[0:18] If you'll stand for the pledge of
[0:19] allegiance, please.
[0:21] [clears throat]
[0:23] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:25] United States of America and to the
[0:27] republic for which it stands. One nation
[0:30] under God, indivisible, liberty and
[0:33] justice for all.
[0:39] » All right. So, everybody's got a copy of
[0:41] the uh of the minutes. Um I'll ask if
[0:44] anybody has any questions about the
[0:46] prior hour minutes.
[0:48] » I have a motion. Have a second.
[0:51] » Second.
[0:51] » Second. All right. Any discussion on
[0:53] that? If not, minutes are approved.
[0:56] Okay. So, we're looking at uh
[0:58] PC-2026-22.
[1:02] » Good evening. Thank you all for being
[1:04] here. Uh this is a request to reszone
[1:06] from commercial reuse to central
[1:08] business district five parcels located
[1:10] 206, 208, 210, 211, and 212 Cougar
[1:13] Street identified as Florence County tax
[1:15] map numbers 974086
[1:19] 78 9 and 35.
[1:22] These parcels are all located on um at
[1:26] the end the south southern end of Cougar
[1:28] Street which is between Chv Street and
[1:31] West Palmetto Street. They are all
[1:33] vacant right now um largely being used
[1:36] as parking lots for adjacent [snorts]
[1:39] properties and the um most of the
[1:43] properties around them as you can see
[1:44] are zoned either commercial reuse which
[1:47] is the purple or central business
[1:49] district which is the brown. So they're
[1:51] right in between both and the request is
[1:53] to zone them from the commercial reuse
[1:56] which is a lower impact lower intensity
[1:59] commercial use to central business
[2:01] district which is a mixeduse much more
[2:04] um not much more but more intense more
[2:06] dense um zoning district. It's the
[2:09] downtown district and there's nothing
[2:12] specifically planned for that but that
[2:14] would make the open these up to be um a
[2:16] little more flexible for redevelopment
[2:18] going forward. and um seems kind of
[2:22] appropriate for uh what is going on in
[2:24] there. The uh future land use map has
[2:27] them as corridor mixed use um which
[2:30] [clears throat] is what they would be
[2:32] used for as well.
[2:34] These are some site photos of them. As
[2:36] you can see, they're just vacant
[2:37] parcels. Um any redevelopment would be
[2:41] an improvement. So, um and everything
[2:44] around it is former residential. It's
[2:46] been converted to commercial uses and
[2:49] the as you can see the um school for uh
[2:53] France
[2:54] » [clears throat]
[2:54] » Um yeah Francis Mary and the medical uh
[2:56] school where circle park or circle
[2:59] school was will be just down the block
[3:02] from this. So that concludes staff's
[3:05] report.
[3:06] » Thank you.
[3:08] All right. That's a this is a public
[3:10] hearing. So um usually for public
[3:12] hearing we give 2 to 5 minutes um for
[3:14] response for and against. So I'll open
[3:17] the public hearing if anybody has
[3:20] anything to say for they can come up to
[3:22] the podium give their name.
[3:31] » Good afternoon. I'm John Deberry. I've
[3:33] made the application. I think um Elaine
[3:36] did a great job of presenting our case
[3:38] for us and um but I want to give you an
[3:41] opportunity to ask any questions that
[3:42] you might have.
[3:44] » Commissioners, any questions for this
[3:46] gentleman?
[3:47] » Can you point Can you point to where um
[3:49] Circle Park?
[3:51] » So you you see where the King Avenue and
[3:54] Greg Avenue round make the
[3:58] » Semicircle there.
[3:59] » Oh, right here.
[4:00] » Yes, sir. Okay. [clears throat]
[4:01] » So, that's where the new um medical
[4:04] facility is being built.
[4:06] » Okay. And then you these are right here.
[4:09] So, uh you don't have any there was no
[4:13] uh
[4:14] uh use.
[4:16] You don't have any uh plans for what you
[4:18] plan on.
[4:19] » So, the plans that we have um don't have
[4:21] any current plans for these parcels at
[4:24] this time. Um they all right. So the the
[4:28] dark red right around it, those are
[4:31] already zoned CBD and these are parking
[4:34] lots that serve
[4:37] those parcels.
[4:39] And [clears throat]
[4:41] we're in the process of trying to fix up
[4:44] some of those buildings there. The
[4:46] tenants have vacated and want to put new
[4:49] facades on them and invite, you know,
[4:52] more activity down there. Um, and I
[4:55] think it's important it's this area is
[4:57] kind of in a donut hole because even the
[5:00] light shaded pink between Graham Street
[5:03] and Cucer and Palmetto, those buildings
[5:07] and uses are already operating like
[5:10] they're in the CBD. There's a bar in
[5:13] there. There's a paint store. There's a
[5:15] boutique. Um, so we were just hoping to
[5:19] make it more consistent with everything
[5:21] that's going on right in that area.
[5:24] There's a nightclub on one side of it,
[5:26] um, Osborne's
[5:28] and
[5:30] this would just be an opportunity to
[5:32] make all of that consistent kind of a
[5:35] consistent area and they'd have
[5:38] consistent setbacks with the other
[5:40] parcels and the way that all the other
[5:42] buildings have been built over the
[5:44] years.
[5:45] You say it serves as parking. Is this
[5:47] parking hooked to other parcels or just
[5:48] » Yes, sir. Um, so
[5:52] it is there's an originally what was the
[5:56] social security office building that
[5:58] faces Warley Street. This is parking for
[6:02] that. And um, two of the parcels have
[6:07] historically been parking for medical
[6:10] facility on Palmeta Street where Dr.
[6:13] McKay used to be. Mhm.
[6:15] » And um so it served kind of in both
[6:18] directions as parking for them.
[6:22] » The parking is going away. You're going
[6:23] to do development that
[6:24] » No, sir. Um for the time being that will
[6:27] continue to be parking. We hope to be
[6:29] able to landscape that nicely and really
[6:34] kind of like the downtown did, make the
[6:36] facades of the back of the buildings on
[6:38] Warley Street look attractive and and
[6:42] perform more as the entrance of the
[6:45] buildings to take advantage of some of
[6:47] that parking in there. Um, and landscape
[6:50] it nicely. And then then the idea is
[6:53] we've got a concept of a future possible
[6:59] another office building there if things
[7:01] go well with the the renovation or
[7:06] maybe some um some town houses down in
[7:10] there.
[7:10] » Okay.
[7:14] » Any other questions?
[7:15] » You say the word town. I fig that's what
[7:18] you going to do in the future.
[7:20] » Well, That's one purpose of each one of
[7:23] the parts. You going to divide it up and
[7:26] try to do that, right?
[7:27] » No sir. Um so if we
[7:33] we would not divide that up for um well
[7:37] first of all I think the lane can
[7:38] correct me but right now I think it's it
[7:40] would be appropriate for town houses in
[7:43] the commercial reuse.
[7:46] » Yes, I think town houses are permitted.
[7:48] So I don't think that you know makes a
[7:51] difference in this request but um that
[7:55] is really not you know originally my
[7:59] that's this is a later phase of what we
[8:02] have in mind if things go well and I was
[8:06] thinking another office building but the
[8:08] city did suggest to look at when I
[8:11] talked to Hannah um Davis in the
[8:13] downtown development department she
[8:15] suggested that we look at the
[8:17] possibility of putting putting some
[8:19] housing down there.
[8:25] » Any other questions?
[8:27] » Thank you.
[8:27] » All right. Thanks, sir.
[8:29] Anybody else speak for this?
[8:32] Anybody here to speak opposed?
[8:36] If not, I'll close the public hearing
[8:39] and ask for discussion.
[8:43] » Any questions?
[8:46] Call for the motion. Make a motion to
[8:48] approve.
[8:49] » Second.
[8:49] » Second. We have a motion to second. All
[8:51] in favor?
[8:52] » I.
[8:53] » That passes.
[8:56] » All right. [sighs and gasps] Another
[8:58] public hearing. PC-2026-23.
[9:02] Elaine.
[9:03] » All right. This is a U request to zone
[9:05] um NC15 pending annexation. A Whoops. A
[9:09] parcel um located at 2711 Ascot Drive.
[9:13] and um
[9:16] uh identified as Florence County tax
[9:18] number 00980181.
[9:21] This is another donut hole in Windsor
[9:22] Forest. Um these addresses probably look
[9:26] kind of familiar. We've got several this
[9:27] month and several next month as well. Um
[9:30] single family house surrounded by um
[9:33] houses that are already in the city and
[9:35] they just want to um probably got tired
[9:37] of watching their neighbors get their
[9:38] trash picked up and want to join in
[9:41] that. Um it would be zoned NC15 which is
[9:44] what everything around it is zoned and
[9:46] um the uh future land use map also has
[9:50] it as neighborhood conservation. So
[9:51] everything is in keeping. There'll be no
[9:54] changes to it. Um and as you can see
[9:56] it's a single family house. So um that
[9:58] concludes staff's report.
[10:00] » Okay. All right. I'll open the public
[10:02] meeting. Anybody here to
[10:05] speak on behalf of this proposal?
[10:09] Hearing none. Anybody against it? I'll
[10:12] close the public hearing. Call for a
[10:13] motion.
[10:14] » I'll [snorts] make a motion we approve.
[10:16] » Second.
[10:17] » Have a motion to second. All in favor?
[10:20] » I.
[10:21] » Motion carries.
[10:24] » Okay. Uh PC-2026-26.
[10:28] I'm sorry, excuse me. PC-2026-25.
[10:32] » Right. Because 24 has been deferred for
[10:34] next month. Um this is a request to
[10:36] reszone from NC 6.2 2 to NC6.3 18
[10:40] parcels located on North Aken Drive. I'm
[10:42] not going to read all 18 tax map
[10:44] numbers. Um
[10:47] here's the addresses and the tax map
[10:49] numbers. They're all um sequential on
[10:52] the um located along North Aken Drive,
[10:55] which is a small uh residential area on
[10:58] the north side of West Evans Street. And
[11:01] um as you can see here, here they are.
[11:04] And they were developed in the 1950s.
[11:07] these houses were built and there's
[11:09] there because there is a single family
[11:10] house on each of them and it is a
[11:13] residential donut hole surrounded by
[11:16] commercial general commercial all around
[11:17] it and the request is to zone it from
[11:21] reszone it from the NC6.2 2, which only
[11:23] allows single family and uh duplexes to
[11:27] NC 6.3 in order to give the developer
[11:31] the option of developing single family,
[11:34] duplexes, town houses, multif family,
[11:37] whatever works out uh whatever the
[11:39] market would work out. They just would
[11:41] like to have that flexibility.
[11:44] And um we did have [clears throat] a um
[11:47] one of the other property owners, one of
[11:49] the few that are left um was interested
[11:52] in that and just wanted to make sure um
[11:55] you know that this was a quality
[11:57] development. And as I told him that's
[11:59] not what this is for at this stage that
[12:01] um that would come under any
[12:03] redevelopment late at a later date
[12:06] because these lots would obviously have
[12:07] to be recombined and re subdivided to
[12:11] accommodate whatever the development
[12:13] was. But at this point for tonight,
[12:15] we're just looking at reszoning it from
[12:18] the NC6.2 to the NC6.3.
[12:21] Um and here's some pictures. As I said,
[12:23] there older houses built in the 1950s
[12:26] and they're all rentals at the moment. I
[12:29] don't believe there's any um uh owner
[12:32] occupied houses there. So, that
[12:34] concludes staff's report. Okay. Uh I'll
[12:38] open the public hearing. Anybody for or
[12:40] against this proposal? Come up to the
[12:43] podium. Sir, say your name. [snorts]
[12:46] [clears throat]
[12:52] Good afternoon. My name is Harvey
[12:55] Frierson and I'm
[12:58] are on the end there which is not listed
[13:01] on the map there regards to uh changes
[13:05] and I are listening to so far what's
[13:09] going on with the uh town houses and I'm
[13:12] like Mr. Akens years back in 1950 he
[13:17] developed that area
[13:19] [cough and clears throat]
[13:20] and my concern in 2026
[13:23] is concern about 20 46
[13:28] you coming in are changing up modifying
[13:32] the neighborhood if so should be able to
[13:35] afford it and my concern was that if
[13:38] they're going to plan I'm going to bring
[13:40] it to your attention now that street
[13:42] likes should be your part of that
[13:46] planning. Sidewalks from Evans Creek to
[13:49] Evans Creek
[13:51] are back of the property is railroads
[13:55] and right now we're experiencing foxes
[13:58] and coyotes coming into the area and
[14:01] that should be concerned also.
[14:04] And Florence itself is growing yet
[14:08] nobody mentioned the senior citizens.
[14:11] So if they're going to buy that
[14:13] property, I would like to see some
[14:14] senior citizen living in that area.
[14:20] Now when you grow old, you're going to
[14:21] be young. What about the playground for
[14:23] the children? So those my concern if
[14:27] that's intact with the planning, I have
[14:29] no problem.
[14:31] But right now, I want it to be known
[14:34] that this is what uh
[14:38] some of the residents who's not on that
[14:41] map is concerned about.
[14:45] » Again, thank you for your opportunity to
[14:48] express my concern.
[14:50] » Okay. Any questions, Mr. Chairman?
[14:52] » Uh what house do you live in, sir? I
[14:55] live in the first house next to the uh I
[14:59] think it's ENT building. I've been there
[15:01] perhaps about 20 years, 25 years.
[15:05] [clears throat]
[15:06] » So is is your house
[15:08] » The first one the blue house?
[15:10] » Yes, sir.
[15:11] » It's it's in this proposed change.
[15:13] » No.
[15:13] » No. In fact,
[15:15] » You're outside of that.
[15:16] » Yes, sir.
[15:16] » Oh, okay.
[15:17] » And I'll be affected also. If you look
[15:20] at this zoning map, his is the first
[15:23] yellow parcel um next to the orange on
[15:26] the right where they the the pieshaped
[15:29] parcels. Um it's tax map number 006.
[15:34] » Okay. That's near the AT&T.
[15:36] » Yes, sir. Next door to you.
[15:38] » Yeah, I know what you're talking about.
[15:41] » And and your concern is basically about
[15:43] future use.
[15:44] » Yes, sir.
[15:45] » That's what you're voicing an opinion
[15:46] on.
[15:47] » Yes, sir.
[15:50] sidewalks, senior living,
[15:53] playground for the children
[15:56] or a shield against the railroad track
[15:59] or ownership
[16:02] for driers as well as wild animals.
[16:08] » All right. Thank you, sir. Any other
[16:09] questions?
[16:12] You good?
[16:14] I would need to recuse myself from this
[16:16] because I do have interest in this
[16:17] project.
[16:21] » Okay.
[16:23] » So, we just can't have your vote. All
[16:25] right.
[16:25] » Right.
[16:26] » Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Anyone
[16:28] else here to speak on [snorts] this
[16:30] proposal?
[16:31] » Oh, would I be able to speak on the
[16:32] proposal?
[16:33] » Uh, or what does the
[16:35] » You would um
[16:37] » Okay.
[16:37] » You'd have to go out there and Yeah. as
[16:40] a
[16:42] » Point of order the audience for this for
[16:45] this [clears throat] particular case.
[16:46] Yes,
[16:47] » Point of order. Uh because she's
[16:49] reclused herself, that only gives us
[16:50] four people.
[16:52] » That's okay.
[16:53] » So, we can still vote. As long as as
[16:55] long as you start the meeting with a
[16:56] quorum,
[16:57] » Correct? [snorts]
[16:57] » Everything's good.
[16:58] » Yes, ma'am. State your name.
[17:00] » My name is Xavier Sams and I have an
[17:02] interest in this project. Um this
[17:04] current project the owner has other
[17:07] rentals and as part of the echo program
[17:10] which also helps those who with domestic
[17:13] violence. Um they also assist veterans
[17:15] and seniors in those rentals because
[17:18] this property has been is very dated.
[17:21] The solution would not be to renovate.
[17:24] It would be to have an effective
[17:26] [clears throat]
[17:27] living. Um, they currently
[17:30] have different things going on with them
[17:31] where tearing down would be more
[17:33] effective as far as windows cost
[17:36] effective and different things like
[17:37] that. So, as far as building back,
[17:41] reszoning to NC 6.3 would give it more
[17:44] flexibility to build different things
[17:46] back there. Um in talking with housing
[17:49] authority and also city some of the city
[17:51] council who is also um excited about
[17:54] this project as well. They mentioned
[17:57] that um there is not a lot of affordable
[18:00] housing for senior citizens and for
[18:03] those who want to have some type of um
[18:09] when you have affordable housing they're
[18:10] looked at in a negative type of way. Um,
[18:13] [snorts] so rebuilding these homes to
[18:16] have
[18:18] I'm not gonna say upscale, but to have
[18:20] different amenities that they would
[18:21] actually enjoy when these are going to
[18:24] be rebuil rebuild back.
[18:27] » What What else is in this area around
[18:29] these? Can you comment on that? Maybe
[18:31] you can.
[18:31] » Uh, Terminex was on the corner. Um, you
[18:35] have a CPA building. Um, it's like a
[18:39] it's right
[18:41] » I can't reach it cuz I'm short,
[18:43] » But at the very beginning right here you
[18:46] have a lot of different offices there as
[18:48] well. Uh, and in front of it is the old
[18:51] health department. You can't even see
[18:53] these homes from Evans Street. You have
[18:56] to literally drive in there in order to
[18:58] see it.
[18:59] » There's commercial running already.
[19:00] » Yeah.
[19:01] » Mhm.
[19:03] » And you call that the Echo? What did you
[19:05] call it? Echo is a program for different
[19:07] individuals who need housing. Okay.
[19:10] » Affordable housing.
[19:12] » And you also mentioned veterans too.
[19:13] Work with veterans. But put place
[19:14] » It would be veterans placements. They
[19:16] already working with the veterans. They
[19:18] work with uh senior citizens and they
[19:20] work with lowinccome also considering um
[19:22] housing authority as well.
[19:24] » Okay.
[19:25] » So that was sort of address some of the
[19:27] things he previous gentleman was
[19:29] speaking about
[19:30] » As the senior citizen population. That
[19:32] is something that is noted. Um and
[19:34] looking at some of the different floor
[19:35] plans that is being visited, that's why
[19:38] they have decided to do two primary
[19:40] bedrooms. If they were to rebuild, being
[19:43] that if there was a senior citizen who
[19:45] wanted to rent these, they would be
[19:47] accommodated on the first floor. Um a
[19:49] lot of homes are now as a realtor here
[19:51] in Florence are going to
[19:52] multi-generational homes just to offset
[19:54] the cost of housing. So, we lack a lot
[19:58] of affordable 4bedroom homes in Florence
[20:04] versus going back with the current one
[20:06] which has three bedrooms and one
[20:08] bathroom.
[20:11] » Okay.
[20:13] Any other questions?
[20:14] » Now, he addressed the issue about
[20:16] sidewalks.
[20:18] Are y'all planning on putting sidewalks
[20:20] there for them so they can walk around
[20:23] that circle? That has not been discussed
[20:26] as part of development when it go comes
[20:28] to zoning. So right now it's just in the
[20:30] reszoning phase.
[20:32] » That will be addressed Elaine. What that
[20:34] would be addressed for in future.
[20:36] » Yeah, I think it depends on the scale
[20:38] » Layout scale. Gotcha. Right.
[20:39] » It may require sidewalks. It may not. Um
[20:42] but it depends on the scale of the
[20:43] development.
[20:44] » But there's rules and regulations. Yeah,
[20:45] there's rules and regulations you have
[20:47] to follow.
[20:47] » And that is a DOT road. It's not a city
[20:49] road.
[20:56] So, you're planning on putting back
[20:58] single family living homes
[21:02] because that's what's affected now,
[21:03] right?
[21:04] » It has been discussed to add town homes.
[21:10] » And you going to do single family homes
[21:11] also or this town?
[21:13] » It would be town homes.
[21:15] » Towns.
[21:15] » All town homes.
[21:19] Any [snorts]
[21:28] other comments,
[21:30] questions for this young lady?
[21:34] » So, where will you put the each lot? We
[21:36] have a townhouse. That's what you have.
[21:38] » So, after zoning, um what was also
[21:42] discussed because of the setbacks, it
[21:44] would have to come back and have each
[21:46] parcel would have to be reserveyed. So,
[21:48] some of the parcels may have to be
[21:50] combined because it the setbacks and
[21:52] they're also the the lots are shaped
[21:56] funny.
[21:56] » I see.
[21:57] » Yep.
[22:00] [snorts]
[22:05] » And it's on two sides of the street. So,
[22:07] on the inside is a pie shaped. on the
[22:10] outside is actually you could do more
[22:13] with it, but the pies shaped is the one
[22:15] that's going to limit that's going to
[22:18] limit everything.
[22:24] » Yes, sir.
[22:26] » No single family.
[22:29] And the reason being is that you can put
[22:32] more affordable housing as town homes to
[22:37] accommodate the growth of Florence.
[22:44] You put elevators in it because you got
[22:46] townhouse. You might have to have
[22:48] stairs, right?
[22:49] » You would have to have stairs in there.
[22:51] » That's going to be good for
[22:53] » Well, that's why there are two primary
[22:56] bedrooms. One on the first floor or two
[22:58] bedrooms on the first floor, two
[23:00] bedrooms on the top floor. We're
[23:02] focusing on multi-generational as well.
[23:05] So, it's a mixture of everybody.
[23:12] All right.
[23:16] » Any other questions for her?
[23:19] » All right. Okay. Thank you.
[23:20] » All right. Thank you.
[23:21] » Um I'm going to close the public meeting
[23:22] now. Um
[23:24] any discussion
[23:28] before any discussion in options? Guys,
[23:31] » Can we reopen the public hearing or it's
[23:33] closed?
[23:34] » That's up to the chairman. That's that's
[23:35] chairman. And we've heard both sides. to
[23:38] give both side equal equal amount of of
[23:39] of time. So if there's no discussion
[23:42] amongst us, I'll call for a motion.
[23:45] » Move for adoption.
[23:46] » Have a second.
[23:47] » Second.
[23:48] » Any discussion?
[23:50] » All in favor say I.
[23:51] » I.
[23:52] » I. Motion passes.
[23:55] Okay. PC-2026-26.
[24:02] » All right. And what one point of order
[24:04] before we move on. The um the deferral
[24:07] of the Stratton Drive case, if you
[24:08] wouldn't mind bringing that to vote just
[24:10] to defer it so it carries forward to the
[24:12] next agenda. Sorry.
[24:14] » All right.
[24:15] » I'll make a motion to defer.
[24:17] » Second.
[24:18] » All right. [laughter]
[24:19] » There it goes.
[24:20] » It's deferred.
[24:20] » Yeah. And everybody votes. Okay. Very
[24:22] good. It's
[24:24] » All in favor.
[24:26] » We're official. Good.
[24:29] » Just to make sure everything's official.
[24:31] So, um, this is an amendment to a
[24:35] proposed amendment to the unified
[24:36] development ordinance regarding, uh,
[24:39] noise and vibration regulations. And,
[24:41] and this one's a a little different in
[24:43] that, um, this proposal would remove the
[24:48] noise ordinance section from the unified
[24:51] development ordinance, which is the
[24:52] zoning code that planning commission
[24:54] recommends on. But we would we have
[24:57] existing code also in the code of
[24:59] ordinances which city council takes
[25:01] action on. And um we we want to one put
[25:04] it all in one place um so that it's easy
[25:08] for the public and for for our police
[25:10] department who's enforcing this um to to
[25:14] comprehend and to use so it's all in one
[25:16] place. So we are um proposing that it be
[25:20] removed from the unified development
[25:23] ordinance and the the key um pieces of
[25:28] that be combined into the existing code
[25:31] in the code of ordinances. So, um,
[25:34] planning commission if they choose to
[25:36] would be taking action to remove it from
[25:39] the unified development ordinance, but
[25:41] that would be contingent, I think, I
[25:42] think, on it being placed into the code
[25:45] of ordinances by city council. And, um,
[25:48] this was brought to us by a member of
[25:50] city council. And it kind of started
[25:52] with um, a recommendation to extend
[25:56] right now. Um there's there's different
[25:58] decibel levels which I'll go over here
[25:59] in a second for um you know commercial
[26:03] districts and um residential districts
[26:05] but um based on decibel levels that they
[26:08] have to be reduced to a certain time or
[26:11] or a certain level um currently at 1000
[26:15] p.m. um in our commercial districts and
[26:18] it was proposed that that be extended to
[26:20] 11 p.m. and that so that change is in
[26:24] here as a proposal. Um but also staff
[26:27] took it a step further and wanted while
[26:29] we're while we're touching the noise
[26:31] ordinance, we wanted to combine it all
[26:34] into one easy to use document. So I'll
[26:37] um all of that was in your packet. Um
[26:40] but um essentially I we put in the
[26:43] packet what the um current uh unified
[26:47] development ordinance has in it. Um and
[26:49] that's showing as as struck through um
[26:52] in this because it would be removed. Um
[26:54] the key parts of of this code are the
[26:57] decibel levels that is not in currently
[27:00] in the code of ordinances. But we
[27:01] thought it was important to tie that,
[27:04] you know, the sound to a measure um that
[27:06] that a meter that we could actually, you
[27:08] know, that'll hold up in court or or if
[27:11] even if the police just go out there and
[27:14] you know and you know they have that
[27:15] decibel meter and they can say, "Hey,
[27:17] it's exceeding that. would you quieten
[27:19] down? Because, you know, everything
[27:20] doesn't end up in court, but um they can
[27:22] just get um instant, you know, folks to
[27:25] instantly quieten down. Um but the I did
[27:30] want to show um you know, the code of
[27:32] ordinances are also in here. Um you
[27:35] know, this is what city council would
[27:38] have control over. um these first 12
[27:42] items, the the 10-9 and 10-10 and the
[27:45] first 12 items would remain unchanged.
[27:48] Um that's as it currently reads in the
[27:50] code of ordinances. Um but then starting
[27:53] with 14 is where we start the
[27:55] incorporation of the unified development
[27:57] ordinance. We took um language specific
[27:59] to schools where they that out of the
[28:01] UDO and incorporated it um so that that
[28:05] you know between seven and four people
[28:07] can't be making noise outside of
[28:08] schools. Um, and then we added number
[28:11] 17, which has to do with recreation, um,
[28:14] recreational motorized vehicles, you
[28:16] know, four-wheelers and go-karts and
[28:18] things like that, um, that that they
[28:20] can't be making certain noise levels,
[28:23] um, in in neighborhoods and such. And
[28:26] then um under the exceptions, we
[28:29] incorporated some of the exceptions that
[28:31] were in the unified development
[28:33] ordinance or all of the exceptions
[28:35] actually um such as construction
[28:36] activities and that's outlined um up in
[28:39] 1010. It has certain um time
[28:42] requirements on that. So you can you
[28:44] know perform um construction in the city
[28:47] and and the noise is accepted to that
[28:49] basically during the daytime hours um as
[28:52] is acceptable. Um also um the noise
[28:55] emanating from a um that's temporary in
[28:57] nature like landscaping blowers,
[28:59] lawnmowers and things. We all expect
[29:02] temporary noises from that within our
[29:04] residential and commercial areas as well
[29:06] as agricultural equipment in the um in
[29:08] the appropriate agriculture zoning
[29:10] district. Uh also emergency warning
[29:12] devices, that's you know your police
[29:14] cars, ambulances, fire trucks. Um and
[29:17] also um the um events that was already
[29:21] in there, but things like the pecan
[29:23] festival or special events that we held
[29:25] downtown, but we did add some times to
[29:27] that um because even though the city
[29:30] says it's okay, we should still follow
[29:32] some rules. So we put from uh 7 a.m. to
[29:34] 1000 p.m. That doesn't give the city
[29:37] free will to go out there and run the
[29:38] pecan festival till 2 in the morning or
[29:40] anything. So we did put some times in
[29:42] there. And um and then we made reference
[29:46] um to the appropriate section in the
[29:48] unified development ordinance there.
[29:50] [snorts] And um then everything in the
[29:52] uh the black font there is um already
[29:56] existing in the code. And then um these
[29:59] are all the sections regarding the uh
[30:01] decibel levels and the times um that was
[30:05] taken from the uh unified development
[30:07] ordinance and placed in there. Um the
[30:10] changes from the unified development
[30:12] ordinance to this document um are are
[30:15] that that first section there the one
[30:17] through four um the primaaci violation
[30:20] and um it that establishes um for the um
[30:25] codes enforcement or or the police
[30:26] department who who's on the scene uh you
[30:29] know a way to actually show that there's
[30:31] a violation. Um it it says that they
[30:34] have to have a a meter a decibel meter.
[30:37] Um it tells the scale by which it's
[30:39] measured. It's got the American National
[30:41] Standards Institute or ANIE. Um that the
[30:44] you know the meter itself has to be
[30:46] certified by and it tells where it need
[30:49] you know it needs to be taken at a
[30:50] reasonable location on the property
[30:52] where the sound is occurring. So you
[30:54] know if I call that my you know that I'm
[30:56] in my living room and I can hear my
[30:58] neighbor's kid playing the drums then
[31:01] they basically need to come onto my
[31:02] property at a reasonable location and
[31:04] and show that decel level. they don't
[31:06] need to go onto the neighbor's property
[31:08] to do that. So, it establishes things
[31:11] like that. Um and um the the one change
[31:15] is that um you know from uh 7 to 10 in
[31:18] residential districts it has the
[31:20] different decibel levels and then um in
[31:23] the commercial districts it's from 7:00
[31:25] a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And just to um give
[31:28] you a um if I can might have lost my
[31:31] sheet of paper here, but um the decel
[31:34] There it is.
[31:37] So to give you a gauge for decibel
[31:40] levels and this is decibel this is a
[31:43] logarithmic scale. So um you know from
[31:46] 55 to 60 it is a huge increase u but you
[31:51] know a normal conversation
[31:55] um kind of with some or some background
[31:57] music um if you're in a um in a doctor's
[32:00] office or something like that would be
[32:02] around 60 dB. So that's just kind of
[32:04] normal conversation, uh, normal kind of
[32:07] chatter. Um, if you're, um, and that's,
[32:11] you know, more in the range of what's
[32:13] acceptable in residential areas. Um, but
[32:16] then if you go up to commercial areas in
[32:19] that 75 range during the daytime, um, it
[32:23] it's talking about a vacuum cleaner, you
[32:25] know, um, you remember when you were a
[32:27] kid watching cartoons and your mom was
[32:28] trying to vacuum and you couldn't hear
[32:30] the TV? That's the kind of noise that
[32:32] that is is is that level of of noise. Um
[32:36] and then uh at night it would be
[32:38] expected to be 70 dB which is more like
[32:41] office noise or inside of a car at about
[32:43] 60 m hour or so. So it's that kind of
[32:45] noise. And then industrial areas have a
[32:48] a different decibel level but it's even
[32:50] quieter at night because most industries
[32:53] tend to shut down at at night and we
[32:56] don't have a ton of industrial areas
[32:57] within the city. Um but we did we did
[33:00] incorporate that chart um with the with
[33:02] the change times into the proposal um
[33:05] within the um code of ordinances and we
[33:09] also incorporated
[33:11] um some of the um other language about
[33:14] proposed barriers or structures that
[33:16] could be um incorporated and also
[33:19] section um 10-xx. There I put an XX
[33:22] because we haven't assigned that a
[33:24] number in the code of ordinances. Yes,
[33:26] but yet but um the code of ordinances
[33:28] didn't have anything referring to
[33:30] vibrations, but the unified development
[33:32] ordinance did. So we took that section
[33:34] and put it in there as well. So, um that
[33:38] outlines some of the proposed um changes
[33:40] and planning commission I I think if
[33:43] they choose to um uh move forward with
[33:46] this would propose to remove it from the
[33:48] UDO um and then give council uh the
[33:52] ability to add it to the code of
[33:54] ordinances here. So, and that concludes
[33:57] staff's report and I'm happy to answer
[33:58] any questions.
[33:59] » I have a question on [clears throat] the
[34:01] decibb. I have a problem with decibb.
[34:03] So, I'll tell you right now, [laughter]
[34:05] if me and Mr. Moses are outside having a
[34:07] barbecue at his house and we have our
[34:09] wives there or kids, grandkids,
[34:11] whatever, you will exceed every decibel
[34:14] you have there.
[34:16] » Without question.
[34:17] » All right. So, I have a very sensitive
[34:20] uh when it comes to decibel readings uh
[34:22] in Georgetown County. Um and I've
[34:24] actually proved my point. All right. Um
[34:27] so, uh I you this is too restrictive in
[34:31] my mind. I'm gonna tell you right now,
[34:32] it's too restrictive. And I'll tell you,
[34:33] I know at least one um uh city council
[34:36] members, I don't know what's going on
[34:38] with them, but um I don't I don't think
[34:40] that uh when you start limiting, you
[34:43] know, um common sense, and a police
[34:46] officer comes out, does this stuff, and
[34:48] you start putting decibels behind it, uh
[34:50] decibb, you'd be surprised um in a in a
[34:53] normal conversation how you will exceed
[34:55] some of those that you guys come up
[34:56] with. So, um that was what I had say.
[34:59] Any other any other comments or
[35:00] questions for Jerry? I'm with the same
[35:02] thing also because see, you know, if uh
[35:07] if the police can come in my yard, tell
[35:10] what's going on in the next yard, then
[35:12] we're going to have a lot of fines with
[35:15] coming to uh to the to the person or
[35:17] stuff and then it's going I see where
[35:21] I see where you talking about that take
[35:23] like downtown you have you after five
[35:28] and it's after 7 o'lock. Am I right? I
[35:31] think it's over to 8.
[35:33] » Yeah.
[35:33] » And you you exceed that. That's because
[35:35] you got a ban plan.
[35:37] » Yeah. Well, for city events, it would be
[35:39] till 10 p.m. So
[35:41] » 10 p.m.
[35:41] » Which would align with Yeah. It would
[35:43] actually be ahead of what's proposed.
[35:45] » Where's that 12:00 at? Um, we're
[35:48] proposing 11 p.m. for um the uh downtown
[35:53] area in general for for businesses and
[35:57] but for city events it would be
[35:59] » This unified district is so strict with
[36:02] the city of Florence. We we got this
[36:05] unified district. They got they're
[36:07] strict with a lot of thing here in
[36:09] Florence. We let them have their way to
[36:12] run Florence and this is part of it
[36:15] right here. But see that unified
[36:17] district, we got to do something about
[36:19] unifi. I think that unified district is
[36:21] getting way out of hand.
[36:24] » Well, are there any decimals current are
[36:26] any decibb currently in in ordinances?
[36:29] » It it's currently in the unified
[36:31] development ordinance. We currently have
[36:33] » But what levels? What
[36:34] » These levels? I didn't change I did not
[36:36] change the levels. That's what's
[36:37] currently on the books. I didn't I
[36:40] didn't touch that at all. I wouldn't I
[36:42] wouldn't feel comfortable voting on any
[36:43] of this until I actually see the decel
[36:46] monitor and I know what 70 dB is, what
[36:50] 80 is. I I get your point of saying us
[36:53] having a conversation is 60.
[36:56] If that's 60 I how is 80? I I don't
[37:01] know. And I I know
[37:02] » Demonstration.
[37:04] » Yeah. I feel like I I mean just to cuz I
[37:06] feel like Yeah. I mean, I I get college
[37:08] football, they're like 120 dB. So, if 80
[37:13] if us having a conversation is 60 and
[37:15] that's 120, I I don't feel comfortable
[37:19] knowing that I would understand exactly
[37:21] what 70 and 80 is. I think that you do
[37:24] need to have some type of regulations
[37:25] and parameters on what is too loud and
[37:30] what's not loud enough. But me
[37:32] personally, I couldn't sign off on
[37:34] anything until I actually saw the
[37:36] decibel meter
[37:38] » And saw how it works.
[37:40] » Well, right. Right. Now, so who has
[37:41] control?
[37:44] So, who you mentioned they're two
[37:46] separate. So, who enforces each one?
[37:49] That's why it's co code the police
[37:52] police have authority to enforce any of
[37:54] it and codes enfor codes codes
[37:56] enforcement division assist us with that
[37:58] typically and and this is very complaint
[38:00] driven. This is not something we go out
[38:04] and find. I mean that that's just
[38:06] » Full full honesty on that. We we don't
[38:09] the police department does not go out
[38:10] searching for loud noises to to throw
[38:12] fines and and and you know throw tickets
[38:16] at people. But when it's complaint
[38:19] driven, we do we do have to respond.
[38:20] » I got you. But I But very specifically,
[38:22] the question I have combining these,
[38:26] » What what more restrictiveness are you
[38:28] adding or if if any All you're doing is
[38:31] extending the time. Right.
[38:32] » That's right. When I read through,
[38:34] » There's really no change. It's just
[38:35] making [clears throat] it easier for the
[38:38] public and for our our officers and and
[38:41] us in in planning and zoning to to have
[38:45] all in one place. it it always used to
[38:48] reside in the the um code of ordinances.
[38:51] When we adopted the new the new unified
[38:53] development ordinance, it had the noise
[38:55] um section in it. Um we adopted that as
[38:58] part of it, but as we've applied it, it
[39:00] gets a little confusing. There's a
[39:02] little bit of contradiction in it.
[39:04] » That's right. So, the four-wheers and
[39:05] the go-karts and all that, what what
[39:07] explain that to me a little bit more.
[39:08] What are you What are you referring to?
[39:10] It's um so no person shall operate or
[39:14] cause to operate any recreational
[39:16] motorized vehicle on a public rideway or
[39:18] a private property in a manner that it
[39:21] that emitted sound levels exceeding 40
[39:24] dB at or across the boundary of a
[39:26] property receiving the noise. And um so
[39:30] it's essentially saying you can't run
[39:33] » And that's in it currently or is that
[39:34] » That's in the unified development
[39:36] ordinance currently?
[39:36] » Studio currently, right?
[39:39] » Yeah. And we're we are open to any
[39:41] recommendations coming from planning
[39:43] commission to to move forward or if we
[39:45] need to have a demonstration.
[39:46] » I have a question. Where are the most
[39:49] complaints coming from
[39:52] regarding this in this district
[39:54] » In in our central business district in
[39:56] our downtown area?
[39:59] » Sure. You have a few people outline that
[40:01] call with you know
[40:02] » Yeah.
[40:03] a loud burp or something, you know, just
[40:05] occasionally we get um construction
[40:07] complaints from from projects going on
[40:10] um you know or or pumps that might run
[40:13] at night in certain areas um you know
[40:16] throughout the city at various places.
[40:18] But um but for mostly it's within our
[40:22] downtown district or or potentially
[40:25] within some of our commercial districts
[40:26] where you know a a bar or a nightclub
[40:29] backs up to a neighborhood
[40:30] » And you're adding vibration on this one,
[40:32] right?
[40:33] » Um vibration is currently in the unified
[40:34] development ordinance. It would just get
[40:36] moved over.
[40:37] » Yeah.
[40:37] » So basically it's giving city council
[40:39] control.
[40:41] » Well, they have control over the uni. I
[40:43] mean ultimately they vote on the unified
[40:45] development ordinance too but it would
[40:47] be without planning commission's
[40:48] recommendation.
[40:49] » Yeah.
[40:49] » So Ventura Court is also in the city and
[40:53] over there when the band is practicing
[40:56] at Wilson High School that's a lot of
[40:59] decibb
[41:00] » But it's recreational of course it's
[41:03] extracurricular activities. Let's say a
[41:06] resident on Ventur Court
[41:09] to complain on the ban. What would that
[41:12] look like?
[41:12] » They take that decimal meter out.
[41:15] » Technically [laughter] the band
[41:16] technically the band is in Wilson is in
[41:18] the county. It's not in the city, right?
[41:19] » But you can but you can but you can
[41:21] Yeah, you can hear it in the
[41:22] neighborhood through the trees.
[41:24] » I hear that at my house.
[41:25] » I I love I loved hearing it. Yeah.
[41:29] » But you may have someone who I think
[41:31] we'd be forced to deal with it based on
[41:33] the current the codes we have on the
[41:34] book
[41:34] » On the current stuff that I think all
[41:36] this is doing is just taking it out of
[41:37] our hands. We have no say in it. with
[41:39] the city council ultimately has a you
[41:41] know they are elected leaders. All
[41:42] right. So um but it it it combines
[41:46] everything and we we don't that's not in
[41:49] our purview anymore. Is that correct?
[41:50] That's how that's what we're doing here.
[41:51] Right.
[41:52] » Mhm.
[41:53] » Now they would have to take away or
[41:56] amend or add whatever they wanted. Um
[41:59] but you couldn't crank up a four-wheeler
[42:01] anywhere else currently in the city. I
[42:03] mean, if somebody pressed it, you know,
[42:04] I mean, you there's and I I I understand
[42:06] if I'm trying to sleep and I work third
[42:08] shift,
[42:09] » You know, bike, I get it. I get it. You
[42:12] know, if I'm downtown and, you know,
[42:14] wherever and the band's kicking up, I,
[42:16] you know,
[42:17] » I get it. So, I I think there's uh I
[42:20] think if you're an elected official,
[42:22] there's consequences uh to what you do
[42:26] and what you don't, and that's what
[42:27] elections are for. Um, but I I I think
[42:30] uh I think that uh personally I think I
[42:33] don't like any restrictions at all, but
[42:35] they're already there. So I think elect
[42:37] officials should be able to
[42:39] » Make the ultimate decision on that
[42:41] because their constituents are voting
[42:43] for them.
[42:43] » Um we're just a recommended body to
[42:45] begin with, you know. So
[42:47] » I get your point too, my man. I I
[42:48] completely, you know, it's listen from
[42:51] 60 to 80 it it's graduated. What what he
[42:53] means is when you talking like this and
[42:55] it keeps going up it it's like a 3 to
[42:57] one 401 5 to1 ones it goes up higher for
[43:00] hearing you know
[43:01] » But it it ain't much I'm telling you
[43:02] it's not it's not much so anyway any any
[43:05] other discussion
[43:07] » Or any other comments what what do y'all
[43:11] with we have to agree on this to send it
[43:14] back to city council or we'll defer to
[43:16] tell the city council come back with
[43:18] some more information about desk
[43:21] » Well I mean I think
[43:22] » That I mean, I think you need to take
[43:24] action on it, either for or against it.
[43:26] Um, or you could defer it or you could
[43:29] defer it and ask staff, you know, to do
[43:32] more research in a certain area if we
[43:34] need that.
[43:36] » And I think there's there's multiple
[43:37] options.
[43:40] » I mean, I read through all of it and
[43:42] when I read through some of I'm going
[43:43] this this stuff's already in effect. I'm
[43:45] going Jesus.
[43:46] » Yeah.
[43:46] » It's already this is already in the
[43:47] books of law. You know, I start reading
[43:49] this stuff. I had no idea.
[43:50] » See, that's where they're changing it.
[43:51] Well, no, they're not changing. Well,
[43:53] they're extending some of the hours, but
[43:54] this this stuff is going to be in effect
[43:56] one way or the other. It's already in
[43:57] effect. They're just trying to combine
[43:58] it under one.
[44:00] » We are,
[44:01] » You know, instead of us being involved
[44:03] recommending luckily, we don't have to
[44:05] enforce this very much. I mean, it
[44:07] doesn't come to light, but if it did, we
[44:09] we we would have to because it's on the
[44:11] record.
[44:11] » That was my next point is how we don't
[44:13] have to enforce it. It's just a rule.
[44:15] » That's right. We It's It's very
[44:17] complaint driven.
[44:18] » And I think that you're cleaning it up a
[44:20] good bit, right? for when you combine
[44:22] the other things that's being cleaned
[44:23] up.
[44:23] » We're trying to clean it up. That's
[44:25] right. Yeah.
[44:26] » Mhm. So, [clears throat] all the rules
[44:27] are basically there. You only extend it
[44:28] one hour. So, so these rules are already
[44:30] in place. Nothing we can do about that,
[44:32] right?
[44:32] » That's right.
[44:33] » Defining them a little bit more.
[44:35] » As a planning commission, you can you
[44:37] can recommend
[44:38] » You take the bull by the horns and
[44:39] » Yeah, we could go at it. What you do?
[44:41] Because
[44:44] » Let them come make me some more decimals
[44:45] going be higher stuff. It's we just
[44:48] don't go ahead and put it in there
[44:49] because real they open the door for us
[44:52] » And let's keep that door open while we
[44:54] can
[44:54] » Until they come up with something else.
[44:56] You know, they open the door.
[44:58] » Do we have a motion to have a motion to
[45:00] defer?
[45:01] » Motion to defer. We have a second.
[45:03] » Second.
[45:04] » Any discussion? All in favor?
[45:07] » I.
[45:08] » Any opposed?
[45:10] » It's deferred. Okay. I think we just get
[45:12] a little more little more
[45:14] » Little more, you know, background and
[45:16] being comfortable with it and and
[45:18] » Okay. And that'll give planning
[45:19] commission some extra time to review
[45:21] what's what's in place and um
[45:23] » So let me ask you this. If we come back
[45:26] uh like Mr. Moses, I think what I get
[45:28] what he's saying,
[45:30] » How could some of this be changed by us
[45:32] if we make a recommendation that things
[45:33] are changed? Is that is that way it
[45:35] works? I mean,
[45:37] » I think um I think because it's tied
[45:39] currently to the UDO, I think that does
[45:42] give you guys some say so in it. Um and
[45:45] what I would do is I would um I would
[45:48] take any recommendations that are made
[45:50] in your motion um for this and put it in
[45:54] the staff report and present it to city
[45:55] council at that time.
[45:58] » And I think that would be good. I mean,
[45:59] I think if I mean, I think it's a good
[46:01] opportunity. We, as Mr. Moses said,
[46:03] "We've opened the door and we kind of
[46:06] thought this might happen that that
[46:07] planning commission might have some say
[46:09] so in it and um for for you guys to have
[46:11] some input in it and have some
[46:13] recommendations."
[46:14] » Mr. Mo, so the motion you made, we all
[46:16] approved. Can we just add to that motion
[46:18] of what we're talking about?
[46:19] » That's up to you to make it take care of
[46:21] you.
[46:21] » I'd like to add I'd like to to add to
[46:23] the motion Mr. Moses and everybody voted
[46:25] for. What's some of the things if Jerry
[46:28] can just list them out that we that we
[46:30] want to look at? Now I for one 60 80 dB
[46:33] I mean that's that's me and him you know
[46:35] having a conversation about football and
[46:38] that that's you know that can get a
[46:40] little I mean you're you're in violation
[46:43] you know what I mean and and so what
[46:46] would you anybody want to suggest but
[46:49] what we need to do we need to verify
[46:51] what what's the decimate we got to come
[46:53] up on that we got to be educated on that
[46:56] that's number one and then we as a group
[46:58] I think we as a group need to get
[47:00] together.
[47:00] » Sure. Well, h how about a staff comes
[47:02] back to us with examples of Jay, I don't
[47:05] know how to do it. Just just sound and
[47:07] decibb. Um
[47:08] » Yeah, we we can see we can do two
[47:10] things. We can one, we can we can look
[47:12] and see what other municipalities have
[47:14] in place as far as decibel levels. So,
[47:16] we can put that in a chart so you guys
[47:17] can see what other places have that that
[47:19] that do it by decibb. And we could
[47:21] possibly also do a demonstration where
[47:23] we might could get bring in a decibel
[47:25] meter and have some sounds and show show
[47:27] y'all what that looks like. We'd like to
[47:28] add that. I would like to add that.
[47:31] » Got it.
[47:31] » Yeah. That way everybody hears it
[47:32] firsthand.
[47:33] » Yeah.
[47:34] » Anybody else having comments or we good
[47:35] on that? You look you want to say
[47:37] something?
[47:39] » Sure. I understand.
[47:40] » So So let me get this straight. Um
[47:43] ultimately the um unified development
[47:47] ordinance. Uh the ultimate goal is to
[47:50] move it into the code of ordinances
[47:52] which would take it away from this.
[47:55] » It would take it out of the zoning code
[47:56] and put it in the in the code of
[47:58] ordinance. ordinances. That's right.
[47:59] » Which would be well everything's
[48:01] governed by the city council. Yeah.
[48:03] » But it just go straight to city council.
[48:05] » That's right. That's right. And and and
[48:08] to be honest, it is most municipalities
[48:10] and counties it noise ordinances are
[48:13] housed in the code of ordinances. It's
[48:15] just, you know, these bits and pieces of
[48:17] it got put in the the new code when we
[48:19] adopted it. Yeah. So in in most places
[48:21] that is where it resides. Um so we we
[48:24] thought it best to just combine it in
[48:26] that category there. Okay. So, if we
[48:28] could if we could kind of
[48:31] » Chisel at it while we got a chance, this
[48:33] is probably a good opportunity to do it.
[48:34] » I also would like to add um other
[48:37] municipalities their
[48:40] uh decibel ordinances. Well, not decel
[48:43] ordinance, the same thing.
[48:44] » The amounts the amounts of,
[48:47] » You know.
[48:48] » Yeah. Sure thing. Yeah.
[48:49] » Their version of this [laughter]
[48:51] » The upper limits of the decimals and
[48:52] stuff like that.
[48:53] » Yeah. Sure thing. We've um we we've
[48:55] looked at a good many and we we can
[48:57] organize that into a little chart.
[48:59] » Thank you.
[49:00] » Anything else, guys? Nothing.
[49:04] » That's [laughter] right.
[49:05] » I know I can't hear as well as I used
[49:07] to. Probably because of some of these
[49:08] loud noises. [laughter]
[49:11] » It's the low. It's the low vibrations
[49:12] here. All right. Thank you guys.
[49:16] Okay. Um so, uh let's do PC-2026-27.
[49:23] Do we have to vote on that to defer?
[49:25] » Oh, we added it.
[49:26] » We already voted further. We added
[49:27] » Yeah. And I just got some direct from
[49:28] planning commission.
[49:29] » Yeah.
[49:32] » All right. All right. How is everybody?
[49:35] » Good.
[49:36] » Live it. Now, let's go.
[49:37] » Over the next [laughter] 45 minutes, I'd
[49:38] like to explain the Palm Subdivision.
[49:42] Now, this is uh the Palm Subdivision
[49:44] sketch plan. If this looks familiar,
[49:49] » This was approved by planning commission
[49:51] back in 2023. Uh back then we were
[49:54] looking at 179 total lots, higher
[49:58] density. The developer is coming back
[50:00] with uh a different product uh than what
[50:04] we've typically seen on the on the
[50:06] market right now. So it will be uh 39
[50:09] lots as opposed to the 179. Uh, so
[50:13] here's a location map. Everything's
[50:15] zoned RG2. It is historically the
[50:19] Oakdale Golf Course. So this is an
[50:21] infill development around existing
[50:24] single family detached homes and that is
[50:26] what is proposed.
[50:29] So here's the sketch plan. I printed out
[50:32] the latest and greatest.
[50:35] So they are looking for a conventional
[50:38] single family type development. Uh in
[50:41] the staff report we said 42 were shown.
[50:43] Uh it got reconfigured a little bit just
[50:45] to make sure we were meeting all the
[50:47] minimum lot widths and uh lot areas for
[50:51] the RG2 subdivision and those are uh 80
[50:55] foot lot widths and 10,000 square ft um
[50:58] which is what is shown in the sketch
[51:00] plan now. So the setbacks that will be
[51:03] observed
[51:05] will be 25 ft in the front, 8t on the
[51:08] side, uh 12 feet for street side and 25
[51:12] ft in the rear. Uh water is available to
[51:14] the property. Sewer is not uh the
[51:18] individuals when they build the homes
[51:20] will request from uh sedes which used to
[51:24] be dehack to have uh septic tanks
[51:28] installed.
[51:29] Uh so no new infrastructure will be
[51:31] installed by the developer. City water
[51:33] and storm water infrastructure is
[51:35] already in place. Uh compliance will
[51:38] still do inspections
[51:40] uh along the way. Uh the proposed
[51:43] subdivision does not require a traffic
[51:45] study. It is under the 50 lot threshold.
[51:50] Um and um
[51:53] [snorts]
[51:54] we just asked the engineer to kind of
[51:56] clean up some of the parcel shown to
[51:58] show what was proposed versus what was
[52:01] existing. And we feel he's done a good
[52:03] job of that. Uh staff erroneously
[52:06] thought that with the first sketch plan
[52:09] they were using Lake Oakdale to get
[52:11] density bonuses from preserving the open
[52:14] space. Lake Oakdale is still going to be
[52:16] preserved. is still in the hands of the
[52:18] homeowners association. The developer
[52:21] just feels that
[52:23] it's the right time in the market for
[52:25] maybe some larger parcels and to give a
[52:27] little more choice uh to the citizens of
[52:31] Florence for uh different housing
[52:34] products. So the engineer did turn in a
[52:38] revised set of plans which is what's in
[52:41] front of you now and it does meet all
[52:44] the guidelines of the unified
[52:45] development ordinance. So that concludes
[52:47] staff's report. Okay.
[52:51] [clears throat]
[52:53] » All right. This is a
[52:55] not a public hearing.
[52:57] Any questions for staff?
[53:01] » So you said it went from 42 to 39. Yep.
[53:05] » Right. [snorts]
[53:05] Right. We just um I think it was just a
[53:08] choice of the engineer and the
[53:10] developer. It was not anything mandated
[53:12] by the city. They were meeting the
[53:14] minimum standards that are required in
[53:17] RG2.
[53:25] » So bigger lots, single family homes. Mr.
[53:27] Moses,
[53:29] » These are generousized lots. These are
[53:32] very generous size lots.
[53:36] » All right. Any other questions?
[53:38] » Essentially, it would get rid of the
[53:40] golf course itself. Right.
[53:42] » Right. The infill development. Yes, sir.
[53:45] » Golf courses no more.
[53:46] » Yes. Not being
[53:48] » Any other questions, comments?
[53:53] [laughter]
[53:54] » All right. I'll call for a motion.
[53:55] » I'll make a motion approved.
[53:57] » Second.
[53:58] » I second.
[53:59] » Any discussion?
[54:01] All in favor say I. I.
[54:02] » I.
[54:03] » Any oppose? Eyes have it.
[54:06] » Second.
[54:07] » All right, that's done. That's done.
[54:08] Motion to journ is good to go.