there and
work session with council and the favor commission to order. This is July 15,
2025. I want to welcome everybody, those who showed up in person and those who
are joining us online. Um this is a work session, a special work session. Um,
we're going to have public comment right off the bat. Uh, so if you have uh
something to say, please raise your hand. I'll recognize you. Come to the
front. Give us your name and your address. And with that, I'm going to
open up public comment. I see Rob Kill number one.
Would you like me over here so you can be seen by everybody?
And we're Kill 608 Water Street. Mr. Mayor, councel, I wrote these
comments down to Tracy if there's a public record.
» Three first key points. I believe convening this special session today is
the right thing to do in the public interest. In the same breath, I also
believe it should not have been necessary to hold this session. Like
every other citizen and stakeholder in the city of Buford, I believe the
Chamber of Commerce had more than ample opportunity for their voice to be heard.
The facts. Chapter 9, Redline posted 20 times on the planning commission
website. Chapter 7 redline posted 16 times on the planning committee website.
The time period 15 months, no chamber input. It asked a rhetorical question.
If I can wait until the 11th hour to make a comment that triggers a special
council meeting on my issue only, why should I play ball any earlier? I'm
confident everyone in this room agrees that processes, rules, and procedures
are in place for a purpose.
Megan, who you spoke last week, are you here?
» Hello. I don't know you and you don't know me.
What I learned from your website is you're a native euphorian and you've
been president of the chamber for almost four years now. Congratulations.
Even if you were my best friend, I would still stand here and admonish you. Maybe
we will become best friends over time. I hope so. I'm a real newcomer to Buford
10 years. Professionally, I've worked on leadership strategy and governance
domain for over 50 years. Since attending the strategic planning meeting
in January 24, I've attended every work session and regular council meeting that
I've been here in person. As president, you should know better. I
doubt you would tolerate such behavior by a member of your chamber. It's not
the job of the city government to educate you. The resources that have
been distracted, I would say wasted to convene this hearing are significant.
want to close with a three-point summary. As I said earlier, I think
today's me meeting is in the public interest. Council member Mitch Mitchell
was right last Tuesday when he said chamber upstairs,
paraphrase, you put the council between a rock and a hard spot. The chamber is a
valued member of the Buford community. While we don't condone their lateness,
we value their input. Two, all the time, energy, and costs,
including police invested in staff work and meeting today's meeting is a waste
of scarce and valuable government resources and volunteer citizens time.
It could be better spent. Last to you, Megan. I strongly encourage you to open
your remarks, if you do, by offering a public apology.
Thank you for listening.
Good afternoon to speak. Um, council and commission. My name is Diane Barley,
2415 Oak Haven Street, Buford, South
Carolina. Um, I'm computer froze where all my notes are, so I don't have the
questions that I had for you, but I did want to make a couple of comments. One,
that the U agenda that went out did not have a time listed. I found at the time
of the meeting this morning it's better procedure um
about it right now. I do agree with the gentleman's comments about this being an
unnecessary meeting as well as the comments that
were referenced in the for the amendments um do not match up with the
so it was pretty hard to follow up on. Thank you. Anyone else?
Hi.
I'm not sure I know all of your protocol, so bear with me. But um my
name is Steven Kersh. I live at uh Live Oaks 2200 Spanish Court. And the reason
I'm here is related to I'm not sure if I'm using the right word, but I believe
there's a referendum related to allowing communities to be gated. And
I I feel strongly that that should be left up to communities. I moved into the
live oaks community just a couple of years ago and safety and security are
really important to myself, my family members, other community members, and
it's really important that we be able to make that choice. I'm not saying we're
going to put up gates at the live oaks community, but I think there's a
difference between us making the decision to become a gated community
versus people taking that ability away from us. And there have been various
incidents um not that far away from where we live.
And I think as people in the community, we all want to be safe. So hopefully I
followed the protocol, but I'm just speaking as a citizen and as a person
who lives in my books. Thank you very much. Okay, who else?
Megan.
» Good afternoon, members of council and members of the planning commission. As
you know, I'm Megan Morris and I represent hundreds of businesses here in
the Ver region through the Beer Regional Chamber of Commerce. Uh we would like to
collectively thank you for hosting this work session today uh to finalize the
first round of development code revisions and for your overall
commitment to the process. We have had some very productive and positive uh
conversations with city leadership and we are looking forward to working with
you together as this continues through the thorough revision of uh the
development code. We we see that it is not merely a technical exercise. It is
an opportunity to shape the economic future of our beloved.
Um, behind every regulation, procedural standard, and ordinance lies the
economic of our city. The businesses that line our streets, the workers that
serve our citizens, and the families who live here, they're all they all
interconnected as an economic ecosystem uh that depends on balanced governance.
We do have a very beautiful diverse community and as you've seen in most of
the economic reports that the chambers and others have produced and made
available, there are many challenges for us all to overcome of which the develop
and code could affect. When regulations are crafted, they play a role in
determining whether businesses can thrive, adapt, and continue to serve as
economic anchors for our community. Our local businesses contribute millions in
commercial property taxes, business licenses, and permit fees that fund our
schools, our infrastructure, and public services. We employ thousands of our
neighbors, creating careers and opportunities,
our works, the teachers who educate our children, the first responders who keep
us safe, the service workers who ensure that um
our community continues to function. the family members of the military and
the service members who ensure national security and even the 200 plus members
of team Buford uh increasingly do find themselves priced out of the community
uh that they are serving and living in. We understand there's not just a housing
problem, but also that infrastructure challenges, the goal of maintaining
quality of life and our culture, as well as being good stewards of our
environment, are all at play. To be clear, advocating for economic
consideration does not mean abandoning our commitment to Virginia character and
quality of life. Indeed, our economic prosperity depends on maintaining the
very qualities that make ourselves special.
We must find the careful balance between preservation and progress, between
protecting what we love and enabling what we need. This balance requires that
we consider not just what we want to prevent but what we want to enable and
encourage. There are examples uh I think that are
nearby. We would like to avoid places with overdevelopment and sprawl,
high cost of lifting leading to substantial loss of workforce and
perhaps worse towns that have detrimental detrimentally defined due to
lack of industry and opportunity. Each of those examples are only an hour away.
So, as you move forward with this extensive code revision and other
policymaking and comprehensive planning efforts, thank you for keeping in mind
that balance governance takes all of this into account. Again, thank you for
your hard work and diligence.
I'd like to think, and I stand for many when I say this,
that considering economic viability in this development code and finalizing
it with a collaborative effort is not time loss, but an investment in our
future. Thank you.
» Okay. Uh, anyone else for public comment before closing?
Go ahead, Tony.
Grand Tr. >> Yes.
» Hi, Grant Trra. 1211 Bay Street. Uh, Mr. Chromemer, I understand we're not
allowed to use your first name, so I won't. Um,
uh, because one of your employees was chastised for using first names of the
council. Um, will will we have um an opportunity I mean, this is a work
session. Will we have an opportunity as you go through because I do have
specific comments um about this and I don't know if this
is the opportunity to do that because in public comment I have a general public
comment to make. I'd prefer to make the general public comment and then uh raise
my hand as you go through. I think that'll be more efficient.
um
actual council. Okay. All right. That's fine. Mr. T, if you want to go ahead and
make your comment, uh your general comment and then we'll go through as we
go through. You can raise your hand. >> Okay. I just wanted to echo Rob Cahill's
comments. Um I think and I also want to express that uh I don't believe the
Chamber of Commerce actually represents the land owners. They may represent and
those are the land owners are the ones that are actually paying the property
tax. They may represent the businesses that lease from the land owners, but
they have asserted that they in the council meeting that they represent the
land owners. And I I I beg to differ. Uh I'm not a man uh a member of the uh
chamber of commerce by design. I know other major land owners that are not a
member of the chamber. Um, I didn't hear any specific comments from Megan uh
about um the changes. I I assume she's going to make those throughout the
process as I will too. Um I did do some due diligence as to why that letter was
written as it was. Uh and it seems like it was a bit of a hatchet job um pushed
by uh one particular uh property owner in the city at the
last minute. Um again, if this chamber of commerce uh had its act together, it
would have participated throughout the 15-month process um to have provided its
input. Thank you, and I look forward to commenting as we go along.
Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, hearing none, we're going to close
public comment and we're going to go to discussion and ordinance amending
chapter 7 land development chapter 9 development view procedure in the deeper
development code. I'm going to open it up to council first. I think Councilman
Scalleti has some remarks to make and then we'll turn it over to the planning
commission.
» Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, first of all, um I want to
thank staff for putting this joint session
together. I do think that this is important and it gives us an opportunity
to go through. Um I'm actually still recovering from a pretty big injury, so
I may not look like it, but I am extremely uncomfortable. Um, I think the
best thing for me is to try to go through page by page and just identify
um, some of the concerns that I do have and then whenever I get to the finish,
if you guys want to make notes as I go, then you can address those um, if it
needs to be, there's a strong chance that since I am not a developer and you
guys have a lot more experience in this than I do, that I might get tangled up,
but maybe just a little bit of clarification on some things would um,
would help me and and maybe some others as well. So, I'm starting I don't know
if you guys have the same packet in front of you that I have in front of me.
I'm starting on page 104, which is the red line uh summaries for chapter 7.
Um, so there was obviously some language added in the purpose and applicability.
I didn't see anything there um that jumped out at me as um inappropriate. it
all seemed to to fit. Uh on page 107, there was a cross reference that was
struck out uh under 7.1.5 improvement guarantees.
And I think that based on the way this is structured now, a cross reference to
section 7.5 would be appropriate there to discuss uh
final subdivision flat. I still find a lot of value when I'm going through the
code in having the cross references there. So I would say instead of
striking that cross reference out, just add the new cross reference in where
somebody could go back to to refer to the final subdivision.
Um, moving on. Right now I'm on page 109. Do
you guys have the same packet? to clarify. So
types
» the other day that's the one I have now. Yeah. So this is the one that we just
received
» the red line. Y >> you're okay as long as you reference
» the sections. >> Okay.
» We can fine. No, I just wanted to clarify and make sure
you said 7.5 >> 7.1.5A
and where it says section 9.94 is struck.
» Yep. >> We'd like to put section 7.
» That's right. I think that's the appropriate cross reference now with the
way that it's structured. But just to just to continue having a cross
reference in there, I think would be valuable.
Uh I'm now on page 109 under uh scope of improvements for street frontage.
» Give us the section. >> Okay. The section is 7.2.1
street infrastructure plans. Um C2
» under uh yeah C2 applicability scope of improvements. The last portion of that
paragraph, the code administrator may permit modification of street
improvement standards where the required street improvements are not in the
opinion of the codes administrator roughly proportionate to the impact. I
just don't think that that is very predictable and I know that that was one
thing that um was extremely important as we were going through this process was
to have a code that was predictable. So if our requirements are um are hard and
we're picky, I think that's okay. But I think code needs to be as predictable as
possible. And for this to read that street improvements are not in the
opinion of the code administrator, I feel like that's not very predictable.
That's again just my opinion. Um let me back up because I missed one note here.
Applicability. So this is C1 in that same section and
it talks about the uh financial guarantees. So the last sentence in that
paragraph reads the installation of street frontage improvements is required
prior to final plat approval for major subdivisions and certificates of
occupancy for site plans. And I think that should probably be or a financial
guarantee because isn't that an option? So they can either do a financial
guarantee um to get the approval or they can make the improvements whatever is
more appropriate. And the way that this reads is is they have to make the um or
they're required to make the street frontage improvements. And so maybe just
an addition of or financial guarantee and then refer back to um where that's
discussed. But that was a note that I made.
Um moving forward, I am now on we had some
members in the community discuss the gated streets. So that is uh section
7.2.2 street network requirements. Personally, I'm more a fan of the way
that it read before new gates or new gated streets are not encouraged, but
there were um exceptions and the way that it reads now is new gated streets
are prohibited. And then there are some some exceptions, but um I feel like we
would we would want to leave that flexibility there to where if neighbors
got together and they decided that they wanted to have a gated community or
gated street, then that discussion could at least be on the table. Um
section I would just like maybe a better
understanding of section uh 7.2.3 2.3 lot access standards uh particularly the
maximum number of driveways. It says for single family or two or three family
dwellings only one driveway shall be permitted for lot and T3s circular
driveways may be permitted on lots greater than 100 ft in width where no
sidewalk exists. Driveways may only be installed where rear access is not
possible or required. Um, and then it goes on to talk about uh, you know,
basically one driveway, you know, for um, anything that's less than 150 ft.
And I know a lot of lots in Mossios, particularly where I live, um, that
either have a circle driveway, a U-shaped driveway.
Uh, and I and I don't think that it's um something that's uh, not becoming or I
think it fits within our character well. So, I'm not sure why the justification
for um only one driveway and no circular, but maybe a little bit of
clarification could help um my understanding.
Um and then same thing for uh the uh
still in that same section, lot access standards, but a little further down.
» Yes. Page number is 115. >> Yep.
Okay. Literally, uh, where it says rear
access, no front access. So, the way I interpret that is is no new lots for
zones T3N and T4 can have, um, basically a driveway in the front. For lots
developed in the transexs, T3N, and T4 and T5 U, lots, all new access points
shall be from a rear alley or road, except for lots in the historic
district. Um, so is that to say that there could be no
driveway in the front? That all driveways and new accesses for lots in
these zones need to be from the rear? If so, uh, I don't know that I would agree
with that because most of the homes um have have driveways in in the front now.
And I I think that that makes sense. Um, but again, maybe that just needs to
be clarified for me. The next page over, page 116, um, street design standards.
This is just, uh, grammatical stuff, but it says I'm in, um, 7.2.4,
street design standards. Under bullet B, it says about in the middle of that
paragraph. Um, I'll start where it says United States Department of
Transportation's manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in parentheses
MUTCD close parenthesis and approved by the
administrator. I think there needs to be a or right
there or the administrator's designate and then there's two commas. So, just
strike one of the commas and then that sentence would flow and make sense. But
the way that it reads right now is it just says and approved by the
administrator, the administrator designate and there's no break there. Um
uh again this is grammatical. The next bullet down C. Um
two it says there are unusual topographic vegetative
or other natural conditions would render strict that strict adherence. So I don't
think that that flows well. Um and and perhaps it's just a matter of uh saying
instead of striking well to the extent so vegetative or other natural
conditions that would render the strict adherence. But I think maybe that
paragraph just needs to be reviewed because right now it seems to to not
flow. Um,
moving on. We are I'm under um skip that actually. That's not too big.
Um, so there's an exemption for traffic impact analysis that does concern me on
lots included in the boundary street master plan adopted on August 28, 2006
and lots in the areas founded by Calhoun Carter at Bay Street, Revo Road. Um
there's an exemption on traffic impact analysis and that's one of our biggest
issues right now is traffic on boundary street and Robert's small hardway and
there's a lot of development that falls in there. So if we are not bound legally
to make that an exemption, I think maybe revisiting that um would be prudent
because there are also a lot of additional roads built into that master
plan that was adopted in August of 2006 that rely that provided relief for
traffic on Boundary Street. >> Oh, sorry. I'm on page 118.
» Yep. At the top where it says exception. Um, so what's exempt is the boundary
street master plan and again there's a lot of roads built into that plan that
were never put in place and so to to make that exempt from traffic impact
analysis I think could continue compound um our congestion issues. So
» yeah I'm just trying to make sure that's okay. You're saying that you believe
that the boundary straight exemption should be legally
» unless we are legally bound by some agreement at that time. I would I would
say at least let's consider because there's like I said there's a lot of
relief roads built into that master plan that never came to fruition and now we
have a lot of congestion on that road. So I'd hate to see our issues compound
just because that was exempt from traffic impact analysis.
um down to C on the same page, traffic impact analysis plan preparation. Um
two, prior to beginning the TIA, the applicant shall supply the city. We
cross that out to capitalize city. I think capitalized I as well. That's just
grammatical, so just lowerase I would fix that. Um, and then B, a site
location map showing surrounding development within 1/ half mile radius
of the property under development consideration. I'm not sure if that's
okay the way that it reads or if that should reflect a onem
um radius. I know that there are two different variations in the the um
breakdown that you guys laid out. There's a half mile and then there's a
mile from any vested but unbuilt developments. So, I don't know if that
needs to reflect a mile or not. I put it in there um as a as a note. Um then the
next thing is your chart where you guys laid out the traffic impact analysis. I
think you did a very good job. I know just as a lay person reading that it was
kind of easy for me to understand what was being required. Um, I don't know
that I agree with the language uh that says at the discretion of the TRC or
planning commission a larger study area may be required because again that's not
very predictable um as to when it might be required and and so I I'm not sure I
have a hard time with that just because um there was that underlined important
theme of being predictable. Um but again I'd like to know I agree with um the
incorporation of all traffic impact analysis studies and trip generation
from approved developments or vested unbuilt developments within within mile
radius at time of proposal. Um, but I would like to better understand why we
went with a half a mile for some and a mile for the already bested but unbuilt
developments. I like it. I would just like to understand what those um more
the context I guess. Uh
I'm on page 123 now. Um on
this be the same section uh but this is just after city engineer um section
section right before mitigation plan required. So um lowercase I
um the first major intersection as identified by the city engineer. I think
that should probably be city engineer or administrator. And in certain places in
here it says that and then in other areas it just says city engineer.
Um
on page 125 this would be mitigation plan
application. Uh I'm on bullet h or h.
A tia shall be submitted to the TRC. And then on I it says completeness. The
planning commission and or TRC shall determine whether a TIA is complete.
And then J says the TRC must first approve the TIA in regard to
completeness and accuracy. So I just think that that needs to read the
planning commission and the TRC shall determine whether the TIA is complete
not and or because it is going to be voted. The way that this is written out,
the TRC approves it for completeness and then it goes to the planning commission
and the planning commission is also required to approve or not. Um, and so I
think that just striking that word and would be appropriate. Um, I like the
percentages. I think that's exactly what we were um expressed concern about about
the open space and green space having more percentages to to provide um more
land preservation and less exemptions. So, I appreciate the changes that you
guys made there. Um on the chart under section 7.4.3
community green space and community open space, I'm not sure what the thought is
for some of the minimum requirements in here. So you have the like the regional
parkn preserve and then the definition of what that is and then under regional
minimum it's 200 acres. Um for a sports complex regional minimum 25 acres uh you
know we I think you can do a sports complex for less than 25 acres and I'm
not sure that the regional park needs to be 200 acres. I'm not sure why those
minimums were put in place, but maybe some institutional thought could could
help clarify that for me. Same thing goes for a community park. We put um a a
minimum of 8 acres for a community park. Uh I think that would be based on the
percentage of the development. So, we have that built in now to where based on
what you're developing and how many acres, there's a certain percentage
that's required for open space and green space. So, I'm not sure why we also have
community park with a minimum of 8 acres here. Um, it seems I'm sorry, that's
page 128. That's page 128. Um, same thing for a pocket park slash uh
pocket plaza. So, it says um the max is half an acre. Uh I don't know what a
pocket park is. I would kind of look at one like Wilson Park over there as as a
little pocket park. Maybe that's just me not interpreting it well, but Wilson
Park is 78 of an acre. And so I'm not sure why we would put a max on pocket
park of halfacre because sometimes I think it could be a little bigger and
still makes sense. But maybe we just need to revisit
that whole good example. Pocket Park. If you go down North Street on the other
side of Rebot Road on the left hand side, there's a little park park there.
That's a good example. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
» Um, >> so
I'm now on the 7.5 substandards and site plan. This is the whole red um pages
that were added. So, um, let's go page 133. Yep. So, one, two, three, four
paragraphs down. Prior to formal submittal of any submission application
identified in this section, the planning department will typically provide to an
applicant individ individualized submittal checklist. I read that and
thought, well, I think that's probably something that would always be provided.
Maybe I'm wrong there, but I would strike the word typically and maybe um
Kurt, you would weigh in and and say otherwise, but I
don't know of a time where we wouldn't provide a checklist for the subdivision
as to what's expected or required. So I would say maybe scratch typically.
» That's gosh that's one of the amendments strike typically.
» Oh okay. Got it. Um and then moving down minor subdivisions the boundaries of so
this is number one. The boundaries of six or fewer lots are created from one
parent track. I'm okay with changes that are made here, but I think that that
would be um if you read further down under major subdivisions, number two, it
says the subdivision consists of six or more lots or tracks. And so this would
probably need to be the boundaries of five. That was changed for the
amendments. >> That was amendments for what? on the
amendments that came with
» that haven't been made in here though. >> Yeah.
» Okay, I got you. So, so those are those are addressed.
» Those were already. >> Cool.
» Um and then 7.5.3 sketch plan. So, it looks like sketch
plan is required for all major subdivisions. Um, and I'm going to come
back to why I feel like that's important, but maybe needs to be um
somewhere else. But um on the next page 135
the um three small eyes at the top of the page, a current preliminary traffic
impact study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer which evaluates
proposed access points. I know we stated other in other locations in here, but
maybe just adding that that is a South Carolina um licensed traffic engineer if
that's what we're going to require would make sense just to be consistent with
the language
throughout this this code. Um >> there was also
I think that was something the chamber brought up our discussion. We removed
the traffic impact city requirement and just basically
to fix the study of access points >> instead of preliminary traffic impact.
» Okay, got >> so you'll see that on
» Okay. Um >> we could have the
» that South Carolina. >> Yeah,
» I guess we could have North Carolina, but that's probably not
a good idea, >> right? So,
» right. Um under the uh number five overall utility plan about halfway
through utility plans for the interior of development such as water and sewer
lines are not required in this part of the process. I'm not sure why we want to
add what's not included. I think we're we're only talking about what is being
required here. And so I would see maybe striking that and striking um
half of number 19 as well because it also is talking about utility plans for
the interior of the development um not being required in this process and I
don't know why we would need to identify what's not required because this is only
talking about what following elements are that are required. Um but maybe you
guys talked about that and found a justification for it. Uh on
» so just so I understand I'm sorry. >> Yeah.
I'm just trying to follow follow you the appropriate
» 19. >> That is 19. Yep. About halfway through
it says utility plans for the interior of the development such as water and
sewer service lines are
required as part of this process. Here the developments water and sewer lines
are not required as part of this process. So it says it twice. I don't
even know that it needs to say it once because it's only you're only talking
about what is required here and so it goes without saying that's not required.
But >> yeah um the
uh okay sketch plan process number two
notification notice to neighbors and property owners. The city shall send
notice of the planning commission meeting by regular mail to neighboring
property owners within 500 ft of the property per this code. I could see
value in stretching that out. Um I know that's a little bit more uh effort on on
staff's part. So I want to be careful and not speak for you guys there, but
500 feet doesn't really go far. All right. And as an example, when garden
was being developed, um, you know, Salem Bay wasn't even been notified because
that's outside 500 ft. So, you know, I know it's typically
between 500 and,000, but maybe we extend that a little bit. Um,
G, uh, never mind. I'm g skip that one. Um I
had a question on number four. So time frame related to the approval sketch
plan. Um and then number four does not change any measurable standard such as
open space or park area by more than 10%. And I think that's good. But my
concern is what if I come to you and I make a change that's 7% of my originally
approved project and then I come back a couple months later with another 5%
change. Is there a a protection to protect against compounding changes?
Should this read um by more than 10% uh of the originally approved
or is that already covered? So my concern was compounding percentage
changes there >> and that's on page 138.
» That's on page 138. >> So you want like cumulative statement
» I think. Yeah. just to protect for cumulative changes. um under uh
preliminary plat number um A2 um again the capital I there in city so
that's just grammatical um
um then on
we are under the Preliminary
plat here. I guess it would still be preliminary plat. Uh
D on page 141. Utility and transportation design are adequate given
existing and planning capacities of those systems. I don't know if there's a
way I would favor us being able to get that information in the sketch plan
process and not preliminary just because I think you're pretty vested in at that
time and and there would be value in knowing what the utility capabilities
are um prior to getting that far along. And I know there have been issues in the
past where u developers have, you know, gotten through the sketch plan process
and they're pretty heavily vested in and they find out that the utility
capabilities are not there for that development and they've got to either
make substantial investments um to add pump stations or whatever they have to
do. But I think that if there was a way for us to better communicate um with
Buer, Jasper, or whoever to ensure that they can understand what those
capacities were prior to even starting or even closer to the front in the
sketch plan phase, then that would be um more favorable in my opinion. But maybe
there's a a justification for why that wouldn't work or why it doesn't make
sense. Um >> if I may, I think if you don't mind.
» No, no, no. >> I think the reason that's in there is
because If you remember when we went back to sketch plan we were striking
about that
idea is a sketch and they don't have to put it out put in all the engineering
expertise per se right all these that's that's because by the preliminary you do
where you would have the knowledge of transportation this add
extra rows. That's now the utility side of it that is a little more complex
because of the fact >> third parties and
» water and sewer is separate from us >> you know um something that we can think
about but definitely for transportation we would know or say we would know until
» okay that would be the chest >> no that's okay that's that's exactly I
think some of this is just you know me having better understanding um under
early grading the page 142 the uh last back half of that last sentence final
plat approval at the planning commission is expressed or implied by any operation
of early grading I don't know if that could put us in a legal bind down the
road um I I guess I would understand um you know but here's here's the situation
is is let's say for a final plaque you had now um preliminary approval and they
go ahead and clear cut or start grading or whatever
they do and then at final plat maybe it in their mind it conforms. I
know the language says that it has to conform to the preliminary plat, but if
four members out of the seven on the planning commission feel otherwise and
and the final plat doesn't get approved, we have ascendants and then it says
final plat approval at the planning commission is expressed or implied by
any authorization of early grading. So, I just questioned if that would prevent
uh or present any legal concerns and maybe um I know we got several attorneys
that weighed in on this and so maybe that could be easily explained away, but
just a note that I made um on page um 146
uh number five. Post approval action prior to issuance of a building or
grading permit. The applicant shall submit the following documentation to
the city. I felt like this may be better if it was moved over if they can start
the waiting after preliminary. Then perhaps we need to get the list of
contractors, proof of insurance, open space, deed restriction, construction,
traffic control um at the end of the preliminary process because right now
it's in final the final plat phase and if if they're able to start grading
before that, maybe it's better um to preliminary. But just made a new um
there uh >> um
They do issue issue a grading permit,
» right? That's what I'm saying. >> It's a very common thing to do. Um,
» but wouldn't you want wouldn't you want to get the list of contractors for the
grading require
we wouldn't you know traffic control plan etc.
I'm just explain about that. >> Okay. So, maybe some of that would make
sense over in the preliminary before they started the early grading and then
maybe some of it the traffic control plan would make sense for finals.
» Yeah. I mean, I think you could >> because essentially the way that it's
written, they could start the they could get a permit for grading before we have
a list of their contractor's proof of insurance.
Yeah. And that's just something I think that we do. We require that permit for
it with the contractor's license. So maybe we just need to put that in there.
» There's supposed to be a knot there. I I mean right before that language
early grading and storage of construction related to the asking final
approval the planning is not expressed
» there draft
» okay
» well and I guess that that makes it challenging because I'm I'm reading this
as if this is the final draft and So trying to get these things ironed out
before, you know, especially because we were right to begin second reading, but
it appears that maybe we haven't even read the most clean version of this.
This is the most clean version I've received.
» So Councilman, the way this agenda packet was set up is attachment one
contains all the motions that to the best of the staff's ability, they
understand were desired by councelor. And so you'd have to call those motions
back rows back of document. You don't have a final version of the documents in
here. We're not allowed to change those between first reading and second
reading. They can't be changed. >> Right. But I don't we can introduce
proposed language motions for the amendments that we think that you want.
» So that's that's how the organized. >> Yeah. So if you look at the on page 47
I think and you know I I take responsibility for this. I I think as
you can see the amount of red line changes and track changes can be over 20
meetings it's done can be a little complicated. I think it's been
complicated planning question but uh the final version which is what you had your
ordinance the clean version I think there's a few little things that it says
and no final pl 147. So, I think a few of these little tiny, you know, more
scriveners errors were made at this at this clean version, the final version.
Um, but you're still raising a lot of really good points. Why did you know I'm
not sure, you know, I'm not sure if that was just when they're accepted, right?
You know, anytime you touch this track changes, if it comes out of it, it comes
out for good. Does that make sense? >> Yeah.
» And so, I think that's just uh I I probably should have whereas I think a
lot of the uh the clean version had all of that kind of really intensive kind of
making sure that those things were done. But again, you're bringing up a good
point with that. But in the case of the no wasn't a clean
» the no express. >> I think what I'm going to do then is
because I don't even know if this is now this is the most this isn't the most
clean version. I'm going to touch >> I think I think it is I think the
challenge is once when you go to accept. Right.
» Right. changes all formatting because it's in
Microsoft Word and then this had to be reformatted and
» does that make sense to go to clean and then that's I think my responsibility
right and so there's a few tiny little things like that that
» I think maybe got >> like a capitalization or also the
amendments there's some issues there as well they're referencing the problem
» yeah the references were from the the code that I
chamber. I'm going to try to just do I'm going to go if you'll go with me to the
permit chart and then I'm going to wrap up my portion because um yeah, at this
point I want to make sure that at least the comments are are true to what the
latest version is. So go to the permit chart on page 165 and 166
and then look at um um so here are some of my concerns with this chart. You'll
go to development design review. Um we talk about this is development design
review for a minor site plan and we say the permit approval is good for 24
months with a 12month one-time extension.
And if you'll go to um page 89 189 where it discusses this
portion
minor development, it says permit validity. Upon the approval of the minor
development design application, the applicant shall have one year to obtain
a building permit. failure to secure a permit, a building permit for the
permitted work within this time shall render the approval void. And so for me,
I think that um the the language needs to be consistent with the information
that's in the chart. What I'm seeing in my thing here is the chart reflects that
the permit is good for two years with a onetime 12-month extension. And the
language that supports that chart says a it's good for one year with the option
to extend one time for 12 months. Same thing for the development design review
major site plan. Um it is it says 24 months with the
option for one a one time 12 month extension. And if you go to section 982
where that's discussed,
it says
185
18.
Yeah.
9 was the minor site plan. Um well,
» look at I'll show you two other ones. If you'll go further down where it says
preliminary plat. So the preliminary plat um which is further discussed in
section 7.5.4 for and that can be found on page 142. I know that uh the chart
reflects a 24month permit approval period with 12 months
one-time extension. But if you go to page 142 where it discusses that,
it says
a preliminary plat approval is in full force and effect for a period of two
years from the date of approval. approval will automatically expire at
the end of two years unless an applicant formally requests an 18month extension
from the planning commission prior to termination or submits a completed final
draft. So, in the chart, it says that they have the
option for a onetime 12-month extension, but in the language that supports that,
it says they have eight they have an option to extend for 18 months.
» Thank you. >> Yep. Same thing for the final plaque.
You can find the final plaque in the chart on page 166 and you can find the
language that supports that on page 147. and there was an inconsistency in the
permit validity time an extension. Um, and I think that if that's not
corrected, then that definitely needs to be consistent with um
that chart. >> So,
uh, I'm going to
I'm going to wrap mine up there because those were those were the biggest issues
for me.
And I apologize if some of that was already addressed in some of the but
again it's kind of it's kind of hard. I just want to make sure that
we're being thorough and I appreciate all the work that went into this because
I think you guys spent a lot of time. I tried to watch all the meetings to make
sure I did have context and these are just some of the things that I could
benefit from having clarification on. Okay.
And in the moment of silence, I'll say that in the chart we can since you made
the change min from administrator to ministerial um maybe adding in the
definition of ministerial.
I have a couple council members
amendments a lot of these are children
copy that I got what I thought was a clean copy the very front uh if you go
to page five 7.5.3
I'll make a motion and if you go down to the third one
um it looks like 7.3 excuse me 7.5
one that you've got high it should be letter
you we're going to have to change the lettering has all changed in the clean
so we Mike and I were planning to get with Kurt to to go over all that
numbering The clean copy has the correct
numbering. Some of these motion references are to the red line couple
and that was changed between that too. So I just need to say that before we get
there quite a few
relative to comments that we got from >> I just want to make sure when we do the
amendments that we're doing it correctly it's proper.
Let's
go to council. >> I said a couple things I want. Thank
you, Councilman Scalleti. I do feel that a onem um radius for a TI8 would be
justifiable for all the building going on and everything. I really think we
need a one one mile not a half a mile. Another thing um going back to the um
gates private gates for um developments. uh if the development owns the road I
think it should be firstly I think they it should be allowed but if it's like a
development sort of like oh battery shores for instance or
battery point or something like that where um or battery shores city owns the
roads no that should not be a gated community but if do y'all own the roads
over in Live Oaks >> okay then I think the option really
should be given and it's up to the development. That's
just my personal view. >> So, one one point of clarification there
is talking about these gated communities. Yes, sir.
» It's kind of unclear to me. I think when the planning commission was looking at
the whole question of gated communities, we were looking at it in the in the in
the instance of somebody building a new community. what you seem to be implying
and I just want to make sure what you're talking about is whether or not somebody
a group of people can decide they want to create a gated. Is that what you're
saying? >> Well, if somebody's already got a
community, are they grandfathered in that they could build up is what the
question is. >> But I understand that when we wrote that
language, I think what we had in mind was somebody who was doing something new
from the ground up. >> Okay. But if if if you want to do
something different, I think it's important to be clear exactly what it is
because Councilman Scalad's comments on that point were kind of a a
thing for me because that that's not what we I I I'm not saying what we
should do one way the other. I just think we ought to be clear. Are you
trying to give certain neighborhoods the ability to to
gauge streets >> if it's a a privately owned street? a
group, you know, a neighborhood privately owned streets. I feel like
they should have the option to gate it if they choose to.
» Are there any place in the city um that's not already a gated community
where there are private streets? >> Yes.
» Yeah.
But but but thanks for your comment though. Um
» currently we're talking about new communities being
» not communities that already exist. That's a whole discussion not
» right. So so
I guess does that mean And if you if we don't
know now that that's fine. I always feel like I don't know is a great answer. But
more honest answer then a lot of people are willing to give. So does that mean
that the council is open to the idea of a new community that would be built from
the ground up being people have the option of updated?
» No. I feel that the homes the ones that are already built should be
grandfathered in. That's what I'm saying.
» Grandfather. uh if they want a community that's already there that doesn't have a
gate, they should have the option to put one in if they want to.
» Are the roads in the community owned by the community?
» They're owned by the community. >> Owned by the community and they just
then you want and they should be able to put a
» Yes, that's what I'm saying. >> I I think going back correctly,
you might remember too. I think that there was a conscious effort not to have
any more gated communities in Buford. I I'll share my personal perspective and
I'll full full disclosure I live in a gay community.
» Yeah, I say that because I want to get the laughter out first. But I I think
what G there's a reason there. Um we're getting kind of in the weeds here, but
you have to make some choices. We tried to we wanted to get on the water. we
that's where we could avoid and it was a tough decision but we decided to do it.
What I think and it happens with gated communities, you kind of create islands
within the community and and and my community, I'm just speaking one person.
I'm not speaking for Islands of Bin. Please know that is that I I think it
you start operating within your little little little community because
everything you do in there is kind of governed by the association
and it it also creates a sense of exclusivity too in that you drive by and
you can't come in, right? And I I think overall for the city when we think about
our city, do we want a lot of little little islands within the city that's
all kind of shut out? And then you have the people who can't can't afford to be
in those communities feeling that I don't belong. So that's just my personal
perspective on getting community. I understand the the concern about
security, but I think we have a police force
that is higher than being paid to protect the city. And we've had a recent
case where crime was getting kind of out of hand and and I think we've kind of
gotten that tampen down again. So I think there are ways to deal with this
without creating I lots of little spaces that shuts people out within our city.
That's just Mitch Mitchell speaking one person. I'm not speaking for anyone else
except Mitch Mitchell here.
I think historically the the idea of the gate the gated communities within the
city also had a lot to do with the connectivity of the roadways and keeping
the grids opened and that's what a lot of the participants in earlier shares
discussed in creating native communities within the state blocks the connectivity
of grid the grid network and the roadways. It was not so much the
security um exclusivity.
It was more keeping the general grids and the general runways open and
unobstructed by gates. And if we go under the assumption that
this is like the new new thing is not what's existing then
I guess
it's got to be am I correct?
» I think we're talking about new from the ground up communities.
council's got to kind of decide what direction we want to go. So that we want
that's what I I I don't think they should be negated.
» I agree. >> I'll say that on top. Now the other
issue which I addressed in my comments that's I know that's a different issue
but I don't think they should be negated >> from the ground up. I would agree. No
new gated communities. It's just the communities that are there that they own
the roads that they have the right to fill up the gate if they want to.
So hearing planning questionable
That's the other one.
» Excuse me. I'm saying you can address the other
one. What do you mean by that? >> Well, I don't think we have language
now, correct me if I'm wrong, that talks about your issue where you wanted to get
an existing community, >> right?
» So, that's not that's not part of the ordinance that we were addressing that.
I think that was what your was clarifying. It sounds like you want us
to look at this language that would make it clear that this is
» that this is only for new development. >> Right. I just wanted maybe send this
back to the planning commission. >> Thank
the assumption y'all were working under this.
» Yes, it was certainly mine. That's why I raised the question was certainly mine.
» Okay. Well, I didn't but I'm good with that. Yeah, we we I don't think we ever
ever considered in any way an existing community putting up a gate. That was
not >> Okay, I'm taking
I'm not expressing any opinion one way or the other. I'm just trying to say
that's what I thought too.
» I don't believe it's addressed any
» and that's why I said that would be something to do that we have the
address. >> You want to let it dry?
» Yes, sir. Okay. Hey, Graham Trra. Um, first of all, I do want to congratulate
Mike Tommy and the entire planning board as well as Kirk and um, the city's group
in in where they have gotten to. Um, I've got some conceptual questions that
I'd just like to walk through more from understanding as opposed to to changing
as a as a landowner. Um, but I do have one fundamental question. This has
received first reading. What is this discussion? How is that
going to impact second reading? What where do we go from here? Um with all
these suggested changes, uh can it come back up for second
reading in August or has this now stalled the process?
» Come back in August. They have time to address it. And you so you would address
things with amendments. Is that right? >> That's how
» Okay. >> Okay. Fair enough. Could we refer to
9.1.4 that table that
Councilman Klet Scalleti uh talked through and go to
the subdivision review. And I just this is just more for
understanding. So, we've got the sketch plan
which once approved is valid for 12 months
and then it can be renewed for one month. That's 24 months.
Um, then Kurt, I'm really pointing to you.
During that 24 months, they then must go to preliminary plat. Is that right?
» If they don't, if they don't, they have to start over.
That's the way it66.
» Sorry, that that's the way it it's written. I didn't hear you.
» Yeah. Okay. And so then likewise pre preliminary plat they'll have 36 months
once they get the preliminary plat approval to then go to final plat. And
then from there again another 36 months that they then need to apply for a
building permit. Is that right? Well, yeah, just permits in general.
» Okay. And then so within that once they have that final plat 36 months, they got
to go to a project permit which is back up in 9.5
and that permit is valid for for six months. Is is there a
requirement to finish the project? Um, do they need to finish the project
within the final plat period? Do they when do they have to finish the project?
» Within the final plat period? >> I think
» that's my question. I mean, when does a when does a does a developer have to
finish the project or can they not finish the project?
» Sure. Um
you know with the final pledge you can provide the shity right um you know
essentially we're not going to allow lots to be we're not going to allow cos
or permits to be issued until infrastructure is in you bond all the
infrastructure right
but we're not going to release a permit until you actually complete the
infrastructure and in the case where let's say you have a climate flood and
you maybe there's an economic downturn. This happened in 2008 and uh you know
what should happen is is that let's say there's 20 lots left but they only build
roads to three lots. you know, um really what that would mean is there the road
would kind of end there and we wouldn't have issued permits for any of those
lots until they finished the infrastructure and then we would call
the bond and theoretically the city would have eventually finished the
infrastructure um or those remaining blocks. That's
» okay. >> But uh yeah, I mean it's kind of you
know I think it's really your final flight's good for this amount of time.
Maybe maybe the better way to think about it is it's good for you to provide
assurity or improvements for that amount of time. That makes sense.
» Does make sense. >> Put up all that money or after that
three years then this whole big process that you get sketch plan preliminary
final four would end and you've lost your best of bre.
» Sorry, say that one more time. >> And then you would have lost your best
of bre. need to go back to the beginning >> once the shity was called on.
» No, I I I'm saying I think the three year the way to maybe best save the
final flood is you got basically three years to pull the shity,
right? To actually create the lots and record the plan. Maybe that's the best
way to say it. Well, I don't know. But I I I
» again >> it's important to to to think about this
because we have this situation. I want to move to the historic district now.
So what happens in the historic district if we go to 9 10.2?
So, I just want you to keep what I just said in mind. If we go to 910
[Music]
» or in the current or the proposed
» in the current proposed red line >> local
designation, I think we actually >> 910 Buford historic district certificate
of appropriateness. If we could go there page 197.
» So if we go down to the chart on under two under major.
So this is the process. Um,
are there any time constraints on going from conceptual, preliminary and final?
There used to be. Are there any now?
» The 9.10. We had a lot of discussion. There was a recommendation, but it's not
move forward with this set of recommendations.
I think we were going to have future discussion on it.
» Oh, so this is not part of what they're what is in front of council to approve.
» That was the first thing the planning commission and feel
» spent a lot of time on. Um and that I think and it added a concept and
preliminary and final process to all the work. Um but uh that was not part of
this specific I don't think it moved forward with
council. So it wasn't part of this package.
» You say any of the historic stuff. >> Yeah. any of the historic stuff except
you just they made a few tiny little grammat you know like minor changes just
for script code that you can see just approval of
you know we just put historic district made and got rid of that that's that's
it we didn't make any substantive or we're coming back on that
» we were in a we're coming back on that and I think that's scheduled for
» okay so so what you're saying is you
for
» Okay. So, what you're what you're saying is that there's going to be more
discussion on this because again, we can get find ourselves in a situation where
somebody >> So, I think yeah, that'll be I think
broadly. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously with the final
thought, it' be kind of rare for someone to do a major subdivision in the
historic district, but uh obviously they do appropriate. It's finalized for a
major sub, you know, it's multiple lots. It's a sale house.
» I suppose. >> Okay, I got it. So, what what you're
saying, Kurt, and again, this situation does exist currently in the historic
district. Is the historic That's a different section that you're not
considering right now. Is that right? >> There's no substant changes to that
section. Right. >> And what section is that?
» That's the the COA and the was it 9.9 and 9.10.
Okay.
» There's a lot of discussion. >> Okay. Fair. Fair enough. Fair enough.
So, could we go back to that that chart that we talked about? And again, this
I'm I'm sorry to be a little bit pedantic on this, but this is the world
we're living in right now. So I just want to be very precise because so if
you go to historic preservation
you now have a certificate of appropriateness
which is 24 months and can be extended the proposed is three times. Is that
right Kurt? >> That's right. That's what
» okay so what does that mean? Does that mean the building needs to be built by
then or that within five years the applicant who has the certificate of
appropriateness needs to apply for a building permit?
What is it? >> I think it's similar to the final ply.
It doesn't mean it has to be built. It means they have to submit a building
permit which requires a certificate of appropriateness. they've met all the
conditions of either a minor certificate of progress or let's say the HRB said
you know you had to do specific windows and columns etc that
was a condition so when you submit your building permit we would verify
that was done on and so yeah does that does that make sense so you have that
» well well let's let's work to a practical
» years to submit a building permit that meets the certificate the government.
» Fair enough. So, let's let's just assume we're under the new new code. Uh the
building um that I got a certificate of appropriateness
la a year ago was approved. I've got 24 months and then I've got another three
years that I can extend that certificate of appropriateness
before I need to get a building permit. And as long as I do that, I get a
building permit, right? Within the three within the five years.
» Okay. So once I get that building permit, how long is the building permit
valid for? Six months. It says >> six months, but it can be extended based
on any progress, any meaningful progress or you know the building official can
extend it for I guess cause you know. So it's an it's an arbitrary
extension by the building in inspector. Is that right?
» I wouldn't say so. No, it's in the it's in the building code that you know
that's approved by almost every community, you know, one version or
another. But all that language building the IRC, you know, or the IBC, right?
That's done by the international code council.
» But we do six month period, but that sixmonth period is the same as the IBC
and the IRC. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think it becomes
arbitrary simply because an official has the ability to make a decision. I think
arbitrary is the wrong word. And I think as Kurt has explained it, I think it's a
normal way that business in this regard is done.
» It has to meet the standards to renew a building permit is in both of the two
international code. You know, the IRC and the IBC there. The standards are
there that you have to meet. Typically, it's you have to have some
progress in six months to renew it or you know there's there's a section in
those codes that state what you need to do to extend it no action.
» Okay. So, it's standardized. Okay, fair enough.
» They're not Buford codes. They're, you know, codes that are adopted in almost
every >> Okay, I'll look at that. So, for a big
project downtown, the code does not require a TIA. Is that right?
» Um, I don't know that I could say that for sure, but uh, you know, certain uses
could require a TI. >> Well, I I think the proposal in here is
that overlay districts would be exempt. >> Oh, yeah, you're right. But that's
Bladen Street. No, no, it's bound it's bounded by
Calhoun, Carterette, Bay Street, and Rebo Road.
» Isn't there a blade overlay in redevelopment district downtown?
» There is. >> Yeah. So then that would be exempt to I
guess certain parts of downtown. >> But what about in the middle of
downtown? If you put a I mean just, you know,
» you put a fast food restaurant. Is that >> No, you put a 70 room hotel. Do you need
a do you need a TIA?
Uh if it triggers it if it triggers 50 trips
» um >> or more you have
» or more in a peak an hour you have to yes or for a site plan
» you have to and it's just complicated because you know most of those uses are
not allowed in the store jumping but yes a hotel would be one that could
potentially trigger the >> okay and does it I didn't see anything
about archaeological downtown has that been taken out or
» address it. Yeah, that's in chapter eight.
» It actually was in 7.5 reference to but it's in chapter eight
and they haven't gotten to that yet. >> Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. Um
I've only got one or two more here, guys. Thanks for sticking with me. Um
uh 910.2.3A
910.3 >> page. Yeah, let me get there and I'll
tell you. Hold on. 10
» 9 10.2
[Music]
» That's the That's the sections that we're going to be working on later.
» Oh, okay. Because you you have made some changes. applicability. HRB shall have
the authority to authorize a design exception from any applicable standard
set forth in article 2 except for section 2.6 height and section 2.74 air
installation. So where before there was a limit on what they could do, now
they're totally unlimited.
So one thing that is concerning here is not only height but width
which gets to mass and scale. And so as a major developer in the historic
district that wants to maintain its character that's a concern.
Front footage is what I'm talking about.
You're going to have to correct for all of us. I was under the impression, I
don't know what yours is, Mike, that we were going to leave all of the changes
to the to the historic out for now that we would change it.
» And we've been meeting over the last smaller group over the last couple of
months about some larger issues in the historic district. And we were going to
come back with the historic district changes separate from all this. Is that
why? >> Okay, that's fair enough. That's that's
a good answer. Um and then finally, um >> changes
» they weren't intended. >> So are those changes going to be changed
that you've crossed out or it's just not?
» Let me check because this was actually related to the design exception and
that's why they're in there. Well, in the final analysis, what's going to be
over the clean version, not our line version anyway.
» And so, you know, really what the question is is what's in the clean
version. I don't know whether >> I'm going to look but uh I that was
actually touched because there was a lot of consideration from some of the
attorneys on if I remember this is probably like 12 years ago
stated varants stated variance HRV should grant a variance and that's why
it was changed because I think the a feeling that that's the original code
they didn't have the power to grant a variance they have the power to make
» right >> that's that's that was the
I to me it's concerning that they have no boundaries whatsoever.
» Well, I think we can mark that and you know again there was no intention to
change any of that and I think that was the the reason for it. So
» okay when they come out
» but that was the reason I think it was because
» says varants >> and and then the last
» sorry go ahead >> so sorry go ahead
» and then the last thing is on demolition um where does demolition
stand >> that was in the same
the same u future future set of things that we're going to come back to the
council planning commission. >> We're making no changes on that for now
is was what where the planning commission stood on it because we
understood that we needed to uh consider all of that or am I correct about that?
» Okay. Okay. Uh that was it. Thank you very
much. Um, really quick, looking at this chart, um, where is the minor
subdivision review on that? I mean, I I think it's it's clear to me when I'm
reading it that you have the subdivision review section, and then you have sketch
plan, then preliminary plat, final plat. And sketch plan is required for all
major development. But where is the minor subdivision review in the chart?
» We picked that out. When you go to the final clean copy version, you'll see
that it's going. >> Okay. So, what was the thought of
removing it for just having it in here? Even if it's the administrative review
or whatever, what would be the justification for removing it from the
chart all together?
believe need to go through any specific public process, but perhaps it's better.
» I would think I mean there's others that are that wouldn't go through any public
process as well that are listed in here. And you know, if you're looking at this
and you're trying to determine, you know, maybe where you would go to find
the section minor, >> I think the the minor one was just go
back to the minor requirements. It was just a find that would apply.
» I don't think it was ever in the code. And that was Yeah, that was the minor
site plan. was a minor subdivision. Excuse me.
» I'm seeing I see the minor site plan in the chart for the design review, but I
don't see the minor subdivision. >> Yeah, I don't know that it ever was
in the old chart. In fact, I think >> I think
» Well, we can I think that's something to add, but I don't think they anything
administrative. >> Okay. know what I was looking I didn't
see it on there. Um and then another question that maybe pretty easy for you
guys. I was looking for it, couldn't find it, but on um page 170 where it
says section 9.1.6 decision based on a public hearing. Um that used to be that
a decision shall be made by the appropriate review body within 60 days
of the close of the required public hearing and it's left blank. And I I
would assume that it got moved somewhere, but I had trouble finding it.
Would it moved somewhere? >> Page 170 9.1.6 decision based on public
hearing. So if there's a decision made, is there a time frame by which
» I I don't think I think our thinking was is that if we don't decide at the date
of the hearing, we're just continuing the hearing.
» Okay. We're not. So, we either decide when we're done or we continue the
hearing. And we'll either continue a hearing where we uh where we don't take
additional testimony or whether we do, but we'd be specific about that. But
it's not one of these things where you're closed if you just never vote on
it. >> Okay.
» So, and also >> thinking was scratching and it really
didn't. >> So, we have to make a decision after
we're we're done hearing all the testimony or otherwise we continue it.
» Okay. Also because there were multiple instances
both when the DRB existed uh planning commission where it's gone way over 60
days projects they >> because we don't have that concern right
now. >> Well you know they've been tabled and
you know a lot of past projects for additional information from the
applicant that you know longer saying. So we've had some instances just
» we don't want them to be approved by ordinance
that makes sense. >> I'm going to take that violence out.
» Gotcha. >> So we've had some situations where we
just didn't have adequate information to make a final decision. And and so we've
said, "Listen, will you agree to just continue this or do you want us to vote
today?" And in those instances, they've always said, "Well, I'll agree to
continue this because I'm not going to have you vote with inadequate
information because you're probably not vote the way I want."
» So that's the idea there. >> Um, and then one other thing, and this
is on page 200. Uh, I think this was already in the code, but just a
question. Uh, again, page 200 under guidance, standards, maintenance of
consent policies. The last bullet number six, it says any special area policies
adopted by the HRB. Do they have the ability to adopt
policies or special area?
» A good question. I think that's in the current code and we just didn't really
consider it. So, >> it's in the current. I just didn't know.
Maybe it doesn't even need to be there because I don't know that they have the
whole thing. Are we even going to be there? Are we
even expecting a vote on anything related to
the historic section? My my understanding as a PL we had we
had discussed with the things internally. We had come up with our
proposed changes. We were told that council either didn't like them or
wanted more changes. So what we were internally discussing and which was sort
of the genesis of that whole committee that got set up started meeting was we
had a bigger we had more work to do and so no changes were going to be made to
the historic section until that committee completed its work and got
back to the planning commission for further review.
There's a lot of issues the special committee is dealing with uh as an
example area property that we all know different things that have to be with
there and the community itself. So dealing with the whole section
especially demolition becomes uh a little more complicated as well as
sensitive to everybody and trying to preserve the community. So special
committee has been set up to try and hear the voices of uh various different
entities as to how to put that back together to make it work and enforceable
because nothing that we have in the current code has been enforcable for 20
or 30 years. >> Is that special committee made up of
members from planning commission HRB? >> Yes. Okay.
» And and the what's that group? Freeman, sorry. Freeman.
» Yeah. So, when we when we first sat down, I was under the impression that
Mike was that we were going to get some comments to the code sections that we
be, you know, meeting or two and we'd be done with that. But it kind of opened it
up to everything and we started talking about much more broadly uh about a whole
variety of issues relating to the historic and the Freedman's Arts
District. And so instead of being like a two-hour meeting or two two-hour
meetings, I think it ended up being like, you know, a half dozen 4hour
meetings. And I think that we finally put
something together that was who we sent to the city council, right, and just
hadn't taken it up yet. And that wasn't even the final step in the process. That
was sort of a preliminary step. Is that right, Cord?
» Well, if you remember at your retreat, it was brought up then. And at the
retreat, um, I stated that we'd get together with the historic uh, design
review board and get together and put something together that made the most
sense. That's what generated this other committee. So, it's been going on for
quite a while. We've had a lot of meetings. I think the discussions have
been really very uh very good, very fruitful and we need to come up with
something that you all can enforce that is appropriate for now.
» I think at one time Mr. Hullman, there was a draft that you had um was from
city of Columbia or something. Is that right?
» Infamous draft. I'm not sure >> that had to do with demolitions. Is that
is that still on the table at all or is that part has it just been rolled into
part of the discussion? >> We haven't even gotten to the demolition
discussion within so
» um regarding if this goes to second reading in August. I think we can see
here today that there is considerable version confusion going on and this is
something that we and the planning commission have struggled with from the
beginning and I think there's confusion about what exactly was agreed to at
first reading and what would be up for a vote at second reading and I would
suggest that a version be prepared that excludes doesn't even have it in the
packet any of this historic district stuff. It should just be not in there.
Um, and also suggests that in reviewing it, I find these redline versions
extremely difficult to read and there's a lot of mistakes to them and they're
hard to see. So, I would suggest that council members look at the clean copy
and if there's something that seems not right, then refer to the redline version
to if there's an explanation. I think and then and then when you're talking
about it at the meeting, I also think that you should use a clean version uh
for purposes of any vote or any further modifications. That's just my
» All right, Tony, if you got someone I do,
» Mr. Tri, >> thank you. I left two things out and I
appreciate you tolerating hearing me again. Um, one is the TIA, there was
some discussion on half versus a mile. Uh, and again, this question is for
Kurt. If and the planning committee, by all means, chime in. You're wanting that
right now as written that the TIA take into consideration a half mile
radius. Is that right? >> Yes. Except for if it's approved but not
permitted but unbuilt development into the mile is the way that it currently.
» Has anybody explored what that might cost?
» I think >> I I because I don't know and my some of
my property is impacted. I I think it's a good idea. I just don't know what it
might cost to do that in a TIA and do we know? I'm trying to bring this to
practicality. >> Well, a TIA looks at intersect
Uh that's what it's all about. It's always about intersection. So it depends
how many intersections we're within the distance.
» Uh so talk me through that. So how is a half mile going to be uh any different
than a mile if I'm doing an intersection?
might be more.
» Now, often they use the, you know, the county or the state, you know, often
does counts that are pretty accurate on a lot of the major roads that are within
a time frame that works. So, >> right, but my experience is they sit on
the corner where the where the development is going to go and they they
take car counts. >> That's right.
» Okay. So what does a math mile versus a mile mean to that is my question.
» Well, more than one more than the multiple intersections can easily be
impacted by a traffic by a new development. Okay. And you know a half
mile or a mile is actually you know sort of arbitrary. My experience a lot of it
with developments over a long career is that it's you it's it's the uh and we
don't have a engineering section but it's a it's it's somebody
like in in our case here Kirk would have to say
these are the intersections that are impacted and you really need to look at
these intersections. I think we just put in a distance in there because we
discussed it in the sense was it should be beyond just the intersection where
you have access to the property. >> Got it. Okay. Um and Mike Tony, back to
the demolition situation. Um it seems to me it would be pretty easy
to put a a limit on the time frame for demolitions and not stop this whole
process. this now very complicated process which
either intentionally or not intentionally has been created.
Isn't that reasonable? I mean, right now I'm holding a demolition permit that
never expires. Uh, and that's the whole issue. Why why can't you at least put an
interim demolition sunset in and then go back and deal with all these quote
unquote stakeholders that have been created?
» Well, I I totally agree. We have to have sunsets and uh we could put something
temporary in there. We'll have to uh uh see what uh the uh the board wants to
do. But uh I I totally agree. We've got to have those sunsets and that's the
problem that we've had up until now. Uh the problem putting a sunset in is how
do you uh how do you enforce it? And that's that's one of the big issues
we've uh been trying to deal with. So, you don't have advice on how to
enforce it, isn't it? Just simply send the code guy out there and sorry, you
can't do it or >> uh you can do that, but uh is is
something that actually happened and if you're talking about a a taking of
property, you know, how is that going to get done? I think that that's there
there's just a lot of issues around that that we're trying to deal with right now
and come up a way with a way that uh they can be um uh they can be dealt
with. >> Okay. And and then are those meetings
open to the public? >> Yes.
» Yeah, >> they are. So they're advertised and
they're open to the public and and all that sort of stuff.
» There's there's been a hiatus on those right now. Uh we're looking for an an
official adoption of of that uh uh special committee from city council. I
think that's coming up. Uh >> okay
will be a work session with the city council.
» Yeah. And so then those definitely are advertised.
» Yeah. Okay. Because it sounds it sounds like a lot of this stuff has been done
behind closed doors without stakeholders. It's just my I'm not
accusing. I'm just I'm >> No, I would No, there hasn't been any
discussion at all just of demolition. >> All the discussion was from the planning
commission last year.
» Okay, fair enough. >> Great. Say that.
» Thank you. In the interest of time, I'd like and Mike, if Mike, if you don't
mind, y'all go through what the chamber presented, the edits that y'all did
there. Um, so that we can come up with a clean copy that we could, you know, have
some amendments to vote on our next meeting if that's possible to do it.
» Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I think is that the plan to maybe send this back to the
planning commission for which meeting next week?
if you go over I think John Councilman Scalleti had a lot of excellent comments
incorporate this
» well and Mr. Barorper and Mr. Tony have um sort
of taken the lead as a subcommittee within the planning commission to
coordinate this process. So, um I think we we should be able to accomplish
something. But our next >> Yeah, I think I think you know a lot of
the changes are just um uh
using the proper words and punctuations and capitalizations, things like that.
There's there's a few things in here that that are are more than that. Um and
there may be a couple of issues that uh we uh don't agree with uh the comments
that we've been given >> and they were working on the earlier
redline draft and when we did the final draft for example the formatting all
changed so a lot of the little rolling hoods became little beads things of that
kind and it so but we made one go through already
like I did And we're going to do another one here with
» we we've done the health cover based on what they
» we're working with. So we didn't change it up so that so they could understand
what it is. >> I I'd be more than happy to go through
each of our comments here. I know uh they're the comments of things that we
think uh can change at this point or we can give this document to them uh to
look at if they want. Um but if they want to make comments at this meeting
related to specific issues in here um we probably have to uh go through the
comments and let her make specific uh just have discussion about some specific
items. >> Megan is not here to speak on the
chamber. Oh well, >> it sounded like in the comments made
today, there was nothing actually specifically pointed to, but it sounded
like the underlying concern was the economics of it. Is it going to make
development more expensive and unreasonably more expensive? But I feel
like some of the changes that we're we're seeing here, in fact, many of them
are exactly in line with not only council's concerns, but the community we
represent, their concerns, which is the the tree canopy coverage and the traffic
impact studies being being um required and and more tightened up. Um, so I
think a lot of the issues are are exactly in line with, you know,
» well, the uh the planning commission is looking at it from the standpoint of
what's in the best interest of this community,
» right? >> And so as we address all these issues,
we're not looking at things that make it less expensive for a developer to come
in and do something. We're looking at uh maintaining the integrity of the
community as the development happens, working with the developer to uh to do
these things. So, uh we may have some disagreements on a couple of things in
here, but the majority uh doesn't get into that kind of detail,
» right? And and my specific concern in regards to the predictability is just
that is having somebody be able to read it and say, "Okay, this is what's
required of me." And if it's a stringent requirement, that's fine because I feel
like we need to do that in order to protect what we have. But at the same
time, at least I'd like somebody to be able to read it and understand exactly
what is required of them and there not be question marks on what that might
look like and and so clearing up some of those gray areas um I feel like is
important because there were several of them. Um we we did talk about the within
a mile and there seemed to be a little confusion. So, I want to just make sure
that was an intentional um in here. But on page 120, it says incorporation of
all traffic impact analysis studies and trip generation from approved
developments or vested unbuilt developments within mile radius at the
time of proposal. Now, that's the only place where it talks about a mile.
Everything else is a half a mile. So, was that an intentional decision that
was made within a mile or is the word half missing from there? Well, let me
tell you a little bit of the background uh behind all that. Uh and that is if I
started looking across the county, city and town uh and dealing with issues as I
work with the county on certain boards and things is that we have so much
development going on. We've got 3 to 5,000 new units coming online. And a lot
of that when you're taking a look at a specific uh subdivision as at a point in
our community, uh you have to go out farther to see what the overall impact
of that is because when those units come online, you're going to have a much
greater impact on the road systems and the intersections. So the intent and the
purpose was to try and uh put together information that would allow a traffic
engineer to understand what the future impact is based on what we're approving
for developments. One of the things I would like to see happen is get a GIS uh
system done where we have input from the city, the town, and the county uh that
uh shows exactly where our subdivisions are that are either applying for uh
permits uh actually permitted or haven't come online yet, but and are still out
there. so that we could see what those population areas are and their impacts
on those particular roads and whether or not that's going to have an impact on a
future subdivision that we're currently currently reviewing. Uh the problem that
that I've had is that our board when we take a look at this, we're looking at a
very uh small confined area uh and not taking into account and sometimes we
don't even know. That's why I really like to see uh an emphasis put on just
getting a GIS map which should be not really complicated because you can go to
each of the uh planning commissions uh for each of our uh municipalities
uh and just plot that on a GIS map and then just kind of keep that up and the
intent would be that that GIS map is then available for every uh um plan
subdivision that comes to the table for any of us. Is there
as a traffic engineer, what what are they basing allowing a develop you know
saying okay it's going to put this many cars on what's the capacity of the
arterial routes because that's the thing that I'm concerned about you can do half
mile you can do a mile doesn't matter 170 whether it's county portal or Buer
sooner or later it's going to be gridlock and the way these things work
the way that traffic impact assessments work together capacity analysis for
intersections so the whole idea is is that you know what slow you're trying to
make sure that traffic keeps moving. I mean this is the way things are analyzed
across the country. It isn't whether there's how much traffic is on the road.
It's whether it moves through the intersections in in a in one signal. So
the idea is it might you know as communities grow yeah there's going to
be ever more traffic on the art on the roads. There's just pl there's no point
in that. So, what you try to do is make sure that um you don't improve
new developments that that cause gridlock. And gridlock is when you can't
get through an intersection anymore. Um you can and as a result of those studies
um you know it may sometimes come down to the fact that we just have to turn
something down but it may be that there are various modifications that can be
you know the typical things that a traffic impact study looks at is signal
timing. you know, add more, you know, green time to the arterial and and less
to the to the cross street. Um, turning lanes, you know, and it's usually left
turn. It's always left turns that it's all about, whether you're turning left
out of a development or turning in. So, do we have to add new uh uh turning
lanes, stacking lanes, and send things of that kind? Um so you know that's what
that's what we're always looking at and that's what the T traffic impact
assessments are looking at. >> Uh it's not a total volume of traffic on
the road, it's the total capacity of an intersection and they're graded on the
basis of uh delays. Uh so there's usually two num there's a number in
there which is the seconds of delay and then those seconds of delay for the the
institute traffic engineer uh standards are given grades ABCD E and F. Um coming
into this whole thing your development code here said that we shoot for a level
of service D. Where I came from we considered a level of service D as a
passing grade. I mean, we only looked at E and Fs and a lot of times because we
were in a major metropolitan area, we even approved Fs because it was like so
many things are F, we'll have no growth and development if we but here you you
we didn't change that standard. It's it's a level of service D. And so um it
makes it a little bit easier to to turn things down if the development through
signal timing and turn lanes and things like that can achieve a level of service
P. So that's what we you all and what we're looking at is does the traffic
keep moving? not really how much traffic is is
those turning lanes you talk about certain roads that you can't can't do
that because there's nowhere to put that road. The other thing is there's so many
curb cuts >> along a lot of these things that stop
and slow traffic and just so the new developments you know in the old days
everybody got a curb cut where you know every single one acre lot development
there was and that's part of what you're dealing with now. So I mean it may be
that on some of these developments what you try to do in an impact setting is
mitigate the impacts so that you can get it to that level of service even if you
can't mitigate the impacts because there's no place to put turn lanes or
whatever then the answer is going to start being no on some of the
development you know just from the standpoint of driving impact study alone
that's why it was so important to bas and our one of the big changes last
thing I'll say on that is we wanted to make sure that TIA were required in more
circumstances and that they were reviewed by the planning commission when
I was on the planning commission under my you know the last time the planning
director didn't want us to ever get a TIA and didn't look want us to look at
them because he said we weren't competent to do so well we've taken a
different viewpoint is that we you know that's our responsibility is that we
don't know how they work and we need to figure out how they work and give you a
recommendation that regard >> and and to some degree Graham yeah
Graham is right There is a difference between looking at what road capacity
is. Uh we're not even dealing with road capacities, but we are approving uh
major subdivisions and and we've got to be uh we've got to understand what those
new subdivisions are. And right now, if you do a a TIA on a particular
intersection, you're not going to get the the same results as you would if all
of those subdivisions that are in that same area are actually operational. Um,
but but then that goes back to road capacity. And that I think we need to be
looking at, oh, what can we do for road capacity? And now obviously we're
impacting road capacity because we're approving developments.
» Well, let me hitch on that just for one second. Is one thing we've also tried to
assure with this is that when a new development, you know, takes its uh you
know, you take actual counts of what's on the road, but you use the IT manual
for predicting trim generation from a new development. And so we try to make
sure that as we analyze as a new TIA is done, it takes into account not just the
traffic that's on the road, but the traffic that's been approved in a new
development that isn't built yet. So you're always building on top of what
was previously approved. And and that's part of the trick in reviewing these
things is to make sure that that they don't leave out a development just
because it wasn't built yet. You have to take into account as though it's built.
And that's what you captured very well here. And then it goes back to the
requirement for any jurisdiction including the town of Port Royal and the
county of >> Euper
trying to capture. The other thing that it dovetales with
is the sun setting of the permits um and the approvals because now
the the window for building is extremely long and and it was very important for
us to shorten that and put a definite limit on it because it's true that some
developments just never get built. But if you have to take
» right >> indefinite approvals um into account
this announce then you are talking about expense and really just speculation. So
» so one thing to to keep in mind I was at a statewide conference with heads of D
from DOT and with new developments they're doing everything they can to
eliminate left turns. You'll see it out there like at Cross Creek area in the Bu
station. Everybody's fussing about that. Uh they're doing medians, they're doing
um roundabouts and um traffic circles. Uh they found it's like 75% of the
accidents are like from left turns and they're trying to eliminate left turns
everywhere they can. So new development, you're going to start seeing that a lot
more of it. >> Exactly.
» From DOT and warning you, >> Miss Kim, back to your comment. Was that
was that the context behind why the changes in the permit validity
extensions from five times to to one time because I don't know what the
appropriate time would be but is that the context behind that change?
» Well, yeah, that that was part of it. The other was that that I think under
the original code uh you could um start your sketch plans and not even
have to do a major development under that same sketch plan for uh 10 12 years
or something. We've cut it down. Now it's like seven or eight years which is
still an awful long time. >> It's all about predictability. and and
from by the time you get even four, five, six years from the time you apply
and get approved for a plan, everything in this community changes. I mean, look
where we were five years ago where we are now. U can I ask this and I know
that the historic preservation portion of the conversation may be off the table
because that has further review but what was the context behind reducing the
opportunity to extend say the sketch plan um preliminary and final only one
time whereas in the historic preservation it went down from five to
three. Uh I I think that was more the
predictability of what you're trying to accomplish
um and funding for that and taking into account that that probably isn't a major
subdivision. So you're dealing with smaller entities.
» Yeah. But you have more time. >> We also have bigger challenges often in
the historic district when you're trying to accomplish a project that you don't
have in other parts of the city. >> Okay. That's where my mind was is maybe
there's other challenges that are created in the historic preservation
district that would require or or make it better to have the opportunity to
extend up to three times, but I didn't know what the that was thought or not.
» How do we want to wrap this up? Keepbody >> Yeah. So if I could just give direction
because I think some of this stems from the fact that we're using a red line
copy that we're using for red lining in >> right soward
I think probably deserves a lot of formatting and that's but thinking of
doing that but and you got the old red line and we can't change that but uh but
the clean copy to to M's point it's kind of has been format So still there are
some council lady you know I think some comments and things that kind of missed
as well or need to be corrected. How do you wish do you want to send that
back to the planning commission next week where then we'll take a formal
recommendation and then send you just motions based on that first based
on the things we talked about today or
» I think that >> it would be helpful for us to have a
clean version >> and and the red line for reference as I
suggested and then I think we can take that clean version And somehow, even if
you need to do it by motions, and it sounds like you do, the clean version
needs to be a clean version that comes out of our next meeting needs to be part
of the packet that is available to council and to the public so people know
what they're talking about. I mean, we we spent some time here today talking
about things that really weren't on the agenda. And part of it was because of
that version confusion. Um, we we did spend time talking about a lot of
historic district stuff, but it the clean version, the results from our
planning commission meeting next week should be somehow part of that packet
for for council for purposes of doing their second reading and their motions
and whatever is procedurally required. >> And to do that, compare what we passed
under first reading, what the new clean copy is going to look like, is that's
going to generate the amendments. >> Yeah. So, and I I I would what we're
planning to do is Mike and I get together ASAP. First thing we need to do
is just make sure that we got the the right version that you had the first
reading with. If if if that version is not in line with our clean version, then
we might have a lot more changes than we think. We just need to make sure that um
the changes that we make that that that planning commission takes
up and that are then recommended to you all are off of the version that you had
your first reading on because that's right it might be a whole number of it
might be quite a number of amendments but at least we're making amendments to
the right draft. If if we find out that there's a problem in that regard, then
we might have to go back to square one with a new first reading.
» There's a consistency there's some consistency issue in the 18 months and
the 12 months, >> one mile and a half mile TAS and so
forth. And I think some consideration does need to be given to
» number one cost TIA for radius as compared to a half mile radius. And also
from the standpoint of whether you once you get beyond a certain point whether
or not there is integrity to going out the additional half mile from the
standpoint of what you're taking into consideration
because I mean a TIA takes traffic considerations by intersections within
an area and a realm around where where construction where new construction is
being proposed. And if you when you move it out and take into consideration the
other preliminary sections in there, I think you're going to see the D's and E
and the FS becoming much more prevalent in the in the central.
» Right. So I I have a
recommendation I had time that I would go back to is that the the TIA be
be based on intersections and that be determined by somebody with the
expertise to say which intersections are affected. And the best person we have
may be staff. And so, you know, an arbitrary number like a half mile or a
mile is what's important is what are the intersections that are actually affected
by this new development. And it may be that it's not even a half mile, but it
might be more than one, you know, because that's what you're really
looking at. And uh traffic engineers know that, you know, I mean they know
the intersections that are logically impacted, but you end up getting a
different grade for each intersection. And um so any we'll take a look at it.
We'll have >> I'm not a traffic engineer. So
» I don't know if there's anyone you can rely on. Uh, and if we had a traffic
engineer, it wouldn't be a consultant. So,
» my point about the one mile, you take Salem Point, it affects all the way down
the Parasil Island Gateway, which would be a mile,
» everything that it affects the whole thing because they'll come out over in
the side roads every which way out of there. It does affect. So, that's why I
said a mile. >> Yeah, it might be. I have a question.
So, once we get this clean version, Um and we'll have that well before 19th
of August. Um
we all get to read it. Do we go to second reading and then we decide
whether we approve or disapprove second reading or are we going to have some
sort another rehashing meeting? >> No amendments.
» Yeah, I think that's what I was asking. Do we have a list of all the amendments
to include >> council's amendments that were
suggested? >> Well, your comment about the copies
though amendments based on trying to figure out what to do
» or and then have the clean copy with those
amendments made or do we just have the clean copy from first reading and then
» not made. I think there need a list of possible amendments. Clean copy should
can correct certain things like the omission of the word not things like
that. But if it's anything that's substantively changed from the draft
that was read at the >> has to be amended after.
» Yeah. Okay. So will correct all the scriveners errors that I think
» numbering that kind of stuff >> which I think it already did. So that
that's fine. Um but what do you want me to do with the red line version? Because
I think that's been the little bit because when you touch a redline
version, especially in a meeting called together, you do it in the meeting 16 or
18 times becomes a little messy. I'm going to be honest with you. And I think
trying and I that's my fault. I you know Christopher's trying to kind of clean it
up.
» I'm not sure that it works so good all the time. So
clean up. Perhaps now is not the time to figure out how to use it.
» What I would suggest you do, Curt, is take one more um you know, trip through
the document and correct your numbering, correct little, you know, scrimer type
errors, except
save that as something new. After you do that, accept all the changes in the new
document. Call it something else. >> And and that would be your clean
version. >> And you'd still have your old red line.
We are and all the errors will be corrected and then all the motions with
substantive things like >> I think correct know this TIA half mile
that's a substantive issue >> and the word new as far as the gated
» I think we can all agree it's notization is not
» that's new I mean that's nothing it's the substantive stuff from the first
reading to the second reading so we can do an amendment to make We pass a
second.
» Was there anything else that's substantive that we haven't discussed?
» Yes. Everyone here thinks should be
» um city council going to take these proposed amendments that we have here.
» We got to make some corrections to these.
» Yeah. um and send them um back or just incorporate those as amendments.
» Where did this one come from? >> The chamber of commerce as the chamber
of commerce notes. These are the amendments, the substantive things and
driven uh that were in here are now part of this package.
» Yeah. So, I think I was going to update them and I didn't know if you wanted to
talk about anything. There's a few substantive things that we haven't
discussed. >> Okay.
» Some words I think are really show like the typical I think. So I think that is
» one one of the main things they had was that uh we had into
have a title commitment at uh the um >> subdivision subdivisions talking about
the land lot >> yeah title commitments. Yeah, the sketch
plan, we had it we had it included in the sketch plan and we agreed that we'd
leave that out of there. But in the preliminary plan, we needed to have it
in there because uh and quite frankly, if you're a developer trying to do this
stuff, we would want to have title before you start spending all the money
to even go into preliminary plan. But at a minimum, we wanted to have that stay
in at the preliminary plan. they uh wanted it out of both. So we just took
it out or we left it into the preliminary
um >> but took it out of the sketch.
» Took it out of the sketch. Left it in preliminary.
» I think that's appropriate. But I mean we're spending our time doing it, too.
And just recently we had the same thing
where somebody thought they had the authority to do it because it was a
father-in-law that was a partial owner I think or something and
they didn't have the uh agreement with him that they could do what they wanted
to. So they had to come back and get that agreement put it on the table. Even
though it was in the B didn't make any difference we needed to have title
commitment. Uh there was design plan. I think that
was a little more controversial. It's a >> planning commission felt like they
should see just a theme of like massing and and conceptual design
before they test the project. And I think push back from the developer is is
that one they might not be they have builder right they're going to probably
sell the development and they're not sure what that might end up. So that
that was I think one of the more substantive
» well that comes up in the annexation situation where they annexing some
property and they want a zoning classification and they usually want to
have the zoning classification that is giving them the most freedom.
» It's always up every time >> and and we don't have anything in our
code right now about dealing with those annexation issues. That's something that
we have on our list that we need to get to, but right now we have no guidance
other than South Carolina statutes. Um, but we do have a as far as the zoning
classifications to be granted after annexations, I think there's consensus
among the commission that we don't like dual zoning. We we don't we're
disincclined to approve anymore dual zoning situations. And the developers,
they feel that that is um something they'd like to have a lot of time
because that just gives them >> like the T5CH.
» Yeah. All that kind of stuff. >> Yeah.
I think we But I think
we last time,
we're really frustrated. Our hands were tight because we get
get a sketch plan that had roads on and that was it. And we would have the you
have to approve it or disapprove it based on just the roads. But we had no
control over anything else that happened on that
piece of property. So uh and for me being an architect um wanted
to see some concepts of what they intend to do some massing on typical lot. So we
knew what the massing was going to look like on particular lots because that had
a lot to do with charact character uh there of that property as well as in the
community. So those were the kinds of things that uh they wanted to take out
uh that uh I stand pretty strong on the fact we still need to see that kind of
thing. We need to know what what the intent is going into the community. And
I can understand a developer owns piece of property wants to get an approval uh
from the city. They can go market it and say, "Hey, I got an approval for this.
Now you can go do whatever you want." Uh that's not what we want. that's not in
the best interest of the community. So, um that I've left in we've left in
there. >> Well, it's in the subdivision standards
requirements and the site plan requirements. Yes,
» it's looking for consistency with the rest of the code and with whatever other
you know authority we have to for example on a site plan we review it
not just against the code but also against community master plan and the
comp plan and so forth the civic master plan they're so by having that up front
you know we're able to look at that consistency early on rather than
approving the subdivision and then with with bassing and building designs
that don't even comply with the rest of the requirements.
» But those are really the major things I think. I don't think I can't think of
anything else >> that was that major open issue.
» And in our final version, it's not reflected in the red line. Um we don't
approve a sketch plan anymore. We just provide comments. And part of that
reason was to try to avoid what happened in the lawsuit on on the dual approvals
that will happen at at the historic review board. When you come forward with
a subdivision with a sketch plan, we'll give you your comments, but you don't
walk away with approval. You want to follow our comments, that's fine, but
there's a good chance you're not going to get approved at the preliminary plan
stage, you know, but we give comments. We don't give an approval or a denial
comments. That way there's only one feelable action. The action when you get
your final when you get your preliminary plan approved.
So the comments would come first from PRC and then comments from planning
committ all that you get is basically direction on what
exactly >> and I think that that's probably where
we're leaning when we come up with final recommendations on the historic stuff as
well as make you know if there's a preliminary review it's it's comments
and then there's only one action that becomes an appealable action. So you
don't end up in a situation where somebody appeals a preliminary plan and
they say, "Well, you you failed to to to approve the sketch plan and so
dismiss your appeal because you needed to appeal the earlier step. So we're
trying to eliminate that kind of potential for legal challenges."
» Well, that's a long way. >> Whatever happened this long way?
» No, but we knew it worked. >> Yeah. I think those are just common
sense things that we feel are in the best interest. And the rest of it is
I don't think that large of an
» just for direction just make sure basically we'll do the
update under clean that has all
made and then we'll do this motion section that we have that's all correct
with the additional items that were discussed today those will first be sens
I guess your hands are a little bit cloudy.
You have to make the recommendation, right?
I guess I'm not, you know, just making sure we're doing this all right.
» Yeah, I think that would be it, right? And you guys talked about next week that
you make a recommendation >> if there's any changes to city council
and then we can make that necessary to follow through with our second reading.
attorneys. They're all shaking their head.
» Oh, I was planning on
God bless you.
So, what one last thing that they they referred to was appeals because it
wasn't in theirs and we have a whole uh a section uh that's been written related
to appeals >> which is I think in here in the back.
Yeah, I guess it's not part of the discussion.
» They didn't part. >> Yeah. 9.17. Yeah,
» we determined we decided to put it in a separate section uh because I went
through all of the appeal statute and there was a lot of conflicts
statutes are not well written when it comes to appeals and so in the old code
we were giving appeal rights to people that I didn't feel were actually rights
that were granted by the legislature and so I thought that maybe the better thing
to do rather than us make a mistake of rewriting the statutory appeal rights is
create a section where all of the appeals for the various actions are
listed and at that point in time you need to hire an attorney anyway and have
the attorney go to that section and look it up and read it make its own
determination as to what it says. >> So So K that's another point just make
sure whatever the clean version you prepare is only contains things that are
up to be voted on. don't have any extra stuff. If you have to redact it, do
some, you know, so that's why I think you need to make a
new version. You can keep your old version, but make a new version that
only has things to be voted on. And I guess are some of these things
that we have and
you know like where it's typical I mean I guess it's good for you to see that
they're there but >> those are do those need to be a specific
motion from the council. I guess that's a I got a capitalized major subdivision.
» I I have a question. Maybe it's I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask
myself or something, but the city managers might
What is your view on on what constitutes an amendment versus what can just be
considered a a scrutiner's uh correction? You know, is there a limit
on Kurt nailed it. It's pretty much a common sense reasonable standard. uh
it's if it's an a to an and an or capitalization error or something that
does not change the substance. >> So this so it'll be judgment if it looks
like it's potentially substantive we consider that an amendment. Okay.
» Be on the same side. Okay. On the safe side
if it changes the >> the intent then it probably is
substantive enough to be an amendment. >> Right. Okay. Okay. So the things that
you got from us uh for a large part you can disregard
until you get uh until you get new a lot of that script.
» So with that definition though um probably the word not that in that
section about um grading that should be on the amendment list.
» It's a substantive change of the meaning.
» Well actually it was already in the clean version. it was in the clean
version, then then we're good. Then we're good.
» If it just ended up being an omission from a red line and it was in the
original version, then we don't have weed on that already. But but something
like 7.5.3b for Roman emerald 2 remove the word
harmonious and replace with the word consistent mean could be
» the word
» I don't want to create any
Well, I kept asking questions until I think I um but I I think so. So, we'll
create Scrier's error. We'll have a new clean
version. Anything I think we'll talk about next
Monday that we feel is substant anything that was raised by council tonight
have a substant. >> Okay.
Where it is motion
is council.
Well, I want to appreciate all work you all have done obviously probably months,
not a year, but uh and I also want to thank
everybody that stood up today and gave us your input
respective meetings. So with that, I'm gonna