned the lot." In fact, we just subdivided that parcel back to the original Charlie Nixon plan 18 months ago. I mean, that's okay. They combined two lots, two two lot in and established subdivision, make it one lot now, that's okay. If they 10 years later, they want to go back and resubdivide that back to the original, that should be okay.

Yeah. but not take an original subdivision and then come back and try to downsize it when that's what everybody bought into.

I see what you're saying. Yeah. Um there I think that's a fairly complicated I don't want to give you an off-the cuff answer to that. We'd have to study that a little bit because there's I can think of some tendrils that involving you know what constitutes a legit master plan. Is it something that does it need to have been recorded or is it just something that's of record um you know that that we have in a file somewhere? Uh you know how far back in time should we go for those? I I think we just need to think that through a little bit and and I think the appropriate tool to get at the issue you're talking about is an overlay for for those neighborhoods. Okay. Well, I'm um if

so we can the answer is yes, we can do what you suggested. It's probably not going to be with these two tools that we're discussing today. We'll need a third tool for that, but it can be done. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions on R1E? Okay. So, I'll I'll talk about conservation residential. In the 2018 comp plan, um we had a uh let me turn to that section here. that the comp plan mentioned that especially along areas along Little Riverneck Road and other environmentally sensitive places that uh we we envisioned a a conservation community zoning district and and some of the um appropriate zoning districts for this category uh of land use included conservation community. and we never did create the actual um zoning district tool to enable that concept to it to to be achieved. And so this is why we're now addressing it with a conservation residential um uh zoning district. And um so the idea actually let me go back scroll back. Okay. Yeah. So the idea of a conservation subdivision and this is a comparison between two different um types of land development. Um on the left here you see the sort of the conventional subdivision plan where people go in and they carve up pretty much the entire site into individually owned lots, large lots, lots of um lots of street area, lots of infrastructure to serve that. as opposed to a conservation design which has the same density, same number of units as the left example, but it's done in a more sensitive and uh planned way to preserve land. So you have large swaths of open space being preserved, smaller

individual lot sizes, but the same density, and then you're you're having cont uh continuous or contiguous um parcels of open space that are being saved um uh and environmental features on the on the site that that uh really add to the quality of life of the residences in there. Um, and this particular one that we're envisioning creating, it's a uh uh four dwelling units per acre is the maximum total density that you can have on one of these projects. That by any standard is considered low density. And um that's, you know, pretty comparable to our R1 district. Now, with 10,000 square foot lots, you you you achieve at at best four units an acre and probably a little bit less when you take in the uh the infrastructure needs. Um so again comparing the two a conservation design would preserve open space in more uh contiguous uh ways so that you preserve the the qualities and the benefits of that open space instead of cutting it up into uh into functionally obsolete sections. Um and then you have here much less infrastructure but again same number of dwelling units. So this pattern of land development better preserves larger intact open spaces which is better for storm water management. It's better for wildlife preservation and other ecological benefits. Um, so in this district that we're proposing, these are the uses that would be allowed. Single family homes, single family or semi- detached dwellings. Uh,

and a semi- detached dwelling is basically a duplex where uh you you share a common wall, but you also own the land underneath your unit as opposed to a uh a duplex dwelling, which you don't necess it's it's all on one parcel of land. um neighborhood and community parks without nightlighting, publicly owned recreation facilities, churches, home occupations, pretty standard stuff for a zoning district. Um you know, residential signs, uh community gardens and equestrian centers, and importantly, accessory uses including accessory dwelling units or an ADU. So, uh, that's basically kind of like the the mother-in-law suite over the garage or something similar to that if you think along those terms. Um, so an an accessory dwelling unit would only be permitted on single family lots within a conservation design district. Uh, they have to be at least 15 feet away from the home. uh they have to provide one parking space for that accessory dwelling unit. The principal home has to be owner occupied. So you can't have somebody that's lives in Raleigh or something and then tries to rent this thing out. The idea is for these not to turn into short-term rentals. Um the uh accessory dwelling unit has to be architecturally compatible with the home and it would be permitted in rear and sidey yards or front yard on waterfront lots that are abuing marshes and rivers in the waterway. Um to to qualify for an accessory dwelling unit, you'd have to have a 6,500 square foot lot minimum. Um, and each one of these accessory dwelling units would count as half a dwelling unit when you're calculating your overall project density. And that is to encourage their use because these

things provide housing opportunities for aging parents or or college students that you know you might have living at home with you. But uh you know the important thing is the main house is owner occupied so that you've got somebody that's on vigil with with those and um you would not be able to rent them for periods shorter than 30 days. So that would stop them from becoming short-term rentals. So the overall framework again the maximum density for these types of projects and you're you're mixing different home types here um or you can mix different home types and the overall maximum density is four dwelling units an acre which is considered low density and um the you have to have a minimum of a 15 acre site in order to ask for this zoning district. uh you have to preserve at least 35% of the land in common open space and of that 60% of that open space has to be in one contiguous tract. So you can't cut it up into environmentally useless little slivers of open space. Um the housing mix here we're saying that at least 10% of your homes in your project have to be on minimum halfacre or larger sites. So that's you know a 21,000 square foot lot basically. Um which is you know pretty pretty large by we don't have anything in our zoning ordinance that requires anything that big now. Uh so you know again we're trying to encourage a variety of housing types here. So you got to 10% of your units have to be on halfacre or larger lots. You can have a mix of single family,

duplex, triplex, townhouse, and ADUs. Your town houses when you get to the other end of the spectrum are limited to a maximum of 10% of your total dwelling units. So for the large lot um homes, minimum 10%. for town houses maximum 10%. Your wetlands on the site have to be preserved except where necessary to cross them for roads and infrastructure. You have to have a 20ft perimeter buffer with vegetation retained around wetlands. uh the open space. When you're calculating that 35% total open space minimum, you we're going to ask that it be prioritized around wetlands, flood hazard areas, significant stands of trees, any potential agricultural land, viewsheds or or other natural features. Um we would only allow native landscaping and pollinator species within these developments and trail systems would be encouraged in lie of sidewalk sections in in some port portions of the development so that you have an integrated trail system for pedestrians within the development. Uh, and then you'd have a meandering roadway design intended to follow natural contours of the land and to reduce the monotony that you can sometimes get in grid grided street systems. Uh, they would also have architectural standards. You would be required to have front porches, a usable front porch on these homes. Uh, I think it was a minimum of 7 foot depth and 80 square feet total. uh your garage width the garage door uh can be no more than 40% of the width of the entire frontage of the house so that they don't look like

garage mahals they actually look like homes. Um, and then your if your front door of your garage, if your garage door faces the street, it would have to be recessed at least 5 ft from the rest of the house so that it it's uh it visually takes it uh diminishes the the look of the garage door. Um, and then we don't allow vinyl sighting in in these developments because they're typically going to be in areas where it's more rural or agricultural in nature and and you know, you have possibility of wildfire risks. So, we're not going to allow um vinyl sighting in those. And then we have a variety of heights for these um depending on the u the type of use it is. For town houses, it it'd be uh 45 ft. And also for the single family homes that are on those large halfacre lots, that would be 45 ft. Accessory dwelling units um are 25 feet as are detached garages or barns and uh other accessory buildings such as sheds or carports or storage buildings 15 ft which is what we have now in the ordinance and then any other structure not listed is limited at 35 ft in height. Um so another thing that uh open space when you know a lot of times when we get new developments they they plat these things in phases uh but the open space in this particular case would have to be platted in phase one so that we know exactly where it's going to be. uh and so we can check and make sure that it's a con a a a sensible arrangement of the open space that preserves the the the maximum environmental benefits and that open space can never later be subdivided or developed. Uh and then uh HOA

maintenance responsibility is required for the open space and uh the amenities would any amenities that are proposed would have to be uh constructed before the final buildout of the of the subdivision. This is a very specialized zoning district. It's um you know, you're not going to see a million of these because of right out of the gate, you got to have a minimum 15 acre parcel size to even qualify for that zoning district. And then you're going to have developers who are not going to either understand or not want to they it's not part of their marketing to offer a variety of housing types. So, uh, it's it's going to take a specialized developer that's going to want to ask for this, but we think that there are opportunities, especially out on Little River Neck Road where this zoning district can be applied um, and get a really high quality, environmentally sensitive project out there that has very low density and, you know, keeps any additional traffic on Little River Neck Road down to an absolute minimum. Um, so again, just to reemphasize, all we're doing is we're creating these districts and putting them in the zoning ordinance. At this time, nobody's property is being zoned either of these until someone comes in and asks for them. So, any questions about conservation residential? on on the on the mix

of the residential, town home, um and that is is there if you want to do this all residential, could it be done all in all residential? Yes. Okay. But there so in other words, there's a cap on them like the town homes which I think were 10%. Yes. maximum once you calculate your density. Let's say you have a 20acre site, four units an acre, that's you get 80 dwelling units total. Um at least 10% of those have to be on halfacre lots.

So that's a minimum of what? Eight. You'd have to have eight homes on halfacre lots. So now once you take that, so you're you're basically you've used up at least four acres of your site for for just that one component. Now in order to achieve the rest of that density to get you to four dwelling units an acre, you're likely going to want to have some other housing types on differentiz lots to make up for that density that you lost by having the halfacre sites. So, it's it's a way to encourage a mixture of different housing types.

I'm not opposed to that. I think I think we need more more more diversity in in the home the homes themselves and the plans and the in the in the you know, I mean, this te's up to be a very Yeah. At the same time, conservation, but yet still traditional neighborhood,

right? So, yeah. And not only are you losing, not losing, but not only are you preserving 4 acres for those halfacre home sites, you're automatically counting out 35% for open space. So now you got very little land left. And so in order to achieve your density, you're going to want to ask for some different housing types and different housing sizes. But at the same time, we don't want someone coming in of their 80 dwelling units, we don't want them coming in and asking for 60 town houses. Correct? That's not the point of this district. So, uh you would be limited on that end as well.

On the open space, does it have um you had some natural area in there? Say that open space, say this property has been clearcut previous, you know, it's been timbered at some point in time. Um, would there need to be modifications to that se part of it or just kept natural or groomed or or or I'm just trying to figure out what you

Yeah, the ordinance would not make them go in and plant trees where there aren't any now. Um, except, you know, for wherever there might be the buffer requirement. I think you had you have a 20 foot buffer. There may be uh there may be some opportunities to plant some stuff in there or on or or on sections where they have uh street trees and sidewalks, but it's not intended to make somebody go replant previously clearcut site recreate a right small forest or wetlands area. Right.

So, leaning off that, I have a few questions. One, I know we had had discussions about trying to prevent developers from coming in and massgrading a property. And I don't I didn't see anything. Is there anything in this zoning district that would prevent them from because that just seems to be the trend nowadays. They come down and they clear cut every tree that's on that piece of property.

Yeah. The now this particular district doesn't address that issue, but it is addressed and especially with our effort from a few months ago where we adopted the sketch plan requirements in the in the land development regulations. um they have to go to the planning commission and identify they have to they have to do a sketch plan that shows how they want to lay out their project. They have to identify trees and and areas that they that they um the planning commission has the right to make them uh you know preserve trees and to save significant features before they u go to the formal application of of subdivision process. Now, does does that process come in front of council after it goes to the planning commission?

Um, it would be a st what what you would do is when um excuse me, when you're applying this district to the property, that would be a council decision. But planning commission would then be the body that reviews the pardon planning commission would be the body that reviews the uh subsequent development plan. And then um and if I missed it, I apologize, but we've talked about buffers around the wetlands, which I know we we do that now already, but there also had been discussion about doing a perimeter buffing from other neighborhood abuing neighborhoods to protect them from a new development. So they, you know, still even though they're living beside the new development, they still feel like they're living beside woods.

20 ft. And if that's there, another thing from the we had stuff in there that the HOA would maintain common areas. So that would automatically fall as a common area, right? Okay.

Yeah, we have a project buffer of 20 foot minimum around the perimeter and that that would be part of the 30 Well, let's see. Is it is it counted in the 35% open space? It's been a while since I looked at this. Let me look at it again. It is

half. Oh, no. One half one half of the buffer area can be counted toward fulfilling your minimum 35%. You'd still have to have the 20 foot perimeter buffer, but you only get to count half of that area as uh filling your uh 35% minimum open space.

And then uh minimum lot size. Um let's see. Of course, we talked about the uh halfacre lots. Um you mentioned

for other other single family homes, the minimum lot size is uh 5,500 square ft or if they're going to also propose an ADU, then 6,500 square f feet. And if they if they want to do a duplex, it's a minimum 7,000 square foot. If they want to do a triplex, 8,000 square feet. And then there's a different formula for calculating land area for town houses. Now bear in mind this is being a new district and applying this for the very first time. We we may find that the development community comes to us and says you know this section doesn't really work and here's why or we'd like you to consider adding this or tweaking that. So it's very likely that we will bring one or two amendments of this to you as we start working with it. Um, but right now this is our best attempt at at uh contemplating how this might work uh and and achieve the goals that are intended by council. So, but you know, like anything new and pretty significant like this, it's there's it's likely that there will be one or two amendments that are brought to you at some point. So, to make sure I'm wrapping my head around this, right, because I kind of had more of a vision of larger lot sizes, but whether you have 10,000 square foot lot sizes or and I'm just saying this, 2,000 square foot lot sizes, you're still restricted on how many homes can be on an acre,

right? Well, on the site. Yeah. So, if you have a 20 acre site, no matter how what portion, so you got you got 80 units to work with on a 20 acre site. So now you take 35%. So now you got you're down to 13,000 square foot. I'm sorry, wait a minute. Um 13 acres if you take the 35% of Is that right? Am I doing my math right? Uh 20 acre. Yeah. 30 35 20 acres. Hang on a second. We got a calculator. should know better than try to do math in my head. Yeah. So, basically on a 20 acre site, you've got uh 13 acres left after you preserve your minimum open space. Uh so of that 13 acres um you you've got to squeeze uh eight halfacre lots in that 13 acres and then um so that's where they're going to come in with some other housing types try to try to to get back up to that four units an acre that they're allowed to have.

So the focus here is preserving the green space as well. preserving green space, requiring some very very large lot development uh to give it a more rural feel to the development. Um and then allowing a scattering of other types of residential uses to to make up for the rest of the density of the good, better, and best scenario. Yeah. So Jim, we're proposing this and we're we're having it as an option, but how are we going to entice builders to want to go with this option opposed to going in and clear cutting and just Yeah. You know, since it's not mandatory on this road.

Well, you know, you've got land out on Little River Neck Road that's not in the city. And if someone comes in and asks for annexation, it's entirely up to council to decide what zoning district to give that land. And it may be a scenario where you say, you know, we'd love to welcome you into the city. You've got a 30 acre parcel out there, but we it is our view that the best zoning district for this is conservation residential. And if you don't want that, then we don't have to annex you. Great. Uh Jim, why did you pick a minimum of 15 acres to qualify for this? It's a situation where you're never going to achieve any kind of uh economically viable density if you don't have um you know a after after you have the 35% open space minimum uh and and those large halfacre lots you would never achieve economically viable density if you didn't have enough additional land to to provide some of the other housing types. Because what what he's saying is, you know, essentially

you have to buy a 20 acre plot to get 13 acres of buildable space and and then you then you also have you've got roads and you've got right away so and you've got amenities. So, you know, it it funnels it down. I I was had had kind of the same thought at first, but you know, as you get smaller, it's going to be hard. Well, one, you're not gonna get much of you're not gonna have much of a project unless somebody was to do some and if or state kind of things or

and if I had to guess, I I would say that that probably if and when we ever do a tweak or an amendment to this that that will probably be one of the first things that gets amended because I'm not sure that even 15 acres is enough. It may need to be bigger. Good. So, um, you know, the the beauty of just putting it in the in the ordinance at this time is is that we've got we've got time to figure out if it works without impacting anybody's property rights because we're not applying it to anybody's um land at this time. So, we've got we got time to figure it out. Make sure that

plus we're going to get some feedback. Yeah. I mean and it's it's you know it's definitely experimental in in a a sense of of the ordinance itself and working the details out that you know maybe the buffers become small I'm just examples but you know maybe the buffers have to be you know maybe just 15 feet I don't know but I'm just saying or you know an adjustment on the the open space and you know maybe that some of that stuff becomes more on a sightby-sight basis if there was one that has a you know fair amount of wetlands or something that are that are a little bit difficult to overcome or something like that. But yeah, it's

and you know and the four dwelling units per acre is is a maximum. You know, there's going to be properties that are so environmentally constrained that a developer is not going to be able to achieve four acres or four dwelling units to the acre. Uh it they may end up with 3.2 two dwelling units to the acre. But as the availability of land drops, then those sites, you know, there a market will come to it. People will want and there's some people that naturally want want that.

Um, this this whole concept of conservation design, just to get into the weeds of planning history a little bit, was was conceived by uh a planner called Randall Erant. I think he might have been a landscape architect, but um you know he wrote a book about conservation design 20some years ago and uh it's been successfully used in a lot of areas all across the United States and um they people tend to love living in these kind of developments when they're done well. So, we um basically we passed this on first reading, correct? And now we're having a workshop. So, we did not pass it. I thought it was a pending ordinance.

I believe we passed it. I don't I'm not I don't remember for sure, but if Okay. Yeah. It was postponed. For some reason, I was thinking we had a pending ordinance in on the conservation district. No. Okay. Yeah. Um, we we brought it to you for consideration and then I think we gave you the option of passing it on first reading and then having a workshop or just going straight to workshop and I I believe go straight to workshop. All right. So now we'll have to have a first reading. Will this need to go to the planning commission? Yes, it will have to go to planning commission. Gotcha. Well, that's right. It's already passed planning commission. It it couldn't have come to you for first reading last time and so Okay. So, it won't have to go back. Has there been changes?

Unless you tell us there's something in here you don't like and you want us to change. If if if something significant changes, then we'll take it back to plan commission. I think we got a great starting point. I do too. Yeah. Thank you for all the hard work. I know this was a lot to put together. It was, but uh this is kind of stuff we get excited about because I I know the potential for the end result. Gotcha. Gotcha. Are there any other questions or comments by council? Good work. Thank you. I'd like to say the same thing through conversation is how all this stuff kind of started and I appreciate staff and everybody else for taking the time to start to put all this together. Thanks for meeting us. Sir,

absolutely. Would anybody would the public like to speak about this work the issue we're discussing in this workshop today? Please come forward. Give your name and address.

I'm Dana Brown. and I live at 2314 Veraway in Longs right now. Um, real quick on the the buffer between the two subdivisions we were just talking about, I think it's 20 ft. You guys said he said it would be maintained by the subdivisions HOA. Which HOA? If it's a buffer between the two, are they supposed to split it or that kind of wasn't real clear to me how that wh how do they determine who's going to maintain that? And then on the tree clearing. So right now what I have noticed is that when the planning commission and you guys approve a general development plan and you specify x amount of trees have to be saved. I have repeatedly seen the developers come back through the BZA and ask for a variance to backdoor you guys and undercut all the work that you did and the planning commission did and then the BCA usually grants the variance and in my opinion improperly because I don't think it qualifies most of the times they do it but that's how they're getting around and clearcutting by by doing that. And then the last thing is the ADUs was a little confusing for me. I just was wondering is that under the current zoning classifications or under this new proposed one? That was it. Good.

Thank you. I'll answer the first and third question that the first question the entirety of the 20 foot buffer is on the site that's um managed by the HOA. So it's not a split u it's not a split maintenance situation. So that entirety of that 20 ft would have to be maintained by the HOA of the community. Uh and the third question is the ADUs are are very specific to this one zoning district at this time. So Jim, if uh two neighborhoods qualify for this zoning, there'd be a 20ft buffer on this neighborhood and a 20ft buffer on that side. And so each one of those HOAs would be responsible would be responsible for their 20 ft. Right. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification. That's what I meant. I didn't say there any other comments by the public hearing. None. We'll need a motion to adjurnn. Journ. All in favor say I. I. This meeting is adjourned.