1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,799
there
and

2
00:00:13,679 --> 00:00:20,800
work session with council and the favor
commission to order. This is July 15,

3
00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:25,519
2025. I want to welcome everybody, those
who showed up in person and those who

4
00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:29,840
are joining us online. Um this is a work
session, a special work session. Um,

5
00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:34,559
we're going to have public comment right
off the bat. Uh, so if you have uh

6
00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:38,399
something to say, please raise your
hand. I'll recognize you. Come to the

7
00:00:36,399 --> 00:00:43,600
front. Give us your name and your
address. And with that, I'm going to

8
00:00:40,079 --> 00:00:48,399
open up public comment. I see Rob Kill
number one.

9
00:00:46,399 --> 00:00:52,039
Would you like me over here so you can
be seen by everybody?

10
00:00:53,199 --> 00:01:01,359
And we're Kill 608 Water Street.
Mr. Mayor, councel, I wrote these

11
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:04,600
comments down to Tracy if there's a
public record.

12
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:11,119
» Three first key points. I believe
convening this special session today is

13
00:01:09,520 --> 00:01:15,360
the right thing to do in the public
interest. In the same breath, I also

14
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:19,920
believe it should not have been
necessary to hold this session. Like

15
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:24,159
every other citizen and stakeholder in
the city of Buford, I believe the

16
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:31,280
Chamber of Commerce had more than ample
opportunity for their voice to be heard.

17
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:37,280
The facts. Chapter 9, Redline posted 20
times on the planning commission

18
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:44,720
website. Chapter 7 redline posted 16
times on the planning committee website.

19
00:01:40,320 --> 00:01:50,560
The time period 15 months, no chamber
input. It asked a rhetorical question.

20
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:55,840
If I can wait until the 11th hour to
make a comment that triggers a special

21
00:01:52,399 --> 00:02:00,880
council meeting on my issue only, why
should I play ball any earlier? I'm

22
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:07,880
confident everyone in this room agrees
that processes, rules, and procedures

23
00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:07,880
are in place for a purpose.

24
00:02:08,319 --> 00:02:13,560
Megan, who you spoke last week, are you
here?

25
00:02:13,599 --> 00:02:19,680
» Hello.
I don't know you and you don't know me.

26
00:02:17,599 --> 00:02:22,879
What I learned from your website is
you're a native euphorian and you've

27
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:28,160
been president of the chamber for almost
four years now. Congratulations.

28
00:02:26,239 --> 00:02:33,440
Even if you were my best friend, I would
still stand here and admonish you. Maybe

29
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:39,040
we will become best friends over time. I
hope so. I'm a real newcomer to Buford

30
00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:44,160
10 years. Professionally, I've worked on
leadership strategy and governance

31
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:49,599
domain for over 50 years. Since
attending the strategic planning meeting

32
00:02:46,640 --> 00:02:54,959
in January 24, I've attended every work
session and regular council meeting that

33
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:59,200
I've been here in person.
As president, you should know better. I

34
00:02:57,200 --> 00:03:04,000
doubt you would tolerate such behavior
by a member of your chamber. It's not

35
00:03:02,319 --> 00:03:09,519
the job of the city government to
educate you. The resources that have

36
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:13,680
been distracted, I would say wasted to
convene this hearing are significant.

37
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:18,879
want to close with a three-point
summary. As I said earlier, I think

38
00:03:16,239 --> 00:03:24,400
today's me meeting is in the public
interest. Council member Mitch Mitchell

39
00:03:21,920 --> 00:03:28,640
was right last Tuesday when he said
chamber upstairs,

40
00:03:26,319 --> 00:03:33,920
paraphrase, you put the council between
a rock and a hard spot. The chamber is a

41
00:03:31,599 --> 00:03:40,400
valued member of the Buford community.
While we don't condone their lateness,

42
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:45,680
we value their input. Two,
all the time, energy, and costs,

43
00:03:42,159 --> 00:03:50,560
including police invested in staff work
and meeting today's meeting is a waste

44
00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:56,319
of scarce and valuable government
resources and volunteer citizens time.

45
00:03:53,280 --> 00:04:01,680
It could be better spent. Last to you,
Megan. I strongly encourage you to open

46
00:03:58,879 --> 00:04:07,560
your remarks, if you do, by offering a
public apology.

47
00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:07,560
Thank you for listening.

48
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:20,160
Good afternoon to speak. Um, council and
commission. My name is Diane Barley,

49
00:04:18,639 --> 00:04:25,199
2415
Oak Haven Street, Buford, South

50
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:28,639
Carolina. Um, I'm computer froze where
all my notes are, so I don't have the

51
00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:33,120
questions that I had for you, but I did
want to make a couple of comments. One,

52
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:37,440
that the U agenda that went out did not
have a time listed. I found at the time

53
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:44,400
of the meeting this morning it's better
procedure um

54
00:04:40,960 --> 00:04:48,240
about it right now. I do agree with the
gentleman's comments about this being an

55
00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:53,520
unnecessary
meeting as well as the comments that

56
00:04:51,199 --> 00:05:00,000
were referenced in the for the
amendments um do not match up with the

57
00:04:57,520 --> 00:05:05,160
so it was pretty hard to follow up on.
Thank you. Anyone else?

58
00:05:05,919 --> 00:05:08,919
Hi.

59
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:18,320
I'm not sure I know all of your
protocol, so bear with me. But um my

60
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:24,960
name is Steven Kersh. I live at uh Live
Oaks 2200 Spanish Court. And the reason

61
00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:31,199
I'm here is related to I'm not sure if
I'm using the right word, but I believe

62
00:05:27,840 --> 00:05:38,080
there's a referendum related to allowing
communities to be gated. And

63
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:44,080
I I feel strongly that that should be
left up to communities. I moved into the

64
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:52,800
live oaks community just a couple of
years ago and safety and security are

65
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:59,680
really important to myself, my family
members, other community members, and

66
00:05:56,240 --> 00:06:05,199
it's really important that we be able to
make that choice. I'm not saying we're

67
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:09,120
going to put up gates at the live oaks
community, but I think there's a

68
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:15,120
difference between us making the
decision to become a gated community

69
00:06:11,840 --> 00:06:19,280
versus people taking that ability away
from us. And there have been various

70
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:24,560
incidents
um not that far away from where we live.

71
00:06:22,639 --> 00:06:30,319
And I think as people in the community,
we all want to be safe. So hopefully I

72
00:06:28,000 --> 00:06:35,840
followed the protocol, but I'm just
speaking as a citizen and as a person

73
00:06:33,280 --> 00:06:42,600
who lives in my books.
Thank you very much. Okay, who else?

74
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,600
Megan.

75
00:06:45,919 --> 00:06:51,680
» Good afternoon, members of council and
members of the planning commission. As

76
00:06:49,840 --> 00:06:56,160
you know, I'm Megan Morris and I
represent hundreds of businesses here in

77
00:06:53,840 --> 00:07:00,800
the Ver region through the Beer Regional
Chamber of Commerce. Uh we would like to

78
00:06:59,039 --> 00:07:04,960
collectively thank you for hosting this
work session today uh to finalize the

79
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:09,280
first round of development code
revisions and for your overall

80
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:14,000
commitment to the process. We have had
some very productive and positive uh

81
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:18,800
conversations with city leadership and
we are looking forward to working with

82
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:23,759
you together as this continues through
the thorough revision of uh the

83
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:28,880
development code. We we see that it is
not merely a technical exercise. It is

84
00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:35,039
an opportunity to shape the economic
future of our beloved.

85
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:39,599
Um, behind every regulation, procedural
standard, and ordinance lies the

86
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:44,639
economic of our city. The businesses
that line our streets, the workers that

87
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:49,919
serve our citizens, and the families who
live here, they're all they all

88
00:07:46,639 --> 00:07:55,440
interconnected as an economic ecosystem
uh that depends on balanced governance.

89
00:07:52,800 --> 00:07:59,440
We do have a very beautiful diverse
community and as you've seen in most of

90
00:07:57,759 --> 00:08:02,960
the economic reports that the chambers
and others have produced and made

91
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:08,080
available, there are many challenges for
us all to overcome of which the develop

92
00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:11,039
and code could affect. When regulations
are crafted, they play a role in

93
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:16,080
determining whether businesses can
thrive, adapt, and continue to serve as

94
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:20,000
economic anchors for our community. Our
local businesses contribute millions in

95
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:25,039
commercial property taxes, business
licenses, and permit fees that fund our

96
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:29,280
schools, our infrastructure, and public
services. We employ thousands of our

97
00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:34,399
neighbors, creating careers and
opportunities,

98
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:38,959
our works, the teachers who educate our
children, the first responders who keep

99
00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:45,120
us safe,
the service workers who ensure that um

100
00:08:41,839 --> 00:08:49,120
our community continues to function.
the family members of the military and

101
00:08:47,279 --> 00:08:54,880
the service members who ensure national
security and even the 200 plus members

102
00:08:51,839 --> 00:09:00,640
of team Buford uh increasingly do find
themselves priced out of the community

103
00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:04,959
uh that they are serving and living in.
We understand there's not just a housing

104
00:09:02,399 --> 00:09:09,920
problem, but also that infrastructure
challenges, the goal of maintaining

105
00:09:07,040 --> 00:09:14,240
quality of life and our culture, as well
as being good stewards of our

106
00:09:11,279 --> 00:09:18,000
environment, are all at play. To be
clear, advocating for economic

107
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:22,880
consideration does not mean abandoning
our commitment to Virginia character and

108
00:09:20,480 --> 00:09:26,080
quality of life. Indeed, our economic
prosperity depends on maintaining the

109
00:09:24,560 --> 00:09:29,279
very qualities that make ourselves
special.

110
00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:33,600
We must find the careful balance between
preservation and progress, between

111
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:38,640
protecting what we love and enabling
what we need. This balance requires that

112
00:09:37,040 --> 00:09:43,120
we consider not just what we want to
prevent but what we want to enable and

113
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:49,600
encourage.
There are examples uh I think that are

114
00:09:45,839 --> 00:09:54,959
nearby. We would like to avoid
places with overdevelopment and sprawl,

115
00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:59,760
high cost of lifting leading to
substantial loss of workforce and

116
00:09:57,839 --> 00:10:04,480
perhaps worse towns that have
detrimental detrimentally defined due to

117
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:09,440
lack of industry and opportunity. Each
of those examples are only an hour away.

118
00:10:07,839 --> 00:10:14,240
So, as you move forward with this
extensive code revision and other

119
00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:17,920
policymaking and comprehensive planning
efforts, thank you for keeping in mind

120
00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:24,120
that balance governance takes all of
this into account. Again, thank you for

121
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:24,120
your hard work and diligence.

122
00:10:24,560 --> 00:10:32,079
I'd like to think, and I stand for many
when I say this,

123
00:10:28,959 --> 00:10:37,200
that considering economic viability
in this development code and finalizing

124
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:44,279
it with a collaborative effort is not
time loss, but an investment in our

125
00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:44,279
future. Thank you.

126
00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:50,760
» Okay. Uh, anyone else for public comment
before closing?

127
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:54,320
Go ahead, Tony.

128
00:10:54,480 --> 00:11:02,399
Grand Tr.
>> Yes.

129
00:10:57,839 --> 00:11:05,440
» Hi, Grant Trra. 1211 Bay Street. Uh, Mr.
Chromemer, I understand we're not

130
00:11:03,760 --> 00:11:09,920
allowed to use your first name, so I
won't. Um,

131
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:17,360
uh, because one of your employees was
chastised for using first names of the

132
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:20,720
council. Um, will will we have um an
opportunity I mean, this is a work

133
00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:25,600
session. Will we have an opportunity as
you go through because I do have

134
00:11:23,279 --> 00:11:30,320
specific comments
um about this and I don't know if this

135
00:11:27,519 --> 00:11:34,000
is the opportunity to do that because in
public comment I have a general public

136
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:39,120
comment to make. I'd prefer to make the
general public comment and then uh raise

137
00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:42,920
my hand as you go through. I think
that'll be more efficient.

138
00:11:43,360 --> 00:11:46,360
um

139
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:53,600
actual council. Okay. All right. That's
fine. Mr. T, if you want to go ahead and

140
00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:58,480
make your comment, uh your general
comment and then we'll go through as we

141
00:11:55,360 --> 00:12:04,720
go through. You can raise your hand.
>> Okay. I just wanted to echo Rob Cahill's

142
00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:09,519
comments. Um I think and I also want to
express that uh I don't believe the

143
00:12:07,600 --> 00:12:14,000
Chamber of Commerce actually represents
the land owners. They may represent and

144
00:12:12,399 --> 00:12:19,040
those are the land owners are the ones
that are actually paying the property

145
00:12:15,920 --> 00:12:23,839
tax. They may represent the businesses
that lease from the land owners, but

146
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:28,720
they have asserted that they in the
council meeting that they represent the

147
00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:34,160
land owners. And I I I beg to differ. Uh
I'm not a man uh a member of the uh

148
00:12:31,519 --> 00:12:39,120
chamber of commerce by design. I know
other major land owners that are not a

149
00:12:36,240 --> 00:12:47,680
member of the chamber. Um, I didn't hear
any specific comments from Megan uh

150
00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:52,800
about um the changes. I I assume she's
going to make those throughout the

151
00:12:49,279 --> 00:12:57,760
process as I will too. Um I did do some
due diligence as to why that letter was

152
00:12:54,959 --> 00:13:04,320
written as it was. Uh and it seems like
it was a bit of a hatchet job um pushed

153
00:13:00,399 --> 00:13:11,360
by uh one particular
uh property owner in the city at the

154
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:16,320
last minute. Um again, if this chamber
of commerce uh had its act together, it

155
00:13:14,560 --> 00:13:22,560
would have participated throughout the
15-month process um to have provided its

156
00:13:19,839 --> 00:13:27,839
input. Thank you, and I look forward to
commenting as we go along.

157
00:13:25,519 --> 00:13:31,120
Thank you. Anyone else?
Okay, hearing none, we're going to close

158
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:35,839
public comment and we're going to go to
discussion and ordinance amending

159
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:39,680
chapter 7 land development chapter 9
development view procedure in the deeper

160
00:13:37,760 --> 00:13:44,000
development code. I'm going to open it
up to council first. I think Councilman

161
00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:50,040
Scalleti has some remarks to make and
then we'll turn it over to the planning

162
00:13:47,040 --> 00:13:50,040
commission.

163
00:13:51,279 --> 00:13:58,079
» Yeah.
>> Um, okay. So, first of all, um I want to

164
00:13:56,240 --> 00:14:01,120
thank
staff for putting this joint session

165
00:13:59,920 --> 00:14:04,480
together. I do think that this is
important and it gives us an opportunity

166
00:14:02,560 --> 00:14:09,600
to go through. Um I'm actually still
recovering from a pretty big injury, so

167
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:13,680
I may not look like it, but I am
extremely uncomfortable. Um, I think the

168
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:19,920
best thing for me is to try to go
through page by page and just identify

169
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:23,760
um, some of the concerns that I do have
and then whenever I get to the finish,

170
00:14:22,079 --> 00:14:28,000
if you guys want to make notes as I go,
then you can address those um, if it

171
00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:32,160
needs to be, there's a strong chance
that since I am not a developer and you

172
00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:36,240
guys have a lot more experience in this
than I do, that I might get tangled up,

173
00:14:34,639 --> 00:14:40,800
but maybe just a little bit of
clarification on some things would um,

174
00:14:38,560 --> 00:14:45,519
would help me and and maybe some others
as well. So, I'm starting I don't know

175
00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:49,920
if you guys have the same packet in
front of you that I have in front of me.

176
00:14:47,440 --> 00:14:56,199
I'm starting on page 104, which is the
red line uh summaries for chapter 7.

177
00:14:57,760 --> 00:15:06,320
Um, so there was obviously some language
added in the purpose and applicability.

178
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:14,639
I didn't see anything there um that
jumped out at me as um inappropriate. it

179
00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:21,199
all seemed to to fit. Uh on page 107,
there was a cross reference that was

180
00:15:17,120 --> 00:15:26,160
struck out uh under 7.1.5
improvement guarantees.

181
00:15:23,600 --> 00:15:32,240
And I think that based on the way this
is structured now, a cross reference to

182
00:15:29,279 --> 00:15:38,399
section 7.5
would be appropriate there to discuss uh

183
00:15:35,279 --> 00:15:41,839
final subdivision flat. I still find a
lot of value when I'm going through the

184
00:15:39,839 --> 00:15:46,800
code in having the cross references
there. So I would say instead of

185
00:15:44,399 --> 00:15:52,079
striking that cross reference out, just
add the new cross reference in where

186
00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:58,160
somebody could go back to to refer to
the final subdivision.

187
00:15:55,519 --> 00:16:04,480
Um,
moving on. Right now I'm on page 109. Do

188
00:16:01,680 --> 00:16:08,600
you guys have the same packet?
to clarify. So

189
00:16:08,800 --> 00:16:11,800
types

190
00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:20,440
» the other day that's the one I have now.
Yeah. So this is the one that we just

191
00:16:17,440 --> 00:16:20,440
received

192
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:29,519
» the red line. Y
>> you're okay as long as you reference

193
00:16:28,399 --> 00:16:32,160
» the sections.
>> Okay.

194
00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:38,079
» We can fine. No, I just wanted to
clarify and make sure

195
00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:43,360
you said 7.5
>> 7.1.5A

196
00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:44,480
and where it says section 9.94 is
struck.

197
00:16:43,920 --> 00:16:49,040
» Yep.
>> We'd like to put section 7.

198
00:16:47,600 --> 00:16:53,360
» That's right. I think that's the
appropriate cross reference now with the

199
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:56,399
way that it's structured. But just to
just to continue having a cross

200
00:16:55,120 --> 00:17:04,480
reference in there, I think would be
valuable.

201
00:16:57,920 --> 00:17:08,480
Uh I'm now on page 109 under uh scope of
improvements for street frontage.

202
00:17:07,199 --> 00:17:16,720
» Give us the section.
>> Okay. The section is 7.2.1

203
00:17:13,120 --> 00:17:21,199
street infrastructure plans.
Um C2

204
00:17:18,160 --> 00:17:25,600
» under uh yeah C2 applicability scope of
improvements. The last portion of that

205
00:17:23,439 --> 00:17:29,280
paragraph, the code administrator may
permit modification of street

206
00:17:27,120 --> 00:17:32,799
improvement standards where the required
street improvements are not in the

207
00:17:30,880 --> 00:17:37,679
opinion of the codes administrator
roughly proportionate to the impact. I

208
00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:42,720
just don't think that that is very
predictable and I know that that was one

209
00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:48,320
thing that um was extremely important as
we were going through this process was

210
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:54,559
to have a code that was predictable. So
if our requirements are um are hard and

211
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:59,440
we're picky, I think that's okay. But I
think code needs to be as predictable as

212
00:17:57,039 --> 00:18:03,760
possible. And for this to read that
street improvements are not in the

213
00:18:01,039 --> 00:18:10,320
opinion of the code administrator, I
feel like that's not very predictable.

214
00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:14,480
That's again just my opinion. Um let me
back up because I missed one note here.

215
00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:21,360
Applicability.
So this is C1 in that same section and

216
00:18:19,360 --> 00:18:28,480
it talks about the uh financial
guarantees. So the last sentence in that

217
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:34,400
paragraph reads the installation of
street frontage improvements is required

218
00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:42,240
prior to final plat approval for major
subdivisions and certificates of

219
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:49,200
occupancy for site plans. And I think
that should probably be or a financial

220
00:18:45,600 --> 00:18:53,840
guarantee because isn't that an option?
So they can either do a financial

221
00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:56,960
guarantee um to get the approval or they
can make the improvements whatever is

222
00:18:55,440 --> 00:19:01,360
more appropriate. And the way that this
reads is is they have to make the um or

223
00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:06,559
they're required to make the street
frontage improvements. And so maybe just

224
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:12,400
an addition of or financial guarantee
and then refer back to um where that's

225
00:19:09,440 --> 00:19:15,919
discussed. But that was a note that I
made.

226
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:21,919
Um
moving forward, I am now on we had some

227
00:19:19,919 --> 00:19:31,280
members in the community discuss the
gated streets. So that is uh section

228
00:19:26,480 --> 00:19:37,120
7.2.2 street network requirements.
Personally, I'm more a fan of the way

229
00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:42,799
that it read before new gates or new
gated streets are not encouraged, but

230
00:19:39,440 --> 00:19:48,640
there were um exceptions and the way
that it reads now is new gated streets

231
00:19:45,760 --> 00:19:55,360
are prohibited. And then there are some
some exceptions, but um I feel like we

232
00:19:53,520 --> 00:19:58,559
would we would want to leave that
flexibility there to where if neighbors

233
00:19:57,039 --> 00:20:03,280
got together and they decided that they
wanted to have a gated community or

234
00:20:01,039 --> 00:20:08,960
gated street, then that discussion could
at least be on the table. Um

235
00:20:07,120 --> 00:20:14,240
section
I would just like maybe a better

236
00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:21,679
understanding of section uh 7.2.3 2.3
lot access standards uh particularly the

237
00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:26,160
maximum number of driveways. It says for
single family or two or three family

238
00:20:24,000 --> 00:20:30,960
dwellings only one driveway shall be
permitted for lot and T3s circular

239
00:20:29,120 --> 00:20:36,080
driveways may be permitted on lots
greater than 100 ft in width where no

240
00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:41,760
sidewalk exists. Driveways may only be
installed where rear access is not

241
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:47,919
possible or required. Um, and then it
goes on to talk about uh, you know,

242
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:53,840
basically one driveway, you know, for
um, anything that's less than 150 ft.

243
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:57,919
And I know a lot of lots in Mossios,
particularly where I live, um, that

244
00:20:56,159 --> 00:21:04,000
either have a circle driveway, a
U-shaped driveway.

245
00:21:01,120 --> 00:21:09,760
Uh, and I and I don't think that it's um
something that's uh, not becoming or I

246
00:21:07,760 --> 00:21:15,120
think it fits within our character well.
So, I'm not sure why the justification

247
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:19,520
for um only one driveway and no
circular, but maybe a little bit of

248
00:21:17,120 --> 00:21:27,520
clarification could help um my
understanding.

249
00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:31,280
Um and then same thing for uh the
uh

250
00:21:29,120 --> 00:21:38,720
still in that same section, lot access
standards, but a little further down.

251
00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:41,600
» Yes. Page number is 115.
>> Yep.

252
00:21:40,080 --> 00:21:45,679
Okay.
Literally, uh, where it says rear

253
00:21:43,440 --> 00:21:52,240
access, no front access. So, the way I
interpret that is is no new lots for

254
00:21:48,240 --> 00:21:57,440
zones T3N and T4 can have, um, basically
a driveway in the front. For lots

255
00:21:54,400 --> 00:22:03,919
developed in the transexs, T3N, and T4
and T5 U, lots, all new access points

256
00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:10,000
shall be from a rear alley or road,
except for lots in the historic

257
00:22:05,679 --> 00:22:16,000
district. Um, so
is that to say that there could be no

258
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:22,880
driveway in the front? That all
driveways and new accesses for lots in

259
00:22:19,039 --> 00:22:27,919
these zones need to be from the rear? If
so, uh, I don't know that I would agree

260
00:22:25,120 --> 00:22:33,280
with that because most of the homes um
have have driveways in in the front now.

261
00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:37,280
And I I think that that makes sense.
Um, but again, maybe that just needs to

262
00:22:34,880 --> 00:22:44,000
be clarified for me. The next page over,
page 116, um, street design standards.

263
00:22:40,799 --> 00:22:51,280
This is just, uh, grammatical stuff, but
it says I'm in, um, 7.2.4,

264
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:56,640
street design standards. Under bullet B,
it says about in the middle of that

265
00:22:53,039 --> 00:23:00,080
paragraph. Um, I'll start where it says
United States Department of

266
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:05,280
Transportation's manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices in parentheses

267
00:23:03,679 --> 00:23:10,000
MUTCD
close parenthesis and approved by the

268
00:23:08,080 --> 00:23:14,159
administrator.
I think there needs to be a or right

269
00:23:11,919 --> 00:23:18,480
there or the administrator's designate
and then there's two commas. So, just

270
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:21,840
strike one of the commas and then that
sentence would flow and make sense. But

271
00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:25,120
the way that it reads right now is it
just says and approved by the

272
00:23:23,440 --> 00:23:32,080
administrator, the administrator
designate and there's no break there. Um

273
00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:40,320
uh again this is grammatical. The next
bullet down C. Um

274
00:23:36,159 --> 00:23:47,600
two it says there are unusual
topographic vegetative

275
00:23:43,120 --> 00:23:52,559
or other natural conditions would render
strict that strict adherence. So I don't

276
00:23:50,000 --> 00:23:59,840
think that that flows well. Um and and
perhaps it's just a matter of uh saying

277
00:23:56,400 --> 00:24:04,640
instead of striking well to the extent
so vegetative or other natural

278
00:24:02,080 --> 00:24:07,840
conditions that would render the strict
adherence. But I think maybe that

279
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:12,559
paragraph just needs to be reviewed
because right now it seems to to not

280
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:20,000
flow.
Um,

281
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:26,400
moving on. We are I'm under um
skip that actually. That's not too big.

282
00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:30,080
Um, so there's an exemption for traffic
impact analysis that does concern me on

283
00:24:28,480 --> 00:24:35,600
lots included in the boundary street
master plan adopted on August 28, 2006

284
00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:39,840
and lots in the areas founded by Calhoun
Carter at Bay Street, Revo Road. Um

285
00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:44,080
there's an exemption on traffic impact
analysis and that's one of our biggest

286
00:24:42,159 --> 00:24:48,320
issues right now is traffic on boundary
street and Robert's small hardway and

287
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:54,320
there's a lot of development that falls
in there. So if we are not bound legally

288
00:24:51,600 --> 00:24:58,480
to make that an exemption, I think maybe
revisiting that um would be prudent

289
00:24:56,640 --> 00:25:04,640
because there are also a lot of
additional roads built into that master

290
00:25:01,120 --> 00:25:10,559
plan that was adopted in August of 2006
that rely that provided relief for

291
00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:16,000
traffic on Boundary Street.
>> Oh, sorry. I'm on page 118.

292
00:25:12,960 --> 00:25:20,880
» Yep. At the top where it says exception.
Um, so what's exempt is the boundary

293
00:25:19,360 --> 00:25:25,679
street master plan and again there's a
lot of roads built into that plan that

294
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:30,880
were never put in place and so to to
make that exempt from traffic impact

295
00:25:27,279 --> 00:25:38,320
analysis I think could continue compound
um our congestion issues. So

296
00:25:35,200 --> 00:25:42,320
» yeah I'm just trying to make sure that's
okay. You're saying that you believe

297
00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:46,320
that the boundary straight exemption
should be legally

298
00:25:44,799 --> 00:25:52,320
» unless we are legally bound by some
agreement at that time. I would I would

299
00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:56,159
say at least let's consider because
there's like I said there's a lot of

300
00:25:54,000 --> 00:25:59,919
relief roads built into that master plan
that never came to fruition and now we

301
00:25:58,080 --> 00:26:03,039
have a lot of congestion on that road.
So I'd hate to see our issues compound

302
00:26:01,840 --> 00:26:08,720
just because that was exempt from
traffic impact analysis.

303
00:26:05,279 --> 00:26:14,080
um down to C on the same page, traffic
impact analysis plan preparation. Um

304
00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:18,159
two, prior to beginning the TIA, the
applicant shall supply the city. We

305
00:26:16,480 --> 00:26:22,720
cross that out to capitalize city. I
think capitalized I as well. That's just

306
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:29,039
grammatical, so just lowerase I would
fix that. Um, and then B, a site

307
00:26:26,720 --> 00:26:34,080
location map showing surrounding
development within 1/ half mile radius

308
00:26:32,159 --> 00:26:38,480
of the property under development
consideration. I'm not sure if that's

309
00:26:36,799 --> 00:26:44,080
okay the way that it reads or if that
should reflect a onem

310
00:26:41,279 --> 00:26:49,679
um radius. I know that there are two
different variations in the the um

311
00:26:48,159 --> 00:26:54,799
breakdown that you guys laid out.
There's a half mile and then there's a

312
00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:58,480
mile from any vested but unbuilt
developments. So, I don't know if that

313
00:26:56,880 --> 00:27:05,360
needs to reflect a mile or not. I put it
in there um as a as a note. Um then the

314
00:27:02,720 --> 00:27:09,120
next thing is your chart where you guys
laid out the traffic impact analysis. I

315
00:27:07,279 --> 00:27:13,200
think you did a very good job. I know
just as a lay person reading that it was

316
00:27:11,360 --> 00:27:17,520
kind of easy for me to understand what
was being required. Um, I don't know

317
00:27:15,279 --> 00:27:22,000
that I agree with the language uh that
says at the discretion of the TRC or

318
00:27:19,919 --> 00:27:27,600
planning commission a larger study area
may be required because again that's not

319
00:27:24,400 --> 00:27:32,880
very predictable um as to when it might
be required and and so I I'm not sure I

320
00:27:30,880 --> 00:27:39,919
have a hard time with that just because
um there was that underlined important

321
00:27:35,120 --> 00:27:45,440
theme of being predictable. Um but again
I'd like to know I agree with um the

322
00:27:43,919 --> 00:27:49,679
incorporation of all traffic impact
analysis studies and trip generation

323
00:27:47,120 --> 00:27:57,200
from approved developments or vested
unbuilt developments within within mile

324
00:27:53,039 --> 00:28:02,640
radius at time of proposal. Um, but I
would like to better understand why we

325
00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:08,640
went with a half a mile for some and a
mile for the already bested but unbuilt

326
00:28:07,120 --> 00:28:15,960
developments. I like it. I would just
like to understand what those um more

327
00:28:11,360 --> 00:28:15,960
the context I guess. Uh

328
00:28:19,039 --> 00:28:25,080
I'm on page 123 now. Um on

329
00:28:25,279 --> 00:28:35,200
this be the same section uh but this is
just after city engineer um section

330
00:28:33,279 --> 00:28:42,559
section right before mitigation plan
required. So um lowercase I

331
00:28:40,720 --> 00:28:47,039
um the first major intersection as
identified by the city engineer. I think

332
00:28:44,480 --> 00:28:51,679
that should probably be city engineer or
administrator. And in certain places in

333
00:28:49,600 --> 00:28:57,960
here it says that and then in other
areas it just says city engineer.

334
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:57,960
Um

335
00:28:59,039 --> 00:29:08,559
on page 125
this would be mitigation plan

336
00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:15,679
application. Uh I'm on
bullet h or h.

337
00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:21,440
A tia shall be submitted to the TRC. And
then on I it says completeness. The

338
00:29:18,480 --> 00:29:28,480
planning commission and or TRC shall
determine whether a TIA is complete.

339
00:29:24,880 --> 00:29:32,960
And then J says the TRC must first
approve the TIA in regard to

340
00:29:30,960 --> 00:29:38,240
completeness and accuracy. So I just
think that that needs to read the

341
00:29:34,799 --> 00:29:41,679
planning commission and the TRC shall
determine whether the TIA is complete

342
00:29:40,159 --> 00:29:46,960
not and or because it is going to be
voted. The way that this is written out,

343
00:29:43,760 --> 00:29:51,200
the TRC approves it for completeness and
then it goes to the planning commission

344
00:29:48,799 --> 00:29:58,159
and the planning commission is also
required to approve or not. Um, and so I

345
00:29:56,159 --> 00:30:02,640
think that just striking that word and
would be appropriate. Um, I like the

346
00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:08,080
percentages. I think that's exactly what
we were um expressed concern about about

347
00:30:05,679 --> 00:30:15,440
the open space and green space having
more percentages to to provide um more

348
00:30:12,320 --> 00:30:20,399
land preservation and less exemptions.
So, I appreciate the changes that you

349
00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:26,159
guys made there. Um
on the chart under section 7.4.3

350
00:30:24,480 --> 00:30:30,320
community green space and community open
space, I'm not sure what the thought is

351
00:30:28,159 --> 00:30:35,760
for some of the minimum requirements in
here. So you have the like the regional

352
00:30:32,720 --> 00:30:42,240
parkn preserve and then the definition
of what that is and then under regional

353
00:30:38,559 --> 00:30:49,200
minimum it's 200 acres. Um for a sports
complex regional minimum 25 acres uh you

354
00:30:46,640 --> 00:30:54,080
know we I think you can do a sports
complex for less than 25 acres and I'm

355
00:30:51,919 --> 00:30:58,640
not sure that the regional park needs to
be 200 acres. I'm not sure why those

356
00:30:56,960 --> 00:31:02,559
minimums were put in place, but maybe
some institutional thought could could

357
00:31:00,559 --> 00:31:09,760
help clarify that for me. Same thing
goes for a community park. We put um a a

358
00:31:06,320 --> 00:31:16,080
minimum of 8 acres for a community park.
Uh I think that would be based on the

359
00:31:13,039 --> 00:31:20,000
percentage of the development. So, we
have that built in now to where based on

360
00:31:18,240 --> 00:31:23,760
what you're developing and how many
acres, there's a certain percentage

361
00:31:21,760 --> 00:31:28,880
that's required for open space and green
space. So, I'm not sure why we also have

362
00:31:26,080 --> 00:31:37,760
community park with a minimum of 8 acres
here. Um, it seems I'm sorry, that's

363
00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:46,559
page 128. That's page 128. Um,
same thing for a pocket park slash uh

364
00:31:40,640 --> 00:31:50,559
pocket plaza. So, it says um the max is
half an acre. Uh I don't know what a

365
00:31:48,880 --> 00:31:55,200
pocket park is. I would kind of look at
one like Wilson Park over there as as a

366
00:31:53,039 --> 00:32:01,039
little pocket park. Maybe that's just me
not interpreting it well, but Wilson

367
00:31:57,440 --> 00:32:05,120
Park is 78 of an acre. And so I'm not
sure why we would put a max on pocket

368
00:32:03,360 --> 00:32:08,080
park of halfacre because sometimes I
think it could be a little bigger and

369
00:32:06,320 --> 00:32:13,039
still makes
sense. But maybe we just need to revisit

370
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:16,799
that whole good example. Pocket Park. If
you go down North Street on the other

371
00:32:14,799 --> 00:32:20,320
side of Rebot Road on the left hand
side, there's a little park park there.

372
00:32:18,640 --> 00:32:25,200
That's a good example.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.

373
00:32:23,360 --> 00:32:30,720
» Um,
>> so

374
00:32:26,720 --> 00:32:40,399
I'm now on the 7.5 substandards and site
plan. This is the whole red um pages

375
00:32:35,039 --> 00:32:45,279
that were added. So, um, let's go page
133. Yep. So, one, two, three, four

376
00:32:43,440 --> 00:32:48,880
paragraphs down. Prior to formal
submittal of any submission application

377
00:32:47,279 --> 00:32:53,840
identified in this section, the planning
department will typically provide to an

378
00:32:51,200 --> 00:32:57,840
applicant individ individualized
submittal checklist. I read that and

379
00:32:56,240 --> 00:33:01,039
thought, well, I think that's probably
something that would always be provided.

380
00:32:59,600 --> 00:33:05,760
Maybe I'm wrong there, but I would
strike the word typically and maybe um

381
00:33:03,679 --> 00:33:09,840
Kurt, you would
weigh in and and say otherwise, but I

382
00:33:08,559 --> 00:33:13,600
don't know of a time where we wouldn't
provide a checklist for the subdivision

383
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:18,480
as to what's expected or required. So I
would say maybe scratch typically.

384
00:33:15,600 --> 00:33:24,880
» That's gosh that's
one of the amendments strike typically.

385
00:33:20,799 --> 00:33:31,039
» Oh okay. Got it. Um and then moving down
minor subdivisions the boundaries of so

386
00:33:28,080 --> 00:33:37,120
this is number one. The boundaries of
six or fewer lots are created from one

387
00:33:33,919 --> 00:33:42,799
parent track. I'm okay with changes that
are made here, but I think that that

388
00:33:39,519 --> 00:33:49,039
would be um if you read further down
under major subdivisions, number two, it

389
00:33:45,679 --> 00:33:55,679
says the subdivision consists of six or
more lots or tracks. And so this would

390
00:33:52,799 --> 00:33:58,559
probably need to be the boundaries of
five. That was changed for the

391
00:33:57,760 --> 00:34:03,960
amendments.
>> That was amendments for what? on the

392
00:34:00,240 --> 00:34:03,960
amendments that came with

393
00:34:04,080 --> 00:34:08,399
» that haven't been made in here though.
>> Yeah.

394
00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:11,599
» Okay, I got you. So, so those are those
are addressed.

395
00:34:08,960 --> 00:34:16,960
» Those were already.
>> Cool.

396
00:34:12,240 --> 00:34:23,520
» Um and then 7.5.3
sketch plan. So, it looks like sketch

397
00:34:20,639 --> 00:34:29,520
plan is required for all major
subdivisions. Um, and I'm going to come

398
00:34:26,079 --> 00:34:36,639
back to why I feel like that's
important, but maybe needs to be um

399
00:34:32,320 --> 00:34:40,839
somewhere else. But um on
the next page 135

400
00:34:41,280 --> 00:34:49,359
the um three small eyes at the top of
the page, a current preliminary traffic

401
00:34:47,040 --> 00:34:54,079
impact study prepared by a licensed
traffic engineer which evaluates

402
00:34:52,000 --> 00:34:58,640
proposed access points. I know we stated
other in other locations in here, but

403
00:34:56,800 --> 00:35:04,560
maybe just adding that that is a South
Carolina um licensed traffic engineer if

404
00:35:02,800 --> 00:35:09,320
that's what we're going to require would
make sense just to be consistent with

405
00:35:06,160 --> 00:35:09,320
the language

406
00:35:09,680 --> 00:35:16,000
throughout this this code. Um
>> there was also

407
00:35:14,560 --> 00:35:21,520
I think that was something the chamber
brought up our discussion. We removed

408
00:35:18,720 --> 00:35:28,160
the traffic impact city requirement and
just basically

409
00:35:24,400 --> 00:35:31,119
to fix the study of access points
>> instead of preliminary traffic impact.

410
00:35:30,480 --> 00:35:33,839
» Okay, got
>> so you'll see that on

411
00:35:32,880 --> 00:35:37,119
» Okay. Um
>> we could have the

412
00:35:35,200 --> 00:35:39,920
» that South Carolina.
>> Yeah,

413
00:35:37,520 --> 00:35:42,160
» I guess we could have
North Carolina, but that's probably not

414
00:35:41,359 --> 00:35:46,720
a good idea,
>> right? So,

415
00:35:42,880 --> 00:35:50,640
» right. Um under the uh number five
overall utility plan about halfway

416
00:35:48,560 --> 00:35:54,000
through utility plans for the interior
of development such as water and sewer

417
00:35:52,400 --> 00:35:58,400
lines are not required in this part of
the process. I'm not sure why we want to

418
00:35:56,560 --> 00:36:02,720
add what's not included. I think we're
we're only talking about what is being

419
00:36:00,160 --> 00:36:09,760
required here. And so I would see maybe
striking that and striking um

420
00:36:07,200 --> 00:36:14,640
half of number 19 as well because it
also is talking about utility plans for

421
00:36:11,920 --> 00:36:18,800
the interior of the development um not
being required in this process and I

422
00:36:17,359 --> 00:36:23,119
don't know why we would need to identify
what's not required because this is only

423
00:36:20,720 --> 00:36:27,599
talking about what following elements
are that are required. Um but maybe you

424
00:36:26,240 --> 00:36:32,480
guys talked about that and found a
justification for it. Uh on

425
00:36:30,880 --> 00:36:37,359
» so just so I understand I'm sorry.
>> Yeah.

426
00:36:34,079 --> 00:36:39,119
I'm just trying to follow follow you the
appropriate

427
00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:43,680
» 19.
>> That is 19. Yep. About halfway through

428
00:36:42,079 --> 00:36:49,320
it says utility plans for the interior
of the development such as water and

429
00:36:45,040 --> 00:36:49,320
sewer service lines are

430
00:36:54,480 --> 00:36:58,480
required as part of this process. Here
the developments water and sewer lines

431
00:36:57,599 --> 00:37:00,800
are not required as part of this
process. So it says it twice. I don't

432
00:36:59,680 --> 00:37:04,880
even know that it needs to say it once
because it's only you're only talking

433
00:37:02,480 --> 00:37:09,520
about what is required here and so it
goes without saying that's not required.

434
00:37:06,720 --> 00:37:14,160
But
>> yeah um the

435
00:37:12,400 --> 00:37:19,200
uh
okay sketch plan process number two

436
00:37:16,960 --> 00:37:22,240
notification notice to neighbors and
property owners. The city shall send

437
00:37:20,880 --> 00:37:26,960
notice of the planning commission
meeting by regular mail to neighboring

438
00:37:24,560 --> 00:37:32,400
property owners within 500 ft of the
property per this code. I could see

439
00:37:29,839 --> 00:37:36,800
value in stretching that out. Um I know
that's a little bit more uh effort on on

440
00:37:35,280 --> 00:37:40,960
staff's part. So I want to be careful
and not speak for you guys there, but

441
00:37:38,960 --> 00:37:45,920
500 feet doesn't really go far. All
right. And as an example, when garden

442
00:37:43,040 --> 00:37:51,760
was being developed, um, you know, Salem
Bay wasn't even been notified because

443
00:37:47,760 --> 00:37:58,400
that's outside 500 ft.
So, you know, I know it's typically

444
00:37:54,800 --> 00:38:05,680
between 500 and,000, but maybe we extend
that a little bit. Um,

445
00:38:01,920 --> 00:38:12,560
G, uh,
never mind. I'm g skip that one. Um I

446
00:38:08,000 --> 00:38:18,480
had a question on number four. So time
frame related to the approval sketch

447
00:38:14,960 --> 00:38:23,680
plan. Um and then number four does not
change any measurable standard such as

448
00:38:21,119 --> 00:38:28,640
open space or park area by more than
10%. And I think that's good. But my

449
00:38:26,400 --> 00:38:32,960
concern is what if I come to you and I
make a change that's 7% of my originally

450
00:38:31,280 --> 00:38:38,800
approved project and then I come back a
couple months later with another 5%

451
00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:45,520
change. Is there a a protection to
protect against compounding changes?

452
00:38:41,200 --> 00:38:50,800
Should this read um by more than 10%
uh of the originally approved

453
00:38:48,400 --> 00:38:54,480
or is that already covered? So my
concern was compounding percentage

454
00:38:53,359 --> 00:38:57,119
changes there
>> and that's on page 138.

455
00:38:55,599 --> 00:39:00,960
» That's on page 138.
>> So you want like cumulative statement

456
00:38:59,520 --> 00:39:09,200
» I think. Yeah. just to protect for
cumulative changes. um under uh

457
00:39:04,800 --> 00:39:17,400
preliminary plat number um A2
um again the capital I there in city so

458
00:39:12,480 --> 00:39:17,400
that's just grammatical um

459
00:39:23,520 --> 00:39:31,040
um then
on

460
00:39:27,920 --> 00:39:35,040
we are under the
Preliminary

461
00:39:32,960 --> 00:39:41,280
plat here. I guess it would still be
preliminary plat. Uh

462
00:39:38,160 --> 00:39:46,000
D on page 141. Utility and
transportation design are adequate given

463
00:39:43,760 --> 00:39:50,800
existing and planning capacities of
those systems. I don't know if there's a

464
00:39:48,320 --> 00:39:56,160
way I would favor us being able to get
that information in the sketch plan

465
00:39:53,520 --> 00:40:01,119
process and not preliminary just because
I think you're pretty vested in at that

466
00:39:58,640 --> 00:40:07,200
time and and there would be value in
knowing what the utility capabilities

467
00:40:03,599 --> 00:40:11,280
are um prior to getting that far along.
And I know there have been issues in the

468
00:40:08,640 --> 00:40:14,640
past where u developers have, you know,
gotten through the sketch plan process

469
00:40:12,880 --> 00:40:17,760
and they're pretty heavily vested in and
they find out that the utility

470
00:40:16,240 --> 00:40:22,400
capabilities are not there for that
development and they've got to either

471
00:40:19,280 --> 00:40:26,000
make substantial investments um to add
pump stations or whatever they have to

472
00:40:23,920 --> 00:40:31,680
do. But I think that if there was a way
for us to better communicate um with

473
00:40:29,119 --> 00:40:35,520
Buer, Jasper, or whoever to ensure that
they can understand what those

474
00:40:33,119 --> 00:40:41,119
capacities were prior to even starting
or even closer to the front in the

475
00:40:37,680 --> 00:40:45,200
sketch plan phase, then that would be um
more favorable in my opinion. But maybe

476
00:40:43,280 --> 00:40:47,839
there's a a justification for why that
wouldn't work or why it doesn't make

477
00:40:46,400 --> 00:40:51,280
sense. Um
>> if I may, I think if you don't mind.

478
00:40:49,760 --> 00:40:55,040
» No, no, no.
>> I think the reason that's in there is

479
00:40:53,280 --> 00:41:02,280
because If you remember when we went
back to sketch plan we were striking

480
00:40:59,119 --> 00:41:02,280
about that

481
00:41:02,560 --> 00:41:10,800
idea is a sketch and they don't have to
put it out put in all the engineering

482
00:41:07,760 --> 00:41:15,880
expertise per se right all these that's
that's because by the preliminary you do

483
00:41:16,640 --> 00:41:26,480
where you would have the knowledge of
transportation this add

484
00:41:24,079 --> 00:41:29,520
extra rows. That's now the utility side
of it that is a little more complex

485
00:41:28,160 --> 00:41:33,920
because of the fact
>> third parties and

486
00:41:30,400 --> 00:41:37,920
» water and sewer is separate from us
>> you know um something that we can think

487
00:41:36,319 --> 00:41:47,040
about but definitely for transportation
we would know or say we would know until

488
00:41:44,079 --> 00:41:50,480
» okay that would be the chest
>> no that's okay that's that's exactly I

489
00:41:48,880 --> 00:41:58,480
think some of this is just you know me
having better understanding um under

490
00:41:54,000 --> 00:42:03,040
early grading the page 142 the uh last
back half of that last sentence final

491
00:42:01,119 --> 00:42:09,359
plat approval at the planning commission
is expressed or implied by any operation

492
00:42:06,480 --> 00:42:17,920
of early grading I don't know if that
could put us in a legal bind down the

493
00:42:12,400 --> 00:42:23,760
road um I I guess I would understand um
you know but here's here's the situation

494
00:42:20,800 --> 00:42:30,240
is is let's say for a final plaque you
had now um preliminary approval and they

495
00:42:28,240 --> 00:42:36,560
go ahead and
clear cut or start grading or whatever

496
00:42:32,079 --> 00:42:40,240
they do and then at final plat
maybe it in their mind it conforms. I

497
00:42:38,880 --> 00:42:44,640
know the language says that it has to
conform to the preliminary plat, but if

498
00:42:43,040 --> 00:42:50,000
four members out of the seven on the
planning commission feel otherwise and

499
00:42:47,280 --> 00:42:54,560
and the final plat doesn't get approved,
we have ascendants and then it says

500
00:42:52,000 --> 00:42:59,119
final plat approval at the planning
commission is expressed or implied by

501
00:42:56,480 --> 00:43:04,000
any authorization of early grading. So,
I just questioned if that would prevent

502
00:43:01,359 --> 00:43:08,400
uh or present any legal concerns and
maybe um I know we got several attorneys

503
00:43:06,960 --> 00:43:16,160
that weighed in on this and so maybe
that could be easily explained away, but

504
00:43:10,079 --> 00:43:21,520
just a note that I made um on page um
146

505
00:43:18,720 --> 00:43:25,440
uh number five. Post approval action
prior to issuance of a building or

506
00:43:23,599 --> 00:43:30,960
grading permit. The applicant shall
submit the following documentation to

507
00:43:27,680 --> 00:43:37,680
the city. I felt like this may be better
if it was moved over if they can start

508
00:43:34,319 --> 00:43:41,440
the waiting after preliminary. Then
perhaps we need to get the list of

509
00:43:39,520 --> 00:43:46,000
contractors, proof of insurance, open
space, deed restriction, construction,

510
00:43:43,200 --> 00:43:53,440
traffic control um at the end of the
preliminary process because right now

511
00:43:49,119 --> 00:43:58,720
it's in final the final plat phase and
if if they're able to start grading

512
00:43:55,119 --> 00:44:06,000
before that, maybe it's better um to
preliminary. But just made a new um

513
00:44:03,200 --> 00:44:08,560
there uh
>> um

514
00:44:08,720 --> 00:44:14,440
They do issue issue a grading permit,

515
00:44:14,960 --> 00:44:20,880
» right? That's what I'm saying.
>> It's a very common thing to do. Um,

516
00:44:19,440 --> 00:44:25,119
» but wouldn't you want wouldn't you want
to get the list of contractors for the

517
00:44:23,440 --> 00:44:28,119
grading
require

518
00:44:28,880 --> 00:44:33,520
we wouldn't you know traffic control
plan etc.

519
00:44:35,119 --> 00:44:41,280
I'm just explain about that.
>> Okay. So, maybe some of that would make

520
00:44:39,520 --> 00:44:45,280
sense over in the preliminary before
they started the early grading and then

521
00:44:43,359 --> 00:44:52,560
maybe some of it the traffic control
plan would make sense for finals.

522
00:44:50,240 --> 00:44:55,760
» Yeah. I mean, I think you could
>> because essentially the way that it's

523
00:44:53,839 --> 00:44:59,760
written, they could start the they could
get a permit for grading before we have

524
00:44:58,160 --> 00:45:03,920
a list of their contractor's proof of
insurance.

525
00:45:02,240 --> 00:45:09,520
Yeah. And that's just something I think
that we do. We require that permit for

526
00:45:08,000 --> 00:45:14,720
it with the contractor's license. So
maybe we just need to put that in there.

527
00:45:11,599 --> 00:45:19,119
» There's supposed to be a knot there.
I I mean right before that language

528
00:45:17,119 --> 00:45:30,280
early grading and storage of
construction related to the asking final

529
00:45:23,760 --> 00:45:30,280
approval the planning is not expressed

530
00:45:31,440 --> 00:45:36,680
» there
draft

531
00:45:33,680 --> 00:45:36,680
» okay

532
00:45:37,760 --> 00:45:44,560
» well and I guess that that makes it
challenging because I'm I'm reading this

533
00:45:41,520 --> 00:45:49,599
as if this is the final draft and So
trying to get these things ironed out

534
00:45:47,599 --> 00:45:53,760
before, you know, especially because we
were right to begin second reading, but

535
00:45:51,119 --> 00:45:57,200
it appears that maybe we haven't even
read the most clean version of this.

536
00:45:56,000 --> 00:46:00,400
This is the most clean version I've
received.

537
00:45:58,319 --> 00:46:05,359
» So Councilman, the way this agenda
packet was set up is attachment one

538
00:46:02,800 --> 00:46:10,160
contains all the motions that to the
best of the staff's ability, they

539
00:46:07,680 --> 00:46:14,880
understand were desired by councelor.
And so you'd have to call those motions

540
00:46:12,240 --> 00:46:18,480
back rows back of document. You don't
have a final version of the documents in

541
00:46:16,319 --> 00:46:22,079
here. We're not allowed to change those
between first reading and second

542
00:46:19,920 --> 00:46:26,800
reading. They can't be changed.
>> Right. But I don't we can introduce

543
00:46:24,800 --> 00:46:33,200
proposed language motions for the
amendments that we think that you want.

544
00:46:30,720 --> 00:46:39,200
» So that's that's how the organized.
>> Yeah. So if you look at the on page 47

545
00:46:37,280 --> 00:46:42,880
I think and you know I I take
responsibility for this. I I think as

546
00:46:41,359 --> 00:46:48,400
you can see the amount of red line
changes and track changes can be over 20

547
00:46:45,760 --> 00:46:51,920
meetings it's done can be a little
complicated. I think it's been

548
00:46:49,520 --> 00:46:55,359
complicated planning question but uh the
final version which is what you had your

549
00:46:53,520 --> 00:47:01,280
ordinance the clean version I think
there's a few little things that it says

550
00:46:58,400 --> 00:47:06,560
and no final pl 147. So, I think a few
of these little tiny, you know, more

551
00:47:03,359 --> 00:47:11,440
scriveners errors were made at this at
this clean version, the final version.

552
00:47:09,440 --> 00:47:16,720
Um, but you're still raising a lot of
really good points. Why did you know I'm

553
00:47:15,040 --> 00:47:22,880
not sure, you know, I'm not sure if that
was just when they're accepted, right?

554
00:47:20,480 --> 00:47:27,359
You know, anytime you touch this track
changes, if it comes out of it, it comes

555
00:47:25,280 --> 00:47:30,560
out for good. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.

556
00:47:27,839 --> 00:47:35,040
» And so, I think that's just uh I I
probably should have whereas I think a

557
00:47:32,720 --> 00:47:39,520
lot of the uh the clean version had all
of that kind of really intensive kind of

558
00:47:38,079 --> 00:47:43,200
making sure that those things were done.
But again, you're bringing up a good

559
00:47:41,520 --> 00:47:46,640
point with that. But in the case of the
no wasn't a clean

560
00:47:45,760 --> 00:47:49,760
» the no express.
>> I think what I'm going to do then is

561
00:47:48,079 --> 00:47:53,040
because I don't even know if this is now
this is the most this isn't the most

562
00:47:51,280 --> 00:47:57,200
clean version. I'm going to touch
>> I think I think it is I think the

563
00:47:55,119 --> 00:47:58,880
challenge is once when you go to accept.
Right.

564
00:47:57,680 --> 00:48:03,440
» Right.
changes all formatting because it's in

565
00:48:01,359 --> 00:48:06,560
Microsoft Word and then this had to be
reformatted and

566
00:48:04,880 --> 00:48:10,560
» does that make sense to go to clean and
then that's I think my responsibility

567
00:48:08,720 --> 00:48:15,359
right and so there's a few tiny little
things like that that

568
00:48:12,079 --> 00:48:20,960
» I think maybe got
>> like a capitalization or also the

569
00:48:18,960 --> 00:48:26,960
amendments there's some issues there as
well they're referencing the problem

570
00:48:22,640 --> 00:48:31,520
» yeah the references were from the
the code that I

571
00:48:28,880 --> 00:48:34,400
chamber. I'm going to try to just do I'm
going to go if you'll go with me to the

572
00:48:33,119 --> 00:48:39,440
permit chart and then I'm going to wrap
up my portion because um yeah, at this

573
00:48:38,079 --> 00:48:43,760
point I want to make sure that at least
the comments are are true to what the

574
00:48:42,079 --> 00:48:52,960
latest version is. So go to the permit
chart on page 165 and 166

575
00:48:47,280 --> 00:48:59,520
and then look at um um so here are some
of my concerns with this chart. You'll

576
00:48:55,119 --> 00:49:05,839
go to development design review. Um we
talk about this is development design

577
00:49:01,760 --> 00:49:14,079
review for a minor site plan and we say
the permit approval is good for 24

578
00:49:09,119 --> 00:49:20,640
months with a 12month one-time
extension.

579
00:49:15,680 --> 00:49:28,520
And if you'll go to um
page 89 189 where it discusses this

580
00:49:25,520 --> 00:49:28,520
portion

581
00:49:30,640 --> 00:49:39,440
minor development, it says permit
validity. Upon the approval of the minor

582
00:49:37,440 --> 00:49:45,599
development design application, the
applicant shall have one year to obtain

583
00:49:42,800 --> 00:49:49,839
a building permit. failure to secure a
permit, a building permit for the

584
00:49:48,000 --> 00:49:58,319
permitted work within this time shall
render the approval void. And so for me,

585
00:49:53,839 --> 00:50:03,280
I think that um the the language needs
to be consistent with the information

586
00:50:01,280 --> 00:50:08,800
that's in the chart. What I'm seeing in
my thing here is the chart reflects that

587
00:50:06,480 --> 00:50:15,440
the permit is good for two years with a
onetime 12-month extension. And the

588
00:50:12,160 --> 00:50:22,960
language that supports that chart says a
it's good for one year with the option

589
00:50:18,400 --> 00:50:30,400
to extend one time for 12 months. Same
thing for the development design review

590
00:50:27,520 --> 00:50:39,839
major site plan.
Um it is it says 24 months with the

591
00:50:35,119 --> 00:50:49,079
option for one a one time 12 month
extension. And if you go to section 982

592
00:50:45,440 --> 00:50:49,079
where that's discussed,

593
00:50:53,040 --> 00:50:56,359
it says

594
00:51:21,280 --> 00:51:24,280
185

595
00:51:24,400 --> 00:51:27,400
18.

596
00:51:28,480 --> 00:51:31,480
Yeah.

597
00:51:38,960 --> 00:51:46,040
9 was the minor site plan. Um
well,

598
00:51:47,839 --> 00:51:55,440
» look at I'll show you two other ones. If
you'll go further down where it says

599
00:51:52,319 --> 00:52:01,760
preliminary plat. So the preliminary
plat um which is further discussed in

600
00:51:58,559 --> 00:52:10,319
section 7.5.4 for and that can be found
on page 142. I know that uh the chart

601
00:52:05,920 --> 00:52:17,119
reflects a 24month
permit approval period with 12 months

602
00:52:14,640 --> 00:52:24,599
one-time extension. But if you go to
page 142 where it discusses that,

603
00:52:21,280 --> 00:52:24,599
it says

604
00:52:32,720 --> 00:52:38,800
a preliminary plat approval is in full
force and effect for a period of two

605
00:52:36,880 --> 00:52:43,119
years from the date of approval.
approval will automatically expire at

606
00:52:41,119 --> 00:52:47,599
the end of two years unless an applicant
formally requests an 18month extension

607
00:52:45,839 --> 00:52:53,359
from the planning commission prior to
termination or submits a completed final

608
00:52:50,800 --> 00:52:59,119
draft. So,
in the chart, it says that they have the

609
00:52:55,760 --> 00:53:03,119
option for a onetime 12-month extension,
but in the language that supports that,

610
00:53:00,960 --> 00:53:07,640
it says they have eight they have an
option to extend for 18 months.

611
00:53:08,240 --> 00:53:13,359
» Thank you.
>> Yep. Same thing for the final plaque.

612
00:53:11,359 --> 00:53:20,480
You can find the final plaque in the
chart on page 166 and you can find the

613
00:53:16,640 --> 00:53:26,800
language that supports that on page 147.
and there was an inconsistency in the

614
00:53:22,480 --> 00:53:31,040
permit validity time an extension. Um,
and I think that if that's not

615
00:53:28,400 --> 00:53:36,640
corrected, then that definitely needs to
be consistent with um

616
00:53:35,599 --> 00:53:42,280
that chart.
>> So,

617
00:53:38,240 --> 00:53:42,280
uh, I'm going to

618
00:53:43,359 --> 00:53:50,359
I'm going to wrap mine up there because
those were those were the biggest issues

619
00:53:47,040 --> 00:53:50,359
for me.

620
00:53:51,119 --> 00:53:57,680
And I apologize if some of that was
already addressed in some of the but

621
00:53:55,200 --> 00:54:03,280
again it's kind of it's kind of hard. I
just want to make sure that

622
00:54:00,800 --> 00:54:07,040
we're being thorough and I appreciate
all the work that went into this because

623
00:54:04,800 --> 00:54:12,160
I think you guys spent a lot of time. I
tried to watch all the meetings to make

624
00:54:09,839 --> 00:54:17,760
sure I did have context and these are
just some of the things that I could

625
00:54:13,760 --> 00:54:20,160
benefit from having clarification on.
Okay.

626
00:54:29,680 --> 00:54:36,720
And in the moment of silence, I'll say
that in the chart we can since you made

627
00:54:33,280 --> 00:54:43,079
the change min from administrator to
ministerial um maybe adding in the

628
00:54:39,280 --> 00:54:43,079
definition of ministerial.

629
00:54:53,599 --> 00:54:59,480
I have a couple
council members

630
00:55:00,079 --> 00:55:05,319
amendments a lot of these are children

631
00:55:05,599 --> 00:55:14,000
copy that I got what I thought was a
clean copy the very front uh if you go

632
00:55:10,720 --> 00:55:17,920
to page five
7.5.3

633
00:55:15,760 --> 00:55:23,839
I'll make a motion and if you go down to
the third one

634
00:55:20,000 --> 00:55:30,000
um it looks like 7.3
excuse me 7.5

635
00:55:26,400 --> 00:55:34,800
one that you've got high it should be
letter

636
00:55:32,559 --> 00:55:39,680
you we're going to have to change the
lettering has all changed in the clean

637
00:55:37,280 --> 00:55:44,720
so we Mike and I were planning to get
with Kurt to to go over all that

638
00:55:43,119 --> 00:55:48,319
numbering
The clean copy has the correct

639
00:55:46,240 --> 00:55:53,280
numbering. Some of these motion
references are to the red line couple

640
00:55:51,280 --> 00:55:59,400
and that was changed between that too.
So I just need to say that before we get

641
00:55:56,000 --> 00:55:59,400
there quite a few

642
00:55:59,920 --> 00:56:08,880
relative to comments that we got from
>> I just want to make sure when we do the

643
00:56:06,480 --> 00:56:14,359
amendments that we're doing it correctly
it's proper.

644
00:56:11,359 --> 00:56:14,359
Let's

645
00:56:28,960 --> 00:56:34,640
go to council.
>> I said a couple things I want. Thank

646
00:56:31,440 --> 00:56:41,359
you, Councilman Scalleti. I do feel that
a onem um radius for a TI8 would be

647
00:56:38,720 --> 00:56:46,000
justifiable for all the building going
on and everything. I really think we

648
00:56:42,960 --> 00:56:53,920
need a one one mile not a half a mile.
Another thing um going back to the um

649
00:56:49,599 --> 00:56:59,839
gates private gates for um developments.
uh if the development owns the road I

650
00:56:58,000 --> 00:57:05,119
think it should be firstly I think they
it should be allowed but if it's like a

651
00:57:02,240 --> 00:57:09,839
development sort of like
oh battery shores for instance or

652
00:57:07,760 --> 00:57:15,280
battery point or something like that
where um or battery shores city owns the

653
00:57:13,119 --> 00:57:20,720
roads no that should not be a gated
community but if do y'all own the roads

654
00:57:18,799 --> 00:57:23,920
over in Live Oaks
>> okay then I think the option really

655
00:57:22,480 --> 00:57:28,559
should be given
and it's up to the development. That's

656
00:57:25,599 --> 00:57:32,799
just my personal view.
>> So, one one point of clarification there

657
00:57:31,040 --> 00:57:36,319
is talking about these gated
communities. Yes, sir.

658
00:57:34,079 --> 00:57:40,079
» It's kind of unclear to me. I think when
the planning commission was looking at

659
00:57:37,920 --> 00:57:45,359
the whole question of gated communities,
we were looking at it in the in the in

660
00:57:43,119 --> 00:57:50,480
the instance of somebody building a new
community. what you seem to be implying

661
00:57:48,480 --> 00:57:54,640
and I just want to make sure what you're
talking about is whether or not somebody

662
00:57:52,640 --> 00:57:56,720
a group of people can decide they want
to create a gated. Is that what you're

663
00:57:56,240 --> 00:58:00,319
saying?
>> Well, if somebody's already got a

664
00:57:58,240 --> 00:58:04,079
community, are they grandfathered in
that they could build up is what the

665
00:58:02,880 --> 00:58:07,920
question is.
>> But I understand that when we wrote that

666
00:58:06,160 --> 00:58:10,559
language, I think what we had in mind
was somebody who was doing something new

667
00:58:09,680 --> 00:58:14,880
from the ground up.
>> Okay. But if if if you want to do

668
00:58:13,599 --> 00:58:21,200
something different, I think it's
important to be clear exactly what it is

669
00:58:18,319 --> 00:58:25,599
because Councilman Scalad's
comments on that point were kind of a a

670
00:58:24,079 --> 00:58:29,200
thing for me because that that's not
what we I I I'm not saying what we

671
00:58:28,000 --> 00:58:33,440
should do one way the other. I just
think we ought to be clear. Are you

672
00:58:31,359 --> 00:58:36,319
trying to give
certain neighborhoods the ability to to

673
00:58:35,599 --> 00:58:41,040
gauge streets
>> if it's a a privately owned street? a

674
00:58:40,079 --> 00:58:44,960
group, you know, a neighborhood
privately owned streets. I feel like

675
00:58:43,040 --> 00:58:51,200
they should have the option to gate it
if they choose to.

676
00:58:47,440 --> 00:58:54,880
» Are there any place in the city um
that's not already a gated community

677
00:58:53,119 --> 00:58:58,359
where there are private streets?
>> Yes.

678
00:58:55,359 --> 00:58:58,359
» Yeah.

679
00:59:12,720 --> 00:59:19,920
But but but thanks for your comment
though. Um

680
00:59:17,680 --> 00:59:24,480
» currently we're talking about new
communities being

681
00:59:21,760 --> 00:59:30,400
» not communities that already exist.
That's a whole discussion not

682
00:59:28,720 --> 00:59:34,720
» right.
So so

683
00:59:32,720 --> 00:59:38,960
I guess
does that mean And if you if we don't

684
00:59:36,720 --> 00:59:41,920
know now that that's fine. I always feel
like I don't know is a great answer. But

685
00:59:40,640 --> 00:59:46,319
more honest answer then a lot of people
are willing to give. So does that mean

686
00:59:43,839 --> 00:59:50,240
that the council is open to the idea of
a new community that would be built from

687
00:59:48,160 --> 00:59:54,079
the ground up being people have the
option of updated?

688
00:59:52,000 --> 00:59:57,760
» No. I feel that the homes the ones that
are already built should be

689
00:59:55,359 --> 01:00:00,880
grandfathered in. That's what I'm
saying.

690
00:59:58,400 --> 01:00:05,200
» Grandfather. uh if they want a community
that's already there that doesn't have a

691
01:00:03,200 --> 01:00:08,640
gate, they should have the option to put
one in if they want to.

692
01:00:06,640 --> 01:00:10,640
» Are the roads in the community owned by
the community?

693
01:00:09,359 --> 01:00:14,000
» They're owned by the community.
>> Owned by the community and they just

694
01:00:12,480 --> 01:00:16,400
then you want and they should be able to
put a

695
01:00:14,640 --> 01:00:23,280
» Yes, that's what I'm saying.
>> I I think going back correctly,

696
01:00:21,440 --> 01:00:29,839
you might remember too. I think that
there was a conscious effort not to have

697
01:00:25,280 --> 01:00:35,680
any more gated communities in Buford.
I I'll share my personal perspective and

698
01:00:33,040 --> 01:00:39,000
I'll full full disclosure I live in a
gay community.

699
01:00:43,200 --> 01:00:50,319
» Yeah, I say that because I want to get
the laughter out first. But I I think

700
01:00:47,119 --> 01:00:54,160
what G there's a reason there. Um we're
getting kind of in the weeds here, but

701
01:00:52,400 --> 01:00:57,760
you have to make some choices. We tried
to we wanted to get on the water. we

702
01:00:55,599 --> 01:01:02,880
that's where we could avoid and it was a
tough decision but we decided to do it.

703
01:00:59,920 --> 01:01:07,520
What I think and it happens with gated
communities, you kind of create islands

704
01:01:04,480 --> 01:01:12,000
within the community and and and my
community, I'm just speaking one person.

705
01:01:10,000 --> 01:01:17,520
I'm not speaking for Islands of Bin.
Please know that is that I I think it

706
01:01:15,440 --> 01:01:21,359
you start operating within your little
little little community because

707
01:01:19,920 --> 01:01:26,400
everything you do in there is kind of
governed by the association

708
01:01:23,680 --> 01:01:33,920
and it it also creates a sense of
exclusivity too in that you drive by and

709
01:01:30,240 --> 01:01:38,000
you can't come in, right? And I I think
overall for the city when we think about

710
01:01:36,240 --> 01:01:41,760
our city, do we want a lot of little
little islands within the city that's

711
01:01:40,000 --> 01:01:45,680
all kind of shut out? And then you have
the people who can't can't afford to be

712
01:01:43,520 --> 01:01:50,480
in those communities feeling that I
don't belong. So that's just my personal

713
01:01:48,400 --> 01:01:54,880
perspective on getting community. I
understand the the concern about

714
01:01:52,559 --> 01:01:58,559
security, but I think we have a police
force

715
01:01:56,400 --> 01:02:03,920
that is higher than being paid to
protect the city. And we've had a recent

716
01:02:01,760 --> 01:02:09,119
case where crime was getting kind of out
of hand and and I think we've kind of

717
01:02:05,839 --> 01:02:14,559
gotten that tampen down again. So I
think there are ways to deal with this

718
01:02:10,640 --> 01:02:18,960
without creating I lots of little spaces
that shuts people out within our city.

719
01:02:16,559 --> 01:02:25,720
That's just Mitch Mitchell speaking one
person. I'm not speaking for anyone else

720
01:02:21,359 --> 01:02:25,720
except Mitch Mitchell here.

721
01:02:29,280 --> 01:02:36,000
I think historically the the idea of the
gate the gated communities within the

722
01:02:34,480 --> 01:02:41,040
city also had a lot to do with the
connectivity of the roadways and keeping

723
01:02:38,640 --> 01:02:46,640
the grids opened and that's what a lot
of the participants in earlier shares

724
01:02:43,040 --> 01:02:51,520
discussed in creating native communities
within the state blocks the connectivity

725
01:02:49,760 --> 01:02:55,599
of grid the grid network and the
roadways. It was not so much the

726
01:02:53,920 --> 01:03:01,599
security
um exclusivity.

727
01:02:58,319 --> 01:03:06,480
It was more keeping the general grids
and the general runways open and

728
01:03:03,440 --> 01:03:10,559
unobstructed by gates.
And if we go under the assumption that

729
01:03:08,240 --> 01:03:14,760
this is like the new new thing is not
what's existing then

730
01:03:16,880 --> 01:03:20,039
I guess

731
01:03:20,880 --> 01:03:27,000
it's got to be
am I correct?

732
01:03:28,640 --> 01:03:36,400
» I think we're talking about new from the
ground up communities.

733
01:03:34,000 --> 01:03:40,799
council's got to kind of decide what
direction we want to go. So that we want

734
01:03:38,240 --> 01:03:42,640
that's what I I I don't think they
should be negated.

735
01:03:42,079 --> 01:03:46,079
» I agree.
>> I'll say that on top. Now the other

736
01:03:44,319 --> 01:03:52,160
issue which I addressed in my comments
that's I know that's a different issue

737
01:03:48,799 --> 01:03:57,520
but I don't think they should be negated
>> from the ground up. I would agree. No

738
01:03:54,720 --> 01:04:01,599
new gated communities. It's just the
communities that are there that they own

739
01:03:59,200 --> 01:04:05,039
the roads that they have the right to
fill up the gate if they want to.

740
01:04:06,240 --> 01:04:11,480
So hearing planning questionable

741
01:04:26,079 --> 01:04:29,480
That's the other one.

742
01:04:35,039 --> 01:04:40,960
» Excuse me.
I'm saying you can address the other

743
01:04:38,480 --> 01:04:44,240
one. What do you mean by that?
>> Well, I don't think we have language

744
01:04:42,400 --> 01:04:47,920
now, correct me if I'm wrong, that talks
about your issue where you wanted to get

745
01:04:46,559 --> 01:04:51,760
an existing community,
>> right?

746
01:04:48,559 --> 01:04:55,440
» So, that's not that's not part of the
ordinance that we were addressing that.

747
01:04:53,520 --> 01:04:59,680
I think that was what your was
clarifying. It sounds like you want us

748
01:04:57,200 --> 01:05:03,440
to look at this language that would make
it clear that this is

749
01:05:00,960 --> 01:05:07,440
» that this is only for new development.
>> Right. I just wanted maybe send this

750
01:05:05,280 --> 01:05:10,440
back to the planning commission.
>> Thank

751
01:05:10,559 --> 01:05:15,760
the assumption y'all were working under
this.

752
01:05:13,680 --> 01:05:20,079
» Yes, it was certainly mine. That's why I
raised the question was certainly mine.

753
01:05:17,440 --> 01:05:25,440
» Okay. Well, I didn't but I'm good with
that. Yeah, we we I don't think we ever

754
01:05:22,480 --> 01:05:27,359
ever considered in any way an existing
community putting up a gate. That was

755
01:05:26,799 --> 01:05:31,359
not
>> Okay, I'm taking

756
01:05:29,680 --> 01:05:33,839
I'm not expressing any opinion one way
or the other. I'm just trying to say

757
01:05:32,319 --> 01:05:39,559
that's
what I thought too.

758
01:05:35,200 --> 01:05:39,559
» I don't believe it's addressed any

759
01:05:41,039 --> 01:05:45,920
» and that's why I said that would be
something to do that we have the

760
01:05:43,440 --> 01:05:52,400
address.
>> You want to let it dry?

761
01:05:47,680 --> 01:05:56,400
» Yes, sir. Okay. Hey, Graham Trra. Um,
first of all, I do want to congratulate

762
01:05:54,480 --> 01:06:05,039
Mike Tommy and the entire planning board
as well as Kirk and um, the city's group

763
01:06:00,880 --> 01:06:08,640
in in where they have gotten to. Um,
I've got some conceptual questions that

764
01:06:07,119 --> 01:06:14,640
I'd just like to walk through more from
understanding as opposed to to changing

765
01:06:11,039 --> 01:06:18,880
as a as a landowner. Um, but I do have
one fundamental question. This has

766
01:06:16,559 --> 01:06:24,079
received first reading.
What is this discussion? How is that

767
01:06:21,440 --> 01:06:29,839
going to impact second reading? What
where do we go from here? Um with all

768
01:06:27,119 --> 01:06:36,240
these suggested changes,
uh can it come back up for second

769
01:06:32,880 --> 01:06:39,880
reading in August or has this now
stalled the process?

770
01:06:41,760 --> 01:06:50,079
» Come back in August. They have time to
address it. And you so you would address

771
01:06:47,440 --> 01:06:54,240
things with amendments. Is that right?
>> That's how

772
01:06:51,920 --> 01:06:59,200
» Okay.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Could we refer to

773
01:06:57,039 --> 01:07:04,960
9.1.4
that table that

774
01:07:01,440 --> 01:07:11,920
Councilman Klet Scalleti uh talked
through and go to

775
01:07:08,240 --> 01:07:15,520
the subdivision review.
And I just this is just more for

776
01:07:13,760 --> 01:07:22,240
understanding.
So, we've got the sketch plan

777
01:07:19,280 --> 01:07:25,680
which once approved is valid for 12
months

778
01:07:23,760 --> 01:07:30,640
and then it can be renewed for one
month. That's 24 months.

779
01:07:28,799 --> 01:07:37,359
Um,
then Kurt, I'm really pointing to you.

780
01:07:34,480 --> 01:07:43,200
During that 24 months, they then must go
to preliminary plat. Is that right?

781
01:07:41,520 --> 01:07:48,839
» If they don't, if they don't, they have
to start over.

782
01:07:45,280 --> 01:07:48,839
That's the way it66.

783
01:07:49,280 --> 01:07:56,960
» Sorry, that that's the way it it's
written. I didn't hear you.

784
01:07:53,760 --> 01:08:02,640
» Yeah. Okay. And so then likewise pre
preliminary plat they'll have 36 months

785
01:07:59,680 --> 01:08:09,200
once they get the preliminary plat
approval to then go to final plat. And

786
01:08:05,599 --> 01:08:14,960
then from there again another 36 months
that they then need to apply for a

787
01:08:11,039 --> 01:08:20,960
building permit. Is that right?
Well, yeah, just permits in general.

788
01:08:17,920 --> 01:08:25,920
» Okay. And then so within that once they
have that final plat 36 months, they got

789
01:08:23,920 --> 01:08:33,040
to go to a project permit which is back
up in 9.5

790
01:08:28,080 --> 01:08:39,120
and that permit is valid for
for six months. Is is there a

791
01:08:36,319 --> 01:08:44,719
requirement to finish the project? Um,
do they need to finish the project

792
01:08:40,880 --> 01:08:49,159
within the final plat period? Do they
when do they have to finish the project?

793
01:08:50,000 --> 01:08:55,120
» Within the final plat period?
>> I think

794
01:08:52,880 --> 01:09:00,319
» that's my question. I mean, when does a
when does a does a developer have to

795
01:08:58,239 --> 01:09:03,520
finish the project or can they not
finish the project?

796
01:09:02,319 --> 01:09:07,359
» Sure.
Um

797
01:09:05,199 --> 01:09:12,640
you know with the final pledge you can
provide the shity right um you know

798
01:09:10,960 --> 01:09:17,920
essentially we're not going to allow
lots to be we're not going to allow cos

799
01:09:15,359 --> 01:09:22,960
or permits to be issued until
infrastructure is in you bond all the

800
01:09:21,120 --> 01:09:27,199
infrastructure
right

801
01:09:25,120 --> 01:09:31,600
but we're not going to release a permit
until you actually complete the

802
01:09:28,960 --> 01:09:35,920
infrastructure and in the case where
let's say you have a climate flood and

803
01:09:33,359 --> 01:09:43,040
you maybe there's an economic downturn.
This happened in 2008 and uh you know

804
01:09:40,319 --> 01:09:49,600
what should happen is is that let's say
there's 20 lots left but they only build

805
01:09:45,359 --> 01:09:52,640
roads to three lots. you know, um really
what that would mean is there the road

806
01:09:51,040 --> 01:09:55,440
would kind of end there and we wouldn't
have issued permits for any of those

807
01:09:54,080 --> 01:09:59,520
lots until they finished the
infrastructure and then we would call

808
01:09:56,800 --> 01:10:04,719
the bond and theoretically the city
would have eventually finished the

809
01:10:02,080 --> 01:10:08,320
infrastructure um or those remaining
blocks. That's

810
01:10:07,199 --> 01:10:14,080
» okay.
>> But uh yeah, I mean it's kind of you

811
01:10:11,440 --> 01:10:17,280
know I think it's really your final
flight's good for this amount of time.

812
01:10:15,760 --> 01:10:23,040
Maybe maybe the better way to think
about it is it's good for you to provide

813
01:10:19,679 --> 01:10:28,640
assurity or improvements for that amount
of time. That makes sense.

814
01:10:26,480 --> 01:10:32,640
» Does make sense.
>> Put up all that money or after that

815
01:10:30,800 --> 01:10:37,360
three years then this whole big process
that you get sketch plan preliminary

816
01:10:35,360 --> 01:10:40,920
final four would end and you've lost
your best of bre.

817
01:10:41,360 --> 01:10:48,640
» Sorry, say that one more time.
>> And then you would have lost your best

818
01:10:44,080 --> 01:10:53,600
of bre. need to go back to the beginning
>> once the shity was called on.

819
01:10:51,600 --> 01:10:58,080
» No, I I I'm saying I think the three
year the way to maybe best save the

820
01:10:56,080 --> 01:11:04,719
final flood is you got basically three
years to pull the shity,

821
01:11:01,360 --> 01:11:10,159
right? To actually create the lots and
record the plan. Maybe that's the best

822
01:11:07,600 --> 01:11:15,000
way to say it.
Well, I don't know. But I I I

823
01:11:16,560 --> 01:11:22,719
» again
>> it's important to to to think about this

824
01:11:20,560 --> 01:11:29,679
because we have this situation. I want
to move to the historic district now.

825
01:11:25,600 --> 01:11:35,560
So what happens in the historic district
if we go to 9 10.2?

826
01:11:36,239 --> 01:11:43,640
So, I just want you to keep what I just
said in mind. If we go to 910

827
01:11:44,080 --> 01:11:47,300
[Music]

828
01:11:50,080 --> 01:11:54,360
» or in the current or the proposed

829
01:11:54,880 --> 01:12:02,080
» in the current proposed red line
>> local

830
01:11:59,440 --> 01:12:06,960
designation, I think we actually
>> 910 Buford historic district certificate

831
01:12:04,719 --> 01:12:10,440
of appropriateness. If we could go there
page 197.

832
01:12:16,239 --> 01:12:30,120
» So if we go down to the chart on under
two under major.

833
01:12:24,800 --> 01:12:30,120
So this is the process. Um,

834
01:12:30,960 --> 01:12:43,320
are there any time constraints on going
from conceptual, preliminary and final?

835
01:12:38,800 --> 01:12:43,320
There used to be. Are there any now?

836
01:12:46,239 --> 01:12:53,440
» The 9.10. We had a lot of discussion.
There was a recommendation, but it's not

837
01:12:51,679 --> 01:12:57,360
move forward with this set of
recommendations.

838
01:12:55,840 --> 01:13:01,360
I think we were going to have future
discussion on it.

839
01:12:59,280 --> 01:13:05,920
» Oh, so this is not part of what they're
what is in front of council to approve.

840
01:13:04,560 --> 01:13:10,679
» That was the first thing the planning
commission and feel

841
01:13:11,199 --> 01:13:18,320
» spent a lot of time on. Um and that I
think and it added a concept and

842
01:13:15,920 --> 01:13:25,280
preliminary and final process to all the
work. Um but uh that was not part of

843
01:13:22,159 --> 01:13:28,640
this specific
I don't think it moved forward with

844
01:13:26,640 --> 01:13:34,239
council. So
it wasn't part of this package.

845
01:13:32,159 --> 01:13:37,280
» You say any of the historic stuff.
>> Yeah. any of the historic stuff except

846
01:13:35,600 --> 01:13:42,239
you just they made a few tiny little
grammat you know like minor changes just

847
01:13:39,280 --> 01:13:46,719
for script
code that you can see just approval of

848
01:13:44,719 --> 01:13:52,159
you know we just put historic district
made and got rid of that that's that's

849
01:13:49,679 --> 01:13:54,880
it we didn't make any substantive or
we're coming back on that

850
01:13:53,199 --> 01:13:59,719
» we were in a we're coming back on that
and I think that's scheduled for

851
01:14:00,159 --> 01:14:05,159
» okay so so what you're saying is you

852
01:14:06,000 --> 01:14:09,000
for

853
01:14:09,040 --> 01:14:14,080
» Okay. So, what you're what you're saying
is that there's going to be more

854
01:14:11,760 --> 01:14:16,800
discussion on this because again, we can
get find ourselves in a situation where

855
01:14:16,239 --> 01:14:20,159
somebody
>> So, I think yeah, that'll be I think

856
01:14:18,320 --> 01:14:23,440
broadly.
>> Yeah. I mean, obviously with the final

857
01:14:21,840 --> 01:14:27,600
thought, it' be kind of rare for someone
to do a major subdivision in the

858
01:14:25,120 --> 01:14:32,480
historic district, but uh obviously they
do appropriate. It's finalized for a

859
01:14:30,880 --> 01:14:36,560
major sub, you know, it's multiple lots.
It's a sale house.

860
01:14:35,120 --> 01:14:40,800
» I suppose.
>> Okay, I got it. So, what what you're

861
01:14:38,480 --> 01:14:45,679
saying, Kurt, and again, this situation
does exist currently in the historic

862
01:14:42,800 --> 01:14:50,159
district. Is the historic That's a
different section that you're not

863
01:14:47,040 --> 01:14:53,520
considering right now. Is that right?
>> There's no substant changes to that

864
01:14:52,000 --> 01:14:59,120
section. Right.
>> And what section is that?

865
01:14:55,760 --> 01:15:05,080
» That's the the COA and the was it 9.9
and 9.10.

866
01:15:02,080 --> 01:15:05,080
Okay.

867
01:15:05,360 --> 01:15:13,679
» There's a lot of discussion.
>> Okay. Fair. Fair enough. Fair enough.

868
01:15:10,480 --> 01:15:17,040
So, could we go back to that that chart
that we talked about? And again, this

869
01:15:15,520 --> 01:15:22,000
I'm I'm sorry to be a little bit
pedantic on this, but this is the world

870
01:15:19,520 --> 01:15:27,280
we're living in right now. So I just
want to be very precise because so if

871
01:15:24,960 --> 01:15:32,560
you go to
historic preservation

872
01:15:30,320 --> 01:15:35,560
you now have a certificate of
appropriateness

873
01:15:35,760 --> 01:15:42,800
which is 24 months and can be extended
the proposed is three times. Is that

874
01:15:41,440 --> 01:15:48,719
right Kurt?
>> That's right. That's what

875
01:15:45,040 --> 01:15:58,000
» okay so what does that mean? Does that
mean the building needs to be built by

876
01:15:52,080 --> 01:16:02,159
then or that within five years
the applicant who has the certificate of

877
01:16:00,560 --> 01:16:06,000
appropriateness
needs to apply for a building permit?

878
01:16:04,400 --> 01:16:09,760
What is it?
>> I think it's similar to the final ply.

879
01:16:07,840 --> 01:16:14,640
It doesn't mean it has to be built. It
means they have to submit a building

880
01:16:12,080 --> 01:16:19,520
permit which requires a certificate of
appropriateness. they've met all the

881
01:16:16,239 --> 01:16:24,880
conditions of either a minor certificate
of progress or let's say the HRB said

882
01:16:22,159 --> 01:16:30,480
you know you had to do
specific windows and columns etc that

883
01:16:27,679 --> 01:16:36,480
was a condition so when you submit your
building permit we would verify

884
01:16:33,520 --> 01:16:40,560
that was done on and so yeah does that
does that make sense so you have that

885
01:16:38,480 --> 01:16:43,679
» well well let's let's work to a
practical

886
01:16:41,440 --> 01:16:48,640
» years to submit a building permit that
meets the certificate the government.

887
01:16:46,320 --> 01:16:54,640
» Fair enough. So, let's let's just assume
we're under the new new code. Uh the

888
01:16:51,440 --> 01:17:00,239
building um that I got a certificate of
appropriateness

889
01:16:56,320 --> 01:17:05,920
la a year ago was approved. I've got 24
months and then I've got another three

890
01:17:03,199 --> 01:17:11,040
years that I can extend that certificate
of appropriateness

891
01:17:08,320 --> 01:17:15,440
before I need to get a building permit.
And as long as I do that, I get a

892
01:17:13,040 --> 01:17:20,800
building permit, right? Within the three
within the five years.

893
01:17:18,560 --> 01:17:26,640
» Okay. So once I get that building
permit, how long is the building permit

894
01:17:24,159 --> 01:17:32,159
valid for? Six months. It says
>> six months, but it can be extended based

895
01:17:29,360 --> 01:17:38,400
on any progress, any meaningful progress
or you know the building official can

896
01:17:34,560 --> 01:17:43,840
extend it for I guess cause
you know. So it's an it's an arbitrary

897
01:17:40,960 --> 01:17:46,159
extension by the building in inspector.
Is that right?

898
01:17:44,480 --> 01:17:49,840
» I wouldn't say so. No, it's in the it's
in the building code that you know

899
01:17:47,920 --> 01:17:54,159
that's approved by almost every
community, you know, one version or

900
01:17:51,600 --> 01:17:58,960
another. But all that language building
the IRC, you know, or the IBC, right?

901
01:17:57,520 --> 01:18:02,560
That's done by the international code
council.

902
01:18:00,239 --> 01:18:06,800
» But we do six month period, but that
sixmonth period is the same as the IBC

903
01:18:05,360 --> 01:18:12,000
and the IRC.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't think it becomes

904
01:18:08,400 --> 01:18:16,159
arbitrary simply because an official has
the ability to make a decision. I think

905
01:18:14,320 --> 01:18:20,640
arbitrary is the wrong word. And I think
as Kurt has explained it, I think it's a

906
01:18:18,719 --> 01:18:24,560
normal way that business in this regard
is done.

907
01:18:21,840 --> 01:18:28,400
» It has to meet the standards to renew a
building permit is in both of the two

908
01:18:26,800 --> 01:18:32,800
international code. You know, the IRC
and the IBC there. The standards are

909
01:18:30,239 --> 01:18:37,920
there that you have to meet.
Typically, it's you have to have some

910
01:18:34,640 --> 01:18:42,000
progress in six months to renew it or
you know there's there's a section in

911
01:18:39,679 --> 01:18:46,400
those codes that state what you need to
do to extend it no action.

912
01:18:44,560 --> 01:18:51,280
» Okay. So, it's standardized. Okay, fair
enough.

913
01:18:49,360 --> 01:18:56,000
» They're not Buford codes. They're, you
know, codes that are adopted in almost

914
01:18:53,840 --> 01:19:02,000
every
>> Okay, I'll look at that. So, for a big

915
01:18:58,800 --> 01:19:08,400
project downtown, the code does not
require a TIA. Is that right?

916
01:19:06,719 --> 01:19:14,640
» Um, I don't know that I could say that
for sure, but uh, you know, certain uses

917
01:19:13,040 --> 01:19:20,080
could require a TI.
>> Well, I I think the proposal in here is

918
01:19:17,520 --> 01:19:23,600
that overlay districts would be exempt.
>> Oh, yeah, you're right. But that's

919
01:19:21,280 --> 01:19:29,840
Bladen Street.
No, no, it's bound it's bounded by

920
01:19:25,760 --> 01:19:33,040
Calhoun, Carterette, Bay Street, and
Rebo Road.

921
01:19:30,880 --> 01:19:35,520
» Isn't there a blade overlay in
redevelopment district downtown?

922
01:19:34,960 --> 01:19:39,760
» There is.
>> Yeah. So then that would be exempt to I

923
01:19:38,080 --> 01:19:46,000
guess certain parts of downtown.
>> But what about in the middle of

924
01:19:41,440 --> 01:19:48,480
downtown? If you put a I mean just,
you know,

925
01:19:46,480 --> 01:19:55,560
» you put a fast food restaurant. Is that
>> No, you put a 70 room hotel. Do you need

926
01:19:50,880 --> 01:19:55,560
a do you need a TIA?

927
01:19:55,600 --> 01:20:01,199
Uh if it triggers it if it triggers 50
trips

928
01:20:00,880 --> 01:20:03,920
» um
>> or more you have

929
01:20:01,920 --> 01:20:08,159
» or more in a peak an hour you have to
yes or for a site plan

930
01:20:06,239 --> 01:20:13,920
» you have to and it's just complicated
because you know most of those uses are

931
01:20:10,080 --> 01:20:18,640
not allowed in the store jumping but yes
a hotel would be one that could

932
01:20:15,760 --> 01:20:23,679
potentially trigger the
>> okay and does it I didn't see anything

933
01:20:21,280 --> 01:20:27,760
about archaeological downtown has that
been taken out or

934
01:20:25,840 --> 01:20:31,120
» address it. Yeah, that's in chapter
eight.

935
01:20:28,159 --> 01:20:35,440
» It actually was in 7.5
reference to but it's in chapter eight

936
01:20:33,360 --> 01:20:41,520
and they haven't gotten to that yet.
>> Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. Um

937
01:20:39,520 --> 01:20:49,719
I've only got one or two more here,
guys. Thanks for sticking with me. Um

938
01:20:45,920 --> 01:20:49,719
uh 910.2.3A

939
01:20:49,920 --> 01:20:56,719
910.3
>> page. Yeah, let me get there and I'll

940
01:20:54,239 --> 01:20:59,719
tell you. Hold on.
10

941
01:21:04,400 --> 01:21:07,800
» 9 10.2

942
01:21:08,440 --> 01:21:11,580
[Music]

943
01:21:12,560 --> 01:21:18,800
» That's the That's the sections that
we're going to be working on later.

944
01:21:16,560 --> 01:21:23,280
» Oh, okay. Because you you have made some
changes. applicability. HRB shall have

945
01:21:20,719 --> 01:21:29,440
the authority to authorize a design
exception from any applicable standard

946
01:21:26,000 --> 01:21:37,120
set forth in article 2 except for
section 2.6 height and section 2.74 air

947
01:21:34,239 --> 01:21:43,400
installation. So where before there was
a limit on what they could do, now

948
01:21:39,679 --> 01:21:43,400
they're totally unlimited.

949
01:21:46,480 --> 01:21:53,800
So one thing that is concerning here is
not only height but width

950
01:21:54,880 --> 01:22:04,080
which gets to mass and scale. And so as
a major developer in the historic

951
01:22:01,520 --> 01:22:08,440
district that wants to maintain
its character that's a concern.

952
01:22:11,679 --> 01:22:16,120
Front footage is what I'm talking about.

953
01:22:17,760 --> 01:22:22,880
You're going to have to correct for all
of us. I was under the impression, I

954
01:22:21,600 --> 01:22:27,120
don't know what yours is, Mike, that we
were going to leave all of the changes

955
01:22:24,800 --> 01:22:32,480
to the to the historic out for now that
we would change it.

956
01:22:29,440 --> 01:22:37,600
» And we've been meeting over the last
smaller group over the last couple of

957
01:22:34,880 --> 01:22:41,520
months about some larger issues in the
historic district. And we were going to

958
01:22:39,280 --> 01:22:45,040
come back with the historic district
changes separate from all this. Is that

959
01:22:43,760 --> 01:22:51,520
why?
>> Okay, that's fair enough. That's that's

960
01:22:46,880 --> 01:22:54,520
a good answer. Um and then finally, um
>> changes

961
01:22:55,600 --> 01:23:03,040
» they weren't intended.
>> So are those changes going to be changed

962
01:23:00,560 --> 01:23:05,600
that you've crossed out or it's just
not?

963
01:23:03,679 --> 01:23:09,760
» Let me check because this was actually
related to the design exception and

964
01:23:07,920 --> 01:23:13,920
that's why they're in there. Well, in
the final analysis, what's going to be

965
01:23:11,199 --> 01:23:17,280
over the clean version, not our line
version anyway.

966
01:23:15,360 --> 01:23:21,520
» And so, you know, really what the
question is is what's in the clean

967
01:23:19,520 --> 01:23:26,800
version. I don't know whether
>> I'm going to look but uh I that was

968
01:23:24,000 --> 01:23:30,000
actually touched because there was a lot
of consideration from some of the

969
01:23:28,159 --> 01:23:36,159
attorneys on if I remember this is
probably like 12 years ago

970
01:23:33,360 --> 01:23:40,480
stated varants stated variance HRV
should grant a variance and that's why

971
01:23:38,000 --> 01:23:44,800
it was changed because I think the a
feeling that that's the original code

972
01:23:43,120 --> 01:23:48,000
they didn't have the power to grant a
variance they have the power to make

973
01:23:46,800 --> 01:23:52,480
» right
>> that's that's that was the

974
01:23:49,920 --> 01:23:58,320
I to me it's concerning that they have
no boundaries whatsoever.

975
01:23:56,080 --> 01:24:02,320
» Well, I think we can mark that and you
know again there was no intention to

976
01:24:00,239 --> 01:24:06,679
change any of that and I think that was
the the reason for it. So

977
01:24:07,120 --> 01:24:12,080
» okay
when they come out

978
01:24:10,560 --> 01:24:16,960
» but that was the reason I think it was
because

979
01:24:14,719 --> 01:24:20,719
» says varants
>> and and then the last

980
01:24:18,800 --> 01:24:25,520
» sorry go ahead
>> so sorry go ahead

981
01:24:22,480 --> 01:24:29,679
» and then the last thing is on demolition
um where does demolition

982
01:24:28,080 --> 01:24:36,080
stand
>> that was in the same

983
01:24:32,000 --> 01:24:41,679
the same u future future set of things
that we're going to come back to the

984
01:24:38,159 --> 01:24:45,120
council planning commission.
>> We're making no changes on that for now

985
01:24:43,679 --> 01:24:49,840
is was what where the planning
commission stood on it because we

986
01:24:46,880 --> 01:24:56,400
understood that we needed to uh consider
all of that or am I correct about that?

987
01:24:54,880 --> 01:25:00,639
» Okay.
Okay. Uh that was it. Thank you very

988
01:24:58,320 --> 01:25:07,440
much. Um, really quick, looking at this
chart, um, where is the minor

989
01:25:04,480 --> 01:25:14,080
subdivision review on that? I mean, I I
think it's it's clear to me when I'm

990
01:25:11,360 --> 01:25:20,080
reading it that you have the subdivision
review section, and then you have sketch

991
01:25:16,080 --> 01:25:25,440
plan, then preliminary plat, final plat.
And sketch plan is required for all

992
01:25:22,800 --> 01:25:31,920
major development. But where is the
minor subdivision review in the chart?

993
01:25:30,000 --> 01:25:35,840
» We picked that out. When you go to the
final clean copy version, you'll see

994
01:25:34,560 --> 01:25:40,719
that it's going.
>> Okay. So, what was the thought of

995
01:25:38,400 --> 01:25:47,040
removing it for just having it in here?
Even if it's the administrative review

996
01:25:43,920 --> 01:25:52,199
or whatever, what would be the
justification for removing it from the

997
01:25:48,719 --> 01:25:52,199
chart all together?

998
01:25:55,760 --> 01:26:03,960
believe need to go through any specific
public process, but perhaps it's better.

999
01:26:05,199 --> 01:26:11,360
» I would think I mean there's others that
are that wouldn't go through any public

1000
01:26:08,800 --> 01:26:15,040
process as well that are listed in here.
And you know, if you're looking at this

1001
01:26:13,600 --> 01:26:19,040
and you're trying to determine, you
know, maybe where you would go to find

1002
01:26:16,880 --> 01:26:24,560
the section minor,
>> I think the the minor one was just go

1003
01:26:22,239 --> 01:26:31,679
back to the minor requirements. It was
just a find that would apply.

1004
01:26:30,080 --> 01:26:34,960
» I don't think it was ever in the code.
And that was Yeah, that was the minor

1005
01:26:33,199 --> 01:26:39,840
site plan. was a minor subdivision.
Excuse me.

1006
01:26:37,679 --> 01:26:44,639
» I'm seeing I see the minor site plan in
the chart for the design review, but I

1007
01:26:41,920 --> 01:26:51,440
don't see the minor subdivision.
>> Yeah, I don't know that it ever was

1008
01:26:49,280 --> 01:26:56,560
in the old chart. In fact, I think
>> I think

1009
01:26:54,080 --> 01:27:02,080
» Well, we can I think that's something to
add, but I don't think they anything

1010
01:27:01,120 --> 01:27:06,480
administrative.
>> Okay. know what I was looking I didn't

1011
01:27:04,080 --> 01:27:09,520
see it on there. Um and then another
question that maybe pretty easy for you

1012
01:27:08,000 --> 01:27:16,719
guys. I was looking for it, couldn't
find it, but on um page 170 where it

1013
01:27:12,800 --> 01:27:22,320
says section 9.1.6 decision based on a
public hearing. Um that used to be that

1014
01:27:20,400 --> 01:27:27,199
a decision shall be made by the
appropriate review body within 60 days

1015
01:27:24,960 --> 01:27:31,520
of the close of the required public
hearing and it's left blank. And I I

1016
01:27:30,400 --> 01:27:37,120
would assume that it got moved
somewhere, but I had trouble finding it.

1017
01:27:33,920 --> 01:27:43,280
Would it moved somewhere?
>> Page 170 9.1.6 decision based on public

1018
01:27:40,400 --> 01:27:49,120
hearing. So if there's a decision made,
is there a time frame by which

1019
01:27:45,679 --> 01:27:52,719
» I I don't think I think our thinking was
is that if we don't decide at the date

1020
01:27:51,360 --> 01:27:57,280
of the hearing, we're just continuing
the hearing.

1021
01:27:54,560 --> 01:28:00,800
» Okay. We're not. So, we either decide
when we're done or we continue the

1022
01:27:58,960 --> 01:28:05,440
hearing. And we'll either continue a
hearing where we uh where we don't take

1023
01:28:03,360 --> 01:28:08,400
additional testimony or whether we do,
but we'd be specific about that. But

1024
01:28:07,280 --> 01:28:10,719
it's not one of these things where
you're closed if you just never vote on

1025
01:28:10,000 --> 01:28:12,480
it.
>> Okay.

1026
01:28:11,280 --> 01:28:14,480
» So, and also
>> thinking was scratching and it really

1027
01:28:14,000 --> 01:28:18,400
didn't.
>> So, we have to make a decision after

1028
01:28:16,080 --> 01:28:22,719
we're we're done hearing all the
testimony or otherwise we continue it.

1029
01:28:20,560 --> 01:28:28,080
» Okay. Also because there were multiple
instances

1030
01:28:24,960 --> 01:28:33,440
both when the DRB existed uh planning
commission where it's gone way over 60

1031
01:28:30,159 --> 01:28:36,880
days projects they
>> because we don't have that concern right

1032
01:28:36,159 --> 01:28:41,040
now.
>> Well you know they've been tabled and

1033
01:28:38,880 --> 01:28:45,840
you know a lot of past projects for
additional information from the

1034
01:28:42,400 --> 01:28:49,679
applicant that you know longer saying.
So we've had some instances just

1035
01:28:47,679 --> 01:28:52,480
» we don't want them to be approved by
ordinance

1036
01:28:51,600 --> 01:28:54,480
that makes sense.
>> I'm going to take that violence out.

1037
01:28:54,000 --> 01:28:58,960
» Gotcha.
>> So we've had some situations where we

1038
01:28:57,280 --> 01:29:03,920
just didn't have adequate information to
make a final decision. And and so we've

1039
01:29:01,840 --> 01:29:08,880
said, "Listen, will you agree to just
continue this or do you want us to vote

1040
01:29:05,520 --> 01:29:12,639
today?" And in those instances, they've
always said, "Well, I'll agree to

1041
01:29:10,960 --> 01:29:15,440
continue this because I'm not going to
have you vote with inadequate

1042
01:29:13,920 --> 01:29:20,960
information because you're probably not
vote the way I want."

1043
01:29:17,840 --> 01:29:27,360
» So that's the idea there.
>> Um, and then one other thing, and this

1044
01:29:24,159 --> 01:29:31,840
is on page 200. Uh, I think this was
already in the code, but just a

1045
01:29:28,639 --> 01:29:37,360
question. Uh, again, page 200 under
guidance, standards, maintenance of

1046
01:29:34,320 --> 01:29:43,440
consent policies. The last bullet number
six, it says any special area policies

1047
01:29:40,800 --> 01:29:49,400
adopted by the HRB.
Do they have the ability to adopt

1048
01:29:45,120 --> 01:29:49,400
policies or special area?

1049
01:29:50,960 --> 01:29:55,600
» A good question. I think that's in the
current code and we just didn't really

1050
01:29:54,800 --> 01:29:58,560
consider it. So,
>> it's in the current. I just didn't know.

1051
01:29:57,120 --> 01:30:04,239
Maybe it doesn't even need to be there
because I don't know that they have the

1052
01:30:01,600 --> 01:30:08,159
whole thing.
Are we even going to be there? Are we

1053
01:30:06,080 --> 01:30:14,239
even
expecting a vote on anything related to

1054
01:30:10,400 --> 01:30:18,320
the historic section?
My my understanding as a PL we had we

1055
01:30:17,199 --> 01:30:23,840
had discussed with the things
internally. We had come up with our

1056
01:30:20,400 --> 01:30:28,480
proposed changes. We were told that
council either didn't like them or

1057
01:30:26,320 --> 01:30:32,320
wanted more changes. So what we were
internally discussing and which was sort

1058
01:30:30,800 --> 01:30:37,600
of the genesis of that whole committee
that got set up started meeting was we

1059
01:30:35,199 --> 01:30:42,000
had a bigger we had more work to do and
so no changes were going to be made to

1060
01:30:40,000 --> 01:30:45,360
the historic section until that
committee completed its work and got

1061
01:30:44,000 --> 01:30:48,639
back to the planning commission for
further review.

1062
01:30:46,960 --> 01:30:54,880
There's a lot of issues the special
committee is dealing with uh as an

1063
01:30:52,159 --> 01:31:01,120
example area property that we all know
different things that have to be with

1064
01:30:56,800 --> 01:31:05,840
there and the community itself. So
dealing with the whole section

1065
01:31:03,040 --> 01:31:10,719
especially demolition becomes uh a
little more complicated as well as

1066
01:31:08,719 --> 01:31:15,120
sensitive to everybody and trying to
preserve the community. So special

1067
01:31:12,880 --> 01:31:22,000
committee has been set up to try and
hear the voices of uh various different

1068
01:31:18,960 --> 01:31:28,080
entities as to how to put that back
together to make it work and enforceable

1069
01:31:25,840 --> 01:31:32,080
because nothing that we have in the
current code has been enforcable for 20

1070
01:31:30,800 --> 01:31:36,159
or 30 years.
>> Is that special committee made up of

1071
01:31:34,159 --> 01:31:41,040
members from planning commission HRB?
>> Yes. Okay.

1072
01:31:37,040 --> 01:31:44,960
» And and the what's that group? Freeman,
sorry. Freeman.

1073
01:31:42,880 --> 01:31:48,639
» Yeah. So, when we when we first sat
down, I was under the impression that

1074
01:31:47,440 --> 01:31:54,239
Mike was that we were going to get some
comments to the code sections that we

1075
01:31:51,920 --> 01:31:58,880
be, you know, meeting or two and we'd be
done with that. But it kind of opened it

1076
01:31:56,719 --> 01:32:04,560
up to everything and we started talking
about much more broadly uh about a whole

1077
01:32:02,400 --> 01:32:09,840
variety of issues relating to the
historic and the Freedman's Arts

1078
01:32:06,239 --> 01:32:12,639
District. And so instead of being like a
two-hour meeting or two two-hour

1079
01:32:11,280 --> 01:32:17,280
meetings, I think it ended up being
like, you know, a half dozen 4hour

1080
01:32:15,360 --> 01:32:20,800
meetings.
And I think that we finally put

1081
01:32:18,719 --> 01:32:24,159
something together that was who we sent
to the city council, right, and just

1082
01:32:22,480 --> 01:32:27,360
hadn't taken it up yet. And that wasn't
even the final step in the process. That

1083
01:32:25,920 --> 01:32:31,120
was sort of a preliminary step. Is that
right, Cord?

1084
01:32:28,719 --> 01:32:36,239
» Well, if you remember at your retreat,
it was brought up then. And at the

1085
01:32:33,440 --> 01:32:42,080
retreat, um, I stated that we'd get
together with the historic uh, design

1086
01:32:38,880 --> 01:32:46,719
review board and get together and put
something together that made the most

1087
01:32:44,080 --> 01:32:50,480
sense. That's what generated this other
committee. So, it's been going on for

1088
01:32:49,199 --> 01:32:55,840
quite a while. We've had a lot of
meetings. I think the discussions have

1089
01:32:52,719 --> 01:33:02,080
been really very uh very good, very
fruitful and we need to come up with

1090
01:32:58,639 --> 01:33:06,480
something that you all can enforce that
is appropriate for now.

1091
01:33:04,800 --> 01:33:10,320
» I think at one time Mr. Hullman, there
was a draft that you had um was from

1092
01:33:08,800 --> 01:33:15,120
city of Columbia or something. Is that
right?

1093
01:33:11,280 --> 01:33:18,880
» Infamous draft. I'm not sure
>> that had to do with demolitions. Is that

1094
01:33:17,040 --> 01:33:23,440
is that still on the table at all or is
that part has it just been rolled into

1095
01:33:20,880 --> 01:33:28,159
part of the discussion?
>> We haven't even gotten to the demolition

1096
01:33:25,360 --> 01:33:33,120
discussion within
so

1097
01:33:30,880 --> 01:33:39,920
» um regarding if this goes to second
reading in August. I think we can see

1098
01:33:37,520 --> 01:33:43,920
here today that there is considerable
version confusion going on and this is

1099
01:33:42,400 --> 01:33:49,440
something that we and the planning
commission have struggled with from the

1100
01:33:46,000 --> 01:33:55,199
beginning and I think there's confusion
about what exactly was agreed to at

1101
01:33:51,600 --> 01:34:00,960
first reading and what would be up for a
vote at second reading and I would

1102
01:33:57,440 --> 01:34:05,679
suggest that a version be prepared that
excludes doesn't even have it in the

1103
01:34:03,360 --> 01:34:11,360
packet any of this historic district
stuff. It should just be not in there.

1104
01:34:08,159 --> 01:34:17,760
Um, and also suggests that in reviewing
it, I find these redline versions

1105
01:34:15,040 --> 01:34:21,760
extremely difficult to read and there's
a lot of mistakes to them and they're

1106
01:34:19,120 --> 01:34:27,520
hard to see. So, I would suggest that
council members look at the clean copy

1107
01:34:25,280 --> 01:34:32,960
and if there's something that seems not
right, then refer to the redline version

1108
01:34:30,960 --> 01:34:37,040
to if there's an explanation. I think
and then and then when you're talking

1109
01:34:34,560 --> 01:34:42,880
about it at the meeting, I also think
that you should use a clean version uh

1110
01:34:39,679 --> 01:34:47,239
for purposes of any vote or any further
modifications. That's just my

1111
01:34:48,080 --> 01:34:54,199
» All right, Tony, if you got someone I
do,

1112
01:34:54,320 --> 01:34:59,199
» Mr. Tri,
>> thank you. I left two things out and I

1113
01:34:57,280 --> 01:35:05,600
appreciate you tolerating hearing me
again. Um, one is the TIA, there was

1114
01:35:02,800 --> 01:35:09,360
some discussion on half versus a mile.
Uh, and again, this question is for

1115
01:35:07,280 --> 01:35:16,560
Kurt. If and the planning committee, by
all means, chime in. You're wanting that

1116
01:35:13,840 --> 01:35:23,520
right now as written that the TIA take
into consideration a half mile

1117
01:35:20,960 --> 01:35:30,159
radius. Is that right?
>> Yes. Except for if it's approved but not

1118
01:35:28,239 --> 01:35:35,280
permitted but unbuilt development into
the mile is the way that it currently.

1119
01:35:33,040 --> 01:35:39,199
» Has anybody explored what that might
cost?

1120
01:35:36,880 --> 01:35:43,520
» I think
>> I I because I don't know and my some of

1121
01:35:41,360 --> 01:35:49,040
my property is impacted. I I think it's
a good idea. I just don't know what it

1122
01:35:46,159 --> 01:35:51,360
might cost to do that in a TIA and do we
know? I'm trying to bring this to

1123
01:35:50,239 --> 01:35:56,320
practicality.
>> Well, a TIA looks at intersect

1124
01:35:54,719 --> 01:36:00,320
Uh that's what it's all about. It's
always about intersection. So it depends

1125
01:35:58,320 --> 01:36:06,639
how many intersections we're within the
distance.

1126
01:36:03,040 --> 01:36:11,520
» Uh so talk me through that. So how is a
half mile going to be uh any different

1127
01:36:09,520 --> 01:36:17,159
than a mile if I'm doing an
intersection?

1128
01:36:13,760 --> 01:36:17,159
might be more.

1129
01:36:18,960 --> 01:36:26,480
» Now, often they use the, you know, the
county or the state, you know, often

1130
01:36:23,679 --> 01:36:32,080
does counts that are pretty accurate on
a lot of the major roads that are within

1131
01:36:28,639 --> 01:36:36,400
a time frame that works. So,
>> right, but my experience is they sit on

1132
01:36:34,080 --> 01:36:41,199
the corner where the where the
development is going to go and they they

1133
01:36:38,320 --> 01:36:44,880
take car counts.
>> That's right.

1134
01:36:42,480 --> 01:36:50,880
» Okay. So what does a math mile versus a
mile mean to that is my question.

1135
01:36:48,560 --> 01:36:55,119
» Well, more than one more than the
multiple intersections can easily be

1136
01:36:52,800 --> 01:37:00,960
impacted by a traffic by a new
development. Okay. And you know a half

1137
01:36:58,560 --> 01:37:07,040
mile or a mile is actually you know sort
of arbitrary. My experience a lot of it

1138
01:37:04,320 --> 01:37:13,280
with developments over a long career is
that it's you it's it's the uh and we

1139
01:37:10,880 --> 01:37:18,000
don't have a engineering section but
it's a it's it's somebody

1140
01:37:15,920 --> 01:37:21,199
like in in our case here Kirk would have
to say

1141
01:37:19,679 --> 01:37:25,360
these are the intersections that are
impacted and you really need to look at

1142
01:37:22,960 --> 01:37:29,440
these intersections. I think we just put
in a distance in there because we

1143
01:37:26,880 --> 01:37:35,280
discussed it in the sense was it should
be beyond just the intersection where

1144
01:37:32,480 --> 01:37:43,440
you have access to the property.
>> Got it. Okay. Um and Mike Tony, back to

1145
01:37:39,199 --> 01:37:49,199
the demolition situation. Um
it seems to me it would be pretty easy

1146
01:37:45,920 --> 01:37:53,679
to put a a limit on the time frame for
demolitions and not stop this whole

1147
01:37:52,080 --> 01:37:58,560
process.
this now very complicated process which

1148
01:37:56,960 --> 01:38:02,960
either intentionally or not
intentionally has been created.

1149
01:38:01,280 --> 01:38:07,760
Isn't that reasonable? I mean, right now
I'm holding a demolition permit that

1150
01:38:04,800 --> 01:38:14,320
never expires. Uh, and that's the whole
issue. Why why can't you at least put an

1151
01:38:11,280 --> 01:38:18,400
interim demolition sunset in and then go
back and deal with all these quote

1152
01:38:16,719 --> 01:38:22,080
unquote stakeholders that have been
created?

1153
01:38:20,159 --> 01:38:29,280
» Well, I I totally agree. We have to have
sunsets and uh we could put something

1154
01:38:25,280 --> 01:38:34,719
temporary in there. We'll have to uh uh
see what uh the uh the board wants to

1155
01:38:32,000 --> 01:38:38,560
do. But uh I I totally agree. We've got
to have those sunsets and that's the

1156
01:38:36,239 --> 01:38:44,880
problem that we've had up until now. Uh
the problem putting a sunset in is how

1157
01:38:41,920 --> 01:38:49,760
do you uh how do you enforce it? And
that's that's one of the big issues

1158
01:38:46,480 --> 01:38:53,360
we've uh been trying to deal with.
So, you don't have advice on how to

1159
01:38:51,440 --> 01:38:58,000
enforce it, isn't it? Just simply send
the code guy out there and sorry, you

1160
01:38:55,760 --> 01:39:04,639
can't do it or
>> uh you can do that, but uh is is

1161
01:39:01,840 --> 01:39:10,080
something that actually happened and if
you're talking about a a taking of

1162
01:39:08,080 --> 01:39:13,920
property, you know, how is that going to
get done? I think that that's there

1163
01:39:12,159 --> 01:39:18,960
there's just a lot of issues around that
that we're trying to deal with right now

1164
01:39:16,000 --> 01:39:23,280
and come up a way with a way that uh
they can be um uh they can be dealt

1165
01:39:22,159 --> 01:39:27,600
with.
>> Okay. And and then are those meetings

1166
01:39:25,360 --> 01:39:29,119
open to the public?
>> Yes.

1167
01:39:28,880 --> 01:39:33,119
» Yeah,
>> they are. So they're advertised and

1168
01:39:30,880 --> 01:39:38,560
they're open to the public and and all
that sort of stuff.

1169
01:39:36,239 --> 01:39:45,840
» There's there's been a hiatus on those
right now. Uh we're looking for an an

1170
01:39:42,560 --> 01:39:49,920
official adoption of of that uh uh
special committee from city council. I

1171
01:39:48,000 --> 01:39:54,080
think that's coming up. Uh
>> okay

1172
01:39:52,000 --> 01:39:59,440
will be a work session with the city
council.

1173
01:39:55,199 --> 01:40:02,440
» Yeah. And so then those definitely are
advertised.

1174
01:40:02,480 --> 01:40:07,600
» Yeah. Okay. Because it sounds it sounds
like a lot of this stuff has been done

1175
01:40:06,159 --> 01:40:11,199
behind closed doors without
stakeholders. It's just my I'm not

1176
01:40:09,520 --> 01:40:17,920
accusing. I'm just I'm
>> No, I would No, there hasn't been any

1177
01:40:13,840 --> 01:40:23,320
discussion at all just of demolition.
>> All the discussion was from the planning

1178
01:40:19,679 --> 01:40:23,320
commission last year.

1179
01:40:23,440 --> 01:40:30,560
» Okay, fair enough.
>> Great. Say that.

1180
01:40:28,320 --> 01:40:36,400
» Thank you. In the interest of time, I'd
like and Mike, if Mike, if you don't

1181
01:40:33,520 --> 01:40:40,880
mind, y'all go through what the chamber
presented, the edits that y'all did

1182
01:40:38,320 --> 01:40:45,679
there. Um, so that we can come up with a
clean copy that we could, you know, have

1183
01:40:43,520 --> 01:40:50,719
some amendments to vote on our next
meeting if that's possible to do it.

1184
01:40:47,760 --> 01:40:54,480
» Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I think is that the
plan to maybe send this back to the

1185
01:40:52,480 --> 01:40:58,880
planning commission for which meeting
next week?

1186
01:40:56,560 --> 01:41:04,000
if you go over I think John Councilman
Scalleti had a lot of excellent comments

1187
01:41:02,480 --> 01:41:07,760
incorporate
this

1188
01:41:04,639 --> 01:41:14,560
» well and
Mr. Barorper and Mr. Tony have um sort

1189
01:41:12,480 --> 01:41:20,159
of taken the lead as a subcommittee
within the planning commission to

1190
01:41:16,719 --> 01:41:24,560
coordinate this process. So, um I think
we we should be able to accomplish

1191
01:41:21,920 --> 01:41:30,400
something. But our next
>> Yeah, I think I think you know a lot of

1192
01:41:26,800 --> 01:41:35,679
the changes are just um
uh

1193
01:41:32,639 --> 01:41:39,520
using the proper words and punctuations
and capitalizations, things like that.

1194
01:41:37,760 --> 01:41:45,840
There's there's a few things in here
that that are are more than that. Um and

1195
01:41:42,960 --> 01:41:51,280
there may be a couple of issues that uh
we uh don't agree with uh the comments

1196
01:41:48,880 --> 01:41:56,719
that we've been given
>> and they were working on the earlier

1197
01:41:54,159 --> 01:42:01,679
redline draft and when we did the final
draft for example the formatting all

1198
01:41:59,440 --> 01:42:07,840
changed so a lot of the little rolling
hoods became little beads things of that

1199
01:42:04,560 --> 01:42:12,960
kind and it so but we made one go
through already

1200
01:42:09,920 --> 01:42:16,320
like I did And we're going to do another
one here with

1201
01:42:13,920 --> 01:42:20,400
» we we've done the health cover based on
what they

1202
01:42:17,600 --> 01:42:23,440
» we're working with. So we didn't change
it up so that so they could understand

1203
01:42:22,320 --> 01:42:28,880
what it is.
>> I I'd be more than happy to go through

1204
01:42:25,920 --> 01:42:34,560
each of our comments here. I know uh
they're the comments of things that we

1205
01:42:30,880 --> 01:42:39,760
think uh can change at this point or we
can give this document to them uh to

1206
01:42:36,719 --> 01:42:47,119
look at if they want. Um but if they
want to make comments at this meeting

1207
01:42:42,719 --> 01:42:53,040
related to specific issues in here um we
probably have to uh go through the

1208
01:42:49,360 --> 01:42:56,159
comments and let her make specific uh
just have discussion about some specific

1209
01:42:55,199 --> 01:43:00,560
items.
>> Megan is not here to speak on the

1210
01:42:58,239 --> 01:43:04,159
chamber. Oh well,
>> it sounded like in the comments made

1211
01:43:02,080 --> 01:43:09,840
today, there was nothing actually
specifically pointed to, but it sounded

1212
01:43:06,000 --> 01:43:13,679
like the underlying concern was the
economics of it. Is it going to make

1213
01:43:11,840 --> 01:43:18,560
development more expensive and
unreasonably more expensive? But I feel

1214
01:43:16,639 --> 01:43:24,320
like some of the changes that we're
we're seeing here, in fact, many of them

1215
01:43:21,119 --> 01:43:28,800
are exactly in line with not only
council's concerns, but the community we

1216
01:43:26,320 --> 01:43:34,719
represent, their concerns, which is the
the tree canopy coverage and the traffic

1217
01:43:31,040 --> 01:43:38,800
impact studies being being um required
and and more tightened up. Um, so I

1218
01:43:37,119 --> 01:43:44,960
think a lot of the issues are are
exactly in line with, you know,

1219
01:43:41,600 --> 01:43:48,639
» well, the uh the planning commission is
looking at it from the standpoint of

1220
01:43:46,560 --> 01:43:49,600
what's in the best interest of this
community,

1221
01:43:49,280 --> 01:43:56,239
» right?
>> And so as we address all these issues,

1222
01:43:52,400 --> 01:44:00,480
we're not looking at things that make it
less expensive for a developer to come

1223
01:43:57,920 --> 01:44:04,639
in and do something. We're looking at uh
maintaining the integrity of the

1224
01:44:02,159 --> 01:44:09,760
community as the development happens,
working with the developer to uh to do

1225
01:44:07,199 --> 01:44:14,880
these things. So, uh we may have some
disagreements on a couple of things in

1226
01:44:11,360 --> 01:44:19,280
here, but the majority uh doesn't get
into that kind of detail,

1227
01:44:16,639 --> 01:44:23,840
» right? And and my specific concern in
regards to the predictability is just

1228
01:44:21,600 --> 01:44:30,080
that is having somebody be able to read
it and say, "Okay, this is what's

1229
01:44:25,760 --> 01:44:33,679
required of me." And if it's a stringent
requirement, that's fine because I feel

1230
01:44:31,920 --> 01:44:38,080
like we need to do that in order to
protect what we have. But at the same

1231
01:44:36,080 --> 01:44:41,920
time, at least I'd like somebody to be
able to read it and understand exactly

1232
01:44:40,080 --> 01:44:46,719
what is required of them and there not
be question marks on what that might

1233
01:44:44,159 --> 01:44:51,280
look like and and so clearing up some of
those gray areas um I feel like is

1234
01:44:49,440 --> 01:44:56,000
important because there were several of
them. Um we we did talk about the within

1235
01:44:54,639 --> 01:45:01,119
a mile and there seemed to be a little
confusion. So, I want to just make sure

1236
01:44:57,440 --> 01:45:07,040
that was an intentional um in here. But
on page 120, it says incorporation of

1237
01:45:04,639 --> 01:45:10,800
all traffic impact analysis studies and
trip generation from approved

1238
01:45:08,719 --> 01:45:14,800
developments or vested unbuilt
developments within mile radius at the

1239
01:45:13,119 --> 01:45:18,400
time of proposal. Now, that's the only
place where it talks about a mile.

1240
01:45:16,159 --> 01:45:23,440
Everything else is a half a mile. So,
was that an intentional decision that

1241
01:45:20,719 --> 01:45:27,440
was made within a mile or is the word
half missing from there? Well, let me

1242
01:45:25,679 --> 01:45:33,600
tell you a little bit of the background
uh behind all that. Uh and that is if I

1243
01:45:31,520 --> 01:45:39,119
started looking across the county, city
and town uh and dealing with issues as I

1244
01:45:36,560 --> 01:45:44,239
work with the county on certain boards
and things is that we have so much

1245
01:45:41,440 --> 01:45:50,400
development going on. We've got 3 to
5,000 new units coming online. And a lot

1246
01:45:48,239 --> 01:45:58,159
of that when you're taking a look at a
specific uh subdivision as at a point in

1247
01:45:55,360 --> 01:46:02,320
our community, uh you have to go out
farther to see what the overall impact

1248
01:46:00,159 --> 01:46:06,560
of that is because when those units come
online, you're going to have a much

1249
01:46:04,400 --> 01:46:12,800
greater impact on the road systems and
the intersections. So the intent and the

1250
01:46:09,520 --> 01:46:17,920
purpose was to try and uh put together
information that would allow a traffic

1251
01:46:15,199 --> 01:46:23,119
engineer to understand what the future
impact is based on what we're approving

1252
01:46:20,719 --> 01:46:29,280
for developments. One of the things I
would like to see happen is get a GIS uh

1253
01:46:27,040 --> 01:46:36,320
system done where we have input from the
city, the town, and the county uh that

1254
01:46:33,119 --> 01:46:41,840
uh shows exactly where our subdivisions
are that are either applying for uh

1255
01:46:38,960 --> 01:46:46,239
permits uh actually permitted or haven't
come online yet, but and are still out

1256
01:46:44,239 --> 01:46:51,360
there. so that we could see what those
population areas are and their impacts

1257
01:46:49,199 --> 01:46:56,560
on those particular roads and whether or
not that's going to have an impact on a

1258
01:46:54,320 --> 01:47:01,600
future subdivision that we're currently
currently reviewing. Uh the problem that

1259
01:46:59,280 --> 01:47:08,080
that I've had is that our board when we
take a look at this, we're looking at a

1260
01:47:03,280 --> 01:47:12,239
very uh small confined area uh and not
taking into account and sometimes we

1261
01:47:09,840 --> 01:47:18,159
don't even know. That's why I really
like to see uh an emphasis put on just

1262
01:47:15,199 --> 01:47:22,960
getting a GIS map which should be not
really complicated because you can go to

1263
01:47:20,159 --> 01:47:28,400
each of the uh planning commissions uh
for each of our uh municipalities

1264
01:47:25,920 --> 01:47:32,880
uh and just plot that on a GIS map and
then just kind of keep that up and the

1265
01:47:30,560 --> 01:47:37,920
intent would be that that GIS map is
then available for every uh um plan

1266
01:47:36,000 --> 01:47:43,440
subdivision that comes to the table for
any of us. Is there

1267
01:47:41,760 --> 01:47:47,520
as a traffic engineer, what what are
they basing allowing a develop you know

1268
01:47:46,080 --> 01:47:51,520
saying okay it's going to put this many
cars on what's the capacity of the

1269
01:47:49,280 --> 01:47:55,360
arterial routes because that's the thing
that I'm concerned about you can do half

1270
01:47:53,840 --> 01:48:00,239
mile you can do a mile doesn't matter
170 whether it's county portal or Buer

1271
01:47:58,960 --> 01:48:05,199
sooner or later it's going to be
gridlock and the way these things work

1272
01:48:02,880 --> 01:48:10,239
the way that traffic impact assessments
work together capacity analysis for

1273
01:48:07,360 --> 01:48:16,159
intersections so the whole idea is is
that you know what slow you're trying to

1274
01:48:13,440 --> 01:48:19,280
make sure that traffic keeps moving. I
mean this is the way things are analyzed

1275
01:48:17,760 --> 01:48:23,679
across the country. It isn't whether
there's how much traffic is on the road.

1276
01:48:22,080 --> 01:48:30,800
It's whether it moves through the
intersections in in a in one signal. So

1277
01:48:27,280 --> 01:48:35,360
the idea is it might you know as
communities grow yeah there's going to

1278
01:48:33,360 --> 01:48:39,440
be ever more traffic on the art on the
roads. There's just pl there's no point

1279
01:48:37,199 --> 01:48:46,000
in that. So, what you try to do is make
sure that um you don't improve

1280
01:48:43,440 --> 01:48:50,960
new developments that that cause
gridlock. And gridlock is when you can't

1281
01:48:47,760 --> 01:48:57,520
get through an intersection anymore. Um
you can and as a result of those studies

1282
01:48:54,960 --> 01:49:00,880
um you know it may sometimes come down
to the fact that we just have to turn

1283
01:48:59,360 --> 01:49:04,639
something down but it may be that there
are various modifications that can be

1284
01:49:03,199 --> 01:49:10,239
you know the typical things that a
traffic impact study looks at is signal

1285
01:49:06,639 --> 01:49:17,040
timing. you know, add more, you know,
green time to the arterial and and less

1286
01:49:13,199 --> 01:49:21,520
to the to the cross street. Um, turning
lanes, you know, and it's usually left

1287
01:49:19,920 --> 01:49:25,119
turn. It's always left turns that it's
all about, whether you're turning left

1288
01:49:22,960 --> 01:49:30,000
out of a development or turning in. So,
do we have to add new uh uh turning

1289
01:49:27,520 --> 01:49:35,760
lanes, stacking lanes, and send things
of that kind? Um so you know that's what

1290
01:49:34,159 --> 01:49:39,360
that's what we're always looking at and
that's what the T traffic impact

1291
01:49:37,600 --> 01:49:43,440
assessments are looking at.
>> Uh it's not a total volume of traffic on

1292
01:49:41,520 --> 01:49:49,119
the road, it's the total capacity of an
intersection and they're graded on the

1293
01:49:45,119 --> 01:49:53,040
basis of uh delays. Uh so there's
usually two num there's a number in

1294
01:49:50,719 --> 01:50:00,159
there which is the seconds of delay and
then those seconds of delay for the the

1295
01:49:57,440 --> 01:50:07,119
institute traffic engineer uh standards
are given grades ABCD E and F. Um coming

1296
01:50:04,880 --> 01:50:13,280
into this whole thing your development
code here said that we shoot for a level

1297
01:50:09,760 --> 01:50:18,000
of service D. Where I came from we
considered a level of service D as a

1298
01:50:15,920 --> 01:50:22,639
passing grade. I mean, we only looked at
E and Fs and a lot of times because we

1299
01:50:20,560 --> 01:50:27,760
were in a major metropolitan area, we
even approved Fs because it was like so

1300
01:50:26,000 --> 01:50:32,880
many things are F, we'll have no growth
and development if we but here you you

1301
01:50:30,960 --> 01:50:40,239
we didn't change that standard. It's
it's a level of service D. And so um it

1302
01:50:37,520 --> 01:50:46,080
makes it a little bit easier to to turn
things down if the development through

1303
01:50:44,000 --> 01:50:51,360
signal timing and turn lanes and things
like that can achieve a level of service

1304
01:50:48,080 --> 01:50:56,560
P. So that's what we you all and what
we're looking at is does the traffic

1305
01:50:53,440 --> 01:50:59,679
keep moving? not really how much traffic
is is

1306
01:50:58,159 --> 01:51:05,520
those turning lanes you talk about
certain roads that you can't can't do

1307
01:51:02,320 --> 01:51:08,880
that because there's nowhere to put that
road. The other thing is there's so many

1308
01:51:07,520 --> 01:51:14,320
curb cuts
>> along a lot of these things that stop

1309
01:51:11,520 --> 01:51:17,920
and slow traffic and just so the new
developments you know in the old days

1310
01:51:16,080 --> 01:51:22,639
everybody got a curb cut where you know
every single one acre lot development

1311
01:51:21,040 --> 01:51:27,040
there was and that's part of what you're
dealing with now. So I mean it may be

1312
01:51:25,199 --> 01:51:31,280
that on some of these developments what
you try to do in an impact setting is

1313
01:51:29,040 --> 01:51:34,320
mitigate the impacts so that you can get
it to that level of service even if you

1314
01:51:32,960 --> 01:51:38,480
can't mitigate the impacts because
there's no place to put turn lanes or

1315
01:51:36,080 --> 01:51:42,080
whatever then the answer is going to
start being no on some of the

1316
01:51:40,400 --> 01:51:46,719
development you know just from the
standpoint of driving impact study alone

1317
01:51:44,719 --> 01:51:50,080
that's why it was so important to bas
and our one of the big changes last

1318
01:51:48,639 --> 01:51:55,840
thing I'll say on that is we wanted to
make sure that TIA were required in more

1319
01:51:54,320 --> 01:52:00,000
circumstances and that they were
reviewed by the planning commission when

1320
01:51:57,520 --> 01:52:05,119
I was on the planning commission under
my you know the last time the planning

1321
01:52:03,199 --> 01:52:08,320
director didn't want us to ever get a
TIA and didn't look want us to look at

1322
01:52:06,960 --> 01:52:12,719
them because he said we weren't
competent to do so well we've taken a

1323
01:52:11,040 --> 01:52:16,000
different viewpoint is that we you know
that's our responsibility is that we

1324
01:52:14,480 --> 01:52:20,400
don't know how they work and we need to
figure out how they work and give you a

1325
01:52:17,840 --> 01:52:24,159
recommendation that regard
>> and and to some degree Graham yeah

1326
01:52:22,400 --> 01:52:29,199
Graham is right There is a difference
between looking at what road capacity

1327
01:52:27,119 --> 01:52:35,840
is. Uh we're not even dealing with road
capacities, but we are approving uh

1328
01:52:32,960 --> 01:52:42,320
major subdivisions and and we've got to
be uh we've got to understand what those

1329
01:52:38,639 --> 01:52:46,800
new subdivisions are. And right now, if
you do a a TIA on a particular

1330
01:52:45,520 --> 01:52:52,960
intersection, you're not going to get
the the same results as you would if all

1331
01:52:51,119 --> 01:52:59,599
of those subdivisions that are in that
same area are actually operational. Um,

1332
01:52:57,199 --> 01:53:05,360
but but then that goes back to road
capacity. And that I think we need to be

1333
01:53:02,719 --> 01:53:10,000
looking at, oh, what can we do for road
capacity? And now obviously we're

1334
01:53:07,840 --> 01:53:13,679
impacting road capacity because we're
approving developments.

1335
01:53:11,360 --> 01:53:18,159
» Well, let me hitch on that just for one
second. Is one thing we've also tried to

1336
01:53:15,360 --> 01:53:24,000
assure with this is that when a new
development, you know, takes its uh you

1337
01:53:21,920 --> 01:53:28,639
know, you take actual counts of what's
on the road, but you use the IT manual

1338
01:53:26,239 --> 01:53:35,679
for predicting trim generation from a
new development. And so we try to make

1339
01:53:31,599 --> 01:53:40,000
sure that as we analyze as a new TIA is
done, it takes into account not just the

1340
01:53:38,159 --> 01:53:43,840
traffic that's on the road, but the
traffic that's been approved in a new

1341
01:53:41,920 --> 01:53:49,920
development that isn't built yet. So
you're always building on top of what

1342
01:53:45,840 --> 01:53:53,679
was previously approved. And and that's
part of the trick in reviewing these

1343
01:53:51,280 --> 01:53:56,639
things is to make sure that that they
don't leave out a development just

1344
01:53:55,119 --> 01:53:59,840
because it wasn't built yet. You have to
take into account as though it's built.

1345
01:53:58,239 --> 01:54:04,080
And that's what you captured very well
here. And then it goes back to the

1346
01:54:02,400 --> 01:54:06,080
requirement for any jurisdiction
including the town of Port Royal and the

1347
01:54:05,679 --> 01:54:09,080
county of
>> Euper

1348
01:54:09,199 --> 01:54:19,199
trying to capture.
The other thing that it dovetales with

1349
01:54:14,560 --> 01:54:26,480
is the sun setting of the permits um and
the approvals because now

1350
01:54:22,719 --> 01:54:31,599
the the window for building is extremely
long and and it was very important for

1351
01:54:28,639 --> 01:54:37,199
us to shorten that and put a definite
limit on it because it's true that some

1352
01:54:34,719 --> 01:54:39,040
developments just never get built. But
if you have to take

1353
01:54:38,400 --> 01:54:44,080
» right
>> indefinite approvals um into account

1354
01:54:41,840 --> 01:54:49,679
this announce then you are talking about
expense and really just speculation. So

1355
01:54:47,119 --> 01:54:56,000
» so one thing to to keep in mind I was at
a statewide conference with heads of D

1356
01:54:52,800 --> 01:54:59,520
from DOT and with new developments
they're doing everything they can to

1357
01:54:57,440 --> 01:55:05,360
eliminate left turns. You'll see it out
there like at Cross Creek area in the Bu

1358
01:55:02,480 --> 01:55:13,360
station. Everybody's fussing about that.
Uh they're doing medians, they're doing

1359
01:55:08,639 --> 01:55:19,440
um roundabouts and um traffic circles.
Uh they found it's like 75% of the

1360
01:55:15,840 --> 01:55:23,199
accidents are like from left turns and
they're trying to eliminate left turns

1361
01:55:20,960 --> 01:55:26,400
everywhere they can. So new development,
you're going to start seeing that a lot

1362
01:55:25,119 --> 01:55:29,280
more of it.
>> Exactly.

1363
01:55:26,880 --> 01:55:35,040
» From DOT and warning you,
>> Miss Kim, back to your comment. Was that

1364
01:55:31,679 --> 01:55:40,400
was that the context behind why the
changes in the permit validity

1365
01:55:37,040 --> 01:55:43,840
extensions from five times to to one
time because I don't know what the

1366
01:55:41,679 --> 01:55:47,520
appropriate time would be but is that
the context behind that change?

1367
01:55:45,599 --> 01:55:54,400
» Well, yeah, that that was part of it.
The other was that that I think under

1368
01:55:49,920 --> 01:55:59,040
the original code uh you could um
start your sketch plans and not even

1369
01:55:57,040 --> 01:56:05,360
have to do a major development under
that same sketch plan for uh 10 12 years

1370
01:56:03,599 --> 01:56:08,880
or something. We've cut it down. Now
it's like seven or eight years which is

1371
01:56:07,199 --> 01:56:15,119
still an awful long time.
>> It's all about predictability. and and

1372
01:56:11,440 --> 01:56:20,880
from by the time you get even four,
five, six years from the time you apply

1373
01:56:18,159 --> 01:56:25,599
and get approved for a plan, everything
in this community changes. I mean, look

1374
01:56:23,040 --> 01:56:31,040
where we were five years ago where we
are now. U can I ask this and I know

1375
01:56:29,199 --> 01:56:37,119
that the historic preservation portion
of the conversation may be off the table

1376
01:56:32,560 --> 01:56:43,840
because that has further review but
what was the context behind reducing the

1377
01:56:40,800 --> 01:56:49,360
opportunity to extend say the sketch
plan um preliminary and final only one

1378
01:56:47,760 --> 01:56:53,360
time whereas in the historic
preservation it went down from five to

1379
01:56:51,840 --> 01:56:58,960
three.
Uh I I think that was more the

1380
01:56:56,480 --> 01:57:03,920
predictability of what you're trying to
accomplish

1381
01:57:00,800 --> 01:57:10,639
um and funding for that and taking into
account that that probably isn't a major

1382
01:57:07,119 --> 01:57:13,920
subdivision. So you're dealing with
smaller entities.

1383
01:57:12,000 --> 01:57:17,440
» Yeah. But you have more time.
>> We also have bigger challenges often in

1384
01:57:16,000 --> 01:57:20,960
the historic district when you're trying
to accomplish a project that you don't

1385
01:57:19,440 --> 01:57:24,239
have in other parts of the city.
>> Okay. That's where my mind was is maybe

1386
01:57:22,639 --> 01:57:29,280
there's other challenges that are
created in the historic preservation

1387
01:57:26,159 --> 01:57:33,119
district that would require or or make
it better to have the opportunity to

1388
01:57:30,960 --> 01:57:38,280
extend up to three times, but I didn't
know what the that was thought or not.

1389
01:57:41,040 --> 01:57:51,440
» How do we want to wrap this up? Keepbody
>> Yeah. So if I could just give direction

1390
01:57:49,280 --> 01:57:56,719
because I think some of this stems from
the fact that we're using a red line

1391
01:57:53,520 --> 01:58:01,119
copy that we're using for red lining in
>> right soward

1392
01:57:59,520 --> 01:58:06,560
I think probably deserves a lot of
formatting and that's but thinking of

1393
01:58:03,840 --> 01:58:14,159
doing that but and you got the old red
line and we can't change that but uh but

1394
01:58:10,320 --> 01:58:21,599
the clean copy to to M's point it's kind
of has been format So still there are

1395
01:58:17,280 --> 01:58:27,119
some council lady you know I think some
comments and things that kind of missed

1396
01:58:23,760 --> 01:58:30,480
as well or need to be corrected.
How do you wish do you want to send that

1397
01:58:29,119 --> 01:58:36,960
back to the planning commission next
week where then we'll take a formal

1398
01:58:32,080 --> 01:58:43,920
recommendation and then send you
just motions based on that first based

1399
01:58:40,560 --> 01:58:46,320
on the things we talked about today
or

1400
01:58:44,639 --> 01:58:49,840
» I think that
>> it would be helpful for us to have a

1401
01:58:48,000 --> 01:58:55,119
clean version
>> and and the red line for reference as I

1402
01:58:52,480 --> 01:59:00,000
suggested and then I think we can take
that clean version And somehow, even if

1403
01:58:58,080 --> 01:59:04,880
you need to do it by motions, and it
sounds like you do, the clean version

1404
01:59:02,560 --> 01:59:09,679
needs to be a clean version that comes
out of our next meeting needs to be part

1405
01:59:07,360 --> 01:59:14,400
of the packet that is available to
council and to the public so people know

1406
01:59:12,480 --> 01:59:18,080
what they're talking about. I mean, we
we spent some time here today talking

1407
01:59:16,560 --> 01:59:23,040
about things that really weren't on the
agenda. And part of it was because of

1408
01:59:20,400 --> 01:59:27,840
that version confusion. Um, we we did
spend time talking about a lot of

1409
01:59:24,320 --> 01:59:32,239
historic district stuff, but it the
clean version, the results from our

1410
01:59:29,920 --> 01:59:36,880
planning commission meeting next week
should be somehow part of that packet

1411
01:59:34,080 --> 01:59:40,960
for for council for purposes of doing
their second reading and their motions

1412
01:59:38,560 --> 01:59:46,239
and whatever is procedurally required.
>> And to do that, compare what we passed

1413
01:59:43,679 --> 01:59:49,280
under first reading, what the new clean
copy is going to look like, is that's

1414
01:59:47,520 --> 01:59:56,320
going to generate the amendments.
>> Yeah. So, and I I I would what we're

1415
01:59:52,880 --> 02:00:00,719
planning to do is Mike and I get
together ASAP. First thing we need to do

1416
01:59:58,560 --> 02:00:08,400
is just make sure that we got the the
right version that you had the first

1417
02:00:02,719 --> 02:00:14,719
reading with. If if if that version is
not in line with our clean version, then

1418
02:00:13,040 --> 02:00:20,800
we might have a lot more changes than we
think. We just need to make sure that um

1419
02:00:18,159 --> 02:00:24,400
the changes that we make
that that that planning commission takes

1420
02:00:22,560 --> 02:00:29,679
up and that are then recommended to you
all are off of the version that you had

1421
02:00:27,040 --> 02:00:33,920
your first reading on because that's
right it might be a whole number of it

1422
02:00:31,840 --> 02:00:37,280
might be quite a number of amendments
but at least we're making amendments to

1423
02:00:35,440 --> 02:00:41,760
the right draft. If if we find out that
there's a problem in that regard, then

1424
02:00:40,239 --> 02:00:45,520
we might have to go back to square one
with a new first reading.

1425
02:00:43,520 --> 02:00:49,599
» There's a consistency there's some
consistency issue in the 18 months and

1426
02:00:47,520 --> 02:00:54,480
the 12 months,
>> one mile and a half mile TAS and so

1427
02:00:52,880 --> 02:01:00,560
forth. And I think some consideration
does need to be given to

1428
02:00:56,800 --> 02:01:07,199
» number one cost TIA for radius as
compared to a half mile radius. And also

1429
02:01:03,599 --> 02:01:11,760
from the standpoint of whether you once
you get beyond a certain point whether

1430
02:01:08,880 --> 02:01:16,320
or not there is integrity to going out
the additional half mile from the

1431
02:01:14,080 --> 02:01:21,280
standpoint of what you're taking into
consideration

1432
02:01:17,920 --> 02:01:26,480
because I mean a TIA takes traffic
considerations by intersections within

1433
02:01:24,320 --> 02:01:30,560
an area and a realm around where where
construction where new construction is

1434
02:01:28,239 --> 02:01:35,760
being proposed. And if you when you move
it out and take into consideration the

1435
02:01:32,960 --> 02:01:39,119
other preliminary sections in there, I
think you're going to see the D's and E

1436
02:01:37,360 --> 02:01:45,440
and the FS becoming much more prevalent
in the in the central.

1437
02:01:42,560 --> 02:01:49,360
» Right. So
I I have a

1438
02:01:47,679 --> 02:01:56,400
recommendation I had time that I would
go back to is that the the TIA be

1439
02:01:53,360 --> 02:01:59,840
be based on intersections and that be
determined by somebody with the

1440
02:01:57,840 --> 02:02:04,880
expertise to say which intersections are
affected. And the best person we have

1441
02:02:01,679 --> 02:02:08,400
may be staff. And so, you know, an
arbitrary number like a half mile or a

1442
02:02:06,639 --> 02:02:14,320
mile is what's important is what are the
intersections that are actually affected

1443
02:02:10,800 --> 02:02:18,960
by this new development. And it may be
that it's not even a half mile, but it

1444
02:02:17,119 --> 02:02:24,400
might be more than one, you know,
because that's what you're really

1445
02:02:20,080 --> 02:02:28,719
looking at. And uh traffic engineers
know that, you know, I mean they know

1446
02:02:26,960 --> 02:02:33,199
the intersections that are logically
impacted, but you end up getting a

1447
02:02:30,719 --> 02:02:38,159
different grade for each intersection.
And um so any we'll take a look at it.

1448
02:02:37,760 --> 02:02:41,679
We'll have
>> I'm not a traffic engineer. So

1449
02:02:40,719 --> 02:02:45,840
» I don't know if there's anyone you can
rely on. Uh, and if we had a traffic

1450
02:02:44,239 --> 02:02:49,760
engineer, it wouldn't be a consultant.
So,

1451
02:02:46,560 --> 02:02:53,920
» my point about the one mile, you take
Salem Point, it affects all the way down

1452
02:02:52,080 --> 02:02:58,639
the Parasil Island Gateway, which would
be a mile,

1453
02:02:55,599 --> 02:03:02,480
» everything that it affects the whole
thing because they'll come out over in

1454
02:03:00,400 --> 02:03:07,119
the side roads every which way out of
there. It does affect. So, that's why I

1455
02:03:04,960 --> 02:03:12,719
said a mile.
>> Yeah, it might be. I have a question.

1456
02:03:09,599 --> 02:03:18,800
So, once we get this clean version,
Um and we'll have that well before 19th

1457
02:03:16,719 --> 02:03:22,960
of August.
Um

1458
02:03:21,119 --> 02:03:27,440
we all get to read it. Do we go to
second reading and then we decide

1459
02:03:24,400 --> 02:03:31,199
whether we approve or disapprove second
reading or are we going to have some

1460
02:03:28,719 --> 02:03:35,239
sort another rehashing meeting?
>> No amendments.

1461
02:03:37,040 --> 02:03:41,920
» Yeah, I think that's what I was asking.
Do we have a list of all the amendments

1462
02:03:40,480 --> 02:03:45,840
to include
>> council's amendments that were

1463
02:03:43,520 --> 02:03:52,080
suggested?
>> Well, your comment about the copies

1464
02:03:48,239 --> 02:03:56,080
though amendments based on
trying to figure out what to do

1465
02:03:54,400 --> 02:04:00,000
» or
and then have the clean copy with those

1466
02:03:58,080 --> 02:04:05,440
amendments made or do we just have the
clean copy from first reading and then

1467
02:04:02,800 --> 02:04:09,840
» not made. I think there need a list of
possible amendments. Clean copy should

1468
02:04:07,840 --> 02:04:13,360
can correct certain things like the
omission of the word not things like

1469
02:04:12,080 --> 02:04:16,880
that. But if it's anything that's
substantively changed from the draft

1470
02:04:15,520 --> 02:04:21,040
that was read at the
>> has to be amended after.

1471
02:04:18,239 --> 02:04:24,800
» Yeah. Okay. So will correct all the
scriveners errors that I think

1472
02:04:23,040 --> 02:04:30,400
» numbering that kind of stuff
>> which I think it already did. So that

1473
02:04:27,280 --> 02:04:33,199
that's fine. Um but what do you want me
to do with the red line version? Because

1474
02:04:31,599 --> 02:04:37,520
I think that's been the little bit
because when you touch a redline

1475
02:04:35,599 --> 02:04:42,800
version, especially in a meeting called
together, you do it in the meeting 16 or

1476
02:04:40,320 --> 02:04:46,800
18 times becomes a little messy. I'm
going to be honest with you. And I think

1477
02:04:44,719 --> 02:04:52,119
trying and I that's my fault. I you know
Christopher's trying to kind of clean it

1478
02:04:49,119 --> 02:04:52,119
up.

1479
02:04:53,199 --> 02:05:00,719
» I'm not sure that it works so good all
the time. So

1480
02:04:57,920 --> 02:05:03,679
clean up. Perhaps now is not the time to
figure out how to use it.

1481
02:05:01,920 --> 02:05:10,239
» What I would suggest you do, Curt, is
take one more um you know, trip through

1482
02:05:07,760 --> 02:05:14,159
the document and correct your numbering,
correct little, you know, scrimer type

1483
02:05:12,480 --> 02:05:18,400
errors,
except

1484
02:05:15,679 --> 02:05:23,679
save that as something new. After you do
that, accept all the changes in the new

1485
02:05:21,520 --> 02:05:26,400
document. Call it something else.
>> And and that would be your clean

1486
02:05:25,599 --> 02:05:30,000
version.
>> And you'd still have your old red line.

1487
02:05:28,080 --> 02:05:34,080
We are and all the errors will be
corrected and then all the motions with

1488
02:05:32,080 --> 02:05:39,360
substantive things like
>> I think correct know this TIA half mile

1489
02:05:37,119 --> 02:05:46,080
that's a substantive issue
>> and the word new as far as the gated

1490
02:05:43,679 --> 02:05:51,760
» I think we can all agree it's notization
is not

1491
02:05:48,480 --> 02:05:56,080
» that's new I mean that's nothing it's
the substantive stuff from the first

1492
02:05:53,920 --> 02:06:01,159
reading to the second reading so we can
do an amendment to make We pass a

1493
02:05:58,159 --> 02:06:01,159
second.

1494
02:06:02,719 --> 02:06:11,639
» Was there anything else that's
substantive that we haven't discussed?

1495
02:06:06,880 --> 02:06:11,639
» Yes. Everyone here thinks should be

1496
02:06:15,040 --> 02:06:23,520
» um city council going to take these
proposed amendments that we have here.

1497
02:06:22,159 --> 02:06:27,920
» We got to make some corrections to
these.

1498
02:06:24,000 --> 02:06:33,679
» Yeah. um and send them um back or just
incorporate those as amendments.

1499
02:06:32,239 --> 02:06:37,520
» Where did this one come from?
>> The chamber of commerce as the chamber

1500
02:06:35,679 --> 02:06:46,000
of commerce notes. These are the
amendments, the substantive things and

1501
02:06:42,239 --> 02:06:50,239
driven uh that were in here are now part
of this package.

1502
02:06:48,719 --> 02:06:52,960
» Yeah. So, I think I was going to update
them and I didn't know if you wanted to

1503
02:06:51,360 --> 02:06:55,040
talk about anything. There's a few
substantive things that we haven't

1504
02:06:54,400 --> 02:06:58,040
discussed.
>> Okay.

1505
02:07:02,079 --> 02:07:10,960
» Some words I think are really show like
the typical I think. So I think that is

1506
02:07:08,480 --> 02:07:21,199
» one one of the main things they had was
that uh we had into

1507
02:07:14,560 --> 02:07:24,480
have a title commitment at uh the um
>> subdivision subdivisions talking about

1508
02:07:23,360 --> 02:07:29,199
the land lot
>> yeah title commitments. Yeah, the sketch

1509
02:07:27,440 --> 02:07:34,320
plan, we had it we had it included in
the sketch plan and we agreed that we'd

1510
02:07:32,400 --> 02:07:39,760
leave that out of there. But in the
preliminary plan, we needed to have it

1511
02:07:36,480 --> 02:07:44,639
in there because uh and quite frankly,
if you're a developer trying to do this

1512
02:07:41,679 --> 02:07:49,040
stuff, we would want to have title
before you start spending all the money

1513
02:07:46,320 --> 02:07:55,599
to even go into preliminary plan. But at
a minimum, we wanted to have that stay

1514
02:07:51,599 --> 02:08:00,400
in at the preliminary plan. they uh
wanted it out of both. So we just took

1515
02:07:58,480 --> 02:08:03,400
it out or we left it into the
preliminary

1516
02:08:03,840 --> 02:08:08,079
um
>> but took it out of the sketch.

1517
02:08:06,480 --> 02:08:11,360
» Took it out of the sketch. Left it in
preliminary.

1518
02:08:09,760 --> 02:08:15,040
» I think that's appropriate. But I mean
we're spending our time doing it, too.

1519
02:08:13,280 --> 02:08:18,560
And
just recently we had the same thing

1520
02:08:16,719 --> 02:08:22,880
where somebody thought they had the
authority to do it because it was a

1521
02:08:20,800 --> 02:08:28,079
father-in-law that was a partial owner I
think or something and

1522
02:08:25,599 --> 02:08:32,480
they didn't have the uh agreement with
him that they could do what they wanted

1523
02:08:29,840 --> 02:08:35,360
to. So they had to come back and get
that agreement put it on the table. Even

1524
02:08:33,920 --> 02:08:38,320
though it was in the B didn't make any
difference we needed to have title

1525
02:08:36,800 --> 02:08:45,520
commitment.
Uh there was design plan. I think that

1526
02:08:42,159 --> 02:08:50,239
was a little more controversial. It's a
>> planning commission felt like they

1527
02:08:47,199 --> 02:08:56,079
should see just a theme of like massing
and and conceptual design

1528
02:08:53,360 --> 02:09:00,560
before they test the project. And I
think push back from the developer is is

1529
02:08:58,239 --> 02:09:04,719
that one they might not be they have
builder right they're going to probably

1530
02:09:02,000 --> 02:09:08,560
sell the development and they're not
sure what that might end up. So that

1531
02:09:07,360 --> 02:09:12,400
that was I think one of the more
substantive

1532
02:09:10,239 --> 02:09:16,320
» well that comes up in the annexation
situation where they annexing some

1533
02:09:15,119 --> 02:09:22,159
property and they want a zoning
classification and they usually want to

1534
02:09:18,960 --> 02:09:26,560
have the zoning classification that is
giving them the most freedom.

1535
02:09:24,079 --> 02:09:31,599
» It's always up every time
>> and and we don't have anything in our

1536
02:09:29,119 --> 02:09:36,480
code right now about dealing with those
annexation issues. That's something that

1537
02:09:34,000 --> 02:09:41,760
we have on our list that we need to get
to, but right now we have no guidance

1538
02:09:39,199 --> 02:09:47,040
other than South Carolina statutes. Um,
but we do have a as far as the zoning

1539
02:09:45,199 --> 02:09:51,760
classifications to be granted after
annexations, I think there's consensus

1540
02:09:49,440 --> 02:09:57,440
among the commission that we don't like
dual zoning. We we don't we're

1541
02:09:54,960 --> 02:10:03,360
disincclined to approve anymore dual
zoning situations. And the developers,

1542
02:09:59,920 --> 02:10:06,639
they feel that that is um something
they'd like to have a lot of time

1543
02:10:04,880 --> 02:10:11,280
because that just gives them
>> like the T5CH.

1544
02:10:09,119 --> 02:10:16,639
» Yeah. All that kind of stuff.
>> Yeah.

1545
02:10:13,679 --> 02:10:19,960
I think we
But I think

1546
02:10:20,560 --> 02:10:27,280
we
last time,

1547
02:10:25,360 --> 02:10:35,119
we're really frustrated. Our hands were
tight because we get

1548
02:10:31,520 --> 02:10:41,920
get a sketch plan that had roads on and
that was it. And we would have the you

1549
02:10:40,079 --> 02:10:46,000
have to approve it or disapprove it
based on just the roads. But we had no

1550
02:10:44,159 --> 02:10:52,239
control over anything else that happened
on that

1551
02:10:48,159 --> 02:10:59,440
piece of property. So uh
and for me being an architect um wanted

1552
02:10:56,320 --> 02:11:04,719
to see some concepts of what they intend
to do some massing on typical lot. So we

1553
02:11:02,639 --> 02:11:11,280
knew what the massing was going to look
like on particular lots because that had

1554
02:11:07,840 --> 02:11:15,599
a lot to do with charact character uh
there of that property as well as in the

1555
02:11:13,280 --> 02:11:22,079
community. So those were the kinds of
things that uh they wanted to take out

1556
02:11:19,440 --> 02:11:26,480
uh that uh I stand pretty strong on the
fact we still need to see that kind of

1557
02:11:24,239 --> 02:11:31,280
thing. We need to know what what the
intent is going into the community. And

1558
02:11:28,719 --> 02:11:36,880
I can understand a developer owns piece
of property wants to get an approval uh

1559
02:11:34,400 --> 02:11:41,599
from the city. They can go market it and
say, "Hey, I got an approval for this.

1560
02:11:38,560 --> 02:11:45,599
Now you can go do whatever you want." Uh
that's not what we want. that's not in

1561
02:11:43,119 --> 02:11:51,440
the best interest of the community. So,
um that I've left in we've left in

1562
02:11:49,119 --> 02:11:55,920
there.
>> Well, it's in the subdivision standards

1563
02:11:54,079 --> 02:12:00,040
requirements and the site plan
requirements. Yes,

1564
02:12:00,239 --> 02:12:08,719
» it's looking for consistency with the
rest of the code and with whatever other

1565
02:12:05,679 --> 02:12:12,560
you know authority we have to
for example on a site plan we review it

1566
02:12:10,560 --> 02:12:16,960
not just against the code but also
against community master plan and the

1567
02:12:14,320 --> 02:12:23,360
comp plan and so forth the civic master
plan they're so by having that up front

1568
02:12:21,199 --> 02:12:27,119
you know we're able to look at that
consistency early on rather than

1569
02:12:25,040 --> 02:12:32,719
approving the subdivision and then
with with bassing and building designs

1570
02:12:31,119 --> 02:12:36,480
that don't even comply with the rest of
the requirements.

1571
02:12:34,400 --> 02:12:39,679
» But those are really the major things I
think. I don't think I can't think of

1572
02:12:38,079 --> 02:12:45,199
anything else
>> that was that major open issue.

1573
02:12:43,040 --> 02:12:51,199
» And in our final version, it's not
reflected in the red line. Um we don't

1574
02:12:48,880 --> 02:12:56,400
approve a sketch plan anymore. We just
provide comments. And part of that

1575
02:12:53,840 --> 02:13:02,239
reason was to try to avoid what happened
in the lawsuit on on the dual approvals

1576
02:13:00,239 --> 02:13:06,480
that will happen at at the historic
review board. When you come forward with

1577
02:13:04,239 --> 02:13:10,239
a subdivision with a sketch plan, we'll
give you your comments, but you don't

1578
02:13:07,920 --> 02:13:12,719
walk away with approval. You want to
follow our comments, that's fine, but

1579
02:13:11,760 --> 02:13:17,040
there's a good chance you're not going
to get approved at the preliminary plan

1580
02:13:14,480 --> 02:13:22,239
stage, you know, but we give comments.
We don't give an approval or a denial

1581
02:13:19,599 --> 02:13:26,079
comments. That way there's only one
feelable action. The action when you get

1582
02:13:24,239 --> 02:13:29,360
your final when you get your preliminary
plan approved.

1583
02:13:27,920 --> 02:13:33,679
So the comments would come first from
PRC and then comments from planning

1584
02:13:31,840 --> 02:13:37,199
committ all that you get is basically
direction on what

1585
02:13:36,079 --> 02:13:40,639
exactly
>> and I think that that's probably where

1586
02:13:38,960 --> 02:13:44,320
we're leaning when we come up with final
recommendations on the historic stuff as

1587
02:13:42,800 --> 02:13:48,880
well as make you know if there's a
preliminary review it's it's comments

1588
02:13:46,800 --> 02:13:52,480
and then there's only one action that
becomes an appealable action. So you

1589
02:13:50,880 --> 02:13:58,639
don't end up in a situation where
somebody appeals a preliminary plan and

1590
02:13:54,239 --> 02:14:03,480
they say, "Well, you you failed to to to
approve the sketch plan and so

1591
02:14:03,840 --> 02:14:09,520
dismiss your appeal because you needed
to appeal the earlier step. So we're

1592
02:14:07,599 --> 02:14:14,400
trying to eliminate that kind of
potential for legal challenges."

1593
02:14:11,520 --> 02:14:18,639
» Well, that's a long way.
>> Whatever happened this long way?

1594
02:14:16,639 --> 02:14:23,040
» No, but we knew it worked.
>> Yeah. I think those are just common

1595
02:14:21,280 --> 02:14:29,599
sense things that we feel are in the
best interest. And the rest of it is

1596
02:14:27,040 --> 02:14:35,679
I don't think
that large of an

1597
02:14:32,800 --> 02:14:43,960
» just for direction just make sure
basically we'll do the

1598
02:14:38,400 --> 02:14:43,960
update under clean that has all

1599
02:14:44,400 --> 02:14:50,159
made and then we'll do this motion
section that we have that's all correct

1600
02:14:48,639 --> 02:14:55,040
with the additional items that were
discussed today those will first be sens

1601
02:14:57,760 --> 02:15:02,880
I guess your hands are a little bit
cloudy.

1602
02:15:01,119 --> 02:15:06,480
You have to make the recommendation,
right?

1603
02:15:04,800 --> 02:15:09,280
I guess I'm not, you know, just making
sure we're doing this all right.

1604
02:15:08,079 --> 02:15:12,320
» Yeah, I think that would be it, right?
And you guys talked about next week that

1605
02:15:10,560 --> 02:15:15,920
you make a recommendation
>> if there's any changes to city council

1606
02:15:13,760 --> 02:15:19,800
and then we can make that necessary to
follow through with our second reading.

1607
02:15:20,400 --> 02:15:25,000
attorneys. They're all shaking their
head.

1608
02:15:28,320 --> 02:15:32,679
» Oh, I was planning on

1609
02:15:36,159 --> 02:15:39,639
God bless you.

1610
02:15:40,960 --> 02:15:48,880
So, what one last thing that they they
referred to was appeals because it

1611
02:15:45,520 --> 02:15:54,159
wasn't in theirs and we have a whole uh
a section uh that's been written related

1612
02:15:53,040 --> 02:15:57,679
to appeals
>> which is I think in here in the back.

1613
02:15:56,239 --> 02:16:01,520
Yeah, I guess it's not part of the
discussion.

1614
02:15:58,560 --> 02:16:06,880
» They didn't part.
>> Yeah. 9.17. Yeah,

1615
02:16:03,520 --> 02:16:13,679
» we determined we decided to put it in a
separate section uh because I went

1616
02:16:10,800 --> 02:16:17,760
through all of the appeal statute and
there was a lot of conflicts

1617
02:16:16,320 --> 02:16:23,920
statutes are not well written when it
comes to appeals and so in the old code

1618
02:16:22,079 --> 02:16:27,920
we were giving appeal rights to people
that I didn't feel were actually rights

1619
02:16:26,239 --> 02:16:32,559
that were granted by the legislature and
so I thought that maybe the better thing

1620
02:16:29,760 --> 02:16:38,479
to do rather than us make a mistake of
rewriting the statutory appeal rights is

1621
02:16:36,719 --> 02:16:42,639
create a section where all of the
appeals for the various actions are

1622
02:16:40,399 --> 02:16:47,040
listed and at that point in time you
need to hire an attorney anyway and have

1623
02:16:44,639 --> 02:16:52,399
the attorney go to that section and look
it up and read it make its own

1624
02:16:49,040 --> 02:16:56,880
determination as to what it says.
>> So So K that's another point just make

1625
02:16:55,040 --> 02:17:02,719
sure whatever the clean version you
prepare is only contains things that are

1626
02:17:00,319 --> 02:17:07,679
up to be voted on. don't have any extra
stuff. If you have to redact it, do

1627
02:17:04,960 --> 02:17:11,599
some, you know,
so that's why I think you need to make a

1628
02:17:09,519 --> 02:17:17,760
new version. You can keep your old
version, but make a new version that

1629
02:17:14,160 --> 02:17:24,439
only has things to be voted on.
And I guess are some of these things

1630
02:17:20,719 --> 02:17:24,439
that we have and

1631
02:17:25,040 --> 02:17:33,439
you know like where it's typical I mean
I guess it's good for you to see that

1632
02:17:29,840 --> 02:17:37,359
they're there but
>> those are do those need to be a specific

1633
02:17:35,599 --> 02:17:43,120
motion from the council. I guess that's
a I got a capitalized major subdivision.

1634
02:17:41,040 --> 02:17:45,760
» I I have a question. Maybe it's I don't
know if it's appropriate for me to ask

1635
02:17:44,479 --> 02:17:52,559
myself or something, but the city
managers might

1636
02:17:49,200 --> 02:17:58,080
What is your view on on what constitutes
an amendment versus what can just be

1637
02:17:54,880 --> 02:18:02,559
considered a a scrutiner's uh
correction? You know, is there a limit

1638
02:17:59,920 --> 02:18:10,000
on Kurt nailed it. It's pretty much a
common sense reasonable standard. uh

1639
02:18:06,479 --> 02:18:13,519
it's if it's an a to an and an or
capitalization error or something that

1640
02:18:11,679 --> 02:18:18,160
does not change the substance.
>> So this so it'll be judgment if it looks

1641
02:18:16,080 --> 02:18:22,160
like it's potentially substantive we
consider that an amendment. Okay.

1642
02:18:20,240 --> 02:18:26,000
» Be on the same side. Okay. On the safe
side

1643
02:18:24,160 --> 02:18:29,599
if it changes the
>> the intent then it probably is

1644
02:18:27,920 --> 02:18:36,719
substantive enough to be an amendment.
>> Right. Okay. Okay. So the things that

1645
02:18:32,080 --> 02:18:41,920
you got from us
uh for a large part you can disregard

1646
02:18:38,559 --> 02:18:45,280
until you get uh until you get new a lot
of that script.

1647
02:18:42,880 --> 02:18:51,280
» So with that definition though um
probably the word not that in that

1648
02:18:47,679 --> 02:18:55,000
section about um grading that should be
on the amendment list.

1649
02:18:55,280 --> 02:18:58,479
» It's a substantive change of the
meaning.

1650
02:18:57,280 --> 02:19:01,679
» Well actually it was already in the
clean version. it was in the clean

1651
02:19:00,080 --> 02:19:04,000
version, then then we're good. Then
we're good.

1652
02:19:02,399 --> 02:19:07,679
» If it just ended up being an omission
from a red line and it was in the

1653
02:19:05,760 --> 02:19:13,040
original version, then we don't have
weed on that already. But but something

1654
02:19:10,399 --> 02:19:17,040
like 7.5.3b
for Roman emerald 2 remove the word

1655
02:19:15,280 --> 02:19:22,280
harmonious and replace with the word
consistent mean could be

1656
02:19:24,800 --> 02:19:27,960
» the word

1657
02:19:28,719 --> 02:19:31,679
» I don't want to create any

1658
02:19:52,960 --> 02:19:59,920
Well, I kept asking questions until I
think I um but I I think so. So, we'll

1659
02:19:58,720 --> 02:20:05,359
create
Scrier's error. We'll have a new clean

1660
02:20:02,960 --> 02:20:09,920
version.
Anything I think we'll talk about next

1661
02:20:07,760 --> 02:20:15,840
Monday that we feel is substant anything
that was raised by council tonight

1662
02:20:13,439 --> 02:20:19,200
have a substant.
>> Okay.

1663
02:20:17,359 --> 02:20:22,200
Where it is
motion

1664
02:20:23,840 --> 02:20:27,080
is council.

1665
02:20:29,840 --> 02:20:39,200
Well, I want to appreciate all work you
all have done obviously probably months,

1666
02:20:36,720 --> 02:20:43,439
not a year,
but uh and I also want to thank

1667
02:20:41,359 --> 02:20:49,120
everybody that stood up today and gave
us your input

1668
02:20:46,720 --> 02:20:52,120
respective meetings. So with that, I'm
gonna