[0:03] there and

[0:13] work session with council and the favor commission to order. This is July 15,

[0:17] 2025. I want to welcome everybody, those who showed up in person and those who

[0:22] are joining us online. Um this is a work session, a special work session. Um,

[0:27] we're going to have public comment right off the bat. Uh, so if you have uh

[0:33] something to say, please raise your hand. I'll recognize you. Come to the

[0:36] front. Give us your name and your address. And with that, I'm going to

[0:40] open up public comment. I see Rob Kill number one.

[0:46] Would you like me over here so you can be seen by everybody?

[0:53] And we're Kill 608 Water Street. Mr. Mayor, councel, I wrote these

[0:58] comments down to Tracy if there's a public record.

[1:05] » Three first key points. I believe convening this special session today is

[1:09] the right thing to do in the public interest. In the same breath, I also

[1:13] believe it should not have been necessary to hold this session. Like

[1:18] every other citizen and stakeholder in the city of Buford, I believe the

[1:21] Chamber of Commerce had more than ample opportunity for their voice to be heard.

[1:27] The facts. Chapter 9, Redline posted 20 times on the planning commission

[1:33] website. Chapter 7 redline posted 16 times on the planning committee website.

[1:40] The time period 15 months, no chamber input. It asked a rhetorical question.

[1:48] If I can wait until the 11th hour to make a comment that triggers a special

[1:52] council meeting on my issue only, why should I play ball any earlier? I'm

[1:59] confident everyone in this room agrees that processes, rules, and procedures

[2:03] are in place for a purpose.

[2:08] Megan, who you spoke last week, are you here?

[2:13] » Hello. I don't know you and you don't know me.

[2:17] What I learned from your website is you're a native euphorian and you've

[2:21] been president of the chamber for almost four years now. Congratulations.

[2:26] Even if you were my best friend, I would still stand here and admonish you. Maybe

[2:31] we will become best friends over time. I hope so. I'm a real newcomer to Buford

[2:36] 10 years. Professionally, I've worked on leadership strategy and governance

[2:40] domain for over 50 years. Since attending the strategic planning meeting

[2:46] in January 24, I've attended every work session and regular council meeting that

[2:52] I've been here in person. As president, you should know better. I

[2:57] doubt you would tolerate such behavior by a member of your chamber. It's not

[3:02] the job of the city government to educate you. The resources that have

[3:06] been distracted, I would say wasted to convene this hearing are significant.

[3:12] want to close with a three-point summary. As I said earlier, I think

[3:16] today's me meeting is in the public interest. Council member Mitch Mitchell

[3:21] was right last Tuesday when he said chamber upstairs,

[3:26] paraphrase, you put the council between a rock and a hard spot. The chamber is a

[3:31] valued member of the Buford community. While we don't condone their lateness,

[3:36] we value their input. Two, all the time, energy, and costs,

[3:42] including police invested in staff work and meeting today's meeting is a waste

[3:48] of scarce and valuable government resources and volunteer citizens time.

[3:53] It could be better spent. Last to you, Megan. I strongly encourage you to open

[3:58] your remarks, if you do, by offering a public apology.

[4:04] Thank you for listening.

[4:14] Good afternoon to speak. Um, council and commission. My name is Diane Barley,

[4:18] 2415 Oak Haven Street, Buford, South

[4:22] Carolina. Um, I'm computer froze where all my notes are, so I don't have the

[4:26] questions that I had for you, but I did want to make a couple of comments. One,

[4:30] that the U agenda that went out did not have a time listed. I found at the time

[4:34] of the meeting this morning it's better procedure um

[4:40] about it right now. I do agree with the gentleman's comments about this being an

[4:46] unnecessary meeting as well as the comments that

[4:51] were referenced in the for the amendments um do not match up with the

[4:57] so it was pretty hard to follow up on. Thank you. Anyone else?

[5:05] Hi.

[5:09] I'm not sure I know all of your protocol, so bear with me. But um my

[5:15] name is Steven Kersh. I live at uh Live Oaks 2200 Spanish Court. And the reason

[5:22] I'm here is related to I'm not sure if I'm using the right word, but I believe

[5:27] there's a referendum related to allowing communities to be gated. And

[5:34] I I feel strongly that that should be left up to communities. I moved into the

[5:42] live oaks community just a couple of years ago and safety and security are

[5:48] really important to myself, my family members, other community members, and

[5:56] it's really important that we be able to make that choice. I'm not saying we're

[6:01] going to put up gates at the live oaks community, but I think there's a

[6:07] difference between us making the decision to become a gated community

[6:11] versus people taking that ability away from us. And there have been various

[6:17] incidents um not that far away from where we live.

[6:22] And I think as people in the community, we all want to be safe. So hopefully I

[6:28] followed the protocol, but I'm just speaking as a citizen and as a person

[6:33] who lives in my books. Thank you very much. Okay, who else?

[6:39] Megan.

[6:45] » Good afternoon, members of council and members of the planning commission. As

[6:49] you know, I'm Megan Morris and I represent hundreds of businesses here in

[6:53] the Ver region through the Beer Regional Chamber of Commerce. Uh we would like to

[6:59] collectively thank you for hosting this work session today uh to finalize the

[7:03] first round of development code revisions and for your overall

[7:06] commitment to the process. We have had some very productive and positive uh

[7:11] conversations with city leadership and we are looking forward to working with

[7:16] you together as this continues through the thorough revision of uh the

[7:20] development code. We we see that it is not merely a technical exercise. It is

[7:26] an opportunity to shape the economic future of our beloved.

[7:32] Um, behind every regulation, procedural standard, and ordinance lies the

[7:36] economic of our city. The businesses that line our streets, the workers that

[7:42] serve our citizens, and the families who live here, they're all they all

[7:46] interconnected as an economic ecosystem uh that depends on balanced governance.

[7:52] We do have a very beautiful diverse community and as you've seen in most of

[7:57] the economic reports that the chambers and others have produced and made

[8:00] available, there are many challenges for us all to overcome of which the develop

[8:05] and code could affect. When regulations are crafted, they play a role in

[8:09] determining whether businesses can thrive, adapt, and continue to serve as

[8:13] economic anchors for our community. Our local businesses contribute millions in

[8:18] commercial property taxes, business licenses, and permit fees that fund our

[8:22] schools, our infrastructure, and public services. We employ thousands of our

[8:27] neighbors, creating careers and opportunities,

[8:31] our works, the teachers who educate our children, the first responders who keep

[8:37] us safe, the service workers who ensure that um

[8:41] our community continues to function. the family members of the military and

[8:47] the service members who ensure national security and even the 200 plus members

[8:51] of team Buford uh increasingly do find themselves priced out of the community

[8:57] uh that they are serving and living in. We understand there's not just a housing

[9:02] problem, but also that infrastructure challenges, the goal of maintaining

[9:07] quality of life and our culture, as well as being good stewards of our

[9:11] environment, are all at play. To be clear, advocating for economic

[9:16] consideration does not mean abandoning our commitment to Virginia character and

[9:20] quality of life. Indeed, our economic prosperity depends on maintaining the

[9:24] very qualities that make ourselves special.

[9:27] We must find the careful balance between preservation and progress, between

[9:31] protecting what we love and enabling what we need. This balance requires that

[9:37] we consider not just what we want to prevent but what we want to enable and

[9:41] encourage. There are examples uh I think that are

[9:45] nearby. We would like to avoid places with overdevelopment and sprawl,

[9:52] high cost of lifting leading to substantial loss of workforce and

[9:57] perhaps worse towns that have detrimental detrimentally defined due to

[10:01] lack of industry and opportunity. Each of those examples are only an hour away.

[10:07] So, as you move forward with this extensive code revision and other

[10:12] policymaking and comprehensive planning efforts, thank you for keeping in mind

[10:16] that balance governance takes all of this into account. Again, thank you for

[10:20] your hard work and diligence.

[10:24] I'd like to think, and I stand for many when I say this,

[10:28] that considering economic viability in this development code and finalizing

[10:35] it with a collaborative effort is not time loss, but an investment in our

[10:40] future. Thank you.

[10:45] » Okay. Uh, anyone else for public comment before closing?

[10:51] Go ahead, Tony.

[10:54] Grand Tr. >> Yes.

[10:57] » Hi, Grant Trra. 1211 Bay Street. Uh, Mr. Chromemer, I understand we're not

[11:03] allowed to use your first name, so I won't. Um,

[11:07] uh, because one of your employees was chastised for using first names of the

[11:12] council. Um, will will we have um an opportunity I mean, this is a work

[11:18] session. Will we have an opportunity as you go through because I do have

[11:23] specific comments um about this and I don't know if this

[11:27] is the opportunity to do that because in public comment I have a general public

[11:32] comment to make. I'd prefer to make the general public comment and then uh raise

[11:37] my hand as you go through. I think that'll be more efficient.

[11:43] um

[11:46] actual council. Okay. All right. That's fine. Mr. T, if you want to go ahead and

[11:51] make your comment, uh your general comment and then we'll go through as we

[11:55] go through. You can raise your hand. >> Okay. I just wanted to echo Rob Cahill's

[12:01] comments. Um I think and I also want to express that uh I don't believe the

[12:07] Chamber of Commerce actually represents the land owners. They may represent and

[12:12] those are the land owners are the ones that are actually paying the property

[12:15] tax. They may represent the businesses that lease from the land owners, but

[12:21] they have asserted that they in the council meeting that they represent the

[12:25] land owners. And I I I beg to differ. Uh I'm not a man uh a member of the uh

[12:31] chamber of commerce by design. I know other major land owners that are not a

[12:36] member of the chamber. Um, I didn't hear any specific comments from Megan uh

[12:42] about um the changes. I I assume she's going to make those throughout the

[12:49] process as I will too. Um I did do some due diligence as to why that letter was

[12:54] written as it was. Uh and it seems like it was a bit of a hatchet job um pushed

[13:00] by uh one particular uh property owner in the city at the

[13:07] last minute. Um again, if this chamber of commerce uh had its act together, it

[13:14] would have participated throughout the 15-month process um to have provided its

[13:19] input. Thank you, and I look forward to commenting as we go along.

[13:25] Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, hearing none, we're going to close

[13:29] public comment and we're going to go to discussion and ordinance amending

[13:33] chapter 7 land development chapter 9 development view procedure in the deeper

[13:37] development code. I'm going to open it up to council first. I think Councilman

[13:41] Scalleti has some remarks to make and then we'll turn it over to the planning

[13:47] commission.

[13:51] » Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, first of all, um I want to

[13:56] thank staff for putting this joint session

[13:59] together. I do think that this is important and it gives us an opportunity

[14:02] to go through. Um I'm actually still recovering from a pretty big injury, so

[14:06] I may not look like it, but I am extremely uncomfortable. Um, I think the

[14:11] best thing for me is to try to go through page by page and just identify

[14:16] um, some of the concerns that I do have and then whenever I get to the finish,

[14:22] if you guys want to make notes as I go, then you can address those um, if it

[14:25] needs to be, there's a strong chance that since I am not a developer and you

[14:30] guys have a lot more experience in this than I do, that I might get tangled up,

[14:34] but maybe just a little bit of clarification on some things would um,

[14:38] would help me and and maybe some others as well. So, I'm starting I don't know

[14:43] if you guys have the same packet in front of you that I have in front of me.

[14:47] I'm starting on page 104, which is the red line uh summaries for chapter 7.

[14:57] Um, so there was obviously some language added in the purpose and applicability.

[15:03] I didn't see anything there um that jumped out at me as um inappropriate. it

[15:08] all seemed to to fit. Uh on page 107, there was a cross reference that was

[15:17] struck out uh under 7.1.5 improvement guarantees.

[15:23] And I think that based on the way this is structured now, a cross reference to

[15:29] section 7.5 would be appropriate there to discuss uh

[15:35] final subdivision flat. I still find a lot of value when I'm going through the

[15:39] code in having the cross references there. So I would say instead of

[15:44] striking that cross reference out, just add the new cross reference in where

[15:49] somebody could go back to to refer to the final subdivision.

[15:55] Um, moving on. Right now I'm on page 109. Do

[16:01] you guys have the same packet? to clarify. So

[16:08] types

[16:14] » the other day that's the one I have now. Yeah. So this is the one that we just

[16:17] received

[16:24] » the red line. Y >> you're okay as long as you reference

[16:28] » the sections. >> Okay.

[16:30] » We can fine. No, I just wanted to clarify and make sure

[16:35] you said 7.5 >> 7.1.5A

[16:40] and where it says section 9.94 is struck.

[16:43] » Yep. >> We'd like to put section 7.

[16:47] » That's right. I think that's the appropriate cross reference now with the

[16:51] way that it's structured. But just to just to continue having a cross

[16:55] reference in there, I think would be valuable.

[16:57] Uh I'm now on page 109 under uh scope of improvements for street frontage.

[17:07] » Give us the section. >> Okay. The section is 7.2.1

[17:13] street infrastructure plans. Um C2

[17:18] » under uh yeah C2 applicability scope of improvements. The last portion of that

[17:23] paragraph, the code administrator may permit modification of street

[17:27] improvement standards where the required street improvements are not in the

[17:30] opinion of the codes administrator roughly proportionate to the impact. I

[17:35] just don't think that that is very predictable and I know that that was one

[17:39] thing that um was extremely important as we were going through this process was

[17:44] to have a code that was predictable. So if our requirements are um are hard and

[17:52] we're picky, I think that's okay. But I think code needs to be as predictable as

[17:57] possible. And for this to read that street improvements are not in the

[18:01] opinion of the code administrator, I feel like that's not very predictable.

[18:06] That's again just my opinion. Um let me back up because I missed one note here.

[18:12] Applicability. So this is C1 in that same section and

[18:19] it talks about the uh financial guarantees. So the last sentence in that

[18:25] paragraph reads the installation of street frontage improvements is required

[18:31] prior to final plat approval for major subdivisions and certificates of

[18:36] occupancy for site plans. And I think that should probably be or a financial

[18:45] guarantee because isn't that an option? So they can either do a financial

[18:50] guarantee um to get the approval or they can make the improvements whatever is

[18:55] more appropriate. And the way that this reads is is they have to make the um or

[18:59] they're required to make the street frontage improvements. And so maybe just

[19:04] an addition of or financial guarantee and then refer back to um where that's

[19:09] discussed. But that was a note that I made.

[19:14] Um moving forward, I am now on we had some

[19:19] members in the community discuss the gated streets. So that is uh section

[19:26] 7.2.2 street network requirements. Personally, I'm more a fan of the way

[19:34] that it read before new gates or new gated streets are not encouraged, but

[19:39] there were um exceptions and the way that it reads now is new gated streets

[19:45] are prohibited. And then there are some some exceptions, but um I feel like we

[19:53] would we would want to leave that flexibility there to where if neighbors

[19:57] got together and they decided that they wanted to have a gated community or

[20:01] gated street, then that discussion could at least be on the table. Um

[20:07] section I would just like maybe a better

[20:10] understanding of section uh 7.2.3 2.3 lot access standards uh particularly the

[20:18] maximum number of driveways. It says for single family or two or three family

[20:24] dwellings only one driveway shall be permitted for lot and T3s circular

[20:29] driveways may be permitted on lots greater than 100 ft in width where no

[20:33] sidewalk exists. Driveways may only be installed where rear access is not

[20:38] possible or required. Um, and then it goes on to talk about uh, you know,

[20:44] basically one driveway, you know, for um, anything that's less than 150 ft.

[20:50] And I know a lot of lots in Mossios, particularly where I live, um, that

[20:56] either have a circle driveway, a U-shaped driveway.

[21:01] Uh, and I and I don't think that it's um something that's uh, not becoming or I

[21:07] think it fits within our character well. So, I'm not sure why the justification

[21:12] for um only one driveway and no circular, but maybe a little bit of

[21:17] clarification could help um my understanding.

[21:21] Um and then same thing for uh the uh

[21:29] still in that same section, lot access standards, but a little further down.

[21:35] » Yes. Page number is 115. >> Yep.

[21:40] Okay. Literally, uh, where it says rear

[21:43] access, no front access. So, the way I interpret that is is no new lots for

[21:48] zones T3N and T4 can have, um, basically a driveway in the front. For lots

[21:54] developed in the transexs, T3N, and T4 and T5 U, lots, all new access points

[22:00] shall be from a rear alley or road, except for lots in the historic

[22:05] district. Um, so is that to say that there could be no

[22:13] driveway in the front? That all driveways and new accesses for lots in

[22:19] these zones need to be from the rear? If so, uh, I don't know that I would agree

[22:25] with that because most of the homes um have have driveways in in the front now.

[22:30] And I I think that that makes sense. Um, but again, maybe that just needs to

[22:34] be clarified for me. The next page over, page 116, um, street design standards.

[22:40] This is just, uh, grammatical stuff, but it says I'm in, um, 7.2.4,

[22:48] street design standards. Under bullet B, it says about in the middle of that

[22:53] paragraph. Um, I'll start where it says United States Department of

[22:58] Transportation's manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in parentheses

[23:03] MUTCD close parenthesis and approved by the

[23:08] administrator. I think there needs to be a or right

[23:11] there or the administrator's designate and then there's two commas. So, just

[23:16] strike one of the commas and then that sentence would flow and make sense. But

[23:20] the way that it reads right now is it just says and approved by the

[23:23] administrator, the administrator designate and there's no break there. Um

[23:30] uh again this is grammatical. The next bullet down C. Um

[23:36] two it says there are unusual topographic vegetative

[23:43] or other natural conditions would render strict that strict adherence. So I don't

[23:50] think that that flows well. Um and and perhaps it's just a matter of uh saying

[23:56] instead of striking well to the extent so vegetative or other natural

[24:02] conditions that would render the strict adherence. But I think maybe that

[24:06] paragraph just needs to be reviewed because right now it seems to to not

[24:10] flow. Um,

[24:14] moving on. We are I'm under um skip that actually. That's not too big.

[24:24] Um, so there's an exemption for traffic impact analysis that does concern me on

[24:28] lots included in the boundary street master plan adopted on August 28, 2006

[24:33] and lots in the areas founded by Calhoun Carter at Bay Street, Revo Road. Um

[24:38] there's an exemption on traffic impact analysis and that's one of our biggest

[24:42] issues right now is traffic on boundary street and Robert's small hardway and

[24:46] there's a lot of development that falls in there. So if we are not bound legally

[24:51] to make that an exemption, I think maybe revisiting that um would be prudent

[24:56] because there are also a lot of additional roads built into that master

[25:01] plan that was adopted in August of 2006 that rely that provided relief for

[25:08] traffic on Boundary Street. >> Oh, sorry. I'm on page 118.

[25:12] » Yep. At the top where it says exception. Um, so what's exempt is the boundary

[25:19] street master plan and again there's a lot of roads built into that plan that

[25:22] were never put in place and so to to make that exempt from traffic impact

[25:27] analysis I think could continue compound um our congestion issues. So

[25:35] » yeah I'm just trying to make sure that's okay. You're saying that you believe

[25:40] that the boundary straight exemption should be legally

[25:44] » unless we are legally bound by some agreement at that time. I would I would

[25:48] say at least let's consider because there's like I said there's a lot of

[25:54] relief roads built into that master plan that never came to fruition and now we

[25:58] have a lot of congestion on that road. So I'd hate to see our issues compound

[26:01] just because that was exempt from traffic impact analysis.

[26:05] um down to C on the same page, traffic impact analysis plan preparation. Um

[26:11] two, prior to beginning the TIA, the applicant shall supply the city. We

[26:16] cross that out to capitalize city. I think capitalized I as well. That's just

[26:19] grammatical, so just lowerase I would fix that. Um, and then B, a site

[26:26] location map showing surrounding development within 1/ half mile radius

[26:32] of the property under development consideration. I'm not sure if that's

[26:36] okay the way that it reads or if that should reflect a onem

[26:41] um radius. I know that there are two different variations in the the um

[26:48] breakdown that you guys laid out. There's a half mile and then there's a

[26:51] mile from any vested but unbuilt developments. So, I don't know if that

[26:56] needs to reflect a mile or not. I put it in there um as a as a note. Um then the

[27:02] next thing is your chart where you guys laid out the traffic impact analysis. I

[27:07] think you did a very good job. I know just as a lay person reading that it was

[27:11] kind of easy for me to understand what was being required. Um, I don't know

[27:15] that I agree with the language uh that says at the discretion of the TRC or

[27:19] planning commission a larger study area may be required because again that's not

[27:24] very predictable um as to when it might be required and and so I I'm not sure I

[27:30] have a hard time with that just because um there was that underlined important

[27:35] theme of being predictable. Um but again I'd like to know I agree with um the

[27:43] incorporation of all traffic impact analysis studies and trip generation

[27:47] from approved developments or vested unbuilt developments within within mile

[27:53] radius at time of proposal. Um, but I would like to better understand why we

[27:58] went with a half a mile for some and a mile for the already bested but unbuilt

[28:07] developments. I like it. I would just like to understand what those um more

[28:11] the context I guess. Uh

[28:19] I'm on page 123 now. Um on

[28:25] this be the same section uh but this is just after city engineer um section

[28:33] section right before mitigation plan required. So um lowercase I

[28:40] um the first major intersection as identified by the city engineer. I think

[28:44] that should probably be city engineer or administrator. And in certain places in

[28:49] here it says that and then in other areas it just says city engineer.

[28:54] Um

[28:59] on page 125 this would be mitigation plan

[29:04] application. Uh I'm on bullet h or h.

[29:10] A tia shall be submitted to the TRC. And then on I it says completeness. The

[29:18] planning commission and or TRC shall determine whether a TIA is complete.

[29:24] And then J says the TRC must first approve the TIA in regard to

[29:30] completeness and accuracy. So I just think that that needs to read the

[29:34] planning commission and the TRC shall determine whether the TIA is complete

[29:40] not and or because it is going to be voted. The way that this is written out,

[29:43] the TRC approves it for completeness and then it goes to the planning commission

[29:48] and the planning commission is also required to approve or not. Um, and so I

[29:56] think that just striking that word and would be appropriate. Um, I like the

[30:00] percentages. I think that's exactly what we were um expressed concern about about

[30:05] the open space and green space having more percentages to to provide um more

[30:12] land preservation and less exemptions. So, I appreciate the changes that you

[30:17] guys made there. Um on the chart under section 7.4.3

[30:24] community green space and community open space, I'm not sure what the thought is

[30:28] for some of the minimum requirements in here. So you have the like the regional

[30:32] parkn preserve and then the definition of what that is and then under regional

[30:38] minimum it's 200 acres. Um for a sports complex regional minimum 25 acres uh you

[30:46] know we I think you can do a sports complex for less than 25 acres and I'm

[30:51] not sure that the regional park needs to be 200 acres. I'm not sure why those

[30:56] minimums were put in place, but maybe some institutional thought could could

[31:00] help clarify that for me. Same thing goes for a community park. We put um a a

[31:06] minimum of 8 acres for a community park. Uh I think that would be based on the

[31:13] percentage of the development. So, we have that built in now to where based on

[31:18] what you're developing and how many acres, there's a certain percentage

[31:21] that's required for open space and green space. So, I'm not sure why we also have

[31:26] community park with a minimum of 8 acres here. Um, it seems I'm sorry, that's

[31:32] page 128. That's page 128. Um, same thing for a pocket park slash uh

[31:40] pocket plaza. So, it says um the max is half an acre. Uh I don't know what a

[31:48] pocket park is. I would kind of look at one like Wilson Park over there as as a

[31:53] little pocket park. Maybe that's just me not interpreting it well, but Wilson

[31:57] Park is 78 of an acre. And so I'm not sure why we would put a max on pocket

[32:03] park of halfacre because sometimes I think it could be a little bigger and

[32:06] still makes sense. But maybe we just need to revisit

[32:10] that whole good example. Pocket Park. If you go down North Street on the other

[32:14] side of Rebot Road on the left hand side, there's a little park park there.

[32:18] That's a good example. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[32:23] » Um, >> so

[32:26] I'm now on the 7.5 substandards and site plan. This is the whole red um pages

[32:35] that were added. So, um, let's go page 133. Yep. So, one, two, three, four

[32:43] paragraphs down. Prior to formal submittal of any submission application

[32:47] identified in this section, the planning department will typically provide to an

[32:51] applicant individ individualized submittal checklist. I read that and

[32:56] thought, well, I think that's probably something that would always be provided.

[32:59] Maybe I'm wrong there, but I would strike the word typically and maybe um

[33:03] Kurt, you would weigh in and and say otherwise, but I

[33:08] don't know of a time where we wouldn't provide a checklist for the subdivision

[33:11] as to what's expected or required. So I would say maybe scratch typically.

[33:15] » That's gosh that's one of the amendments strike typically.

[33:20] » Oh okay. Got it. Um and then moving down minor subdivisions the boundaries of so

[33:28] this is number one. The boundaries of six or fewer lots are created from one

[33:33] parent track. I'm okay with changes that are made here, but I think that that

[33:39] would be um if you read further down under major subdivisions, number two, it

[33:45] says the subdivision consists of six or more lots or tracks. And so this would

[33:52] probably need to be the boundaries of five. That was changed for the

[33:57] amendments. >> That was amendments for what? on the

[34:00] amendments that came with

[34:04] » that haven't been made in here though. >> Yeah.

[34:06] » Okay, I got you. So, so those are those are addressed.

[34:08] » Those were already. >> Cool.

[34:12] » Um and then 7.5.3 sketch plan. So, it looks like sketch

[34:20] plan is required for all major subdivisions. Um, and I'm going to come

[34:26] back to why I feel like that's important, but maybe needs to be um

[34:32] somewhere else. But um on the next page 135

[34:41] the um three small eyes at the top of the page, a current preliminary traffic

[34:47] impact study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer which evaluates

[34:52] proposed access points. I know we stated other in other locations in here, but

[34:56] maybe just adding that that is a South Carolina um licensed traffic engineer if

[35:02] that's what we're going to require would make sense just to be consistent with

[35:06] the language

[35:09] throughout this this code. Um >> there was also

[35:14] I think that was something the chamber brought up our discussion. We removed

[35:18] the traffic impact city requirement and just basically

[35:24] to fix the study of access points >> instead of preliminary traffic impact.

[35:30] » Okay, got >> so you'll see that on

[35:32] » Okay. Um >> we could have the

[35:35] » that South Carolina. >> Yeah,

[35:37] » I guess we could have North Carolina, but that's probably not

[35:41] a good idea, >> right? So,

[35:42] » right. Um under the uh number five overall utility plan about halfway

[35:48] through utility plans for the interior of development such as water and sewer

[35:52] lines are not required in this part of the process. I'm not sure why we want to

[35:56] add what's not included. I think we're we're only talking about what is being

[36:00] required here. And so I would see maybe striking that and striking um

[36:07] half of number 19 as well because it also is talking about utility plans for

[36:11] the interior of the development um not being required in this process and I

[36:17] don't know why we would need to identify what's not required because this is only

[36:20] talking about what following elements are that are required. Um but maybe you

[36:26] guys talked about that and found a justification for it. Uh on

[36:30] » so just so I understand I'm sorry. >> Yeah.

[36:34] I'm just trying to follow follow you the appropriate

[36:38] » 19. >> That is 19. Yep. About halfway through

[36:42] it says utility plans for the interior of the development such as water and

[36:45] sewer service lines are

[36:54] required as part of this process. Here the developments water and sewer lines

[36:57] are not required as part of this process. So it says it twice. I don't

[36:59] even know that it needs to say it once because it's only you're only talking

[37:02] about what is required here and so it goes without saying that's not required.

[37:06] But >> yeah um the

[37:12] uh okay sketch plan process number two

[37:16] notification notice to neighbors and property owners. The city shall send

[37:20] notice of the planning commission meeting by regular mail to neighboring

[37:24] property owners within 500 ft of the property per this code. I could see

[37:29] value in stretching that out. Um I know that's a little bit more uh effort on on

[37:35] staff's part. So I want to be careful and not speak for you guys there, but

[37:38] 500 feet doesn't really go far. All right. And as an example, when garden

[37:43] was being developed, um, you know, Salem Bay wasn't even been notified because

[37:47] that's outside 500 ft. So, you know, I know it's typically

[37:54] between 500 and,000, but maybe we extend that a little bit. Um,

[38:01] G, uh, never mind. I'm g skip that one. Um I

[38:08] had a question on number four. So time frame related to the approval sketch

[38:14] plan. Um and then number four does not change any measurable standard such as

[38:21] open space or park area by more than 10%. And I think that's good. But my

[38:26] concern is what if I come to you and I make a change that's 7% of my originally

[38:31] approved project and then I come back a couple months later with another 5%

[38:35] change. Is there a a protection to protect against compounding changes?

[38:41] Should this read um by more than 10% uh of the originally approved

[38:48] or is that already covered? So my concern was compounding percentage

[38:53] changes there >> and that's on page 138.

[38:55] » That's on page 138. >> So you want like cumulative statement

[38:59] » I think. Yeah. just to protect for cumulative changes. um under uh

[39:04] preliminary plat number um A2 um again the capital I there in city so

[39:12] that's just grammatical um

[39:23] um then on

[39:27] we are under the Preliminary

[39:32] plat here. I guess it would still be preliminary plat. Uh

[39:38] D on page 141. Utility and transportation design are adequate given

[39:43] existing and planning capacities of those systems. I don't know if there's a

[39:48] way I would favor us being able to get that information in the sketch plan

[39:53] process and not preliminary just because I think you're pretty vested in at that

[39:58] time and and there would be value in knowing what the utility capabilities

[40:03] are um prior to getting that far along. And I know there have been issues in the

[40:08] past where u developers have, you know, gotten through the sketch plan process

[40:12] and they're pretty heavily vested in and they find out that the utility

[40:16] capabilities are not there for that development and they've got to either

[40:19] make substantial investments um to add pump stations or whatever they have to

[40:23] do. But I think that if there was a way for us to better communicate um with

[40:29] Buer, Jasper, or whoever to ensure that they can understand what those

[40:33] capacities were prior to even starting or even closer to the front in the

[40:37] sketch plan phase, then that would be um more favorable in my opinion. But maybe

[40:43] there's a a justification for why that wouldn't work or why it doesn't make

[40:46] sense. Um >> if I may, I think if you don't mind.

[40:49] » No, no, no. >> I think the reason that's in there is

[40:53] because If you remember when we went back to sketch plan we were striking

[40:59] about that

[41:02] idea is a sketch and they don't have to put it out put in all the engineering

[41:07] expertise per se right all these that's that's because by the preliminary you do

[41:16] where you would have the knowledge of transportation this add

[41:24] extra rows. That's now the utility side of it that is a little more complex

[41:28] because of the fact >> third parties and

[41:30] » water and sewer is separate from us >> you know um something that we can think

[41:36] about but definitely for transportation we would know or say we would know until

[41:44] » okay that would be the chest >> no that's okay that's that's exactly I

[41:48] think some of this is just you know me having better understanding um under

[41:54] early grading the page 142 the uh last back half of that last sentence final

[42:01] plat approval at the planning commission is expressed or implied by any operation

[42:06] of early grading I don't know if that could put us in a legal bind down the

[42:12] road um I I guess I would understand um you know but here's here's the situation

[42:20] is is let's say for a final plaque you had now um preliminary approval and they

[42:28] go ahead and clear cut or start grading or whatever

[42:32] they do and then at final plat maybe it in their mind it conforms. I

[42:38] know the language says that it has to conform to the preliminary plat, but if

[42:43] four members out of the seven on the planning commission feel otherwise and

[42:47] and the final plat doesn't get approved, we have ascendants and then it says

[42:52] final plat approval at the planning commission is expressed or implied by

[42:56] any authorization of early grading. So, I just questioned if that would prevent

[43:01] uh or present any legal concerns and maybe um I know we got several attorneys

[43:06] that weighed in on this and so maybe that could be easily explained away, but

[43:10] just a note that I made um on page um 146

[43:18] uh number five. Post approval action prior to issuance of a building or

[43:23] grading permit. The applicant shall submit the following documentation to

[43:27] the city. I felt like this may be better if it was moved over if they can start

[43:34] the waiting after preliminary. Then perhaps we need to get the list of

[43:39] contractors, proof of insurance, open space, deed restriction, construction,

[43:43] traffic control um at the end of the preliminary process because right now

[43:49] it's in final the final plat phase and if if they're able to start grading

[43:55] before that, maybe it's better um to preliminary. But just made a new um

[44:03] there uh >> um

[44:08] They do issue issue a grading permit,

[44:14] » right? That's what I'm saying. >> It's a very common thing to do. Um,

[44:19] » but wouldn't you want wouldn't you want to get the list of contractors for the

[44:23] grading require

[44:28] we wouldn't you know traffic control plan etc.

[44:35] I'm just explain about that. >> Okay. So, maybe some of that would make

[44:39] sense over in the preliminary before they started the early grading and then

[44:43] maybe some of it the traffic control plan would make sense for finals.

[44:50] » Yeah. I mean, I think you could >> because essentially the way that it's

[44:53] written, they could start the they could get a permit for grading before we have

[44:58] a list of their contractor's proof of insurance.

[45:02] Yeah. And that's just something I think that we do. We require that permit for

[45:08] it with the contractor's license. So maybe we just need to put that in there.

[45:11] » There's supposed to be a knot there. I I mean right before that language

[45:17] early grading and storage of construction related to the asking final

[45:23] approval the planning is not expressed

[45:31] » there draft

[45:33] » okay

[45:37] » well and I guess that that makes it challenging because I'm I'm reading this

[45:41] as if this is the final draft and So trying to get these things ironed out

[45:47] before, you know, especially because we were right to begin second reading, but

[45:51] it appears that maybe we haven't even read the most clean version of this.

[45:56] This is the most clean version I've received.

[45:58] » So Councilman, the way this agenda packet was set up is attachment one

[46:02] contains all the motions that to the best of the staff's ability, they

[46:07] understand were desired by councelor. And so you'd have to call those motions

[46:12] back rows back of document. You don't have a final version of the documents in

[46:16] here. We're not allowed to change those between first reading and second

[46:19] reading. They can't be changed. >> Right. But I don't we can introduce

[46:24] proposed language motions for the amendments that we think that you want.

[46:30] » So that's that's how the organized. >> Yeah. So if you look at the on page 47

[46:37] I think and you know I I take responsibility for this. I I think as

[46:41] you can see the amount of red line changes and track changes can be over 20

[46:45] meetings it's done can be a little complicated. I think it's been

[46:49] complicated planning question but uh the final version which is what you had your

[46:53] ordinance the clean version I think there's a few little things that it says

[46:58] and no final pl 147. So, I think a few of these little tiny, you know, more

[47:03] scriveners errors were made at this at this clean version, the final version.

[47:09] Um, but you're still raising a lot of really good points. Why did you know I'm

[47:15] not sure, you know, I'm not sure if that was just when they're accepted, right?

[47:20] You know, anytime you touch this track changes, if it comes out of it, it comes

[47:25] out for good. Does that make sense? >> Yeah.

[47:27] » And so, I think that's just uh I I probably should have whereas I think a

[47:32] lot of the uh the clean version had all of that kind of really intensive kind of

[47:38] making sure that those things were done. But again, you're bringing up a good

[47:41] point with that. But in the case of the no wasn't a clean

[47:45] » the no express. >> I think what I'm going to do then is

[47:48] because I don't even know if this is now this is the most this isn't the most

[47:51] clean version. I'm going to touch >> I think I think it is I think the

[47:55] challenge is once when you go to accept. Right.

[47:57] » Right. changes all formatting because it's in

[48:01] Microsoft Word and then this had to be reformatted and

[48:04] » does that make sense to go to clean and then that's I think my responsibility

[48:08] right and so there's a few tiny little things like that that

[48:12] » I think maybe got >> like a capitalization or also the

[48:18] amendments there's some issues there as well they're referencing the problem

[48:22] » yeah the references were from the the code that I

[48:28] chamber. I'm going to try to just do I'm going to go if you'll go with me to the

[48:33] permit chart and then I'm going to wrap up my portion because um yeah, at this

[48:38] point I want to make sure that at least the comments are are true to what the

[48:42] latest version is. So go to the permit chart on page 165 and 166

[48:47] and then look at um um so here are some of my concerns with this chart. You'll

[48:55] go to development design review. Um we talk about this is development design

[49:01] review for a minor site plan and we say the permit approval is good for 24

[49:09] months with a 12month one-time extension.

[49:15] And if you'll go to um page 89 189 where it discusses this

[49:25] portion

[49:30] minor development, it says permit validity. Upon the approval of the minor

[49:37] development design application, the applicant shall have one year to obtain

[49:42] a building permit. failure to secure a permit, a building permit for the

[49:48] permitted work within this time shall render the approval void. And so for me,

[49:53] I think that um the the language needs to be consistent with the information

[50:01] that's in the chart. What I'm seeing in my thing here is the chart reflects that

[50:06] the permit is good for two years with a onetime 12-month extension. And the

[50:12] language that supports that chart says a it's good for one year with the option

[50:18] to extend one time for 12 months. Same thing for the development design review

[50:27] major site plan. Um it is it says 24 months with the

[50:35] option for one a one time 12 month extension. And if you go to section 982

[50:45] where that's discussed,

[50:53] it says

[51:21] 185

[51:24] 18.

[51:28] Yeah.

[51:38] 9 was the minor site plan. Um well,

[51:47] » look at I'll show you two other ones. If you'll go further down where it says

[51:52] preliminary plat. So the preliminary plat um which is further discussed in

[51:58] section 7.5.4 for and that can be found on page 142. I know that uh the chart

[52:05] reflects a 24month permit approval period with 12 months

[52:14] one-time extension. But if you go to page 142 where it discusses that,

[52:21] it says

[52:32] a preliminary plat approval is in full force and effect for a period of two

[52:36] years from the date of approval. approval will automatically expire at

[52:41] the end of two years unless an applicant formally requests an 18month extension

[52:45] from the planning commission prior to termination or submits a completed final

[52:50] draft. So, in the chart, it says that they have the

[52:55] option for a onetime 12-month extension, but in the language that supports that,

[53:00] it says they have eight they have an option to extend for 18 months.

[53:08] » Thank you. >> Yep. Same thing for the final plaque.

[53:11] You can find the final plaque in the chart on page 166 and you can find the

[53:16] language that supports that on page 147. and there was an inconsistency in the

[53:22] permit validity time an extension. Um, and I think that if that's not

[53:28] corrected, then that definitely needs to be consistent with um

[53:35] that chart. >> So,

[53:38] uh, I'm going to

[53:43] I'm going to wrap mine up there because those were those were the biggest issues

[53:47] for me.

[53:51] And I apologize if some of that was already addressed in some of the but

[53:55] again it's kind of it's kind of hard. I just want to make sure that

[54:00] we're being thorough and I appreciate all the work that went into this because

[54:04] I think you guys spent a lot of time. I tried to watch all the meetings to make

[54:09] sure I did have context and these are just some of the things that I could

[54:13] benefit from having clarification on. Okay.

[54:29] And in the moment of silence, I'll say that in the chart we can since you made

[54:33] the change min from administrator to ministerial um maybe adding in the

[54:39] definition of ministerial.

[54:53] I have a couple council members

[55:00] amendments a lot of these are children

[55:05] copy that I got what I thought was a clean copy the very front uh if you go

[55:10] to page five 7.5.3

[55:15] I'll make a motion and if you go down to the third one

[55:20] um it looks like 7.3 excuse me 7.5

[55:26] one that you've got high it should be letter

[55:32] you we're going to have to change the lettering has all changed in the clean

[55:37] so we Mike and I were planning to get with Kurt to to go over all that

[55:43] numbering The clean copy has the correct

[55:46] numbering. Some of these motion references are to the red line couple

[55:51] and that was changed between that too. So I just need to say that before we get

[55:56] there quite a few

[55:59] relative to comments that we got from >> I just want to make sure when we do the

[56:06] amendments that we're doing it correctly it's proper.

[56:11] Let's

[56:28] go to council. >> I said a couple things I want. Thank

[56:31] you, Councilman Scalleti. I do feel that a onem um radius for a TI8 would be

[56:38] justifiable for all the building going on and everything. I really think we

[56:42] need a one one mile not a half a mile. Another thing um going back to the um

[56:49] gates private gates for um developments. uh if the development owns the road I

[56:58] think it should be firstly I think they it should be allowed but if it's like a

[57:02] development sort of like oh battery shores for instance or

[57:07] battery point or something like that where um or battery shores city owns the

[57:13] roads no that should not be a gated community but if do y'all own the roads

[57:18] over in Live Oaks >> okay then I think the option really

[57:22] should be given and it's up to the development. That's

[57:25] just my personal view. >> So, one one point of clarification there

[57:31] is talking about these gated communities. Yes, sir.

[57:34] » It's kind of unclear to me. I think when the planning commission was looking at

[57:37] the whole question of gated communities, we were looking at it in the in the in

[57:43] the instance of somebody building a new community. what you seem to be implying

[57:48] and I just want to make sure what you're talking about is whether or not somebody

[57:52] a group of people can decide they want to create a gated. Is that what you're

[57:56] saying? >> Well, if somebody's already got a

[57:58] community, are they grandfathered in that they could build up is what the

[58:02] question is. >> But I understand that when we wrote that

[58:06] language, I think what we had in mind was somebody who was doing something new

[58:09] from the ground up. >> Okay. But if if if you want to do

[58:13] something different, I think it's important to be clear exactly what it is

[58:18] because Councilman Scalad's comments on that point were kind of a a

[58:24] thing for me because that that's not what we I I I'm not saying what we

[58:28] should do one way the other. I just think we ought to be clear. Are you

[58:31] trying to give certain neighborhoods the ability to to

[58:35] gauge streets >> if it's a a privately owned street? a

[58:40] group, you know, a neighborhood privately owned streets. I feel like

[58:43] they should have the option to gate it if they choose to.

[58:47] » Are there any place in the city um that's not already a gated community

[58:53] where there are private streets? >> Yes.

[58:55] » Yeah.

[59:12] But but but thanks for your comment though. Um

[59:17] » currently we're talking about new communities being

[59:21] » not communities that already exist. That's a whole discussion not

[59:28] » right. So so

[59:32] I guess does that mean And if you if we don't

[59:36] know now that that's fine. I always feel like I don't know is a great answer. But

[59:40] more honest answer then a lot of people are willing to give. So does that mean

[59:43] that the council is open to the idea of a new community that would be built from

[59:48] the ground up being people have the option of updated?

[59:52] » No. I feel that the homes the ones that are already built should be

[59:55] grandfathered in. That's what I'm saying.

[59:58] » Grandfather. uh if they want a community that's already there that doesn't have a

[1:00:03] gate, they should have the option to put one in if they want to.

[1:00:06] » Are the roads in the community owned by the community?

[1:00:09] » They're owned by the community. >> Owned by the community and they just

[1:00:12] then you want and they should be able to put a

[1:00:14] » Yes, that's what I'm saying. >> I I think going back correctly,

[1:00:21] you might remember too. I think that there was a conscious effort not to have

[1:00:25] any more gated communities in Buford. I I'll share my personal perspective and

[1:00:33] I'll full full disclosure I live in a gay community.

[1:00:43] » Yeah, I say that because I want to get the laughter out first. But I I think

[1:00:47] what G there's a reason there. Um we're getting kind of in the weeds here, but

[1:00:52] you have to make some choices. We tried to we wanted to get on the water. we

[1:00:55] that's where we could avoid and it was a tough decision but we decided to do it.

[1:00:59] What I think and it happens with gated communities, you kind of create islands

[1:01:04] within the community and and and my community, I'm just speaking one person.

[1:01:10] I'm not speaking for Islands of Bin. Please know that is that I I think it

[1:01:15] you start operating within your little little little community because

[1:01:19] everything you do in there is kind of governed by the association

[1:01:23] and it it also creates a sense of exclusivity too in that you drive by and

[1:01:30] you can't come in, right? And I I think overall for the city when we think about

[1:01:36] our city, do we want a lot of little little islands within the city that's

[1:01:40] all kind of shut out? And then you have the people who can't can't afford to be

[1:01:43] in those communities feeling that I don't belong. So that's just my personal

[1:01:48] perspective on getting community. I understand the the concern about

[1:01:52] security, but I think we have a police force

[1:01:56] that is higher than being paid to protect the city. And we've had a recent

[1:02:01] case where crime was getting kind of out of hand and and I think we've kind of

[1:02:05] gotten that tampen down again. So I think there are ways to deal with this

[1:02:10] without creating I lots of little spaces that shuts people out within our city.

[1:02:16] That's just Mitch Mitchell speaking one person. I'm not speaking for anyone else

[1:02:21] except Mitch Mitchell here.

[1:02:29] I think historically the the idea of the gate the gated communities within the

[1:02:34] city also had a lot to do with the connectivity of the roadways and keeping

[1:02:38] the grids opened and that's what a lot of the participants in earlier shares

[1:02:43] discussed in creating native communities within the state blocks the connectivity

[1:02:49] of grid the grid network and the roadways. It was not so much the

[1:02:53] security um exclusivity.

[1:02:58] It was more keeping the general grids and the general runways open and

[1:03:03] unobstructed by gates. And if we go under the assumption that

[1:03:08] this is like the new new thing is not what's existing then

[1:03:16] I guess

[1:03:20] it's got to be am I correct?

[1:03:28] » I think we're talking about new from the ground up communities.

[1:03:34] council's got to kind of decide what direction we want to go. So that we want

[1:03:38] that's what I I I don't think they should be negated.

[1:03:42] » I agree. >> I'll say that on top. Now the other

[1:03:44] issue which I addressed in my comments that's I know that's a different issue

[1:03:48] but I don't think they should be negated >> from the ground up. I would agree. No

[1:03:54] new gated communities. It's just the communities that are there that they own

[1:03:59] the roads that they have the right to fill up the gate if they want to.

[1:04:06] So hearing planning questionable

[1:04:26] That's the other one.

[1:04:35] » Excuse me. I'm saying you can address the other

[1:04:38] one. What do you mean by that? >> Well, I don't think we have language

[1:04:42] now, correct me if I'm wrong, that talks about your issue where you wanted to get

[1:04:46] an existing community, >> right?

[1:04:48] » So, that's not that's not part of the ordinance that we were addressing that.

[1:04:53] I think that was what your was clarifying. It sounds like you want us

[1:04:57] to look at this language that would make it clear that this is

[1:05:00] » that this is only for new development. >> Right. I just wanted maybe send this

[1:05:05] back to the planning commission. >> Thank

[1:05:10] the assumption y'all were working under this.

[1:05:13] » Yes, it was certainly mine. That's why I raised the question was certainly mine.

[1:05:17] » Okay. Well, I didn't but I'm good with that. Yeah, we we I don't think we ever

[1:05:22] ever considered in any way an existing community putting up a gate. That was

[1:05:26] not >> Okay, I'm taking

[1:05:29] I'm not expressing any opinion one way or the other. I'm just trying to say

[1:05:32] that's what I thought too.

[1:05:35] » I don't believe it's addressed any

[1:05:41] » and that's why I said that would be something to do that we have the

[1:05:43] address. >> You want to let it dry?

[1:05:47] » Yes, sir. Okay. Hey, Graham Trra. Um, first of all, I do want to congratulate

[1:05:54] Mike Tommy and the entire planning board as well as Kirk and um, the city's group

[1:06:00] in in where they have gotten to. Um, I've got some conceptual questions that

[1:06:07] I'd just like to walk through more from understanding as opposed to to changing

[1:06:11] as a as a landowner. Um, but I do have one fundamental question. This has

[1:06:16] received first reading. What is this discussion? How is that

[1:06:21] going to impact second reading? What where do we go from here? Um with all

[1:06:27] these suggested changes, uh can it come back up for second

[1:06:32] reading in August or has this now stalled the process?

[1:06:41] » Come back in August. They have time to address it. And you so you would address

[1:06:47] things with amendments. Is that right? >> That's how

[1:06:51] » Okay. >> Okay. Fair enough. Could we refer to

[1:06:57] 9.1.4 that table that

[1:07:01] Councilman Klet Scalleti uh talked through and go to

[1:07:08] the subdivision review. And I just this is just more for

[1:07:13] understanding. So, we've got the sketch plan

[1:07:19] which once approved is valid for 12 months

[1:07:23] and then it can be renewed for one month. That's 24 months.

[1:07:28] Um, then Kurt, I'm really pointing to you.

[1:07:34] During that 24 months, they then must go to preliminary plat. Is that right?

[1:07:41] » If they don't, if they don't, they have to start over.

[1:07:45] That's the way it66.

[1:07:49] » Sorry, that that's the way it it's written. I didn't hear you.

[1:07:53] » Yeah. Okay. And so then likewise pre preliminary plat they'll have 36 months

[1:07:59] once they get the preliminary plat approval to then go to final plat. And

[1:08:05] then from there again another 36 months that they then need to apply for a

[1:08:11] building permit. Is that right? Well, yeah, just permits in general.

[1:08:17] » Okay. And then so within that once they have that final plat 36 months, they got

[1:08:23] to go to a project permit which is back up in 9.5

[1:08:28] and that permit is valid for for six months. Is is there a

[1:08:36] requirement to finish the project? Um, do they need to finish the project

[1:08:40] within the final plat period? Do they when do they have to finish the project?

[1:08:50] » Within the final plat period? >> I think

[1:08:52] » that's my question. I mean, when does a when does a does a developer have to

[1:08:58] finish the project or can they not finish the project?

[1:09:02] » Sure. Um

[1:09:05] you know with the final pledge you can provide the shity right um you know

[1:09:10] essentially we're not going to allow lots to be we're not going to allow cos

[1:09:15] or permits to be issued until infrastructure is in you bond all the

[1:09:21] infrastructure right

[1:09:25] but we're not going to release a permit until you actually complete the

[1:09:28] infrastructure and in the case where let's say you have a climate flood and

[1:09:33] you maybe there's an economic downturn. This happened in 2008 and uh you know

[1:09:40] what should happen is is that let's say there's 20 lots left but they only build

[1:09:45] roads to three lots. you know, um really what that would mean is there the road

[1:09:51] would kind of end there and we wouldn't have issued permits for any of those

[1:09:54] lots until they finished the infrastructure and then we would call

[1:09:56] the bond and theoretically the city would have eventually finished the

[1:10:02] infrastructure um or those remaining blocks. That's

[1:10:07] » okay. >> But uh yeah, I mean it's kind of you

[1:10:11] know I think it's really your final flight's good for this amount of time.

[1:10:15] Maybe maybe the better way to think about it is it's good for you to provide

[1:10:19] assurity or improvements for that amount of time. That makes sense.

[1:10:26] » Does make sense. >> Put up all that money or after that

[1:10:30] three years then this whole big process that you get sketch plan preliminary

[1:10:35] final four would end and you've lost your best of bre.

[1:10:41] » Sorry, say that one more time. >> And then you would have lost your best

[1:10:44] of bre. need to go back to the beginning >> once the shity was called on.

[1:10:51] » No, I I I'm saying I think the three year the way to maybe best save the

[1:10:56] final flood is you got basically three years to pull the shity,

[1:11:01] right? To actually create the lots and record the plan. Maybe that's the best

[1:11:07] way to say it. Well, I don't know. But I I I

[1:11:16] » again >> it's important to to to think about this

[1:11:20] because we have this situation. I want to move to the historic district now.

[1:11:25] So what happens in the historic district if we go to 9 10.2?

[1:11:36] So, I just want you to keep what I just said in mind. If we go to 910

[1:11:44] [Music]

[1:11:50] » or in the current or the proposed

[1:11:54] » in the current proposed red line >> local

[1:11:59] designation, I think we actually >> 910 Buford historic district certificate

[1:12:04] of appropriateness. If we could go there page 197.

[1:12:16] » So if we go down to the chart on under two under major.

[1:12:24] So this is the process. Um,

[1:12:30] are there any time constraints on going from conceptual, preliminary and final?

[1:12:38] There used to be. Are there any now?

[1:12:46] » The 9.10. We had a lot of discussion. There was a recommendation, but it's not

[1:12:51] move forward with this set of recommendations.

[1:12:55] I think we were going to have future discussion on it.

[1:12:59] » Oh, so this is not part of what they're what is in front of council to approve.

[1:13:04] » That was the first thing the planning commission and feel

[1:13:11] » spent a lot of time on. Um and that I think and it added a concept and

[1:13:15] preliminary and final process to all the work. Um but uh that was not part of

[1:13:22] this specific I don't think it moved forward with

[1:13:26] council. So it wasn't part of this package.

[1:13:32] » You say any of the historic stuff. >> Yeah. any of the historic stuff except

[1:13:35] you just they made a few tiny little grammat you know like minor changes just

[1:13:39] for script code that you can see just approval of

[1:13:44] you know we just put historic district made and got rid of that that's that's

[1:13:49] it we didn't make any substantive or we're coming back on that

[1:13:53] » we were in a we're coming back on that and I think that's scheduled for

[1:14:00] » okay so so what you're saying is you

[1:14:06] for

[1:14:09] » Okay. So, what you're what you're saying is that there's going to be more

[1:14:11] discussion on this because again, we can get find ourselves in a situation where

[1:14:16] somebody >> So, I think yeah, that'll be I think

[1:14:18] broadly. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously with the final

[1:14:21] thought, it' be kind of rare for someone to do a major subdivision in the

[1:14:25] historic district, but uh obviously they do appropriate. It's finalized for a

[1:14:30] major sub, you know, it's multiple lots. It's a sale house.

[1:14:35] » I suppose. >> Okay, I got it. So, what what you're

[1:14:38] saying, Kurt, and again, this situation does exist currently in the historic

[1:14:42] district. Is the historic That's a different section that you're not

[1:14:47] considering right now. Is that right? >> There's no substant changes to that

[1:14:52] section. Right. >> And what section is that?

[1:14:55] » That's the the COA and the was it 9.9 and 9.10.

[1:15:02] Okay.

[1:15:05] » There's a lot of discussion. >> Okay. Fair. Fair enough. Fair enough.

[1:15:10] So, could we go back to that that chart that we talked about? And again, this

[1:15:15] I'm I'm sorry to be a little bit pedantic on this, but this is the world

[1:15:19] we're living in right now. So I just want to be very precise because so if

[1:15:24] you go to historic preservation

[1:15:30] you now have a certificate of appropriateness

[1:15:35] which is 24 months and can be extended the proposed is three times. Is that

[1:15:41] right Kurt? >> That's right. That's what

[1:15:45] » okay so what does that mean? Does that mean the building needs to be built by

[1:15:52] then or that within five years the applicant who has the certificate of

[1:16:00] appropriateness needs to apply for a building permit?

[1:16:04] What is it? >> I think it's similar to the final ply.

[1:16:07] It doesn't mean it has to be built. It means they have to submit a building

[1:16:12] permit which requires a certificate of appropriateness. they've met all the

[1:16:16] conditions of either a minor certificate of progress or let's say the HRB said

[1:16:22] you know you had to do specific windows and columns etc that

[1:16:27] was a condition so when you submit your building permit we would verify

[1:16:33] that was done on and so yeah does that does that make sense so you have that

[1:16:38] » well well let's let's work to a practical

[1:16:41] » years to submit a building permit that meets the certificate the government.

[1:16:46] » Fair enough. So, let's let's just assume we're under the new new code. Uh the

[1:16:51] building um that I got a certificate of appropriateness

[1:16:56] la a year ago was approved. I've got 24 months and then I've got another three

[1:17:03] years that I can extend that certificate of appropriateness

[1:17:08] before I need to get a building permit. And as long as I do that, I get a

[1:17:13] building permit, right? Within the three within the five years.

[1:17:18] » Okay. So once I get that building permit, how long is the building permit

[1:17:24] valid for? Six months. It says >> six months, but it can be extended based

[1:17:29] on any progress, any meaningful progress or you know the building official can

[1:17:34] extend it for I guess cause you know. So it's an it's an arbitrary

[1:17:40] extension by the building in inspector. Is that right?

[1:17:44] » I wouldn't say so. No, it's in the it's in the building code that you know

[1:17:47] that's approved by almost every community, you know, one version or

[1:17:51] another. But all that language building the IRC, you know, or the IBC, right?

[1:17:57] That's done by the international code council.

[1:18:00] » But we do six month period, but that sixmonth period is the same as the IBC

[1:18:05] and the IRC. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think it becomes

[1:18:08] arbitrary simply because an official has the ability to make a decision. I think

[1:18:14] arbitrary is the wrong word. And I think as Kurt has explained it, I think it's a

[1:18:18] normal way that business in this regard is done.

[1:18:21] » It has to meet the standards to renew a building permit is in both of the two

[1:18:26] international code. You know, the IRC and the IBC there. The standards are

[1:18:30] there that you have to meet. Typically, it's you have to have some

[1:18:34] progress in six months to renew it or you know there's there's a section in

[1:18:39] those codes that state what you need to do to extend it no action.

[1:18:44] » Okay. So, it's standardized. Okay, fair enough.

[1:18:49] » They're not Buford codes. They're, you know, codes that are adopted in almost

[1:18:53] every >> Okay, I'll look at that. So, for a big

[1:18:58] project downtown, the code does not require a TIA. Is that right?

[1:19:06] » Um, I don't know that I could say that for sure, but uh, you know, certain uses

[1:19:13] could require a TI. >> Well, I I think the proposal in here is

[1:19:17] that overlay districts would be exempt. >> Oh, yeah, you're right. But that's

[1:19:21] Bladen Street. No, no, it's bound it's bounded by

[1:19:25] Calhoun, Carterette, Bay Street, and Rebo Road.

[1:19:30] » Isn't there a blade overlay in redevelopment district downtown?

[1:19:34] » There is. >> Yeah. So then that would be exempt to I

[1:19:38] guess certain parts of downtown. >> But what about in the middle of

[1:19:41] downtown? If you put a I mean just, you know,

[1:19:46] » you put a fast food restaurant. Is that >> No, you put a 70 room hotel. Do you need

[1:19:50] a do you need a TIA?

[1:19:55] Uh if it triggers it if it triggers 50 trips

[1:20:00] » um >> or more you have

[1:20:01] » or more in a peak an hour you have to yes or for a site plan

[1:20:06] » you have to and it's just complicated because you know most of those uses are

[1:20:10] not allowed in the store jumping but yes a hotel would be one that could

[1:20:15] potentially trigger the >> okay and does it I didn't see anything

[1:20:21] about archaeological downtown has that been taken out or

[1:20:25] » address it. Yeah, that's in chapter eight.

[1:20:28] » It actually was in 7.5 reference to but it's in chapter eight

[1:20:33] and they haven't gotten to that yet. >> Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. Um

[1:20:39] I've only got one or two more here, guys. Thanks for sticking with me. Um

[1:20:45] uh 910.2.3A

[1:20:49] 910.3 >> page. Yeah, let me get there and I'll

[1:20:54] tell you. Hold on. 10

[1:21:04] » 9 10.2

[1:21:08] [Music]

[1:21:12] » That's the That's the sections that we're going to be working on later.

[1:21:16] » Oh, okay. Because you you have made some changes. applicability. HRB shall have

[1:21:20] the authority to authorize a design exception from any applicable standard

[1:21:26] set forth in article 2 except for section 2.6 height and section 2.74 air

[1:21:34] installation. So where before there was a limit on what they could do, now

[1:21:39] they're totally unlimited.

[1:21:46] So one thing that is concerning here is not only height but width

[1:21:54] which gets to mass and scale. And so as a major developer in the historic

[1:22:01] district that wants to maintain its character that's a concern.

[1:22:11] Front footage is what I'm talking about.

[1:22:17] You're going to have to correct for all of us. I was under the impression, I

[1:22:21] don't know what yours is, Mike, that we were going to leave all of the changes

[1:22:24] to the to the historic out for now that we would change it.

[1:22:29] » And we've been meeting over the last smaller group over the last couple of

[1:22:34] months about some larger issues in the historic district. And we were going to

[1:22:39] come back with the historic district changes separate from all this. Is that

[1:22:43] why? >> Okay, that's fair enough. That's that's

[1:22:46] a good answer. Um and then finally, um >> changes

[1:22:55] » they weren't intended. >> So are those changes going to be changed

[1:23:00] that you've crossed out or it's just not?

[1:23:03] » Let me check because this was actually related to the design exception and

[1:23:07] that's why they're in there. Well, in the final analysis, what's going to be

[1:23:11] over the clean version, not our line version anyway.

[1:23:15] » And so, you know, really what the question is is what's in the clean

[1:23:19] version. I don't know whether >> I'm going to look but uh I that was

[1:23:24] actually touched because there was a lot of consideration from some of the

[1:23:28] attorneys on if I remember this is probably like 12 years ago

[1:23:33] stated varants stated variance HRV should grant a variance and that's why

[1:23:38] it was changed because I think the a feeling that that's the original code

[1:23:43] they didn't have the power to grant a variance they have the power to make

[1:23:46] » right >> that's that's that was the

[1:23:49] I to me it's concerning that they have no boundaries whatsoever.

[1:23:56] » Well, I think we can mark that and you know again there was no intention to

[1:24:00] change any of that and I think that was the the reason for it. So

[1:24:07] » okay when they come out

[1:24:10] » but that was the reason I think it was because

[1:24:14] » says varants >> and and then the last

[1:24:18] » sorry go ahead >> so sorry go ahead

[1:24:22] » and then the last thing is on demolition um where does demolition

[1:24:28] stand >> that was in the same

[1:24:32] the same u future future set of things that we're going to come back to the

[1:24:38] council planning commission. >> We're making no changes on that for now

[1:24:43] is was what where the planning commission stood on it because we

[1:24:46] understood that we needed to uh consider all of that or am I correct about that?

[1:24:54] » Okay. Okay. Uh that was it. Thank you very

[1:24:58] much. Um, really quick, looking at this chart, um, where is the minor

[1:25:04] subdivision review on that? I mean, I I think it's it's clear to me when I'm

[1:25:11] reading it that you have the subdivision review section, and then you have sketch

[1:25:16] plan, then preliminary plat, final plat. And sketch plan is required for all

[1:25:22] major development. But where is the minor subdivision review in the chart?

[1:25:30] » We picked that out. When you go to the final clean copy version, you'll see

[1:25:34] that it's going. >> Okay. So, what was the thought of

[1:25:38] removing it for just having it in here? Even if it's the administrative review

[1:25:43] or whatever, what would be the justification for removing it from the

[1:25:48] chart all together?

[1:25:55] believe need to go through any specific public process, but perhaps it's better.

[1:26:05] » I would think I mean there's others that are that wouldn't go through any public

[1:26:08] process as well that are listed in here. And you know, if you're looking at this

[1:26:13] and you're trying to determine, you know, maybe where you would go to find

[1:26:16] the section minor, >> I think the the minor one was just go

[1:26:22] back to the minor requirements. It was just a find that would apply.

[1:26:30] » I don't think it was ever in the code. And that was Yeah, that was the minor

[1:26:33] site plan. was a minor subdivision. Excuse me.

[1:26:37] » I'm seeing I see the minor site plan in the chart for the design review, but I

[1:26:41] don't see the minor subdivision. >> Yeah, I don't know that it ever was

[1:26:49] in the old chart. In fact, I think >> I think

[1:26:54] » Well, we can I think that's something to add, but I don't think they anything

[1:27:01] administrative. >> Okay. know what I was looking I didn't

[1:27:04] see it on there. Um and then another question that maybe pretty easy for you

[1:27:08] guys. I was looking for it, couldn't find it, but on um page 170 where it

[1:27:12] says section 9.1.6 decision based on a public hearing. Um that used to be that

[1:27:20] a decision shall be made by the appropriate review body within 60 days

[1:27:24] of the close of the required public hearing and it's left blank. And I I

[1:27:30] would assume that it got moved somewhere, but I had trouble finding it.

[1:27:33] Would it moved somewhere? >> Page 170 9.1.6 decision based on public

[1:27:40] hearing. So if there's a decision made, is there a time frame by which

[1:27:45] » I I don't think I think our thinking was is that if we don't decide at the date

[1:27:51] of the hearing, we're just continuing the hearing.

[1:27:54] » Okay. We're not. So, we either decide when we're done or we continue the

[1:27:58] hearing. And we'll either continue a hearing where we uh where we don't take

[1:28:03] additional testimony or whether we do, but we'd be specific about that. But

[1:28:07] it's not one of these things where you're closed if you just never vote on

[1:28:10] it. >> Okay.

[1:28:11] » So, and also >> thinking was scratching and it really

[1:28:14] didn't. >> So, we have to make a decision after

[1:28:16] we're we're done hearing all the testimony or otherwise we continue it.

[1:28:20] » Okay. Also because there were multiple instances

[1:28:24] both when the DRB existed uh planning commission where it's gone way over 60

[1:28:30] days projects they >> because we don't have that concern right

[1:28:36] now. >> Well you know they've been tabled and

[1:28:38] you know a lot of past projects for additional information from the

[1:28:42] applicant that you know longer saying. So we've had some instances just

[1:28:47] » we don't want them to be approved by ordinance

[1:28:51] that makes sense. >> I'm going to take that violence out.

[1:28:54] » Gotcha. >> So we've had some situations where we

[1:28:57] just didn't have adequate information to make a final decision. And and so we've

[1:29:01] said, "Listen, will you agree to just continue this or do you want us to vote

[1:29:05] today?" And in those instances, they've always said, "Well, I'll agree to

[1:29:10] continue this because I'm not going to have you vote with inadequate

[1:29:13] information because you're probably not vote the way I want."

[1:29:17] » So that's the idea there. >> Um, and then one other thing, and this

[1:29:24] is on page 200. Uh, I think this was already in the code, but just a

[1:29:28] question. Uh, again, page 200 under guidance, standards, maintenance of

[1:29:34] consent policies. The last bullet number six, it says any special area policies

[1:29:40] adopted by the HRB. Do they have the ability to adopt

[1:29:45] policies or special area?

[1:29:50] » A good question. I think that's in the current code and we just didn't really

[1:29:54] consider it. So, >> it's in the current. I just didn't know.

[1:29:57] Maybe it doesn't even need to be there because I don't know that they have the

[1:30:01] whole thing. Are we even going to be there? Are we

[1:30:06] even expecting a vote on anything related to

[1:30:10] the historic section? My my understanding as a PL we had we

[1:30:17] had discussed with the things internally. We had come up with our

[1:30:20] proposed changes. We were told that council either didn't like them or

[1:30:26] wanted more changes. So what we were internally discussing and which was sort

[1:30:30] of the genesis of that whole committee that got set up started meeting was we

[1:30:35] had a bigger we had more work to do and so no changes were going to be made to

[1:30:40] the historic section until that committee completed its work and got

[1:30:44] back to the planning commission for further review.

[1:30:46] There's a lot of issues the special committee is dealing with uh as an

[1:30:52] example area property that we all know different things that have to be with

[1:30:56] there and the community itself. So dealing with the whole section

[1:31:03] especially demolition becomes uh a little more complicated as well as

[1:31:08] sensitive to everybody and trying to preserve the community. So special

[1:31:12] committee has been set up to try and hear the voices of uh various different

[1:31:18] entities as to how to put that back together to make it work and enforceable

[1:31:25] because nothing that we have in the current code has been enforcable for 20

[1:31:30] or 30 years. >> Is that special committee made up of

[1:31:34] members from planning commission HRB? >> Yes. Okay.

[1:31:37] » And and the what's that group? Freeman, sorry. Freeman.

[1:31:42] » Yeah. So, when we when we first sat down, I was under the impression that

[1:31:47] Mike was that we were going to get some comments to the code sections that we

[1:31:51] be, you know, meeting or two and we'd be done with that. But it kind of opened it

[1:31:56] up to everything and we started talking about much more broadly uh about a whole

[1:32:02] variety of issues relating to the historic and the Freedman's Arts

[1:32:06] District. And so instead of being like a two-hour meeting or two two-hour

[1:32:11] meetings, I think it ended up being like, you know, a half dozen 4hour

[1:32:15] meetings. And I think that we finally put

[1:32:18] something together that was who we sent to the city council, right, and just

[1:32:22] hadn't taken it up yet. And that wasn't even the final step in the process. That

[1:32:25] was sort of a preliminary step. Is that right, Cord?

[1:32:28] » Well, if you remember at your retreat, it was brought up then. And at the

[1:32:33] retreat, um, I stated that we'd get together with the historic uh, design

[1:32:38] review board and get together and put something together that made the most

[1:32:44] sense. That's what generated this other committee. So, it's been going on for

[1:32:49] quite a while. We've had a lot of meetings. I think the discussions have

[1:32:52] been really very uh very good, very fruitful and we need to come up with

[1:32:58] something that you all can enforce that is appropriate for now.

[1:33:04] » I think at one time Mr. Hullman, there was a draft that you had um was from

[1:33:08] city of Columbia or something. Is that right?

[1:33:11] » Infamous draft. I'm not sure >> that had to do with demolitions. Is that

[1:33:17] is that still on the table at all or is that part has it just been rolled into

[1:33:20] part of the discussion? >> We haven't even gotten to the demolition

[1:33:25] discussion within so

[1:33:30] » um regarding if this goes to second reading in August. I think we can see

[1:33:37] here today that there is considerable version confusion going on and this is

[1:33:42] something that we and the planning commission have struggled with from the

[1:33:46] beginning and I think there's confusion about what exactly was agreed to at

[1:33:51] first reading and what would be up for a vote at second reading and I would

[1:33:57] suggest that a version be prepared that excludes doesn't even have it in the

[1:34:03] packet any of this historic district stuff. It should just be not in there.

[1:34:08] Um, and also suggests that in reviewing it, I find these redline versions

[1:34:15] extremely difficult to read and there's a lot of mistakes to them and they're

[1:34:19] hard to see. So, I would suggest that council members look at the clean copy

[1:34:25] and if there's something that seems not right, then refer to the redline version

[1:34:30] to if there's an explanation. I think and then and then when you're talking

[1:34:34] about it at the meeting, I also think that you should use a clean version uh

[1:34:39] for purposes of any vote or any further modifications. That's just my

[1:34:48] » All right, Tony, if you got someone I do,

[1:34:54] » Mr. Tri, >> thank you. I left two things out and I

[1:34:57] appreciate you tolerating hearing me again. Um, one is the TIA, there was

[1:35:02] some discussion on half versus a mile. Uh, and again, this question is for

[1:35:07] Kurt. If and the planning committee, by all means, chime in. You're wanting that

[1:35:13] right now as written that the TIA take into consideration a half mile

[1:35:20] radius. Is that right? >> Yes. Except for if it's approved but not

[1:35:28] permitted but unbuilt development into the mile is the way that it currently.

[1:35:33] » Has anybody explored what that might cost?

[1:35:36] » I think >> I I because I don't know and my some of

[1:35:41] my property is impacted. I I think it's a good idea. I just don't know what it

[1:35:46] might cost to do that in a TIA and do we know? I'm trying to bring this to

[1:35:50] practicality. >> Well, a TIA looks at intersect

[1:35:54] Uh that's what it's all about. It's always about intersection. So it depends

[1:35:58] how many intersections we're within the distance.

[1:36:03] » Uh so talk me through that. So how is a half mile going to be uh any different

[1:36:09] than a mile if I'm doing an intersection?

[1:36:13] might be more.

[1:36:18] » Now, often they use the, you know, the county or the state, you know, often

[1:36:23] does counts that are pretty accurate on a lot of the major roads that are within

[1:36:28] a time frame that works. So, >> right, but my experience is they sit on

[1:36:34] the corner where the where the development is going to go and they they

[1:36:38] take car counts. >> That's right.

[1:36:42] » Okay. So what does a math mile versus a mile mean to that is my question.

[1:36:48] » Well, more than one more than the multiple intersections can easily be

[1:36:52] impacted by a traffic by a new development. Okay. And you know a half

[1:36:58] mile or a mile is actually you know sort of arbitrary. My experience a lot of it

[1:37:04] with developments over a long career is that it's you it's it's the uh and we

[1:37:10] don't have a engineering section but it's a it's it's somebody

[1:37:15] like in in our case here Kirk would have to say

[1:37:19] these are the intersections that are impacted and you really need to look at

[1:37:22] these intersections. I think we just put in a distance in there because we

[1:37:26] discussed it in the sense was it should be beyond just the intersection where

[1:37:32] you have access to the property. >> Got it. Okay. Um and Mike Tony, back to

[1:37:39] the demolition situation. Um it seems to me it would be pretty easy

[1:37:45] to put a a limit on the time frame for demolitions and not stop this whole

[1:37:52] process. this now very complicated process which

[1:37:56] either intentionally or not intentionally has been created.

[1:38:01] Isn't that reasonable? I mean, right now I'm holding a demolition permit that

[1:38:04] never expires. Uh, and that's the whole issue. Why why can't you at least put an

[1:38:11] interim demolition sunset in and then go back and deal with all these quote

[1:38:16] unquote stakeholders that have been created?

[1:38:20] » Well, I I totally agree. We have to have sunsets and uh we could put something

[1:38:25] temporary in there. We'll have to uh uh see what uh the uh the board wants to

[1:38:32] do. But uh I I totally agree. We've got to have those sunsets and that's the

[1:38:36] problem that we've had up until now. Uh the problem putting a sunset in is how

[1:38:41] do you uh how do you enforce it? And that's that's one of the big issues

[1:38:46] we've uh been trying to deal with. So, you don't have advice on how to

[1:38:51] enforce it, isn't it? Just simply send the code guy out there and sorry, you

[1:38:55] can't do it or >> uh you can do that, but uh is is

[1:39:01] something that actually happened and if you're talking about a a taking of

[1:39:08] property, you know, how is that going to get done? I think that that's there

[1:39:12] there's just a lot of issues around that that we're trying to deal with right now

[1:39:16] and come up a way with a way that uh they can be um uh they can be dealt

[1:39:22] with. >> Okay. And and then are those meetings

[1:39:25] open to the public? >> Yes.

[1:39:28] » Yeah, >> they are. So they're advertised and

[1:39:30] they're open to the public and and all that sort of stuff.

[1:39:36] » There's there's been a hiatus on those right now. Uh we're looking for an an

[1:39:42] official adoption of of that uh uh special committee from city council. I

[1:39:48] think that's coming up. Uh >> okay

[1:39:52] will be a work session with the city council.

[1:39:55] » Yeah. And so then those definitely are advertised.

[1:40:02] » Yeah. Okay. Because it sounds it sounds like a lot of this stuff has been done

[1:40:06] behind closed doors without stakeholders. It's just my I'm not

[1:40:09] accusing. I'm just I'm >> No, I would No, there hasn't been any

[1:40:13] discussion at all just of demolition. >> All the discussion was from the planning

[1:40:19] commission last year.

[1:40:23] » Okay, fair enough. >> Great. Say that.

[1:40:28] » Thank you. In the interest of time, I'd like and Mike, if Mike, if you don't

[1:40:33] mind, y'all go through what the chamber presented, the edits that y'all did

[1:40:38] there. Um, so that we can come up with a clean copy that we could, you know, have

[1:40:43] some amendments to vote on our next meeting if that's possible to do it.

[1:40:47] » Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I think is that the plan to maybe send this back to the

[1:40:52] planning commission for which meeting next week?

[1:40:56] if you go over I think John Councilman Scalleti had a lot of excellent comments

[1:41:02] incorporate this

[1:41:04] » well and Mr. Barorper and Mr. Tony have um sort

[1:41:12] of taken the lead as a subcommittee within the planning commission to

[1:41:16] coordinate this process. So, um I think we we should be able to accomplish

[1:41:21] something. But our next >> Yeah, I think I think you know a lot of

[1:41:26] the changes are just um uh

[1:41:32] using the proper words and punctuations and capitalizations, things like that.

[1:41:37] There's there's a few things in here that that are are more than that. Um and

[1:41:42] there may be a couple of issues that uh we uh don't agree with uh the comments

[1:41:48] that we've been given >> and they were working on the earlier

[1:41:54] redline draft and when we did the final draft for example the formatting all

[1:41:59] changed so a lot of the little rolling hoods became little beads things of that

[1:42:04] kind and it so but we made one go through already

[1:42:09] like I did And we're going to do another one here with

[1:42:13] » we we've done the health cover based on what they

[1:42:17] » we're working with. So we didn't change it up so that so they could understand

[1:42:22] what it is. >> I I'd be more than happy to go through

[1:42:25] each of our comments here. I know uh they're the comments of things that we

[1:42:30] think uh can change at this point or we can give this document to them uh to

[1:42:36] look at if they want. Um but if they want to make comments at this meeting

[1:42:42] related to specific issues in here um we probably have to uh go through the

[1:42:49] comments and let her make specific uh just have discussion about some specific

[1:42:55] items. >> Megan is not here to speak on the

[1:42:58] chamber. Oh well, >> it sounded like in the comments made

[1:43:02] today, there was nothing actually specifically pointed to, but it sounded

[1:43:06] like the underlying concern was the economics of it. Is it going to make

[1:43:11] development more expensive and unreasonably more expensive? But I feel

[1:43:16] like some of the changes that we're we're seeing here, in fact, many of them

[1:43:21] are exactly in line with not only council's concerns, but the community we

[1:43:26] represent, their concerns, which is the the tree canopy coverage and the traffic

[1:43:31] impact studies being being um required and and more tightened up. Um, so I

[1:43:37] think a lot of the issues are are exactly in line with, you know,

[1:43:41] » well, the uh the planning commission is looking at it from the standpoint of

[1:43:46] what's in the best interest of this community,

[1:43:49] » right? >> And so as we address all these issues,

[1:43:52] we're not looking at things that make it less expensive for a developer to come

[1:43:57] in and do something. We're looking at uh maintaining the integrity of the

[1:44:02] community as the development happens, working with the developer to uh to do

[1:44:07] these things. So, uh we may have some disagreements on a couple of things in

[1:44:11] here, but the majority uh doesn't get into that kind of detail,

[1:44:16] » right? And and my specific concern in regards to the predictability is just

[1:44:21] that is having somebody be able to read it and say, "Okay, this is what's

[1:44:25] required of me." And if it's a stringent requirement, that's fine because I feel

[1:44:31] like we need to do that in order to protect what we have. But at the same

[1:44:36] time, at least I'd like somebody to be able to read it and understand exactly

[1:44:40] what is required of them and there not be question marks on what that might

[1:44:44] look like and and so clearing up some of those gray areas um I feel like is

[1:44:49] important because there were several of them. Um we we did talk about the within

[1:44:54] a mile and there seemed to be a little confusion. So, I want to just make sure

[1:44:57] that was an intentional um in here. But on page 120, it says incorporation of

[1:45:04] all traffic impact analysis studies and trip generation from approved

[1:45:08] developments or vested unbuilt developments within mile radius at the

[1:45:13] time of proposal. Now, that's the only place where it talks about a mile.

[1:45:16] Everything else is a half a mile. So, was that an intentional decision that

[1:45:20] was made within a mile or is the word half missing from there? Well, let me

[1:45:25] tell you a little bit of the background uh behind all that. Uh and that is if I

[1:45:31] started looking across the county, city and town uh and dealing with issues as I

[1:45:36] work with the county on certain boards and things is that we have so much

[1:45:41] development going on. We've got 3 to 5,000 new units coming online. And a lot

[1:45:48] of that when you're taking a look at a specific uh subdivision as at a point in

[1:45:55] our community, uh you have to go out farther to see what the overall impact

[1:46:00] of that is because when those units come online, you're going to have a much

[1:46:04] greater impact on the road systems and the intersections. So the intent and the

[1:46:09] purpose was to try and uh put together information that would allow a traffic

[1:46:15] engineer to understand what the future impact is based on what we're approving

[1:46:20] for developments. One of the things I would like to see happen is get a GIS uh

[1:46:27] system done where we have input from the city, the town, and the county uh that

[1:46:33] uh shows exactly where our subdivisions are that are either applying for uh

[1:46:38] permits uh actually permitted or haven't come online yet, but and are still out

[1:46:44] there. so that we could see what those population areas are and their impacts

[1:46:49] on those particular roads and whether or not that's going to have an impact on a

[1:46:54] future subdivision that we're currently currently reviewing. Uh the problem that

[1:46:59] that I've had is that our board when we take a look at this, we're looking at a

[1:47:03] very uh small confined area uh and not taking into account and sometimes we

[1:47:09] don't even know. That's why I really like to see uh an emphasis put on just

[1:47:15] getting a GIS map which should be not really complicated because you can go to

[1:47:20] each of the uh planning commissions uh for each of our uh municipalities

[1:47:25] uh and just plot that on a GIS map and then just kind of keep that up and the

[1:47:30] intent would be that that GIS map is then available for every uh um plan

[1:47:36] subdivision that comes to the table for any of us. Is there

[1:47:41] as a traffic engineer, what what are they basing allowing a develop you know

[1:47:46] saying okay it's going to put this many cars on what's the capacity of the

[1:47:49] arterial routes because that's the thing that I'm concerned about you can do half

[1:47:53] mile you can do a mile doesn't matter 170 whether it's county portal or Buer

[1:47:58] sooner or later it's going to be gridlock and the way these things work

[1:48:02] the way that traffic impact assessments work together capacity analysis for

[1:48:07] intersections so the whole idea is is that you know what slow you're trying to

[1:48:13] make sure that traffic keeps moving. I mean this is the way things are analyzed

[1:48:17] across the country. It isn't whether there's how much traffic is on the road.

[1:48:22] It's whether it moves through the intersections in in a in one signal. So

[1:48:27] the idea is it might you know as communities grow yeah there's going to

[1:48:33] be ever more traffic on the art on the roads. There's just pl there's no point

[1:48:37] in that. So, what you try to do is make sure that um you don't improve

[1:48:43] new developments that that cause gridlock. And gridlock is when you can't

[1:48:47] get through an intersection anymore. Um you can and as a result of those studies

[1:48:54] um you know it may sometimes come down to the fact that we just have to turn

[1:48:59] something down but it may be that there are various modifications that can be

[1:49:03] you know the typical things that a traffic impact study looks at is signal

[1:49:06] timing. you know, add more, you know, green time to the arterial and and less

[1:49:13] to the to the cross street. Um, turning lanes, you know, and it's usually left

[1:49:19] turn. It's always left turns that it's all about, whether you're turning left

[1:49:22] out of a development or turning in. So, do we have to add new uh uh turning

[1:49:27] lanes, stacking lanes, and send things of that kind? Um so you know that's what

[1:49:34] that's what we're always looking at and that's what the T traffic impact

[1:49:37] assessments are looking at. >> Uh it's not a total volume of traffic on

[1:49:41] the road, it's the total capacity of an intersection and they're graded on the

[1:49:45] basis of uh delays. Uh so there's usually two num there's a number in

[1:49:50] there which is the seconds of delay and then those seconds of delay for the the

[1:49:57] institute traffic engineer uh standards are given grades ABCD E and F. Um coming

[1:50:04] into this whole thing your development code here said that we shoot for a level

[1:50:09] of service D. Where I came from we considered a level of service D as a

[1:50:15] passing grade. I mean, we only looked at E and Fs and a lot of times because we

[1:50:20] were in a major metropolitan area, we even approved Fs because it was like so

[1:50:26] many things are F, we'll have no growth and development if we but here you you

[1:50:30] we didn't change that standard. It's it's a level of service D. And so um it

[1:50:37] makes it a little bit easier to to turn things down if the development through

[1:50:44] signal timing and turn lanes and things like that can achieve a level of service

[1:50:48] P. So that's what we you all and what we're looking at is does the traffic

[1:50:53] keep moving? not really how much traffic is is

[1:50:58] those turning lanes you talk about certain roads that you can't can't do

[1:51:02] that because there's nowhere to put that road. The other thing is there's so many

[1:51:07] curb cuts >> along a lot of these things that stop

[1:51:11] and slow traffic and just so the new developments you know in the old days

[1:51:16] everybody got a curb cut where you know every single one acre lot development

[1:51:21] there was and that's part of what you're dealing with now. So I mean it may be

[1:51:25] that on some of these developments what you try to do in an impact setting is

[1:51:29] mitigate the impacts so that you can get it to that level of service even if you

[1:51:32] can't mitigate the impacts because there's no place to put turn lanes or

[1:51:36] whatever then the answer is going to start being no on some of the

[1:51:40] development you know just from the standpoint of driving impact study alone

[1:51:44] that's why it was so important to bas and our one of the big changes last

[1:51:48] thing I'll say on that is we wanted to make sure that TIA were required in more

[1:51:54] circumstances and that they were reviewed by the planning commission when

[1:51:57] I was on the planning commission under my you know the last time the planning

[1:52:03] director didn't want us to ever get a TIA and didn't look want us to look at

[1:52:06] them because he said we weren't competent to do so well we've taken a

[1:52:11] different viewpoint is that we you know that's our responsibility is that we

[1:52:14] don't know how they work and we need to figure out how they work and give you a

[1:52:17] recommendation that regard >> and and to some degree Graham yeah

[1:52:22] Graham is right There is a difference between looking at what road capacity

[1:52:27] is. Uh we're not even dealing with road capacities, but we are approving uh

[1:52:32] major subdivisions and and we've got to be uh we've got to understand what those

[1:52:38] new subdivisions are. And right now, if you do a a TIA on a particular

[1:52:45] intersection, you're not going to get the the same results as you would if all

[1:52:51] of those subdivisions that are in that same area are actually operational. Um,

[1:52:57] but but then that goes back to road capacity. And that I think we need to be

[1:53:02] looking at, oh, what can we do for road capacity? And now obviously we're

[1:53:07] impacting road capacity because we're approving developments.

[1:53:11] » Well, let me hitch on that just for one second. Is one thing we've also tried to

[1:53:15] assure with this is that when a new development, you know, takes its uh you

[1:53:21] know, you take actual counts of what's on the road, but you use the IT manual

[1:53:26] for predicting trim generation from a new development. And so we try to make

[1:53:31] sure that as we analyze as a new TIA is done, it takes into account not just the

[1:53:38] traffic that's on the road, but the traffic that's been approved in a new

[1:53:41] development that isn't built yet. So you're always building on top of what

[1:53:45] was previously approved. And and that's part of the trick in reviewing these

[1:53:51] things is to make sure that that they don't leave out a development just

[1:53:55] because it wasn't built yet. You have to take into account as though it's built.

[1:53:58] And that's what you captured very well here. And then it goes back to the

[1:54:02] requirement for any jurisdiction including the town of Port Royal and the

[1:54:05] county of >> Euper

[1:54:09] trying to capture. The other thing that it dovetales with

[1:54:14] is the sun setting of the permits um and the approvals because now

[1:54:22] the the window for building is extremely long and and it was very important for

[1:54:28] us to shorten that and put a definite limit on it because it's true that some

[1:54:34] developments just never get built. But if you have to take

[1:54:38] » right >> indefinite approvals um into account

[1:54:41] this announce then you are talking about expense and really just speculation. So

[1:54:47] » so one thing to to keep in mind I was at a statewide conference with heads of D

[1:54:52] from DOT and with new developments they're doing everything they can to

[1:54:57] eliminate left turns. You'll see it out there like at Cross Creek area in the Bu

[1:55:02] station. Everybody's fussing about that. Uh they're doing medians, they're doing

[1:55:08] um roundabouts and um traffic circles. Uh they found it's like 75% of the

[1:55:15] accidents are like from left turns and they're trying to eliminate left turns

[1:55:20] everywhere they can. So new development, you're going to start seeing that a lot

[1:55:25] more of it. >> Exactly.

[1:55:26] » From DOT and warning you, >> Miss Kim, back to your comment. Was that

[1:55:31] was that the context behind why the changes in the permit validity

[1:55:37] extensions from five times to to one time because I don't know what the

[1:55:41] appropriate time would be but is that the context behind that change?

[1:55:45] » Well, yeah, that that was part of it. The other was that that I think under

[1:55:49] the original code uh you could um start your sketch plans and not even

[1:55:57] have to do a major development under that same sketch plan for uh 10 12 years

[1:56:03] or something. We've cut it down. Now it's like seven or eight years which is

[1:56:07] still an awful long time. >> It's all about predictability. and and

[1:56:11] from by the time you get even four, five, six years from the time you apply

[1:56:18] and get approved for a plan, everything in this community changes. I mean, look

[1:56:23] where we were five years ago where we are now. U can I ask this and I know

[1:56:29] that the historic preservation portion of the conversation may be off the table

[1:56:32] because that has further review but what was the context behind reducing the

[1:56:40] opportunity to extend say the sketch plan um preliminary and final only one

[1:56:47] time whereas in the historic preservation it went down from five to

[1:56:51] three. Uh I I think that was more the

[1:56:56] predictability of what you're trying to accomplish

[1:57:00] um and funding for that and taking into account that that probably isn't a major

[1:57:07] subdivision. So you're dealing with smaller entities.

[1:57:12] » Yeah. But you have more time. >> We also have bigger challenges often in

[1:57:16] the historic district when you're trying to accomplish a project that you don't

[1:57:19] have in other parts of the city. >> Okay. That's where my mind was is maybe

[1:57:22] there's other challenges that are created in the historic preservation

[1:57:26] district that would require or or make it better to have the opportunity to

[1:57:30] extend up to three times, but I didn't know what the that was thought or not.

[1:57:41] » How do we want to wrap this up? Keepbody >> Yeah. So if I could just give direction

[1:57:49] because I think some of this stems from the fact that we're using a red line

[1:57:53] copy that we're using for red lining in >> right soward

[1:57:59] I think probably deserves a lot of formatting and that's but thinking of

[1:58:03] doing that but and you got the old red line and we can't change that but uh but

[1:58:10] the clean copy to to M's point it's kind of has been format So still there are

[1:58:17] some council lady you know I think some comments and things that kind of missed

[1:58:23] as well or need to be corrected. How do you wish do you want to send that

[1:58:29] back to the planning commission next week where then we'll take a formal

[1:58:32] recommendation and then send you just motions based on that first based

[1:58:40] on the things we talked about today or

[1:58:44] » I think that >> it would be helpful for us to have a

[1:58:48] clean version >> and and the red line for reference as I

[1:58:52] suggested and then I think we can take that clean version And somehow, even if

[1:58:58] you need to do it by motions, and it sounds like you do, the clean version

[1:59:02] needs to be a clean version that comes out of our next meeting needs to be part

[1:59:07] of the packet that is available to council and to the public so people know

[1:59:12] what they're talking about. I mean, we we spent some time here today talking

[1:59:16] about things that really weren't on the agenda. And part of it was because of

[1:59:20] that version confusion. Um, we we did spend time talking about a lot of

[1:59:24] historic district stuff, but it the clean version, the results from our

[1:59:29] planning commission meeting next week should be somehow part of that packet

[1:59:34] for for council for purposes of doing their second reading and their motions

[1:59:38] and whatever is procedurally required. >> And to do that, compare what we passed

[1:59:43] under first reading, what the new clean copy is going to look like, is that's

[1:59:47] going to generate the amendments. >> Yeah. So, and I I I would what we're

[1:59:52] planning to do is Mike and I get together ASAP. First thing we need to do

[1:59:58] is just make sure that we got the the right version that you had the first

[2:00:02] reading with. If if if that version is not in line with our clean version, then

[2:00:13] we might have a lot more changes than we think. We just need to make sure that um

[2:00:18] the changes that we make that that that planning commission takes

[2:00:22] up and that are then recommended to you all are off of the version that you had

[2:00:27] your first reading on because that's right it might be a whole number of it

[2:00:31] might be quite a number of amendments but at least we're making amendments to

[2:00:35] the right draft. If if we find out that there's a problem in that regard, then

[2:00:40] we might have to go back to square one with a new first reading.

[2:00:43] » There's a consistency there's some consistency issue in the 18 months and

[2:00:47] the 12 months, >> one mile and a half mile TAS and so

[2:00:52] forth. And I think some consideration does need to be given to

[2:00:56] » number one cost TIA for radius as compared to a half mile radius. And also

[2:01:03] from the standpoint of whether you once you get beyond a certain point whether

[2:01:08] or not there is integrity to going out the additional half mile from the

[2:01:14] standpoint of what you're taking into consideration

[2:01:17] because I mean a TIA takes traffic considerations by intersections within

[2:01:24] an area and a realm around where where construction where new construction is

[2:01:28] being proposed. And if you when you move it out and take into consideration the

[2:01:32] other preliminary sections in there, I think you're going to see the D's and E

[2:01:37] and the FS becoming much more prevalent in the in the central.

[2:01:42] » Right. So I I have a

[2:01:47] recommendation I had time that I would go back to is that the the TIA be

[2:01:53] be based on intersections and that be determined by somebody with the

[2:01:57] expertise to say which intersections are affected. And the best person we have

[2:02:01] may be staff. And so, you know, an arbitrary number like a half mile or a

[2:02:06] mile is what's important is what are the intersections that are actually affected

[2:02:10] by this new development. And it may be that it's not even a half mile, but it

[2:02:17] might be more than one, you know, because that's what you're really

[2:02:20] looking at. And uh traffic engineers know that, you know, I mean they know

[2:02:26] the intersections that are logically impacted, but you end up getting a

[2:02:30] different grade for each intersection. And um so any we'll take a look at it.

[2:02:37] We'll have >> I'm not a traffic engineer. So

[2:02:40] » I don't know if there's anyone you can rely on. Uh, and if we had a traffic

[2:02:44] engineer, it wouldn't be a consultant. So,

[2:02:46] » my point about the one mile, you take Salem Point, it affects all the way down

[2:02:52] the Parasil Island Gateway, which would be a mile,

[2:02:55] » everything that it affects the whole thing because they'll come out over in

[2:03:00] the side roads every which way out of there. It does affect. So, that's why I

[2:03:04] said a mile. >> Yeah, it might be. I have a question.

[2:03:09] So, once we get this clean version, Um and we'll have that well before 19th

[2:03:16] of August. Um

[2:03:21] we all get to read it. Do we go to second reading and then we decide

[2:03:24] whether we approve or disapprove second reading or are we going to have some

[2:03:28] sort another rehashing meeting? >> No amendments.

[2:03:37] » Yeah, I think that's what I was asking. Do we have a list of all the amendments

[2:03:40] to include >> council's amendments that were

[2:03:43] suggested? >> Well, your comment about the copies

[2:03:48] though amendments based on trying to figure out what to do

[2:03:54] » or and then have the clean copy with those

[2:03:58] amendments made or do we just have the clean copy from first reading and then

[2:04:02] » not made. I think there need a list of possible amendments. Clean copy should

[2:04:07] can correct certain things like the omission of the word not things like

[2:04:12] that. But if it's anything that's substantively changed from the draft

[2:04:15] that was read at the >> has to be amended after.

[2:04:18] » Yeah. Okay. So will correct all the scriveners errors that I think

[2:04:23] » numbering that kind of stuff >> which I think it already did. So that

[2:04:27] that's fine. Um but what do you want me to do with the red line version? Because

[2:04:31] I think that's been the little bit because when you touch a redline

[2:04:35] version, especially in a meeting called together, you do it in the meeting 16 or

[2:04:40] 18 times becomes a little messy. I'm going to be honest with you. And I think

[2:04:44] trying and I that's my fault. I you know Christopher's trying to kind of clean it

[2:04:49] up.

[2:04:53] » I'm not sure that it works so good all the time. So

[2:04:57] clean up. Perhaps now is not the time to figure out how to use it.

[2:05:01] » What I would suggest you do, Curt, is take one more um you know, trip through

[2:05:07] the document and correct your numbering, correct little, you know, scrimer type

[2:05:12] errors, except

[2:05:15] save that as something new. After you do that, accept all the changes in the new

[2:05:21] document. Call it something else. >> And and that would be your clean

[2:05:25] version. >> And you'd still have your old red line.

[2:05:28] We are and all the errors will be corrected and then all the motions with

[2:05:32] substantive things like >> I think correct know this TIA half mile

[2:05:37] that's a substantive issue >> and the word new as far as the gated

[2:05:43] » I think we can all agree it's notization is not

[2:05:48] » that's new I mean that's nothing it's the substantive stuff from the first

[2:05:53] reading to the second reading so we can do an amendment to make We pass a

[2:05:58] second.

[2:06:02] » Was there anything else that's substantive that we haven't discussed?

[2:06:06] » Yes. Everyone here thinks should be

[2:06:15] » um city council going to take these proposed amendments that we have here.

[2:06:22] » We got to make some corrections to these.

[2:06:24] » Yeah. um and send them um back or just incorporate those as amendments.

[2:06:32] » Where did this one come from? >> The chamber of commerce as the chamber

[2:06:35] of commerce notes. These are the amendments, the substantive things and

[2:06:42] driven uh that were in here are now part of this package.

[2:06:48] » Yeah. So, I think I was going to update them and I didn't know if you wanted to

[2:06:51] talk about anything. There's a few substantive things that we haven't

[2:06:54] discussed. >> Okay.

[2:07:02] » Some words I think are really show like the typical I think. So I think that is

[2:07:08] » one one of the main things they had was that uh we had into

[2:07:14] have a title commitment at uh the um >> subdivision subdivisions talking about

[2:07:23] the land lot >> yeah title commitments. Yeah, the sketch

[2:07:27] plan, we had it we had it included in the sketch plan and we agreed that we'd

[2:07:32] leave that out of there. But in the preliminary plan, we needed to have it

[2:07:36] in there because uh and quite frankly, if you're a developer trying to do this

[2:07:41] stuff, we would want to have title before you start spending all the money

[2:07:46] to even go into preliminary plan. But at a minimum, we wanted to have that stay

[2:07:51] in at the preliminary plan. they uh wanted it out of both. So we just took

[2:07:58] it out or we left it into the preliminary

[2:08:03] um >> but took it out of the sketch.

[2:08:06] » Took it out of the sketch. Left it in preliminary.

[2:08:09] » I think that's appropriate. But I mean we're spending our time doing it, too.

[2:08:13] And just recently we had the same thing

[2:08:16] where somebody thought they had the authority to do it because it was a

[2:08:20] father-in-law that was a partial owner I think or something and

[2:08:25] they didn't have the uh agreement with him that they could do what they wanted

[2:08:29] to. So they had to come back and get that agreement put it on the table. Even

[2:08:33] though it was in the B didn't make any difference we needed to have title

[2:08:36] commitment. Uh there was design plan. I think that

[2:08:42] was a little more controversial. It's a >> planning commission felt like they

[2:08:47] should see just a theme of like massing and and conceptual design

[2:08:53] before they test the project. And I think push back from the developer is is

[2:08:58] that one they might not be they have builder right they're going to probably

[2:09:02] sell the development and they're not sure what that might end up. So that

[2:09:07] that was I think one of the more substantive

[2:09:10] » well that comes up in the annexation situation where they annexing some

[2:09:15] property and they want a zoning classification and they usually want to

[2:09:18] have the zoning classification that is giving them the most freedom.

[2:09:24] » It's always up every time >> and and we don't have anything in our

[2:09:29] code right now about dealing with those annexation issues. That's something that

[2:09:34] we have on our list that we need to get to, but right now we have no guidance

[2:09:39] other than South Carolina statutes. Um, but we do have a as far as the zoning

[2:09:45] classifications to be granted after annexations, I think there's consensus

[2:09:49] among the commission that we don't like dual zoning. We we don't we're

[2:09:54] disincclined to approve anymore dual zoning situations. And the developers,

[2:09:59] they feel that that is um something they'd like to have a lot of time

[2:10:04] because that just gives them >> like the T5CH.

[2:10:09] » Yeah. All that kind of stuff. >> Yeah.

[2:10:13] I think we But I think

[2:10:20] we last time,

[2:10:25] we're really frustrated. Our hands were tight because we get

[2:10:31] get a sketch plan that had roads on and that was it. And we would have the you

[2:10:40] have to approve it or disapprove it based on just the roads. But we had no

[2:10:44] control over anything else that happened on that

[2:10:48] piece of property. So uh and for me being an architect um wanted

[2:10:56] to see some concepts of what they intend to do some massing on typical lot. So we

[2:11:02] knew what the massing was going to look like on particular lots because that had

[2:11:07] a lot to do with charact character uh there of that property as well as in the

[2:11:13] community. So those were the kinds of things that uh they wanted to take out

[2:11:19] uh that uh I stand pretty strong on the fact we still need to see that kind of

[2:11:24] thing. We need to know what what the intent is going into the community. And

[2:11:28] I can understand a developer owns piece of property wants to get an approval uh

[2:11:34] from the city. They can go market it and say, "Hey, I got an approval for this.

[2:11:38] Now you can go do whatever you want." Uh that's not what we want. that's not in

[2:11:43] the best interest of the community. So, um that I've left in we've left in

[2:11:49] there. >> Well, it's in the subdivision standards

[2:11:54] requirements and the site plan requirements. Yes,

[2:12:00] » it's looking for consistency with the rest of the code and with whatever other

[2:12:05] you know authority we have to for example on a site plan we review it

[2:12:10] not just against the code but also against community master plan and the

[2:12:14] comp plan and so forth the civic master plan they're so by having that up front

[2:12:21] you know we're able to look at that consistency early on rather than

[2:12:25] approving the subdivision and then with with bassing and building designs

[2:12:31] that don't even comply with the rest of the requirements.

[2:12:34] » But those are really the major things I think. I don't think I can't think of

[2:12:38] anything else >> that was that major open issue.

[2:12:43] » And in our final version, it's not reflected in the red line. Um we don't

[2:12:48] approve a sketch plan anymore. We just provide comments. And part of that

[2:12:53] reason was to try to avoid what happened in the lawsuit on on the dual approvals

[2:13:00] that will happen at at the historic review board. When you come forward with

[2:13:04] a subdivision with a sketch plan, we'll give you your comments, but you don't

[2:13:07] walk away with approval. You want to follow our comments, that's fine, but

[2:13:11] there's a good chance you're not going to get approved at the preliminary plan

[2:13:14] stage, you know, but we give comments. We don't give an approval or a denial

[2:13:19] comments. That way there's only one feelable action. The action when you get

[2:13:24] your final when you get your preliminary plan approved.

[2:13:27] So the comments would come first from PRC and then comments from planning

[2:13:31] committ all that you get is basically direction on what

[2:13:36] exactly >> and I think that that's probably where

[2:13:38] we're leaning when we come up with final recommendations on the historic stuff as

[2:13:42] well as make you know if there's a preliminary review it's it's comments

[2:13:46] and then there's only one action that becomes an appealable action. So you

[2:13:50] don't end up in a situation where somebody appeals a preliminary plan and

[2:13:54] they say, "Well, you you failed to to to approve the sketch plan and so

[2:14:03] dismiss your appeal because you needed to appeal the earlier step. So we're

[2:14:07] trying to eliminate that kind of potential for legal challenges."

[2:14:11] » Well, that's a long way. >> Whatever happened this long way?

[2:14:16] » No, but we knew it worked. >> Yeah. I think those are just common

[2:14:21] sense things that we feel are in the best interest. And the rest of it is

[2:14:27] I don't think that large of an

[2:14:32] » just for direction just make sure basically we'll do the

[2:14:38] update under clean that has all

[2:14:44] made and then we'll do this motion section that we have that's all correct

[2:14:48] with the additional items that were discussed today those will first be sens

[2:14:57] I guess your hands are a little bit cloudy.

[2:15:01] You have to make the recommendation, right?

[2:15:04] I guess I'm not, you know, just making sure we're doing this all right.

[2:15:08] » Yeah, I think that would be it, right? And you guys talked about next week that

[2:15:10] you make a recommendation >> if there's any changes to city council

[2:15:13] and then we can make that necessary to follow through with our second reading.

[2:15:20] attorneys. They're all shaking their head.

[2:15:28] » Oh, I was planning on

[2:15:36] God bless you.

[2:15:40] So, what one last thing that they they referred to was appeals because it

[2:15:45] wasn't in theirs and we have a whole uh a section uh that's been written related

[2:15:53] to appeals >> which is I think in here in the back.

[2:15:56] Yeah, I guess it's not part of the discussion.

[2:15:58] » They didn't part. >> Yeah. 9.17. Yeah,

[2:16:03] » we determined we decided to put it in a separate section uh because I went

[2:16:10] through all of the appeal statute and there was a lot of conflicts

[2:16:16] statutes are not well written when it comes to appeals and so in the old code

[2:16:22] we were giving appeal rights to people that I didn't feel were actually rights

[2:16:26] that were granted by the legislature and so I thought that maybe the better thing

[2:16:29] to do rather than us make a mistake of rewriting the statutory appeal rights is

[2:16:36] create a section where all of the appeals for the various actions are

[2:16:40] listed and at that point in time you need to hire an attorney anyway and have

[2:16:44] the attorney go to that section and look it up and read it make its own

[2:16:49] determination as to what it says. >> So So K that's another point just make

[2:16:55] sure whatever the clean version you prepare is only contains things that are

[2:17:00] up to be voted on. don't have any extra stuff. If you have to redact it, do

[2:17:04] some, you know, so that's why I think you need to make a

[2:17:09] new version. You can keep your old version, but make a new version that

[2:17:14] only has things to be voted on. And I guess are some of these things

[2:17:20] that we have and

[2:17:25] you know like where it's typical I mean I guess it's good for you to see that

[2:17:29] they're there but >> those are do those need to be a specific

[2:17:35] motion from the council. I guess that's a I got a capitalized major subdivision.

[2:17:41] » I I have a question. Maybe it's I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask

[2:17:44] myself or something, but the city managers might

[2:17:49] What is your view on on what constitutes an amendment versus what can just be

[2:17:54] considered a a scrutiner's uh correction? You know, is there a limit

[2:17:59] on Kurt nailed it. It's pretty much a common sense reasonable standard. uh

[2:18:06] it's if it's an a to an and an or capitalization error or something that

[2:18:11] does not change the substance. >> So this so it'll be judgment if it looks

[2:18:16] like it's potentially substantive we consider that an amendment. Okay.

[2:18:20] » Be on the same side. Okay. On the safe side

[2:18:24] if it changes the >> the intent then it probably is

[2:18:27] substantive enough to be an amendment. >> Right. Okay. Okay. So the things that

[2:18:32] you got from us uh for a large part you can disregard

[2:18:38] until you get uh until you get new a lot of that script.

[2:18:42] » So with that definition though um probably the word not that in that

[2:18:47] section about um grading that should be on the amendment list.

[2:18:55] » It's a substantive change of the meaning.

[2:18:57] » Well actually it was already in the clean version. it was in the clean

[2:19:00] version, then then we're good. Then we're good.

[2:19:02] » If it just ended up being an omission from a red line and it was in the

[2:19:05] original version, then we don't have weed on that already. But but something

[2:19:10] like 7.5.3b for Roman emerald 2 remove the word

[2:19:15] harmonious and replace with the word consistent mean could be

[2:19:24] » the word

[2:19:28] » I don't want to create any

[2:19:52] Well, I kept asking questions until I think I um but I I think so. So, we'll

[2:19:58] create Scrier's error. We'll have a new clean

[2:20:02] version. Anything I think we'll talk about next

[2:20:07] Monday that we feel is substant anything that was raised by council tonight

[2:20:13] have a substant. >> Okay.

[2:20:17] Where it is motion

[2:20:23] is council.

[2:20:29] Well, I want to appreciate all work you all have done obviously probably months,

[2:20:36] not a year, but uh and I also want to thank

[2:20:41] everybody that stood up today and gave us your input

[2:20:46] respective meetings. So with that, I'm gonna

Special Joint Worksession of Council with Planning Commission | 07-15-25

Transcript