[0:03] there
and
[0:13] work session with council and the favor
commission to order. This is July 15,
[0:17] 2025. I want to welcome everybody, those
who showed up in person and those who
[0:22] are joining us online. Um this is a work
session, a special work session. Um,
[0:27] we're going to have public comment right
off the bat. Uh, so if you have uh
[0:33] something to say, please raise your
hand. I'll recognize you. Come to the
[0:36] front. Give us your name and your
address. And with that, I'm going to
[0:40] open up public comment. I see Rob Kill
number one.
[0:46] Would you like me over here so you can
be seen by everybody?
[0:53] And we're Kill 608 Water Street.
Mr. Mayor, councel, I wrote these
[0:58] comments down to Tracy if there's a
public record.
[1:05] » Three first key points. I believe
convening this special session today is
[1:09] the right thing to do in the public
interest. In the same breath, I also
[1:13] believe it should not have been
necessary to hold this session. Like
[1:18] every other citizen and stakeholder in
the city of Buford, I believe the
[1:21] Chamber of Commerce had more than ample
opportunity for their voice to be heard.
[1:27] The facts. Chapter 9, Redline posted 20
times on the planning commission
[1:33] website. Chapter 7 redline posted 16
times on the planning committee website.
[1:40] The time period 15 months, no chamber
input. It asked a rhetorical question.
[1:48] If I can wait until the 11th hour to
make a comment that triggers a special
[1:52] council meeting on my issue only, why
should I play ball any earlier? I'm
[1:59] confident everyone in this room agrees
that processes, rules, and procedures
[2:03] are in place for a purpose.
[2:08] Megan, who you spoke last week, are you
here?
[2:13] » Hello.
I don't know you and you don't know me.
[2:17] What I learned from your website is
you're a native euphorian and you've
[2:21] been president of the chamber for almost
four years now. Congratulations.
[2:26] Even if you were my best friend, I would
still stand here and admonish you. Maybe
[2:31] we will become best friends over time. I
hope so. I'm a real newcomer to Buford
[2:36] 10 years. Professionally, I've worked on
leadership strategy and governance
[2:40] domain for over 50 years. Since
attending the strategic planning meeting
[2:46] in January 24, I've attended every work
session and regular council meeting that
[2:52] I've been here in person.
As president, you should know better. I
[2:57] doubt you would tolerate such behavior
by a member of your chamber. It's not
[3:02] the job of the city government to
educate you. The resources that have
[3:06] been distracted, I would say wasted to
convene this hearing are significant.
[3:12] want to close with a three-point
summary. As I said earlier, I think
[3:16] today's me meeting is in the public
interest. Council member Mitch Mitchell
[3:21] was right last Tuesday when he said
chamber upstairs,
[3:26] paraphrase, you put the council between
a rock and a hard spot. The chamber is a
[3:31] valued member of the Buford community.
While we don't condone their lateness,
[3:36] we value their input. Two,
all the time, energy, and costs,
[3:42] including police invested in staff work
and meeting today's meeting is a waste
[3:48] of scarce and valuable government
resources and volunteer citizens time.
[3:53] It could be better spent. Last to you,
Megan. I strongly encourage you to open
[3:58] your remarks, if you do, by offering a
public apology.
[4:04] Thank you for listening.
[4:14] Good afternoon to speak. Um, council and
commission. My name is Diane Barley,
[4:18] 2415
Oak Haven Street, Buford, South
[4:22] Carolina. Um, I'm computer froze where
all my notes are, so I don't have the
[4:26] questions that I had for you, but I did
want to make a couple of comments. One,
[4:30] that the U agenda that went out did not
have a time listed. I found at the time
[4:34] of the meeting this morning it's better
procedure um
[4:40] about it right now. I do agree with the
gentleman's comments about this being an
[4:46] unnecessary
meeting as well as the comments that
[4:51] were referenced in the for the
amendments um do not match up with the
[4:57] so it was pretty hard to follow up on.
Thank you. Anyone else?
[5:05] Hi.
[5:09] I'm not sure I know all of your
protocol, so bear with me. But um my
[5:15] name is Steven Kersh. I live at uh Live
Oaks 2200 Spanish Court. And the reason
[5:22] I'm here is related to I'm not sure if
I'm using the right word, but I believe
[5:27] there's a referendum related to allowing
communities to be gated. And
[5:34] I I feel strongly that that should be
left up to communities. I moved into the
[5:42] live oaks community just a couple of
years ago and safety and security are
[5:48] really important to myself, my family
members, other community members, and
[5:56] it's really important that we be able to
make that choice. I'm not saying we're
[6:01] going to put up gates at the live oaks
community, but I think there's a
[6:07] difference between us making the
decision to become a gated community
[6:11] versus people taking that ability away
from us. And there have been various
[6:17] incidents
um not that far away from where we live.
[6:22] And I think as people in the community,
we all want to be safe. So hopefully I
[6:28] followed the protocol, but I'm just
speaking as a citizen and as a person
[6:33] who lives in my books.
Thank you very much. Okay, who else?
[6:39] Megan.
[6:45] » Good afternoon, members of council and
members of the planning commission. As
[6:49] you know, I'm Megan Morris and I
represent hundreds of businesses here in
[6:53] the Ver region through the Beer Regional
Chamber of Commerce. Uh we would like to
[6:59] collectively thank you for hosting this
work session today uh to finalize the
[7:03] first round of development code
revisions and for your overall
[7:06] commitment to the process. We have had
some very productive and positive uh
[7:11] conversations with city leadership and
we are looking forward to working with
[7:16] you together as this continues through
the thorough revision of uh the
[7:20] development code. We we see that it is
not merely a technical exercise. It is
[7:26] an opportunity to shape the economic
future of our beloved.
[7:32] Um, behind every regulation, procedural
standard, and ordinance lies the
[7:36] economic of our city. The businesses
that line our streets, the workers that
[7:42] serve our citizens, and the families who
live here, they're all they all
[7:46] interconnected as an economic ecosystem
uh that depends on balanced governance.
[7:52] We do have a very beautiful diverse
community and as you've seen in most of
[7:57] the economic reports that the chambers
and others have produced and made
[8:00] available, there are many challenges for
us all to overcome of which the develop
[8:05] and code could affect. When regulations
are crafted, they play a role in
[8:09] determining whether businesses can
thrive, adapt, and continue to serve as
[8:13] economic anchors for our community. Our
local businesses contribute millions in
[8:18] commercial property taxes, business
licenses, and permit fees that fund our
[8:22] schools, our infrastructure, and public
services. We employ thousands of our
[8:27] neighbors, creating careers and
opportunities,
[8:31] our works, the teachers who educate our
children, the first responders who keep
[8:37] us safe,
the service workers who ensure that um
[8:41] our community continues to function.
the family members of the military and
[8:47] the service members who ensure national
security and even the 200 plus members
[8:51] of team Buford uh increasingly do find
themselves priced out of the community
[8:57] uh that they are serving and living in.
We understand there's not just a housing
[9:02] problem, but also that infrastructure
challenges, the goal of maintaining
[9:07] quality of life and our culture, as well
as being good stewards of our
[9:11] environment, are all at play. To be
clear, advocating for economic
[9:16] consideration does not mean abandoning
our commitment to Virginia character and
[9:20] quality of life. Indeed, our economic
prosperity depends on maintaining the
[9:24] very qualities that make ourselves
special.
[9:27] We must find the careful balance between
preservation and progress, between
[9:31] protecting what we love and enabling
what we need. This balance requires that
[9:37] we consider not just what we want to
prevent but what we want to enable and
[9:41] encourage.
There are examples uh I think that are
[9:45] nearby. We would like to avoid
places with overdevelopment and sprawl,
[9:52] high cost of lifting leading to
substantial loss of workforce and
[9:57] perhaps worse towns that have
detrimental detrimentally defined due to
[10:01] lack of industry and opportunity. Each
of those examples are only an hour away.
[10:07] So, as you move forward with this
extensive code revision and other
[10:12] policymaking and comprehensive planning
efforts, thank you for keeping in mind
[10:16] that balance governance takes all of
this into account. Again, thank you for
[10:20] your hard work and diligence.
[10:24] I'd like to think, and I stand for many
when I say this,
[10:28] that considering economic viability
in this development code and finalizing
[10:35] it with a collaborative effort is not
time loss, but an investment in our
[10:40] future. Thank you.
[10:45] » Okay. Uh, anyone else for public comment
before closing?
[10:51] Go ahead, Tony.
[10:54] Grand Tr.
>> Yes.
[10:57] » Hi, Grant Trra. 1211 Bay Street. Uh, Mr.
Chromemer, I understand we're not
[11:03] allowed to use your first name, so I
won't. Um,
[11:07] uh, because one of your employees was
chastised for using first names of the
[11:12] council. Um, will will we have um an
opportunity I mean, this is a work
[11:18] session. Will we have an opportunity as
you go through because I do have
[11:23] specific comments
um about this and I don't know if this
[11:27] is the opportunity to do that because in
public comment I have a general public
[11:32] comment to make. I'd prefer to make the
general public comment and then uh raise
[11:37] my hand as you go through. I think
that'll be more efficient.
[11:43] um
[11:46] actual council. Okay. All right. That's
fine. Mr. T, if you want to go ahead and
[11:51] make your comment, uh your general
comment and then we'll go through as we
[11:55] go through. You can raise your hand.
>> Okay. I just wanted to echo Rob Cahill's
[12:01] comments. Um I think and I also want to
express that uh I don't believe the
[12:07] Chamber of Commerce actually represents
the land owners. They may represent and
[12:12] those are the land owners are the ones
that are actually paying the property
[12:15] tax. They may represent the businesses
that lease from the land owners, but
[12:21] they have asserted that they in the
council meeting that they represent the
[12:25] land owners. And I I I beg to differ. Uh
I'm not a man uh a member of the uh
[12:31] chamber of commerce by design. I know
other major land owners that are not a
[12:36] member of the chamber. Um, I didn't hear
any specific comments from Megan uh
[12:42] about um the changes. I I assume she's
going to make those throughout the
[12:49] process as I will too. Um I did do some
due diligence as to why that letter was
[12:54] written as it was. Uh and it seems like
it was a bit of a hatchet job um pushed
[13:00] by uh one particular
uh property owner in the city at the
[13:07] last minute. Um again, if this chamber
of commerce uh had its act together, it
[13:14] would have participated throughout the
15-month process um to have provided its
[13:19] input. Thank you, and I look forward to
commenting as we go along.
[13:25] Thank you. Anyone else?
Okay, hearing none, we're going to close
[13:29] public comment and we're going to go to
discussion and ordinance amending
[13:33] chapter 7 land development chapter 9
development view procedure in the deeper
[13:37] development code. I'm going to open it
up to council first. I think Councilman
[13:41] Scalleti has some remarks to make and
then we'll turn it over to the planning
[13:47] commission.
[13:51] » Yeah.
>> Um, okay. So, first of all, um I want to
[13:56] thank
staff for putting this joint session
[13:59] together. I do think that this is
important and it gives us an opportunity
[14:02] to go through. Um I'm actually still
recovering from a pretty big injury, so
[14:06] I may not look like it, but I am
extremely uncomfortable. Um, I think the
[14:11] best thing for me is to try to go
through page by page and just identify
[14:16] um, some of the concerns that I do have
and then whenever I get to the finish,
[14:22] if you guys want to make notes as I go,
then you can address those um, if it
[14:25] needs to be, there's a strong chance
that since I am not a developer and you
[14:30] guys have a lot more experience in this
than I do, that I might get tangled up,
[14:34] but maybe just a little bit of
clarification on some things would um,
[14:38] would help me and and maybe some others
as well. So, I'm starting I don't know
[14:43] if you guys have the same packet in
front of you that I have in front of me.
[14:47] I'm starting on page 104, which is the
red line uh summaries for chapter 7.
[14:57] Um, so there was obviously some language
added in the purpose and applicability.
[15:03] I didn't see anything there um that
jumped out at me as um inappropriate. it
[15:08] all seemed to to fit. Uh on page 107,
there was a cross reference that was
[15:17] struck out uh under 7.1.5
improvement guarantees.
[15:23] And I think that based on the way this
is structured now, a cross reference to
[15:29] section 7.5
would be appropriate there to discuss uh
[15:35] final subdivision flat. I still find a
lot of value when I'm going through the
[15:39] code in having the cross references
there. So I would say instead of
[15:44] striking that cross reference out, just
add the new cross reference in where
[15:49] somebody could go back to to refer to
the final subdivision.
[15:55] Um,
moving on. Right now I'm on page 109. Do
[16:01] you guys have the same packet?
to clarify. So
[16:08] types
[16:14] » the other day that's the one I have now.
Yeah. So this is the one that we just
[16:17] received
[16:24] » the red line. Y
>> you're okay as long as you reference
[16:28] » the sections.
>> Okay.
[16:30] » We can fine. No, I just wanted to
clarify and make sure
[16:35] you said 7.5
>> 7.1.5A
[16:40] and where it says section 9.94 is
struck.
[16:43] » Yep.
>> We'd like to put section 7.
[16:47] » That's right. I think that's the
appropriate cross reference now with the
[16:51] way that it's structured. But just to
just to continue having a cross
[16:55] reference in there, I think would be
valuable.
[16:57] Uh I'm now on page 109 under uh scope of
improvements for street frontage.
[17:07] » Give us the section.
>> Okay. The section is 7.2.1
[17:13] street infrastructure plans.
Um C2
[17:18] » under uh yeah C2 applicability scope of
improvements. The last portion of that
[17:23] paragraph, the code administrator may
permit modification of street
[17:27] improvement standards where the required
street improvements are not in the
[17:30] opinion of the codes administrator
roughly proportionate to the impact. I
[17:35] just don't think that that is very
predictable and I know that that was one
[17:39] thing that um was extremely important as
we were going through this process was
[17:44] to have a code that was predictable. So
if our requirements are um are hard and
[17:52] we're picky, I think that's okay. But I
think code needs to be as predictable as
[17:57] possible. And for this to read that
street improvements are not in the
[18:01] opinion of the code administrator, I
feel like that's not very predictable.
[18:06] That's again just my opinion. Um let me
back up because I missed one note here.
[18:12] Applicability.
So this is C1 in that same section and
[18:19] it talks about the uh financial
guarantees. So the last sentence in that
[18:25] paragraph reads the installation of
street frontage improvements is required
[18:31] prior to final plat approval for major
subdivisions and certificates of
[18:36] occupancy for site plans. And I think
that should probably be or a financial
[18:45] guarantee because isn't that an option?
So they can either do a financial
[18:50] guarantee um to get the approval or they
can make the improvements whatever is
[18:55] more appropriate. And the way that this
reads is is they have to make the um or
[18:59] they're required to make the street
frontage improvements. And so maybe just
[19:04] an addition of or financial guarantee
and then refer back to um where that's
[19:09] discussed. But that was a note that I
made.
[19:14] Um
moving forward, I am now on we had some
[19:19] members in the community discuss the
gated streets. So that is uh section
[19:26] 7.2.2 street network requirements.
Personally, I'm more a fan of the way
[19:34] that it read before new gates or new
gated streets are not encouraged, but
[19:39] there were um exceptions and the way
that it reads now is new gated streets
[19:45] are prohibited. And then there are some
some exceptions, but um I feel like we
[19:53] would we would want to leave that
flexibility there to where if neighbors
[19:57] got together and they decided that they
wanted to have a gated community or
[20:01] gated street, then that discussion could
at least be on the table. Um
[20:07] section
I would just like maybe a better
[20:10] understanding of section uh 7.2.3 2.3
lot access standards uh particularly the
[20:18] maximum number of driveways. It says for
single family or two or three family
[20:24] dwellings only one driveway shall be
permitted for lot and T3s circular
[20:29] driveways may be permitted on lots
greater than 100 ft in width where no
[20:33] sidewalk exists. Driveways may only be
installed where rear access is not
[20:38] possible or required. Um, and then it
goes on to talk about uh, you know,
[20:44] basically one driveway, you know, for
um, anything that's less than 150 ft.
[20:50] And I know a lot of lots in Mossios,
particularly where I live, um, that
[20:56] either have a circle driveway, a
U-shaped driveway.
[21:01] Uh, and I and I don't think that it's um
something that's uh, not becoming or I
[21:07] think it fits within our character well.
So, I'm not sure why the justification
[21:12] for um only one driveway and no
circular, but maybe a little bit of
[21:17] clarification could help um my
understanding.
[21:21] Um and then same thing for uh the
uh
[21:29] still in that same section, lot access
standards, but a little further down.
[21:35] » Yes. Page number is 115.
>> Yep.
[21:40] Okay.
Literally, uh, where it says rear
[21:43] access, no front access. So, the way I
interpret that is is no new lots for
[21:48] zones T3N and T4 can have, um, basically
a driveway in the front. For lots
[21:54] developed in the transexs, T3N, and T4
and T5 U, lots, all new access points
[22:00] shall be from a rear alley or road,
except for lots in the historic
[22:05] district. Um, so
is that to say that there could be no
[22:13] driveway in the front? That all
driveways and new accesses for lots in
[22:19] these zones need to be from the rear? If
so, uh, I don't know that I would agree
[22:25] with that because most of the homes um
have have driveways in in the front now.
[22:30] And I I think that that makes sense.
Um, but again, maybe that just needs to
[22:34] be clarified for me. The next page over,
page 116, um, street design standards.
[22:40] This is just, uh, grammatical stuff, but
it says I'm in, um, 7.2.4,
[22:48] street design standards. Under bullet B,
it says about in the middle of that
[22:53] paragraph. Um, I'll start where it says
United States Department of
[22:58] Transportation's manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices in parentheses
[23:03] MUTCD
close parenthesis and approved by the
[23:08] administrator.
I think there needs to be a or right
[23:11] there or the administrator's designate
and then there's two commas. So, just
[23:16] strike one of the commas and then that
sentence would flow and make sense. But
[23:20] the way that it reads right now is it
just says and approved by the
[23:23] administrator, the administrator
designate and there's no break there. Um
[23:30] uh again this is grammatical. The next
bullet down C. Um
[23:36] two it says there are unusual
topographic vegetative
[23:43] or other natural conditions would render
strict that strict adherence. So I don't
[23:50] think that that flows well. Um and and
perhaps it's just a matter of uh saying
[23:56] instead of striking well to the extent
so vegetative or other natural
[24:02] conditions that would render the strict
adherence. But I think maybe that
[24:06] paragraph just needs to be reviewed
because right now it seems to to not
[24:10] flow.
Um,
[24:14] moving on. We are I'm under um
skip that actually. That's not too big.
[24:24] Um, so there's an exemption for traffic
impact analysis that does concern me on
[24:28] lots included in the boundary street
master plan adopted on August 28, 2006
[24:33] and lots in the areas founded by Calhoun
Carter at Bay Street, Revo Road. Um
[24:38] there's an exemption on traffic impact
analysis and that's one of our biggest
[24:42] issues right now is traffic on boundary
street and Robert's small hardway and
[24:46] there's a lot of development that falls
in there. So if we are not bound legally
[24:51] to make that an exemption, I think maybe
revisiting that um would be prudent
[24:56] because there are also a lot of
additional roads built into that master
[25:01] plan that was adopted in August of 2006
that rely that provided relief for
[25:08] traffic on Boundary Street.
>> Oh, sorry. I'm on page 118.
[25:12] » Yep. At the top where it says exception.
Um, so what's exempt is the boundary
[25:19] street master plan and again there's a
lot of roads built into that plan that
[25:22] were never put in place and so to to
make that exempt from traffic impact
[25:27] analysis I think could continue compound
um our congestion issues. So
[25:35] » yeah I'm just trying to make sure that's
okay. You're saying that you believe
[25:40] that the boundary straight exemption
should be legally
[25:44] » unless we are legally bound by some
agreement at that time. I would I would
[25:48] say at least let's consider because
there's like I said there's a lot of
[25:54] relief roads built into that master plan
that never came to fruition and now we
[25:58] have a lot of congestion on that road.
So I'd hate to see our issues compound
[26:01] just because that was exempt from
traffic impact analysis.
[26:05] um down to C on the same page, traffic
impact analysis plan preparation. Um
[26:11] two, prior to beginning the TIA, the
applicant shall supply the city. We
[26:16] cross that out to capitalize city. I
think capitalized I as well. That's just
[26:19] grammatical, so just lowerase I would
fix that. Um, and then B, a site
[26:26] location map showing surrounding
development within 1/ half mile radius
[26:32] of the property under development
consideration. I'm not sure if that's
[26:36] okay the way that it reads or if that
should reflect a onem
[26:41] um radius. I know that there are two
different variations in the the um
[26:48] breakdown that you guys laid out.
There's a half mile and then there's a
[26:51] mile from any vested but unbuilt
developments. So, I don't know if that
[26:56] needs to reflect a mile or not. I put it
in there um as a as a note. Um then the
[27:02] next thing is your chart where you guys
laid out the traffic impact analysis. I
[27:07] think you did a very good job. I know
just as a lay person reading that it was
[27:11] kind of easy for me to understand what
was being required. Um, I don't know
[27:15] that I agree with the language uh that
says at the discretion of the TRC or
[27:19] planning commission a larger study area
may be required because again that's not
[27:24] very predictable um as to when it might
be required and and so I I'm not sure I
[27:30] have a hard time with that just because
um there was that underlined important
[27:35] theme of being predictable. Um but again
I'd like to know I agree with um the
[27:43] incorporation of all traffic impact
analysis studies and trip generation
[27:47] from approved developments or vested
unbuilt developments within within mile
[27:53] radius at time of proposal. Um, but I
would like to better understand why we
[27:58] went with a half a mile for some and a
mile for the already bested but unbuilt
[28:07] developments. I like it. I would just
like to understand what those um more
[28:11] the context I guess. Uh
[28:19] I'm on page 123 now. Um on
[28:25] this be the same section uh but this is
just after city engineer um section
[28:33] section right before mitigation plan
required. So um lowercase I
[28:40] um the first major intersection as
identified by the city engineer. I think
[28:44] that should probably be city engineer or
administrator. And in certain places in
[28:49] here it says that and then in other
areas it just says city engineer.
[28:54] Um
[28:59] on page 125
this would be mitigation plan
[29:04] application. Uh I'm on
bullet h or h.
[29:10] A tia shall be submitted to the TRC. And
then on I it says completeness. The
[29:18] planning commission and or TRC shall
determine whether a TIA is complete.
[29:24] And then J says the TRC must first
approve the TIA in regard to
[29:30] completeness and accuracy. So I just
think that that needs to read the
[29:34] planning commission and the TRC shall
determine whether the TIA is complete
[29:40] not and or because it is going to be
voted. The way that this is written out,
[29:43] the TRC approves it for completeness and
then it goes to the planning commission
[29:48] and the planning commission is also
required to approve or not. Um, and so I
[29:56] think that just striking that word and
would be appropriate. Um, I like the
[30:00] percentages. I think that's exactly what
we were um expressed concern about about
[30:05] the open space and green space having
more percentages to to provide um more
[30:12] land preservation and less exemptions.
So, I appreciate the changes that you
[30:17] guys made there. Um
on the chart under section 7.4.3
[30:24] community green space and community open
space, I'm not sure what the thought is
[30:28] for some of the minimum requirements in
here. So you have the like the regional
[30:32] parkn preserve and then the definition
of what that is and then under regional
[30:38] minimum it's 200 acres. Um for a sports
complex regional minimum 25 acres uh you
[30:46] know we I think you can do a sports
complex for less than 25 acres and I'm
[30:51] not sure that the regional park needs to
be 200 acres. I'm not sure why those
[30:56] minimums were put in place, but maybe
some institutional thought could could
[31:00] help clarify that for me. Same thing
goes for a community park. We put um a a
[31:06] minimum of 8 acres for a community park.
Uh I think that would be based on the
[31:13] percentage of the development. So, we
have that built in now to where based on
[31:18] what you're developing and how many
acres, there's a certain percentage
[31:21] that's required for open space and green
space. So, I'm not sure why we also have
[31:26] community park with a minimum of 8 acres
here. Um, it seems I'm sorry, that's
[31:32] page 128. That's page 128. Um,
same thing for a pocket park slash uh
[31:40] pocket plaza. So, it says um the max is
half an acre. Uh I don't know what a
[31:48] pocket park is. I would kind of look at
one like Wilson Park over there as as a
[31:53] little pocket park. Maybe that's just me
not interpreting it well, but Wilson
[31:57] Park is 78 of an acre. And so I'm not
sure why we would put a max on pocket
[32:03] park of halfacre because sometimes I
think it could be a little bigger and
[32:06] still makes
sense. But maybe we just need to revisit
[32:10] that whole good example. Pocket Park. If
you go down North Street on the other
[32:14] side of Rebot Road on the left hand
side, there's a little park park there.
[32:18] That's a good example.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[32:23] » Um,
>> so
[32:26] I'm now on the 7.5 substandards and site
plan. This is the whole red um pages
[32:35] that were added. So, um, let's go page
133. Yep. So, one, two, three, four
[32:43] paragraphs down. Prior to formal
submittal of any submission application
[32:47] identified in this section, the planning
department will typically provide to an
[32:51] applicant individ individualized
submittal checklist. I read that and
[32:56] thought, well, I think that's probably
something that would always be provided.
[32:59] Maybe I'm wrong there, but I would
strike the word typically and maybe um
[33:03] Kurt, you would
weigh in and and say otherwise, but I
[33:08] don't know of a time where we wouldn't
provide a checklist for the subdivision
[33:11] as to what's expected or required. So I
would say maybe scratch typically.
[33:15] » That's gosh that's
one of the amendments strike typically.
[33:20] » Oh okay. Got it. Um and then moving down
minor subdivisions the boundaries of so
[33:28] this is number one. The boundaries of
six or fewer lots are created from one
[33:33] parent track. I'm okay with changes that
are made here, but I think that that
[33:39] would be um if you read further down
under major subdivisions, number two, it
[33:45] says the subdivision consists of six or
more lots or tracks. And so this would
[33:52] probably need to be the boundaries of
five. That was changed for the
[33:57] amendments.
>> That was amendments for what? on the
[34:00] amendments that came with
[34:04] » that haven't been made in here though.
>> Yeah.
[34:06] » Okay, I got you. So, so those are those
are addressed.
[34:08] » Those were already.
>> Cool.
[34:12] » Um and then 7.5.3
sketch plan. So, it looks like sketch
[34:20] plan is required for all major
subdivisions. Um, and I'm going to come
[34:26] back to why I feel like that's
important, but maybe needs to be um
[34:32] somewhere else. But um on
the next page 135
[34:41] the um three small eyes at the top of
the page, a current preliminary traffic
[34:47] impact study prepared by a licensed
traffic engineer which evaluates
[34:52] proposed access points. I know we stated
other in other locations in here, but
[34:56] maybe just adding that that is a South
Carolina um licensed traffic engineer if
[35:02] that's what we're going to require would
make sense just to be consistent with
[35:06] the language
[35:09] throughout this this code. Um
>> there was also
[35:14] I think that was something the chamber
brought up our discussion. We removed
[35:18] the traffic impact city requirement and
just basically
[35:24] to fix the study of access points
>> instead of preliminary traffic impact.
[35:30] » Okay, got
>> so you'll see that on
[35:32] » Okay. Um
>> we could have the
[35:35] » that South Carolina.
>> Yeah,
[35:37] » I guess we could have
North Carolina, but that's probably not
[35:41] a good idea,
>> right? So,
[35:42] » right. Um under the uh number five
overall utility plan about halfway
[35:48] through utility plans for the interior
of development such as water and sewer
[35:52] lines are not required in this part of
the process. I'm not sure why we want to
[35:56] add what's not included. I think we're
we're only talking about what is being
[36:00] required here. And so I would see maybe
striking that and striking um
[36:07] half of number 19 as well because it
also is talking about utility plans for
[36:11] the interior of the development um not
being required in this process and I
[36:17] don't know why we would need to identify
what's not required because this is only
[36:20] talking about what following elements
are that are required. Um but maybe you
[36:26] guys talked about that and found a
justification for it. Uh on
[36:30] » so just so I understand I'm sorry.
>> Yeah.
[36:34] I'm just trying to follow follow you the
appropriate
[36:38] » 19.
>> That is 19. Yep. About halfway through
[36:42] it says utility plans for the interior
of the development such as water and
[36:45] sewer service lines are
[36:54] required as part of this process. Here
the developments water and sewer lines
[36:57] are not required as part of this
process. So it says it twice. I don't
[36:59] even know that it needs to say it once
because it's only you're only talking
[37:02] about what is required here and so it
goes without saying that's not required.
[37:06] But
>> yeah um the
[37:12] uh
okay sketch plan process number two
[37:16] notification notice to neighbors and
property owners. The city shall send
[37:20] notice of the planning commission
meeting by regular mail to neighboring
[37:24] property owners within 500 ft of the
property per this code. I could see
[37:29] value in stretching that out. Um I know
that's a little bit more uh effort on on
[37:35] staff's part. So I want to be careful
and not speak for you guys there, but
[37:38] 500 feet doesn't really go far. All
right. And as an example, when garden
[37:43] was being developed, um, you know, Salem
Bay wasn't even been notified because
[37:47] that's outside 500 ft.
So, you know, I know it's typically
[37:54] between 500 and,000, but maybe we extend
that a little bit. Um,
[38:01] G, uh,
never mind. I'm g skip that one. Um I
[38:08] had a question on number four. So time
frame related to the approval sketch
[38:14] plan. Um and then number four does not
change any measurable standard such as
[38:21] open space or park area by more than
10%. And I think that's good. But my
[38:26] concern is what if I come to you and I
make a change that's 7% of my originally
[38:31] approved project and then I come back a
couple months later with another 5%
[38:35] change. Is there a a protection to
protect against compounding changes?
[38:41] Should this read um by more than 10%
uh of the originally approved
[38:48] or is that already covered? So my
concern was compounding percentage
[38:53] changes there
>> and that's on page 138.
[38:55] » That's on page 138.
>> So you want like cumulative statement
[38:59] » I think. Yeah. just to protect for
cumulative changes. um under uh
[39:04] preliminary plat number um A2
um again the capital I there in city so
[39:12] that's just grammatical um
[39:23] um then
on
[39:27] we are under the
Preliminary
[39:32] plat here. I guess it would still be
preliminary plat. Uh
[39:38] D on page 141. Utility and
transportation design are adequate given
[39:43] existing and planning capacities of
those systems. I don't know if there's a
[39:48] way I would favor us being able to get
that information in the sketch plan
[39:53] process and not preliminary just because
I think you're pretty vested in at that
[39:58] time and and there would be value in
knowing what the utility capabilities
[40:03] are um prior to getting that far along.
And I know there have been issues in the
[40:08] past where u developers have, you know,
gotten through the sketch plan process
[40:12] and they're pretty heavily vested in and
they find out that the utility
[40:16] capabilities are not there for that
development and they've got to either
[40:19] make substantial investments um to add
pump stations or whatever they have to
[40:23] do. But I think that if there was a way
for us to better communicate um with
[40:29] Buer, Jasper, or whoever to ensure that
they can understand what those
[40:33] capacities were prior to even starting
or even closer to the front in the
[40:37] sketch plan phase, then that would be um
more favorable in my opinion. But maybe
[40:43] there's a a justification for why that
wouldn't work or why it doesn't make
[40:46] sense. Um
>> if I may, I think if you don't mind.
[40:49] » No, no, no.
>> I think the reason that's in there is
[40:53] because If you remember when we went
back to sketch plan we were striking
[40:59] about that
[41:02] idea is a sketch and they don't have to
put it out put in all the engineering
[41:07] expertise per se right all these that's
that's because by the preliminary you do
[41:16] where you would have the knowledge of
transportation this add
[41:24] extra rows. That's now the utility side
of it that is a little more complex
[41:28] because of the fact
>> third parties and
[41:30] » water and sewer is separate from us
>> you know um something that we can think
[41:36] about but definitely for transportation
we would know or say we would know until
[41:44] » okay that would be the chest
>> no that's okay that's that's exactly I
[41:48] think some of this is just you know me
having better understanding um under
[41:54] early grading the page 142 the uh last
back half of that last sentence final
[42:01] plat approval at the planning commission
is expressed or implied by any operation
[42:06] of early grading I don't know if that
could put us in a legal bind down the
[42:12] road um I I guess I would understand um
you know but here's here's the situation
[42:20] is is let's say for a final plaque you
had now um preliminary approval and they
[42:28] go ahead and
clear cut or start grading or whatever
[42:32] they do and then at final plat
maybe it in their mind it conforms. I
[42:38] know the language says that it has to
conform to the preliminary plat, but if
[42:43] four members out of the seven on the
planning commission feel otherwise and
[42:47] and the final plat doesn't get approved,
we have ascendants and then it says
[42:52] final plat approval at the planning
commission is expressed or implied by
[42:56] any authorization of early grading. So,
I just questioned if that would prevent
[43:01] uh or present any legal concerns and
maybe um I know we got several attorneys
[43:06] that weighed in on this and so maybe
that could be easily explained away, but
[43:10] just a note that I made um on page um
146
[43:18] uh number five. Post approval action
prior to issuance of a building or
[43:23] grading permit. The applicant shall
submit the following documentation to
[43:27] the city. I felt like this may be better
if it was moved over if they can start
[43:34] the waiting after preliminary. Then
perhaps we need to get the list of
[43:39] contractors, proof of insurance, open
space, deed restriction, construction,
[43:43] traffic control um at the end of the
preliminary process because right now
[43:49] it's in final the final plat phase and
if if they're able to start grading
[43:55] before that, maybe it's better um to
preliminary. But just made a new um
[44:03] there uh
>> um
[44:08] They do issue issue a grading permit,
[44:14] » right? That's what I'm saying.
>> It's a very common thing to do. Um,
[44:19] » but wouldn't you want wouldn't you want
to get the list of contractors for the
[44:23] grading
require
[44:28] we wouldn't you know traffic control
plan etc.
[44:35] I'm just explain about that.
>> Okay. So, maybe some of that would make
[44:39] sense over in the preliminary before
they started the early grading and then
[44:43] maybe some of it the traffic control
plan would make sense for finals.
[44:50] » Yeah. I mean, I think you could
>> because essentially the way that it's
[44:53] written, they could start the they could
get a permit for grading before we have
[44:58] a list of their contractor's proof of
insurance.
[45:02] Yeah. And that's just something I think
that we do. We require that permit for
[45:08] it with the contractor's license. So
maybe we just need to put that in there.
[45:11] » There's supposed to be a knot there.
I I mean right before that language
[45:17] early grading and storage of
construction related to the asking final
[45:23] approval the planning is not expressed
[45:31] » there
draft
[45:33] » okay
[45:37] » well and I guess that that makes it
challenging because I'm I'm reading this
[45:41] as if this is the final draft and So
trying to get these things ironed out
[45:47] before, you know, especially because we
were right to begin second reading, but
[45:51] it appears that maybe we haven't even
read the most clean version of this.
[45:56] This is the most clean version I've
received.
[45:58] » So Councilman, the way this agenda
packet was set up is attachment one
[46:02] contains all the motions that to the
best of the staff's ability, they
[46:07] understand were desired by councelor.
And so you'd have to call those motions
[46:12] back rows back of document. You don't
have a final version of the documents in
[46:16] here. We're not allowed to change those
between first reading and second
[46:19] reading. They can't be changed.
>> Right. But I don't we can introduce
[46:24] proposed language motions for the
amendments that we think that you want.
[46:30] » So that's that's how the organized.
>> Yeah. So if you look at the on page 47
[46:37] I think and you know I I take
responsibility for this. I I think as
[46:41] you can see the amount of red line
changes and track changes can be over 20
[46:45] meetings it's done can be a little
complicated. I think it's been
[46:49] complicated planning question but uh the
final version which is what you had your
[46:53] ordinance the clean version I think
there's a few little things that it says
[46:58] and no final pl 147. So, I think a few
of these little tiny, you know, more
[47:03] scriveners errors were made at this at
this clean version, the final version.
[47:09] Um, but you're still raising a lot of
really good points. Why did you know I'm
[47:15] not sure, you know, I'm not sure if that
was just when they're accepted, right?
[47:20] You know, anytime you touch this track
changes, if it comes out of it, it comes
[47:25] out for good. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.
[47:27] » And so, I think that's just uh I I
probably should have whereas I think a
[47:32] lot of the uh the clean version had all
of that kind of really intensive kind of
[47:38] making sure that those things were done.
But again, you're bringing up a good
[47:41] point with that. But in the case of the
no wasn't a clean
[47:45] » the no express.
>> I think what I'm going to do then is
[47:48] because I don't even know if this is now
this is the most this isn't the most
[47:51] clean version. I'm going to touch
>> I think I think it is I think the
[47:55] challenge is once when you go to accept.
Right.
[47:57] » Right.
changes all formatting because it's in
[48:01] Microsoft Word and then this had to be
reformatted and
[48:04] » does that make sense to go to clean and
then that's I think my responsibility
[48:08] right and so there's a few tiny little
things like that that
[48:12] » I think maybe got
>> like a capitalization or also the
[48:18] amendments there's some issues there as
well they're referencing the problem
[48:22] » yeah the references were from the
the code that I
[48:28] chamber. I'm going to try to just do I'm
going to go if you'll go with me to the
[48:33] permit chart and then I'm going to wrap
up my portion because um yeah, at this
[48:38] point I want to make sure that at least
the comments are are true to what the
[48:42] latest version is. So go to the permit
chart on page 165 and 166
[48:47] and then look at um um so here are some
of my concerns with this chart. You'll
[48:55] go to development design review. Um we
talk about this is development design
[49:01] review for a minor site plan and we say
the permit approval is good for 24
[49:09] months with a 12month one-time
extension.
[49:15] And if you'll go to um
page 89 189 where it discusses this
[49:25] portion
[49:30] minor development, it says permit
validity. Upon the approval of the minor
[49:37] development design application, the
applicant shall have one year to obtain
[49:42] a building permit. failure to secure a
permit, a building permit for the
[49:48] permitted work within this time shall
render the approval void. And so for me,
[49:53] I think that um the the language needs
to be consistent with the information
[50:01] that's in the chart. What I'm seeing in
my thing here is the chart reflects that
[50:06] the permit is good for two years with a
onetime 12-month extension. And the
[50:12] language that supports that chart says a
it's good for one year with the option
[50:18] to extend one time for 12 months. Same
thing for the development design review
[50:27] major site plan.
Um it is it says 24 months with the
[50:35] option for one a one time 12 month
extension. And if you go to section 982
[50:45] where that's discussed,
[50:53] it says
[51:21] 185
[51:24] 18.
[51:28] Yeah.
[51:38] 9 was the minor site plan. Um
well,
[51:47] » look at I'll show you two other ones. If
you'll go further down where it says
[51:52] preliminary plat. So the preliminary
plat um which is further discussed in
[51:58] section 7.5.4 for and that can be found
on page 142. I know that uh the chart
[52:05] reflects a 24month
permit approval period with 12 months
[52:14] one-time extension. But if you go to
page 142 where it discusses that,
[52:21] it says
[52:32] a preliminary plat approval is in full
force and effect for a period of two
[52:36] years from the date of approval.
approval will automatically expire at
[52:41] the end of two years unless an applicant
formally requests an 18month extension
[52:45] from the planning commission prior to
termination or submits a completed final
[52:50] draft. So,
in the chart, it says that they have the
[52:55] option for a onetime 12-month extension,
but in the language that supports that,
[53:00] it says they have eight they have an
option to extend for 18 months.
[53:08] » Thank you.
>> Yep. Same thing for the final plaque.
[53:11] You can find the final plaque in the
chart on page 166 and you can find the
[53:16] language that supports that on page 147.
and there was an inconsistency in the
[53:22] permit validity time an extension. Um,
and I think that if that's not
[53:28] corrected, then that definitely needs to
be consistent with um
[53:35] that chart.
>> So,
[53:38] uh, I'm going to
[53:43] I'm going to wrap mine up there because
those were those were the biggest issues
[53:47] for me.
[53:51] And I apologize if some of that was
already addressed in some of the but
[53:55] again it's kind of it's kind of hard. I
just want to make sure that
[54:00] we're being thorough and I appreciate
all the work that went into this because
[54:04] I think you guys spent a lot of time. I
tried to watch all the meetings to make
[54:09] sure I did have context and these are
just some of the things that I could
[54:13] benefit from having clarification on.
Okay.
[54:29] And in the moment of silence, I'll say
that in the chart we can since you made
[54:33] the change min from administrator to
ministerial um maybe adding in the
[54:39] definition of ministerial.
[54:53] I have a couple
council members
[55:00] amendments a lot of these are children
[55:05] copy that I got what I thought was a
clean copy the very front uh if you go
[55:10] to page five
7.5.3
[55:15] I'll make a motion and if you go down to
the third one
[55:20] um it looks like 7.3
excuse me 7.5
[55:26] one that you've got high it should be
letter
[55:32] you we're going to have to change the
lettering has all changed in the clean
[55:37] so we Mike and I were planning to get
with Kurt to to go over all that
[55:43] numbering
The clean copy has the correct
[55:46] numbering. Some of these motion
references are to the red line couple
[55:51] and that was changed between that too.
So I just need to say that before we get
[55:56] there quite a few
[55:59] relative to comments that we got from
>> I just want to make sure when we do the
[56:06] amendments that we're doing it correctly
it's proper.
[56:11] Let's
[56:28] go to council.
>> I said a couple things I want. Thank
[56:31] you, Councilman Scalleti. I do feel that
a onem um radius for a TI8 would be
[56:38] justifiable for all the building going
on and everything. I really think we
[56:42] need a one one mile not a half a mile.
Another thing um going back to the um
[56:49] gates private gates for um developments.
uh if the development owns the road I
[56:58] think it should be firstly I think they
it should be allowed but if it's like a
[57:02] development sort of like
oh battery shores for instance or
[57:07] battery point or something like that
where um or battery shores city owns the
[57:13] roads no that should not be a gated
community but if do y'all own the roads
[57:18] over in Live Oaks
>> okay then I think the option really
[57:22] should be given
and it's up to the development. That's
[57:25] just my personal view.
>> So, one one point of clarification there
[57:31] is talking about these gated
communities. Yes, sir.
[57:34] » It's kind of unclear to me. I think when
the planning commission was looking at
[57:37] the whole question of gated communities,
we were looking at it in the in the in
[57:43] the instance of somebody building a new
community. what you seem to be implying
[57:48] and I just want to make sure what you're
talking about is whether or not somebody
[57:52] a group of people can decide they want
to create a gated. Is that what you're
[57:56] saying?
>> Well, if somebody's already got a
[57:58] community, are they grandfathered in
that they could build up is what the
[58:02] question is.
>> But I understand that when we wrote that
[58:06] language, I think what we had in mind
was somebody who was doing something new
[58:09] from the ground up.
>> Okay. But if if if you want to do
[58:13] something different, I think it's
important to be clear exactly what it is
[58:18] because Councilman Scalad's
comments on that point were kind of a a
[58:24] thing for me because that that's not
what we I I I'm not saying what we
[58:28] should do one way the other. I just
think we ought to be clear. Are you
[58:31] trying to give
certain neighborhoods the ability to to
[58:35] gauge streets
>> if it's a a privately owned street? a
[58:40] group, you know, a neighborhood
privately owned streets. I feel like
[58:43] they should have the option to gate it
if they choose to.
[58:47] » Are there any place in the city um
that's not already a gated community
[58:53] where there are private streets?
>> Yes.
[58:55] » Yeah.
[59:12] But but but thanks for your comment
though. Um
[59:17] » currently we're talking about new
communities being
[59:21] » not communities that already exist.
That's a whole discussion not
[59:28] » right.
So so
[59:32] I guess
does that mean And if you if we don't
[59:36] know now that that's fine. I always feel
like I don't know is a great answer. But
[59:40] more honest answer then a lot of people
are willing to give. So does that mean
[59:43] that the council is open to the idea of
a new community that would be built from
[59:48] the ground up being people have the
option of updated?
[59:52] » No. I feel that the homes the ones that
are already built should be
[59:55] grandfathered in. That's what I'm
saying.
[59:58] » Grandfather. uh if they want a community
that's already there that doesn't have a
[1:00:03] gate, they should have the option to put
one in if they want to.
[1:00:06] » Are the roads in the community owned by
the community?
[1:00:09] » They're owned by the community.
>> Owned by the community and they just
[1:00:12] then you want and they should be able to
put a
[1:00:14] » Yes, that's what I'm saying.
>> I I think going back correctly,
[1:00:21] you might remember too. I think that
there was a conscious effort not to have
[1:00:25] any more gated communities in Buford.
I I'll share my personal perspective and
[1:00:33] I'll full full disclosure I live in a
gay community.
[1:00:43] » Yeah, I say that because I want to get
the laughter out first. But I I think
[1:00:47] what G there's a reason there. Um we're
getting kind of in the weeds here, but
[1:00:52] you have to make some choices. We tried
to we wanted to get on the water. we
[1:00:55] that's where we could avoid and it was a
tough decision but we decided to do it.
[1:00:59] What I think and it happens with gated
communities, you kind of create islands
[1:01:04] within the community and and and my
community, I'm just speaking one person.
[1:01:10] I'm not speaking for Islands of Bin.
Please know that is that I I think it
[1:01:15] you start operating within your little
little little community because
[1:01:19] everything you do in there is kind of
governed by the association
[1:01:23] and it it also creates a sense of
exclusivity too in that you drive by and
[1:01:30] you can't come in, right? And I I think
overall for the city when we think about
[1:01:36] our city, do we want a lot of little
little islands within the city that's
[1:01:40] all kind of shut out? And then you have
the people who can't can't afford to be
[1:01:43] in those communities feeling that I
don't belong. So that's just my personal
[1:01:48] perspective on getting community. I
understand the the concern about
[1:01:52] security, but I think we have a police
force
[1:01:56] that is higher than being paid to
protect the city. And we've had a recent
[1:02:01] case where crime was getting kind of out
of hand and and I think we've kind of
[1:02:05] gotten that tampen down again. So I
think there are ways to deal with this
[1:02:10] without creating I lots of little spaces
that shuts people out within our city.
[1:02:16] That's just Mitch Mitchell speaking one
person. I'm not speaking for anyone else
[1:02:21] except Mitch Mitchell here.
[1:02:29] I think historically the the idea of the
gate the gated communities within the
[1:02:34] city also had a lot to do with the
connectivity of the roadways and keeping
[1:02:38] the grids opened and that's what a lot
of the participants in earlier shares
[1:02:43] discussed in creating native communities
within the state blocks the connectivity
[1:02:49] of grid the grid network and the
roadways. It was not so much the
[1:02:53] security
um exclusivity.
[1:02:58] It was more keeping the general grids
and the general runways open and
[1:03:03] unobstructed by gates.
And if we go under the assumption that
[1:03:08] this is like the new new thing is not
what's existing then
[1:03:16] I guess
[1:03:20] it's got to be
am I correct?
[1:03:28] » I think we're talking about new from the
ground up communities.
[1:03:34] council's got to kind of decide what
direction we want to go. So that we want
[1:03:38] that's what I I I don't think they
should be negated.
[1:03:42] » I agree.
>> I'll say that on top. Now the other
[1:03:44] issue which I addressed in my comments
that's I know that's a different issue
[1:03:48] but I don't think they should be negated
>> from the ground up. I would agree. No
[1:03:54] new gated communities. It's just the
communities that are there that they own
[1:03:59] the roads that they have the right to
fill up the gate if they want to.
[1:04:06] So hearing planning questionable
[1:04:26] That's the other one.
[1:04:35] » Excuse me.
I'm saying you can address the other
[1:04:38] one. What do you mean by that?
>> Well, I don't think we have language
[1:04:42] now, correct me if I'm wrong, that talks
about your issue where you wanted to get
[1:04:46] an existing community,
>> right?
[1:04:48] » So, that's not that's not part of the
ordinance that we were addressing that.
[1:04:53] I think that was what your was
clarifying. It sounds like you want us
[1:04:57] to look at this language that would make
it clear that this is
[1:05:00] » that this is only for new development.
>> Right. I just wanted maybe send this
[1:05:05] back to the planning commission.
>> Thank
[1:05:10] the assumption y'all were working under
this.
[1:05:13] » Yes, it was certainly mine. That's why I
raised the question was certainly mine.
[1:05:17] » Okay. Well, I didn't but I'm good with
that. Yeah, we we I don't think we ever
[1:05:22] ever considered in any way an existing
community putting up a gate. That was
[1:05:26] not
>> Okay, I'm taking
[1:05:29] I'm not expressing any opinion one way
or the other. I'm just trying to say
[1:05:32] that's
what I thought too.
[1:05:35] » I don't believe it's addressed any
[1:05:41] » and that's why I said that would be
something to do that we have the
[1:05:43] address.
>> You want to let it dry?
[1:05:47] » Yes, sir. Okay. Hey, Graham Trra. Um,
first of all, I do want to congratulate
[1:05:54] Mike Tommy and the entire planning board
as well as Kirk and um, the city's group
[1:06:00] in in where they have gotten to. Um,
I've got some conceptual questions that
[1:06:07] I'd just like to walk through more from
understanding as opposed to to changing
[1:06:11] as a as a landowner. Um, but I do have
one fundamental question. This has
[1:06:16] received first reading.
What is this discussion? How is that
[1:06:21] going to impact second reading? What
where do we go from here? Um with all
[1:06:27] these suggested changes,
uh can it come back up for second
[1:06:32] reading in August or has this now
stalled the process?
[1:06:41] » Come back in August. They have time to
address it. And you so you would address
[1:06:47] things with amendments. Is that right?
>> That's how
[1:06:51] » Okay.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Could we refer to
[1:06:57] 9.1.4
that table that
[1:07:01] Councilman Klet Scalleti uh talked
through and go to
[1:07:08] the subdivision review.
And I just this is just more for
[1:07:13] understanding.
So, we've got the sketch plan
[1:07:19] which once approved is valid for 12
months
[1:07:23] and then it can be renewed for one
month. That's 24 months.
[1:07:28] Um,
then Kurt, I'm really pointing to you.
[1:07:34] During that 24 months, they then must go
to preliminary plat. Is that right?
[1:07:41] » If they don't, if they don't, they have
to start over.
[1:07:45] That's the way it66.
[1:07:49] » Sorry, that that's the way it it's
written. I didn't hear you.
[1:07:53] » Yeah. Okay. And so then likewise pre
preliminary plat they'll have 36 months
[1:07:59] once they get the preliminary plat
approval to then go to final plat. And
[1:08:05] then from there again another 36 months
that they then need to apply for a
[1:08:11] building permit. Is that right?
Well, yeah, just permits in general.
[1:08:17] » Okay. And then so within that once they
have that final plat 36 months, they got
[1:08:23] to go to a project permit which is back
up in 9.5
[1:08:28] and that permit is valid for
for six months. Is is there a
[1:08:36] requirement to finish the project? Um,
do they need to finish the project
[1:08:40] within the final plat period? Do they
when do they have to finish the project?
[1:08:50] » Within the final plat period?
>> I think
[1:08:52] » that's my question. I mean, when does a
when does a does a developer have to
[1:08:58] finish the project or can they not
finish the project?
[1:09:02] » Sure.
Um
[1:09:05] you know with the final pledge you can
provide the shity right um you know
[1:09:10] essentially we're not going to allow
lots to be we're not going to allow cos
[1:09:15] or permits to be issued until
infrastructure is in you bond all the
[1:09:21] infrastructure
right
[1:09:25] but we're not going to release a permit
until you actually complete the
[1:09:28] infrastructure and in the case where
let's say you have a climate flood and
[1:09:33] you maybe there's an economic downturn.
This happened in 2008 and uh you know
[1:09:40] what should happen is is that let's say
there's 20 lots left but they only build
[1:09:45] roads to three lots. you know, um really
what that would mean is there the road
[1:09:51] would kind of end there and we wouldn't
have issued permits for any of those
[1:09:54] lots until they finished the
infrastructure and then we would call
[1:09:56] the bond and theoretically the city
would have eventually finished the
[1:10:02] infrastructure um or those remaining
blocks. That's
[1:10:07] » okay.
>> But uh yeah, I mean it's kind of you
[1:10:11] know I think it's really your final
flight's good for this amount of time.
[1:10:15] Maybe maybe the better way to think
about it is it's good for you to provide
[1:10:19] assurity or improvements for that amount
of time. That makes sense.
[1:10:26] » Does make sense.
>> Put up all that money or after that
[1:10:30] three years then this whole big process
that you get sketch plan preliminary
[1:10:35] final four would end and you've lost
your best of bre.
[1:10:41] » Sorry, say that one more time.
>> And then you would have lost your best
[1:10:44] of bre. need to go back to the beginning
>> once the shity was called on.
[1:10:51] » No, I I I'm saying I think the three
year the way to maybe best save the
[1:10:56] final flood is you got basically three
years to pull the shity,
[1:11:01] right? To actually create the lots and
record the plan. Maybe that's the best
[1:11:07] way to say it.
Well, I don't know. But I I I
[1:11:16] » again
>> it's important to to to think about this
[1:11:20] because we have this situation. I want
to move to the historic district now.
[1:11:25] So what happens in the historic district
if we go to 9 10.2?
[1:11:36] So, I just want you to keep what I just
said in mind. If we go to 910
[1:11:44] [Music]
[1:11:50] » or in the current or the proposed
[1:11:54] » in the current proposed red line
>> local
[1:11:59] designation, I think we actually
>> 910 Buford historic district certificate
[1:12:04] of appropriateness. If we could go there
page 197.
[1:12:16] » So if we go down to the chart on under
two under major.
[1:12:24] So this is the process. Um,
[1:12:30] are there any time constraints on going
from conceptual, preliminary and final?
[1:12:38] There used to be. Are there any now?
[1:12:46] » The 9.10. We had a lot of discussion.
There was a recommendation, but it's not
[1:12:51] move forward with this set of
recommendations.
[1:12:55] I think we were going to have future
discussion on it.
[1:12:59] » Oh, so this is not part of what they're
what is in front of council to approve.
[1:13:04] » That was the first thing the planning
commission and feel
[1:13:11] » spent a lot of time on. Um and that I
think and it added a concept and
[1:13:15] preliminary and final process to all the
work. Um but uh that was not part of
[1:13:22] this specific
I don't think it moved forward with
[1:13:26] council. So
it wasn't part of this package.
[1:13:32] » You say any of the historic stuff.
>> Yeah. any of the historic stuff except
[1:13:35] you just they made a few tiny little
grammat you know like minor changes just
[1:13:39] for script
code that you can see just approval of
[1:13:44] you know we just put historic district
made and got rid of that that's that's
[1:13:49] it we didn't make any substantive or
we're coming back on that
[1:13:53] » we were in a we're coming back on that
and I think that's scheduled for
[1:14:00] » okay so so what you're saying is you
[1:14:06] for
[1:14:09] » Okay. So, what you're what you're saying
is that there's going to be more
[1:14:11] discussion on this because again, we can
get find ourselves in a situation where
[1:14:16] somebody
>> So, I think yeah, that'll be I think
[1:14:18] broadly.
>> Yeah. I mean, obviously with the final
[1:14:21] thought, it' be kind of rare for someone
to do a major subdivision in the
[1:14:25] historic district, but uh obviously they
do appropriate. It's finalized for a
[1:14:30] major sub, you know, it's multiple lots.
It's a sale house.
[1:14:35] » I suppose.
>> Okay, I got it. So, what what you're
[1:14:38] saying, Kurt, and again, this situation
does exist currently in the historic
[1:14:42] district. Is the historic That's a
different section that you're not
[1:14:47] considering right now. Is that right?
>> There's no substant changes to that
[1:14:52] section. Right.
>> And what section is that?
[1:14:55] » That's the the COA and the was it 9.9
and 9.10.
[1:15:02] Okay.
[1:15:05] » There's a lot of discussion.
>> Okay. Fair. Fair enough. Fair enough.
[1:15:10] So, could we go back to that that chart
that we talked about? And again, this
[1:15:15] I'm I'm sorry to be a little bit
pedantic on this, but this is the world
[1:15:19] we're living in right now. So I just
want to be very precise because so if
[1:15:24] you go to
historic preservation
[1:15:30] you now have a certificate of
appropriateness
[1:15:35] which is 24 months and can be extended
the proposed is three times. Is that
[1:15:41] right Kurt?
>> That's right. That's what
[1:15:45] » okay so what does that mean? Does that
mean the building needs to be built by
[1:15:52] then or that within five years
the applicant who has the certificate of
[1:16:00] appropriateness
needs to apply for a building permit?
[1:16:04] What is it?
>> I think it's similar to the final ply.
[1:16:07] It doesn't mean it has to be built. It
means they have to submit a building
[1:16:12] permit which requires a certificate of
appropriateness. they've met all the
[1:16:16] conditions of either a minor certificate
of progress or let's say the HRB said
[1:16:22] you know you had to do
specific windows and columns etc that
[1:16:27] was a condition so when you submit your
building permit we would verify
[1:16:33] that was done on and so yeah does that
does that make sense so you have that
[1:16:38] » well well let's let's work to a
practical
[1:16:41] » years to submit a building permit that
meets the certificate the government.
[1:16:46] » Fair enough. So, let's let's just assume
we're under the new new code. Uh the
[1:16:51] building um that I got a certificate of
appropriateness
[1:16:56] la a year ago was approved. I've got 24
months and then I've got another three
[1:17:03] years that I can extend that certificate
of appropriateness
[1:17:08] before I need to get a building permit.
And as long as I do that, I get a
[1:17:13] building permit, right? Within the three
within the five years.
[1:17:18] » Okay. So once I get that building
permit, how long is the building permit
[1:17:24] valid for? Six months. It says
>> six months, but it can be extended based
[1:17:29] on any progress, any meaningful progress
or you know the building official can
[1:17:34] extend it for I guess cause
you know. So it's an it's an arbitrary
[1:17:40] extension by the building in inspector.
Is that right?
[1:17:44] » I wouldn't say so. No, it's in the it's
in the building code that you know
[1:17:47] that's approved by almost every
community, you know, one version or
[1:17:51] another. But all that language building
the IRC, you know, or the IBC, right?
[1:17:57] That's done by the international code
council.
[1:18:00] » But we do six month period, but that
sixmonth period is the same as the IBC
[1:18:05] and the IRC.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't think it becomes
[1:18:08] arbitrary simply because an official has
the ability to make a decision. I think
[1:18:14] arbitrary is the wrong word. And I think
as Kurt has explained it, I think it's a
[1:18:18] normal way that business in this regard
is done.
[1:18:21] » It has to meet the standards to renew a
building permit is in both of the two
[1:18:26] international code. You know, the IRC
and the IBC there. The standards are
[1:18:30] there that you have to meet.
Typically, it's you have to have some
[1:18:34] progress in six months to renew it or
you know there's there's a section in
[1:18:39] those codes that state what you need to
do to extend it no action.
[1:18:44] » Okay. So, it's standardized. Okay, fair
enough.
[1:18:49] » They're not Buford codes. They're, you
know, codes that are adopted in almost
[1:18:53] every
>> Okay, I'll look at that. So, for a big
[1:18:58] project downtown, the code does not
require a TIA. Is that right?
[1:19:06] » Um, I don't know that I could say that
for sure, but uh, you know, certain uses
[1:19:13] could require a TI.
>> Well, I I think the proposal in here is
[1:19:17] that overlay districts would be exempt.
>> Oh, yeah, you're right. But that's
[1:19:21] Bladen Street.
No, no, it's bound it's bounded by
[1:19:25] Calhoun, Carterette, Bay Street, and
Rebo Road.
[1:19:30] » Isn't there a blade overlay in
redevelopment district downtown?
[1:19:34] » There is.
>> Yeah. So then that would be exempt to I
[1:19:38] guess certain parts of downtown.
>> But what about in the middle of
[1:19:41] downtown? If you put a I mean just,
you know,
[1:19:46] » you put a fast food restaurant. Is that
>> No, you put a 70 room hotel. Do you need
[1:19:50] a do you need a TIA?
[1:19:55] Uh if it triggers it if it triggers 50
trips
[1:20:00] » um
>> or more you have
[1:20:01] » or more in a peak an hour you have to
yes or for a site plan
[1:20:06] » you have to and it's just complicated
because you know most of those uses are
[1:20:10] not allowed in the store jumping but yes
a hotel would be one that could
[1:20:15] potentially trigger the
>> okay and does it I didn't see anything
[1:20:21] about archaeological downtown has that
been taken out or
[1:20:25] » address it. Yeah, that's in chapter
eight.
[1:20:28] » It actually was in 7.5
reference to but it's in chapter eight
[1:20:33] and they haven't gotten to that yet.
>> Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. Um
[1:20:39] I've only got one or two more here,
guys. Thanks for sticking with me. Um
[1:20:45] uh 910.2.3A
[1:20:49] 910.3
>> page. Yeah, let me get there and I'll
[1:20:54] tell you. Hold on.
10
[1:21:04] » 9 10.2
[1:21:08] [Music]
[1:21:12] » That's the That's the sections that
we're going to be working on later.
[1:21:16] » Oh, okay. Because you you have made some
changes. applicability. HRB shall have
[1:21:20] the authority to authorize a design
exception from any applicable standard
[1:21:26] set forth in article 2 except for
section 2.6 height and section 2.74 air
[1:21:34] installation. So where before there was
a limit on what they could do, now
[1:21:39] they're totally unlimited.
[1:21:46] So one thing that is concerning here is
not only height but width
[1:21:54] which gets to mass and scale. And so as
a major developer in the historic
[1:22:01] district that wants to maintain
its character that's a concern.
[1:22:11] Front footage is what I'm talking about.
[1:22:17] You're going to have to correct for all
of us. I was under the impression, I
[1:22:21] don't know what yours is, Mike, that we
were going to leave all of the changes
[1:22:24] to the to the historic out for now that
we would change it.
[1:22:29] » And we've been meeting over the last
smaller group over the last couple of
[1:22:34] months about some larger issues in the
historic district. And we were going to
[1:22:39] come back with the historic district
changes separate from all this. Is that
[1:22:43] why?
>> Okay, that's fair enough. That's that's
[1:22:46] a good answer. Um and then finally, um
>> changes
[1:22:55] » they weren't intended.
>> So are those changes going to be changed
[1:23:00] that you've crossed out or it's just
not?
[1:23:03] » Let me check because this was actually
related to the design exception and
[1:23:07] that's why they're in there. Well, in
the final analysis, what's going to be
[1:23:11] over the clean version, not our line
version anyway.
[1:23:15] » And so, you know, really what the
question is is what's in the clean
[1:23:19] version. I don't know whether
>> I'm going to look but uh I that was
[1:23:24] actually touched because there was a lot
of consideration from some of the
[1:23:28] attorneys on if I remember this is
probably like 12 years ago
[1:23:33] stated varants stated variance HRV
should grant a variance and that's why
[1:23:38] it was changed because I think the a
feeling that that's the original code
[1:23:43] they didn't have the power to grant a
variance they have the power to make
[1:23:46] » right
>> that's that's that was the
[1:23:49] I to me it's concerning that they have
no boundaries whatsoever.
[1:23:56] » Well, I think we can mark that and you
know again there was no intention to
[1:24:00] change any of that and I think that was
the the reason for it. So
[1:24:07] » okay
when they come out
[1:24:10] » but that was the reason I think it was
because
[1:24:14] » says varants
>> and and then the last
[1:24:18] » sorry go ahead
>> so sorry go ahead
[1:24:22] » and then the last thing is on demolition
um where does demolition
[1:24:28] stand
>> that was in the same
[1:24:32] the same u future future set of things
that we're going to come back to the
[1:24:38] council planning commission.
>> We're making no changes on that for now
[1:24:43] is was what where the planning
commission stood on it because we
[1:24:46] understood that we needed to uh consider
all of that or am I correct about that?
[1:24:54] » Okay.
Okay. Uh that was it. Thank you very
[1:24:58] much. Um, really quick, looking at this
chart, um, where is the minor
[1:25:04] subdivision review on that? I mean, I I
think it's it's clear to me when I'm
[1:25:11] reading it that you have the subdivision
review section, and then you have sketch
[1:25:16] plan, then preliminary plat, final plat.
And sketch plan is required for all
[1:25:22] major development. But where is the
minor subdivision review in the chart?
[1:25:30] » We picked that out. When you go to the
final clean copy version, you'll see
[1:25:34] that it's going.
>> Okay. So, what was the thought of
[1:25:38] removing it for just having it in here?
Even if it's the administrative review
[1:25:43] or whatever, what would be the
justification for removing it from the
[1:25:48] chart all together?
[1:25:55] believe need to go through any specific
public process, but perhaps it's better.
[1:26:05] » I would think I mean there's others that
are that wouldn't go through any public
[1:26:08] process as well that are listed in here.
And you know, if you're looking at this
[1:26:13] and you're trying to determine, you
know, maybe where you would go to find
[1:26:16] the section minor,
>> I think the the minor one was just go
[1:26:22] back to the minor requirements. It was
just a find that would apply.
[1:26:30] » I don't think it was ever in the code.
And that was Yeah, that was the minor
[1:26:33] site plan. was a minor subdivision.
Excuse me.
[1:26:37] » I'm seeing I see the minor site plan in
the chart for the design review, but I
[1:26:41] don't see the minor subdivision.
>> Yeah, I don't know that it ever was
[1:26:49] in the old chart. In fact, I think
>> I think
[1:26:54] » Well, we can I think that's something to
add, but I don't think they anything
[1:27:01] administrative.
>> Okay. know what I was looking I didn't
[1:27:04] see it on there. Um and then another
question that maybe pretty easy for you
[1:27:08] guys. I was looking for it, couldn't
find it, but on um page 170 where it
[1:27:12] says section 9.1.6 decision based on a
public hearing. Um that used to be that
[1:27:20] a decision shall be made by the
appropriate review body within 60 days
[1:27:24] of the close of the required public
hearing and it's left blank. And I I
[1:27:30] would assume that it got moved
somewhere, but I had trouble finding it.
[1:27:33] Would it moved somewhere?
>> Page 170 9.1.6 decision based on public
[1:27:40] hearing. So if there's a decision made,
is there a time frame by which
[1:27:45] » I I don't think I think our thinking was
is that if we don't decide at the date
[1:27:51] of the hearing, we're just continuing
the hearing.
[1:27:54] » Okay. We're not. So, we either decide
when we're done or we continue the
[1:27:58] hearing. And we'll either continue a
hearing where we uh where we don't take
[1:28:03] additional testimony or whether we do,
but we'd be specific about that. But
[1:28:07] it's not one of these things where
you're closed if you just never vote on
[1:28:10] it.
>> Okay.
[1:28:11] » So, and also
>> thinking was scratching and it really
[1:28:14] didn't.
>> So, we have to make a decision after
[1:28:16] we're we're done hearing all the
testimony or otherwise we continue it.
[1:28:20] » Okay. Also because there were multiple
instances
[1:28:24] both when the DRB existed uh planning
commission where it's gone way over 60
[1:28:30] days projects they
>> because we don't have that concern right
[1:28:36] now.
>> Well you know they've been tabled and
[1:28:38] you know a lot of past projects for
additional information from the
[1:28:42] applicant that you know longer saying.
So we've had some instances just
[1:28:47] » we don't want them to be approved by
ordinance
[1:28:51] that makes sense.
>> I'm going to take that violence out.
[1:28:54] » Gotcha.
>> So we've had some situations where we
[1:28:57] just didn't have adequate information to
make a final decision. And and so we've
[1:29:01] said, "Listen, will you agree to just
continue this or do you want us to vote
[1:29:05] today?" And in those instances, they've
always said, "Well, I'll agree to
[1:29:10] continue this because I'm not going to
have you vote with inadequate
[1:29:13] information because you're probably not
vote the way I want."
[1:29:17] » So that's the idea there.
>> Um, and then one other thing, and this
[1:29:24] is on page 200. Uh, I think this was
already in the code, but just a
[1:29:28] question. Uh, again, page 200 under
guidance, standards, maintenance of
[1:29:34] consent policies. The last bullet number
six, it says any special area policies
[1:29:40] adopted by the HRB.
Do they have the ability to adopt
[1:29:45] policies or special area?
[1:29:50] » A good question. I think that's in the
current code and we just didn't really
[1:29:54] consider it. So,
>> it's in the current. I just didn't know.
[1:29:57] Maybe it doesn't even need to be there
because I don't know that they have the
[1:30:01] whole thing.
Are we even going to be there? Are we
[1:30:06] even
expecting a vote on anything related to
[1:30:10] the historic section?
My my understanding as a PL we had we
[1:30:17] had discussed with the things
internally. We had come up with our
[1:30:20] proposed changes. We were told that
council either didn't like them or
[1:30:26] wanted more changes. So what we were
internally discussing and which was sort
[1:30:30] of the genesis of that whole committee
that got set up started meeting was we
[1:30:35] had a bigger we had more work to do and
so no changes were going to be made to
[1:30:40] the historic section until that
committee completed its work and got
[1:30:44] back to the planning commission for
further review.
[1:30:46] There's a lot of issues the special
committee is dealing with uh as an
[1:30:52] example area property that we all know
different things that have to be with
[1:30:56] there and the community itself. So
dealing with the whole section
[1:31:03] especially demolition becomes uh a
little more complicated as well as
[1:31:08] sensitive to everybody and trying to
preserve the community. So special
[1:31:12] committee has been set up to try and
hear the voices of uh various different
[1:31:18] entities as to how to put that back
together to make it work and enforceable
[1:31:25] because nothing that we have in the
current code has been enforcable for 20
[1:31:30] or 30 years.
>> Is that special committee made up of
[1:31:34] members from planning commission HRB?
>> Yes. Okay.
[1:31:37] » And and the what's that group? Freeman,
sorry. Freeman.
[1:31:42] » Yeah. So, when we when we first sat
down, I was under the impression that
[1:31:47] Mike was that we were going to get some
comments to the code sections that we
[1:31:51] be, you know, meeting or two and we'd be
done with that. But it kind of opened it
[1:31:56] up to everything and we started talking
about much more broadly uh about a whole
[1:32:02] variety of issues relating to the
historic and the Freedman's Arts
[1:32:06] District. And so instead of being like a
two-hour meeting or two two-hour
[1:32:11] meetings, I think it ended up being
like, you know, a half dozen 4hour
[1:32:15] meetings.
And I think that we finally put
[1:32:18] something together that was who we sent
to the city council, right, and just
[1:32:22] hadn't taken it up yet. And that wasn't
even the final step in the process. That
[1:32:25] was sort of a preliminary step. Is that
right, Cord?
[1:32:28] » Well, if you remember at your retreat,
it was brought up then. And at the
[1:32:33] retreat, um, I stated that we'd get
together with the historic uh, design
[1:32:38] review board and get together and put
something together that made the most
[1:32:44] sense. That's what generated this other
committee. So, it's been going on for
[1:32:49] quite a while. We've had a lot of
meetings. I think the discussions have
[1:32:52] been really very uh very good, very
fruitful and we need to come up with
[1:32:58] something that you all can enforce that
is appropriate for now.
[1:33:04] » I think at one time Mr. Hullman, there
was a draft that you had um was from
[1:33:08] city of Columbia or something. Is that
right?
[1:33:11] » Infamous draft. I'm not sure
>> that had to do with demolitions. Is that
[1:33:17] is that still on the table at all or is
that part has it just been rolled into
[1:33:20] part of the discussion?
>> We haven't even gotten to the demolition
[1:33:25] discussion within
so
[1:33:30] » um regarding if this goes to second
reading in August. I think we can see
[1:33:37] here today that there is considerable
version confusion going on and this is
[1:33:42] something that we and the planning
commission have struggled with from the
[1:33:46] beginning and I think there's confusion
about what exactly was agreed to at
[1:33:51] first reading and what would be up for a
vote at second reading and I would
[1:33:57] suggest that a version be prepared that
excludes doesn't even have it in the
[1:34:03] packet any of this historic district
stuff. It should just be not in there.
[1:34:08] Um, and also suggests that in reviewing
it, I find these redline versions
[1:34:15] extremely difficult to read and there's
a lot of mistakes to them and they're
[1:34:19] hard to see. So, I would suggest that
council members look at the clean copy
[1:34:25] and if there's something that seems not
right, then refer to the redline version
[1:34:30] to if there's an explanation. I think
and then and then when you're talking
[1:34:34] about it at the meeting, I also think
that you should use a clean version uh
[1:34:39] for purposes of any vote or any further
modifications. That's just my
[1:34:48] » All right, Tony, if you got someone I
do,
[1:34:54] » Mr. Tri,
>> thank you. I left two things out and I
[1:34:57] appreciate you tolerating hearing me
again. Um, one is the TIA, there was
[1:35:02] some discussion on half versus a mile.
Uh, and again, this question is for
[1:35:07] Kurt. If and the planning committee, by
all means, chime in. You're wanting that
[1:35:13] right now as written that the TIA take
into consideration a half mile
[1:35:20] radius. Is that right?
>> Yes. Except for if it's approved but not
[1:35:28] permitted but unbuilt development into
the mile is the way that it currently.
[1:35:33] » Has anybody explored what that might
cost?
[1:35:36] » I think
>> I I because I don't know and my some of
[1:35:41] my property is impacted. I I think it's
a good idea. I just don't know what it
[1:35:46] might cost to do that in a TIA and do we
know? I'm trying to bring this to
[1:35:50] practicality.
>> Well, a TIA looks at intersect
[1:35:54] Uh that's what it's all about. It's
always about intersection. So it depends
[1:35:58] how many intersections we're within the
distance.
[1:36:03] » Uh so talk me through that. So how is a
half mile going to be uh any different
[1:36:09] than a mile if I'm doing an
intersection?
[1:36:13] might be more.
[1:36:18] » Now, often they use the, you know, the
county or the state, you know, often
[1:36:23] does counts that are pretty accurate on
a lot of the major roads that are within
[1:36:28] a time frame that works. So,
>> right, but my experience is they sit on
[1:36:34] the corner where the where the
development is going to go and they they
[1:36:38] take car counts.
>> That's right.
[1:36:42] » Okay. So what does a math mile versus a
mile mean to that is my question.
[1:36:48] » Well, more than one more than the
multiple intersections can easily be
[1:36:52] impacted by a traffic by a new
development. Okay. And you know a half
[1:36:58] mile or a mile is actually you know sort
of arbitrary. My experience a lot of it
[1:37:04] with developments over a long career is
that it's you it's it's the uh and we
[1:37:10] don't have a engineering section but
it's a it's it's somebody
[1:37:15] like in in our case here Kirk would have
to say
[1:37:19] these are the intersections that are
impacted and you really need to look at
[1:37:22] these intersections. I think we just put
in a distance in there because we
[1:37:26] discussed it in the sense was it should
be beyond just the intersection where
[1:37:32] you have access to the property.
>> Got it. Okay. Um and Mike Tony, back to
[1:37:39] the demolition situation. Um
it seems to me it would be pretty easy
[1:37:45] to put a a limit on the time frame for
demolitions and not stop this whole
[1:37:52] process.
this now very complicated process which
[1:37:56] either intentionally or not
intentionally has been created.
[1:38:01] Isn't that reasonable? I mean, right now
I'm holding a demolition permit that
[1:38:04] never expires. Uh, and that's the whole
issue. Why why can't you at least put an
[1:38:11] interim demolition sunset in and then go
back and deal with all these quote
[1:38:16] unquote stakeholders that have been
created?
[1:38:20] » Well, I I totally agree. We have to have
sunsets and uh we could put something
[1:38:25] temporary in there. We'll have to uh uh
see what uh the uh the board wants to
[1:38:32] do. But uh I I totally agree. We've got
to have those sunsets and that's the
[1:38:36] problem that we've had up until now. Uh
the problem putting a sunset in is how
[1:38:41] do you uh how do you enforce it? And
that's that's one of the big issues
[1:38:46] we've uh been trying to deal with.
So, you don't have advice on how to
[1:38:51] enforce it, isn't it? Just simply send
the code guy out there and sorry, you
[1:38:55] can't do it or
>> uh you can do that, but uh is is
[1:39:01] something that actually happened and if
you're talking about a a taking of
[1:39:08] property, you know, how is that going to
get done? I think that that's there
[1:39:12] there's just a lot of issues around that
that we're trying to deal with right now
[1:39:16] and come up a way with a way that uh
they can be um uh they can be dealt
[1:39:22] with.
>> Okay. And and then are those meetings
[1:39:25] open to the public?
>> Yes.
[1:39:28] » Yeah,
>> they are. So they're advertised and
[1:39:30] they're open to the public and and all
that sort of stuff.
[1:39:36] » There's there's been a hiatus on those
right now. Uh we're looking for an an
[1:39:42] official adoption of of that uh uh
special committee from city council. I
[1:39:48] think that's coming up. Uh
>> okay
[1:39:52] will be a work session with the city
council.
[1:39:55] » Yeah. And so then those definitely are
advertised.
[1:40:02] » Yeah. Okay. Because it sounds it sounds
like a lot of this stuff has been done
[1:40:06] behind closed doors without
stakeholders. It's just my I'm not
[1:40:09] accusing. I'm just I'm
>> No, I would No, there hasn't been any
[1:40:13] discussion at all just of demolition.
>> All the discussion was from the planning
[1:40:19] commission last year.
[1:40:23] » Okay, fair enough.
>> Great. Say that.
[1:40:28] » Thank you. In the interest of time, I'd
like and Mike, if Mike, if you don't
[1:40:33] mind, y'all go through what the chamber
presented, the edits that y'all did
[1:40:38] there. Um, so that we can come up with a
clean copy that we could, you know, have
[1:40:43] some amendments to vote on our next
meeting if that's possible to do it.
[1:40:47] » Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I think is that the
plan to maybe send this back to the
[1:40:52] planning commission for which meeting
next week?
[1:40:56] if you go over I think John Councilman
Scalleti had a lot of excellent comments
[1:41:02] incorporate
this
[1:41:04] » well and
Mr. Barorper and Mr. Tony have um sort
[1:41:12] of taken the lead as a subcommittee
within the planning commission to
[1:41:16] coordinate this process. So, um I think
we we should be able to accomplish
[1:41:21] something. But our next
>> Yeah, I think I think you know a lot of
[1:41:26] the changes are just um
uh
[1:41:32] using the proper words and punctuations
and capitalizations, things like that.
[1:41:37] There's there's a few things in here
that that are are more than that. Um and
[1:41:42] there may be a couple of issues that uh
we uh don't agree with uh the comments
[1:41:48] that we've been given
>> and they were working on the earlier
[1:41:54] redline draft and when we did the final
draft for example the formatting all
[1:41:59] changed so a lot of the little rolling
hoods became little beads things of that
[1:42:04] kind and it so but we made one go
through already
[1:42:09] like I did And we're going to do another
one here with
[1:42:13] » we we've done the health cover based on
what they
[1:42:17] » we're working with. So we didn't change
it up so that so they could understand
[1:42:22] what it is.
>> I I'd be more than happy to go through
[1:42:25] each of our comments here. I know uh
they're the comments of things that we
[1:42:30] think uh can change at this point or we
can give this document to them uh to
[1:42:36] look at if they want. Um but if they
want to make comments at this meeting
[1:42:42] related to specific issues in here um we
probably have to uh go through the
[1:42:49] comments and let her make specific uh
just have discussion about some specific
[1:42:55] items.
>> Megan is not here to speak on the
[1:42:58] chamber. Oh well,
>> it sounded like in the comments made
[1:43:02] today, there was nothing actually
specifically pointed to, but it sounded
[1:43:06] like the underlying concern was the
economics of it. Is it going to make
[1:43:11] development more expensive and
unreasonably more expensive? But I feel
[1:43:16] like some of the changes that we're
we're seeing here, in fact, many of them
[1:43:21] are exactly in line with not only
council's concerns, but the community we
[1:43:26] represent, their concerns, which is the
the tree canopy coverage and the traffic
[1:43:31] impact studies being being um required
and and more tightened up. Um, so I
[1:43:37] think a lot of the issues are are
exactly in line with, you know,
[1:43:41] » well, the uh the planning commission is
looking at it from the standpoint of
[1:43:46] what's in the best interest of this
community,
[1:43:49] » right?
>> And so as we address all these issues,
[1:43:52] we're not looking at things that make it
less expensive for a developer to come
[1:43:57] in and do something. We're looking at uh
maintaining the integrity of the
[1:44:02] community as the development happens,
working with the developer to uh to do
[1:44:07] these things. So, uh we may have some
disagreements on a couple of things in
[1:44:11] here, but the majority uh doesn't get
into that kind of detail,
[1:44:16] » right? And and my specific concern in
regards to the predictability is just
[1:44:21] that is having somebody be able to read
it and say, "Okay, this is what's
[1:44:25] required of me." And if it's a stringent
requirement, that's fine because I feel
[1:44:31] like we need to do that in order to
protect what we have. But at the same
[1:44:36] time, at least I'd like somebody to be
able to read it and understand exactly
[1:44:40] what is required of them and there not
be question marks on what that might
[1:44:44] look like and and so clearing up some of
those gray areas um I feel like is
[1:44:49] important because there were several of
them. Um we we did talk about the within
[1:44:54] a mile and there seemed to be a little
confusion. So, I want to just make sure
[1:44:57] that was an intentional um in here. But
on page 120, it says incorporation of
[1:45:04] all traffic impact analysis studies and
trip generation from approved
[1:45:08] developments or vested unbuilt
developments within mile radius at the
[1:45:13] time of proposal. Now, that's the only
place where it talks about a mile.
[1:45:16] Everything else is a half a mile. So,
was that an intentional decision that
[1:45:20] was made within a mile or is the word
half missing from there? Well, let me
[1:45:25] tell you a little bit of the background
uh behind all that. Uh and that is if I
[1:45:31] started looking across the county, city
and town uh and dealing with issues as I
[1:45:36] work with the county on certain boards
and things is that we have so much
[1:45:41] development going on. We've got 3 to
5,000 new units coming online. And a lot
[1:45:48] of that when you're taking a look at a
specific uh subdivision as at a point in
[1:45:55] our community, uh you have to go out
farther to see what the overall impact
[1:46:00] of that is because when those units come
online, you're going to have a much
[1:46:04] greater impact on the road systems and
the intersections. So the intent and the
[1:46:09] purpose was to try and uh put together
information that would allow a traffic
[1:46:15] engineer to understand what the future
impact is based on what we're approving
[1:46:20] for developments. One of the things I
would like to see happen is get a GIS uh
[1:46:27] system done where we have input from the
city, the town, and the county uh that
[1:46:33] uh shows exactly where our subdivisions
are that are either applying for uh
[1:46:38] permits uh actually permitted or haven't
come online yet, but and are still out
[1:46:44] there. so that we could see what those
population areas are and their impacts
[1:46:49] on those particular roads and whether or
not that's going to have an impact on a
[1:46:54] future subdivision that we're currently
currently reviewing. Uh the problem that
[1:46:59] that I've had is that our board when we
take a look at this, we're looking at a
[1:47:03] very uh small confined area uh and not
taking into account and sometimes we
[1:47:09] don't even know. That's why I really
like to see uh an emphasis put on just
[1:47:15] getting a GIS map which should be not
really complicated because you can go to
[1:47:20] each of the uh planning commissions uh
for each of our uh municipalities
[1:47:25] uh and just plot that on a GIS map and
then just kind of keep that up and the
[1:47:30] intent would be that that GIS map is
then available for every uh um plan
[1:47:36] subdivision that comes to the table for
any of us. Is there
[1:47:41] as a traffic engineer, what what are
they basing allowing a develop you know
[1:47:46] saying okay it's going to put this many
cars on what's the capacity of the
[1:47:49] arterial routes because that's the thing
that I'm concerned about you can do half
[1:47:53] mile you can do a mile doesn't matter
170 whether it's county portal or Buer
[1:47:58] sooner or later it's going to be
gridlock and the way these things work
[1:48:02] the way that traffic impact assessments
work together capacity analysis for
[1:48:07] intersections so the whole idea is is
that you know what slow you're trying to
[1:48:13] make sure that traffic keeps moving. I
mean this is the way things are analyzed
[1:48:17] across the country. It isn't whether
there's how much traffic is on the road.
[1:48:22] It's whether it moves through the
intersections in in a in one signal. So
[1:48:27] the idea is it might you know as
communities grow yeah there's going to
[1:48:33] be ever more traffic on the art on the
roads. There's just pl there's no point
[1:48:37] in that. So, what you try to do is make
sure that um you don't improve
[1:48:43] new developments that that cause
gridlock. And gridlock is when you can't
[1:48:47] get through an intersection anymore. Um
you can and as a result of those studies
[1:48:54] um you know it may sometimes come down
to the fact that we just have to turn
[1:48:59] something down but it may be that there
are various modifications that can be
[1:49:03] you know the typical things that a
traffic impact study looks at is signal
[1:49:06] timing. you know, add more, you know,
green time to the arterial and and less
[1:49:13] to the to the cross street. Um, turning
lanes, you know, and it's usually left
[1:49:19] turn. It's always left turns that it's
all about, whether you're turning left
[1:49:22] out of a development or turning in. So,
do we have to add new uh uh turning
[1:49:27] lanes, stacking lanes, and send things
of that kind? Um so you know that's what
[1:49:34] that's what we're always looking at and
that's what the T traffic impact
[1:49:37] assessments are looking at.
>> Uh it's not a total volume of traffic on
[1:49:41] the road, it's the total capacity of an
intersection and they're graded on the
[1:49:45] basis of uh delays. Uh so there's
usually two num there's a number in
[1:49:50] there which is the seconds of delay and
then those seconds of delay for the the
[1:49:57] institute traffic engineer uh standards
are given grades ABCD E and F. Um coming
[1:50:04] into this whole thing your development
code here said that we shoot for a level
[1:50:09] of service D. Where I came from we
considered a level of service D as a
[1:50:15] passing grade. I mean, we only looked at
E and Fs and a lot of times because we
[1:50:20] were in a major metropolitan area, we
even approved Fs because it was like so
[1:50:26] many things are F, we'll have no growth
and development if we but here you you
[1:50:30] we didn't change that standard. It's
it's a level of service D. And so um it
[1:50:37] makes it a little bit easier to to turn
things down if the development through
[1:50:44] signal timing and turn lanes and things
like that can achieve a level of service
[1:50:48] P. So that's what we you all and what
we're looking at is does the traffic
[1:50:53] keep moving? not really how much traffic
is is
[1:50:58] those turning lanes you talk about
certain roads that you can't can't do
[1:51:02] that because there's nowhere to put that
road. The other thing is there's so many
[1:51:07] curb cuts
>> along a lot of these things that stop
[1:51:11] and slow traffic and just so the new
developments you know in the old days
[1:51:16] everybody got a curb cut where you know
every single one acre lot development
[1:51:21] there was and that's part of what you're
dealing with now. So I mean it may be
[1:51:25] that on some of these developments what
you try to do in an impact setting is
[1:51:29] mitigate the impacts so that you can get
it to that level of service even if you
[1:51:32] can't mitigate the impacts because
there's no place to put turn lanes or
[1:51:36] whatever then the answer is going to
start being no on some of the
[1:51:40] development you know just from the
standpoint of driving impact study alone
[1:51:44] that's why it was so important to bas
and our one of the big changes last
[1:51:48] thing I'll say on that is we wanted to
make sure that TIA were required in more
[1:51:54] circumstances and that they were
reviewed by the planning commission when
[1:51:57] I was on the planning commission under
my you know the last time the planning
[1:52:03] director didn't want us to ever get a
TIA and didn't look want us to look at
[1:52:06] them because he said we weren't
competent to do so well we've taken a
[1:52:11] different viewpoint is that we you know
that's our responsibility is that we
[1:52:14] don't know how they work and we need to
figure out how they work and give you a
[1:52:17] recommendation that regard
>> and and to some degree Graham yeah
[1:52:22] Graham is right There is a difference
between looking at what road capacity
[1:52:27] is. Uh we're not even dealing with road
capacities, but we are approving uh
[1:52:32] major subdivisions and and we've got to
be uh we've got to understand what those
[1:52:38] new subdivisions are. And right now, if
you do a a TIA on a particular
[1:52:45] intersection, you're not going to get
the the same results as you would if all
[1:52:51] of those subdivisions that are in that
same area are actually operational. Um,
[1:52:57] but but then that goes back to road
capacity. And that I think we need to be
[1:53:02] looking at, oh, what can we do for road
capacity? And now obviously we're
[1:53:07] impacting road capacity because we're
approving developments.
[1:53:11] » Well, let me hitch on that just for one
second. Is one thing we've also tried to
[1:53:15] assure with this is that when a new
development, you know, takes its uh you
[1:53:21] know, you take actual counts of what's
on the road, but you use the IT manual
[1:53:26] for predicting trim generation from a
new development. And so we try to make
[1:53:31] sure that as we analyze as a new TIA is
done, it takes into account not just the
[1:53:38] traffic that's on the road, but the
traffic that's been approved in a new
[1:53:41] development that isn't built yet. So
you're always building on top of what
[1:53:45] was previously approved. And and that's
part of the trick in reviewing these
[1:53:51] things is to make sure that that they
don't leave out a development just
[1:53:55] because it wasn't built yet. You have to
take into account as though it's built.
[1:53:58] And that's what you captured very well
here. And then it goes back to the
[1:54:02] requirement for any jurisdiction
including the town of Port Royal and the
[1:54:05] county of
>> Euper
[1:54:09] trying to capture.
The other thing that it dovetales with
[1:54:14] is the sun setting of the permits um and
the approvals because now
[1:54:22] the the window for building is extremely
long and and it was very important for
[1:54:28] us to shorten that and put a definite
limit on it because it's true that some
[1:54:34] developments just never get built. But
if you have to take
[1:54:38] » right
>> indefinite approvals um into account
[1:54:41] this announce then you are talking about
expense and really just speculation. So
[1:54:47] » so one thing to to keep in mind I was at
a statewide conference with heads of D
[1:54:52] from DOT and with new developments
they're doing everything they can to
[1:54:57] eliminate left turns. You'll see it out
there like at Cross Creek area in the Bu
[1:55:02] station. Everybody's fussing about that.
Uh they're doing medians, they're doing
[1:55:08] um roundabouts and um traffic circles.
Uh they found it's like 75% of the
[1:55:15] accidents are like from left turns and
they're trying to eliminate left turns
[1:55:20] everywhere they can. So new development,
you're going to start seeing that a lot
[1:55:25] more of it.
>> Exactly.
[1:55:26] » From DOT and warning you,
>> Miss Kim, back to your comment. Was that
[1:55:31] was that the context behind why the
changes in the permit validity
[1:55:37] extensions from five times to to one
time because I don't know what the
[1:55:41] appropriate time would be but is that
the context behind that change?
[1:55:45] » Well, yeah, that that was part of it.
The other was that that I think under
[1:55:49] the original code uh you could um
start your sketch plans and not even
[1:55:57] have to do a major development under
that same sketch plan for uh 10 12 years
[1:56:03] or something. We've cut it down. Now
it's like seven or eight years which is
[1:56:07] still an awful long time.
>> It's all about predictability. and and
[1:56:11] from by the time you get even four,
five, six years from the time you apply
[1:56:18] and get approved for a plan, everything
in this community changes. I mean, look
[1:56:23] where we were five years ago where we
are now. U can I ask this and I know
[1:56:29] that the historic preservation portion
of the conversation may be off the table
[1:56:32] because that has further review but
what was the context behind reducing the
[1:56:40] opportunity to extend say the sketch
plan um preliminary and final only one
[1:56:47] time whereas in the historic
preservation it went down from five to
[1:56:51] three.
Uh I I think that was more the
[1:56:56] predictability of what you're trying to
accomplish
[1:57:00] um and funding for that and taking into
account that that probably isn't a major
[1:57:07] subdivision. So you're dealing with
smaller entities.
[1:57:12] » Yeah. But you have more time.
>> We also have bigger challenges often in
[1:57:16] the historic district when you're trying
to accomplish a project that you don't
[1:57:19] have in other parts of the city.
>> Okay. That's where my mind was is maybe
[1:57:22] there's other challenges that are
created in the historic preservation
[1:57:26] district that would require or or make
it better to have the opportunity to
[1:57:30] extend up to three times, but I didn't
know what the that was thought or not.
[1:57:41] » How do we want to wrap this up? Keepbody
>> Yeah. So if I could just give direction
[1:57:49] because I think some of this stems from
the fact that we're using a red line
[1:57:53] copy that we're using for red lining in
>> right soward
[1:57:59] I think probably deserves a lot of
formatting and that's but thinking of
[1:58:03] doing that but and you got the old red
line and we can't change that but uh but
[1:58:10] the clean copy to to M's point it's kind
of has been format So still there are
[1:58:17] some council lady you know I think some
comments and things that kind of missed
[1:58:23] as well or need to be corrected.
How do you wish do you want to send that
[1:58:29] back to the planning commission next
week where then we'll take a formal
[1:58:32] recommendation and then send you
just motions based on that first based
[1:58:40] on the things we talked about today
or
[1:58:44] » I think that
>> it would be helpful for us to have a
[1:58:48] clean version
>> and and the red line for reference as I
[1:58:52] suggested and then I think we can take
that clean version And somehow, even if
[1:58:58] you need to do it by motions, and it
sounds like you do, the clean version
[1:59:02] needs to be a clean version that comes
out of our next meeting needs to be part
[1:59:07] of the packet that is available to
council and to the public so people know
[1:59:12] what they're talking about. I mean, we
we spent some time here today talking
[1:59:16] about things that really weren't on the
agenda. And part of it was because of
[1:59:20] that version confusion. Um, we we did
spend time talking about a lot of
[1:59:24] historic district stuff, but it the
clean version, the results from our
[1:59:29] planning commission meeting next week
should be somehow part of that packet
[1:59:34] for for council for purposes of doing
their second reading and their motions
[1:59:38] and whatever is procedurally required.
>> And to do that, compare what we passed
[1:59:43] under first reading, what the new clean
copy is going to look like, is that's
[1:59:47] going to generate the amendments.
>> Yeah. So, and I I I would what we're
[1:59:52] planning to do is Mike and I get
together ASAP. First thing we need to do
[1:59:58] is just make sure that we got the the
right version that you had the first
[2:00:02] reading with. If if if that version is
not in line with our clean version, then
[2:00:13] we might have a lot more changes than we
think. We just need to make sure that um
[2:00:18] the changes that we make
that that that planning commission takes
[2:00:22] up and that are then recommended to you
all are off of the version that you had
[2:00:27] your first reading on because that's
right it might be a whole number of it
[2:00:31] might be quite a number of amendments
but at least we're making amendments to
[2:00:35] the right draft. If if we find out that
there's a problem in that regard, then
[2:00:40] we might have to go back to square one
with a new first reading.
[2:00:43] » There's a consistency there's some
consistency issue in the 18 months and
[2:00:47] the 12 months,
>> one mile and a half mile TAS and so
[2:00:52] forth. And I think some consideration
does need to be given to
[2:00:56] » number one cost TIA for radius as
compared to a half mile radius. And also
[2:01:03] from the standpoint of whether you once
you get beyond a certain point whether
[2:01:08] or not there is integrity to going out
the additional half mile from the
[2:01:14] standpoint of what you're taking into
consideration
[2:01:17] because I mean a TIA takes traffic
considerations by intersections within
[2:01:24] an area and a realm around where where
construction where new construction is
[2:01:28] being proposed. And if you when you move
it out and take into consideration the
[2:01:32] other preliminary sections in there, I
think you're going to see the D's and E
[2:01:37] and the FS becoming much more prevalent
in the in the central.
[2:01:42] » Right. So
I I have a
[2:01:47] recommendation I had time that I would
go back to is that the the TIA be
[2:01:53] be based on intersections and that be
determined by somebody with the
[2:01:57] expertise to say which intersections are
affected. And the best person we have
[2:02:01] may be staff. And so, you know, an
arbitrary number like a half mile or a
[2:02:06] mile is what's important is what are the
intersections that are actually affected
[2:02:10] by this new development. And it may be
that it's not even a half mile, but it
[2:02:17] might be more than one, you know,
because that's what you're really
[2:02:20] looking at. And uh traffic engineers
know that, you know, I mean they know
[2:02:26] the intersections that are logically
impacted, but you end up getting a
[2:02:30] different grade for each intersection.
And um so any we'll take a look at it.
[2:02:37] We'll have
>> I'm not a traffic engineer. So
[2:02:40] » I don't know if there's anyone you can
rely on. Uh, and if we had a traffic
[2:02:44] engineer, it wouldn't be a consultant.
So,
[2:02:46] » my point about the one mile, you take
Salem Point, it affects all the way down
[2:02:52] the Parasil Island Gateway, which would
be a mile,
[2:02:55] » everything that it affects the whole
thing because they'll come out over in
[2:03:00] the side roads every which way out of
there. It does affect. So, that's why I
[2:03:04] said a mile.
>> Yeah, it might be. I have a question.
[2:03:09] So, once we get this clean version,
Um and we'll have that well before 19th
[2:03:16] of August.
Um
[2:03:21] we all get to read it. Do we go to
second reading and then we decide
[2:03:24] whether we approve or disapprove second
reading or are we going to have some
[2:03:28] sort another rehashing meeting?
>> No amendments.
[2:03:37] » Yeah, I think that's what I was asking.
Do we have a list of all the amendments
[2:03:40] to include
>> council's amendments that were
[2:03:43] suggested?
>> Well, your comment about the copies
[2:03:48] though amendments based on
trying to figure out what to do
[2:03:54] » or
and then have the clean copy with those
[2:03:58] amendments made or do we just have the
clean copy from first reading and then
[2:04:02] » not made. I think there need a list of
possible amendments. Clean copy should
[2:04:07] can correct certain things like the
omission of the word not things like
[2:04:12] that. But if it's anything that's
substantively changed from the draft
[2:04:15] that was read at the
>> has to be amended after.
[2:04:18] » Yeah. Okay. So will correct all the
scriveners errors that I think
[2:04:23] » numbering that kind of stuff
>> which I think it already did. So that
[2:04:27] that's fine. Um but what do you want me
to do with the red line version? Because
[2:04:31] I think that's been the little bit
because when you touch a redline
[2:04:35] version, especially in a meeting called
together, you do it in the meeting 16 or
[2:04:40] 18 times becomes a little messy. I'm
going to be honest with you. And I think
[2:04:44] trying and I that's my fault. I you know
Christopher's trying to kind of clean it
[2:04:49] up.
[2:04:53] » I'm not sure that it works so good all
the time. So
[2:04:57] clean up. Perhaps now is not the time to
figure out how to use it.
[2:05:01] » What I would suggest you do, Curt, is
take one more um you know, trip through
[2:05:07] the document and correct your numbering,
correct little, you know, scrimer type
[2:05:12] errors,
except
[2:05:15] save that as something new. After you do
that, accept all the changes in the new
[2:05:21] document. Call it something else.
>> And and that would be your clean
[2:05:25] version.
>> And you'd still have your old red line.
[2:05:28] We are and all the errors will be
corrected and then all the motions with
[2:05:32] substantive things like
>> I think correct know this TIA half mile
[2:05:37] that's a substantive issue
>> and the word new as far as the gated
[2:05:43] » I think we can all agree it's notization
is not
[2:05:48] » that's new I mean that's nothing it's
the substantive stuff from the first
[2:05:53] reading to the second reading so we can
do an amendment to make We pass a
[2:05:58] second.
[2:06:02] » Was there anything else that's
substantive that we haven't discussed?
[2:06:06] » Yes. Everyone here thinks should be
[2:06:15] » um city council going to take these
proposed amendments that we have here.
[2:06:22] » We got to make some corrections to
these.
[2:06:24] » Yeah. um and send them um back or just
incorporate those as amendments.
[2:06:32] » Where did this one come from?
>> The chamber of commerce as the chamber
[2:06:35] of commerce notes. These are the
amendments, the substantive things and
[2:06:42] driven uh that were in here are now part
of this package.
[2:06:48] » Yeah. So, I think I was going to update
them and I didn't know if you wanted to
[2:06:51] talk about anything. There's a few
substantive things that we haven't
[2:06:54] discussed.
>> Okay.
[2:07:02] » Some words I think are really show like
the typical I think. So I think that is
[2:07:08] » one one of the main things they had was
that uh we had into
[2:07:14] have a title commitment at uh the um
>> subdivision subdivisions talking about
[2:07:23] the land lot
>> yeah title commitments. Yeah, the sketch
[2:07:27] plan, we had it we had it included in
the sketch plan and we agreed that we'd
[2:07:32] leave that out of there. But in the
preliminary plan, we needed to have it
[2:07:36] in there because uh and quite frankly,
if you're a developer trying to do this
[2:07:41] stuff, we would want to have title
before you start spending all the money
[2:07:46] to even go into preliminary plan. But at
a minimum, we wanted to have that stay
[2:07:51] in at the preliminary plan. they uh
wanted it out of both. So we just took
[2:07:58] it out or we left it into the
preliminary
[2:08:03] um
>> but took it out of the sketch.
[2:08:06] » Took it out of the sketch. Left it in
preliminary.
[2:08:09] » I think that's appropriate. But I mean
we're spending our time doing it, too.
[2:08:13] And
just recently we had the same thing
[2:08:16] where somebody thought they had the
authority to do it because it was a
[2:08:20] father-in-law that was a partial owner I
think or something and
[2:08:25] they didn't have the uh agreement with
him that they could do what they wanted
[2:08:29] to. So they had to come back and get
that agreement put it on the table. Even
[2:08:33] though it was in the B didn't make any
difference we needed to have title
[2:08:36] commitment.
Uh there was design plan. I think that
[2:08:42] was a little more controversial. It's a
>> planning commission felt like they
[2:08:47] should see just a theme of like massing
and and conceptual design
[2:08:53] before they test the project. And I
think push back from the developer is is
[2:08:58] that one they might not be they have
builder right they're going to probably
[2:09:02] sell the development and they're not
sure what that might end up. So that
[2:09:07] that was I think one of the more
substantive
[2:09:10] » well that comes up in the annexation
situation where they annexing some
[2:09:15] property and they want a zoning
classification and they usually want to
[2:09:18] have the zoning classification that is
giving them the most freedom.
[2:09:24] » It's always up every time
>> and and we don't have anything in our
[2:09:29] code right now about dealing with those
annexation issues. That's something that
[2:09:34] we have on our list that we need to get
to, but right now we have no guidance
[2:09:39] other than South Carolina statutes. Um,
but we do have a as far as the zoning
[2:09:45] classifications to be granted after
annexations, I think there's consensus
[2:09:49] among the commission that we don't like
dual zoning. We we don't we're
[2:09:54] disincclined to approve anymore dual
zoning situations. And the developers,
[2:09:59] they feel that that is um something
they'd like to have a lot of time
[2:10:04] because that just gives them
>> like the T5CH.
[2:10:09] » Yeah. All that kind of stuff.
>> Yeah.
[2:10:13] I think we
But I think
[2:10:20] we
last time,
[2:10:25] we're really frustrated. Our hands were
tight because we get
[2:10:31] get a sketch plan that had roads on and
that was it. And we would have the you
[2:10:40] have to approve it or disapprove it
based on just the roads. But we had no
[2:10:44] control over anything else that happened
on that
[2:10:48] piece of property. So uh
and for me being an architect um wanted
[2:10:56] to see some concepts of what they intend
to do some massing on typical lot. So we
[2:11:02] knew what the massing was going to look
like on particular lots because that had
[2:11:07] a lot to do with charact character uh
there of that property as well as in the
[2:11:13] community. So those were the kinds of
things that uh they wanted to take out
[2:11:19] uh that uh I stand pretty strong on the
fact we still need to see that kind of
[2:11:24] thing. We need to know what what the
intent is going into the community. And
[2:11:28] I can understand a developer owns piece
of property wants to get an approval uh
[2:11:34] from the city. They can go market it and
say, "Hey, I got an approval for this.
[2:11:38] Now you can go do whatever you want." Uh
that's not what we want. that's not in
[2:11:43] the best interest of the community. So,
um that I've left in we've left in
[2:11:49] there.
>> Well, it's in the subdivision standards
[2:11:54] requirements and the site plan
requirements. Yes,
[2:12:00] » it's looking for consistency with the
rest of the code and with whatever other
[2:12:05] you know authority we have to
for example on a site plan we review it
[2:12:10] not just against the code but also
against community master plan and the
[2:12:14] comp plan and so forth the civic master
plan they're so by having that up front
[2:12:21] you know we're able to look at that
consistency early on rather than
[2:12:25] approving the subdivision and then
with with bassing and building designs
[2:12:31] that don't even comply with the rest of
the requirements.
[2:12:34] » But those are really the major things I
think. I don't think I can't think of
[2:12:38] anything else
>> that was that major open issue.
[2:12:43] » And in our final version, it's not
reflected in the red line. Um we don't
[2:12:48] approve a sketch plan anymore. We just
provide comments. And part of that
[2:12:53] reason was to try to avoid what happened
in the lawsuit on on the dual approvals
[2:13:00] that will happen at at the historic
review board. When you come forward with
[2:13:04] a subdivision with a sketch plan, we'll
give you your comments, but you don't
[2:13:07] walk away with approval. You want to
follow our comments, that's fine, but
[2:13:11] there's a good chance you're not going
to get approved at the preliminary plan
[2:13:14] stage, you know, but we give comments.
We don't give an approval or a denial
[2:13:19] comments. That way there's only one
feelable action. The action when you get
[2:13:24] your final when you get your preliminary
plan approved.
[2:13:27] So the comments would come first from
PRC and then comments from planning
[2:13:31] committ all that you get is basically
direction on what
[2:13:36] exactly
>> and I think that that's probably where
[2:13:38] we're leaning when we come up with final
recommendations on the historic stuff as
[2:13:42] well as make you know if there's a
preliminary review it's it's comments
[2:13:46] and then there's only one action that
becomes an appealable action. So you
[2:13:50] don't end up in a situation where
somebody appeals a preliminary plan and
[2:13:54] they say, "Well, you you failed to to to
approve the sketch plan and so
[2:14:03] dismiss your appeal because you needed
to appeal the earlier step. So we're
[2:14:07] trying to eliminate that kind of
potential for legal challenges."
[2:14:11] » Well, that's a long way.
>> Whatever happened this long way?
[2:14:16] » No, but we knew it worked.
>> Yeah. I think those are just common
[2:14:21] sense things that we feel are in the
best interest. And the rest of it is
[2:14:27] I don't think
that large of an
[2:14:32] » just for direction just make sure
basically we'll do the
[2:14:38] update under clean that has all
[2:14:44] made and then we'll do this motion
section that we have that's all correct
[2:14:48] with the additional items that were
discussed today those will first be sens
[2:14:57] I guess your hands are a little bit
cloudy.
[2:15:01] You have to make the recommendation,
right?
[2:15:04] I guess I'm not, you know, just making
sure we're doing this all right.
[2:15:08] » Yeah, I think that would be it, right?
And you guys talked about next week that
[2:15:10] you make a recommendation
>> if there's any changes to city council
[2:15:13] and then we can make that necessary to
follow through with our second reading.
[2:15:20] attorneys. They're all shaking their
head.
[2:15:28] » Oh, I was planning on
[2:15:36] God bless you.
[2:15:40] So, what one last thing that they they
referred to was appeals because it
[2:15:45] wasn't in theirs and we have a whole uh
a section uh that's been written related
[2:15:53] to appeals
>> which is I think in here in the back.
[2:15:56] Yeah, I guess it's not part of the
discussion.
[2:15:58] » They didn't part.
>> Yeah. 9.17. Yeah,
[2:16:03] » we determined we decided to put it in a
separate section uh because I went
[2:16:10] through all of the appeal statute and
there was a lot of conflicts
[2:16:16] statutes are not well written when it
comes to appeals and so in the old code
[2:16:22] we were giving appeal rights to people
that I didn't feel were actually rights
[2:16:26] that were granted by the legislature and
so I thought that maybe the better thing
[2:16:29] to do rather than us make a mistake of
rewriting the statutory appeal rights is
[2:16:36] create a section where all of the
appeals for the various actions are
[2:16:40] listed and at that point in time you
need to hire an attorney anyway and have
[2:16:44] the attorney go to that section and look
it up and read it make its own
[2:16:49] determination as to what it says.
>> So So K that's another point just make
[2:16:55] sure whatever the clean version you
prepare is only contains things that are
[2:17:00] up to be voted on. don't have any extra
stuff. If you have to redact it, do
[2:17:04] some, you know,
so that's why I think you need to make a
[2:17:09] new version. You can keep your old
version, but make a new version that
[2:17:14] only has things to be voted on.
And I guess are some of these things
[2:17:20] that we have and
[2:17:25] you know like where it's typical I mean
I guess it's good for you to see that
[2:17:29] they're there but
>> those are do those need to be a specific
[2:17:35] motion from the council. I guess that's
a I got a capitalized major subdivision.
[2:17:41] » I I have a question. Maybe it's I don't
know if it's appropriate for me to ask
[2:17:44] myself or something, but the city
managers might
[2:17:49] What is your view on on what constitutes
an amendment versus what can just be
[2:17:54] considered a a scrutiner's uh
correction? You know, is there a limit
[2:17:59] on Kurt nailed it. It's pretty much a
common sense reasonable standard. uh
[2:18:06] it's if it's an a to an and an or
capitalization error or something that
[2:18:11] does not change the substance.
>> So this so it'll be judgment if it looks
[2:18:16] like it's potentially substantive we
consider that an amendment. Okay.
[2:18:20] » Be on the same side. Okay. On the safe
side
[2:18:24] if it changes the
>> the intent then it probably is
[2:18:27] substantive enough to be an amendment.
>> Right. Okay. Okay. So the things that
[2:18:32] you got from us
uh for a large part you can disregard
[2:18:38] until you get uh until you get new a lot
of that script.
[2:18:42] » So with that definition though um
probably the word not that in that
[2:18:47] section about um grading that should be
on the amendment list.
[2:18:55] » It's a substantive change of the
meaning.
[2:18:57] » Well actually it was already in the
clean version. it was in the clean
[2:19:00] version, then then we're good. Then
we're good.
[2:19:02] » If it just ended up being an omission
from a red line and it was in the
[2:19:05] original version, then we don't have
weed on that already. But but something
[2:19:10] like 7.5.3b
for Roman emerald 2 remove the word
[2:19:15] harmonious and replace with the word
consistent mean could be
[2:19:24] » the word
[2:19:28] » I don't want to create any
[2:19:52] Well, I kept asking questions until I
think I um but I I think so. So, we'll
[2:19:58] create
Scrier's error. We'll have a new clean
[2:20:02] version.
Anything I think we'll talk about next
[2:20:07] Monday that we feel is substant anything
that was raised by council tonight
[2:20:13] have a substant.
>> Okay.
[2:20:17] Where it is
motion
[2:20:23] is council.
[2:20:29] Well, I want to appreciate all work you
all have done obviously probably months,
[2:20:36] not a year,
but uh and I also want to thank
[2:20:41] everybody that stood up today and gave
us your input
[2:20:46] respective meetings. So with that, I'm
gonna